Archbishop Burke: Communion Battle "Not Yet Over"

Speaking from Rome during his "ad limina" visit with the Holy Father, Archbishop Burke of St. Louis, MO insists that the struggle to enforce Church teaching on communion with respect to public dissenters is far from over. Catholic News Service reports:

"It's funny because some people now characterize me as a fundamentalist, or an extremist," Archbishop Burke said in an interview Nov. 26.

"But these are questions that are at the very foundation of the life of our country. We just simply have to continue to address them," he said. . . . Archbishop Burke said he found the U.S. election results satisfying in one particular aspect -- a high number of voters said they gave priority consideration to moral questions.

Archbishop Burke said that the results of the election were both an "encouragement" as well as a persistent challenge:

". . . because now it falls to the church and to other moral leaders to continue to raise these questions, to write about them, to engage in civic discourse so that they continue to have that priority."

The archbishop said the election year, characterized by heightened interest and heightened reactions, offered an opportunity to press pro-life issues. Now that it's over, the more arduous task is "teaching in season and out of season," he said. . . .

It's not a matter of calling people on the carpet, but of calling Catholics to conscience, the archbishop said.

Underlining the sacramental consequences -- such as refusal of Communion -- is a pastoral responsibility, Archbishop Burke said. It is also a way for the church to show it is serious about these fundamental issues, he said.

"Let's just be honest, the application of the church's discipline in this regard is weak," he said.

"I've said over and over, though people don't like to hear it, but it is a source of scandal, not only to Catholics but to non-Catholics, who expect from the Catholic Church that the teaching on the sacredness of human life is firm," he said.

"The application of the Church's discipline in this regard is weak" -- and, one might add, further compromised by the lack of a collective and united voice by the Bishops.

After all, we are presently in a situation where a "pro-choice Catholic" legislator such as Senator Kerry or Ted Kennedy might be refused communion in St. Louis by Archbishop Burke, on justifiable grounds that by his stubborn opposition to Church teaching he has deprived himself of said privilege . . . only to hop on over to another diocese where, under the compassionate gaze of a more lenient and "understanding" bishop, said legislator could continue to recieve communion without the slightest fear of rebuke. ^*

That only a minority of the bishops see this discrepancy as a problem is a great disappointment. The Archbishop went on to describe the difficulty in persuading other bishops:

"One of the problems I have is bishops who say to me, 'Well, this is unheard of in the church's practice.' Actually it goes back to St. Paul in the (First) Letter to the Corinthians, when he says: The person who eats and drinks the body and blood of Christ unworthily eats and drinks condemnation unto himself," he said.

"There are a whole list of instances you can give historically where the church refused holy Communion to individuals. ... To me there has to be a clarity with regard to that discipline. And I trust it will come forward," he said.

Catholics can hope and pray Cardinal McCarrick's committee on this matter will pay attention to the Archbishop.

Source: Archbishop Burke says he'll continue politics-abortion campaign Catholic News Service. Nov. 29, 2004.

---

* See Michael Gaynor on the "disintegration" of the moral witness of the U.S. Catholic Bishops.

To the Point

A little while back in these same pages, my co-editor Christopher provided an able and comprehensive explanation of "Why [He Declines] to Discuss the War or Social Justice."

I'm sure that it will come as no surprise to my readers—here and elsewhere—that I lean towards the direct approach, which is why I so ardently admire my beloved Sonia Maria for being frank and teaching our children to be the same.

It is also why I find the following observations by my good friend Bill Luse on Apologia to the point:

Twas watching Chris Matthews (Hardball) grill 3 guys on those "divisive" cultural issues the other night, you know, abortion, gay marriage. I guess they were trying to figure out how to make them less so. One guy was Richard Land, president of something in the Southern Baptist Convention. Well-spoken. Never stumbled. Knew his talking points. Liked the proposed marriage amendment. Didn't care that we are divided, thinks we ought to be on certain issues. The second guy I can't remember.

The third was Jim Wallis, editor of a mag called Sojourner's, with which I am not familiar. His idea was that we need to "broaden the discussion." You know, talk to each other. Educate. Understand the need for a "consistent ethic of life" (when I hear phrases like that I feel like I'm in a time warp, like Rip Van Winkle waking up after a 20 year nap only to find that none of the euphemisms have changed), instead of focusing exclusively on these "hot button" issues like abortion and gay marriage. Let's talk about war and peace. After all, Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Let's talk about poverty, and tax fairness, and other inequities that could lead one to seek an abortion...and so on.

Another Christian who can't tell the difference between being poor and being dead. Hey Jim. Let's don't talk.

Marriage Is More Than Tax Credits

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

"On the one-year anniversary of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling which redefined marriage by legalizing same-sex 'marriage,' the Coalition for Marriage & Family issued a statement reaffirming its commitment to defend traditional marriage, " Katherine Phan reported in last Thursday's issue of The Christian Post. Coalition spokesman Kris Mineau said the court's ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health "created substantial confusion and inequality for individuals, families and the nation."

"The [Supreme Judicial Court]'s decision has resulted in more children being raised without the benefit of either a mother or a father, " Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said in the statement. "Schools and textbooks will increasingly embrace homosexual marriage as equal to traditional marriage, and a culture of gender confusion is being fostered for children everywhere."

"Marriage is about more than tax credits and other financial benefits," Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council, affirms. "It is about preserving the best environment for raising children and the safest, healthiest living situation for adults. Without strong marriages as our bedrock, our nation will suffer a devastating blow."

Events since the Goodridge decision...[have shown] the nation's opposition to same-sex marriage. Thirty-eight states have enacted Defense of Marriage Acts and 17 have approved constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman...The ruling also acted as a catalyst toward the re-election of George W. Bush and spurred a grassroots effort among social conservatives which led to the formation of a group of "values" voters....

The Coalition for Marriage & Family is a broad-based organization supporting traditional marriage and other pro-family issues. The Massachusetts Family Institute is a Coalition member and the Commonwealth's leading advocate for traditional family values.

The Hyde-Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment

David already added the update to his post on the 20th, but it's worth mentioning twice, in case you missed it. This past Saturday heralded the first pro-life victory of the second term of the Bush administration with Congress' approval of the Hyde-Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment:

"We applaud Congress' recognition that hospitals and other health-care providers should have a right to choose not to be involved in destroying life," said Cathy Cleaver Ruse, a spokeswoman for the bishops' Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities.

"Over a million abortions are done every year by willing abortion providers in this country," Ruse said. "It is outrageous to suggest that Catholic health-care providers and others with moral objections should be forced into the practice of abortion."

"The threat of discrimination is not theoretical, it is real," said Ruse. "Already, hospitals in Alaska, New Jersey and New Mexico have been discriminated against because of their pro-life policies."

Current federal law already protects "health-care entities" from having to perform or provide for abortions.

The Hyde-Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment was needed because current law had been misinterpreted to protect only individual physicians and training programs, leaving hospitals, health plans, nurses, and other health-care participants without protection. (Zenit.Org 11/23/04).

The bill was sponsored by Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), a prominent Catholic in the pro-life movement, and Representative David Weldon of Florida (R-Fl.). (As David pointed out, the legislation was passed despite vehemently opposition by "pro-choice" Catholics[?] Maria Cantwell, Olympia Snowe, and Barbara Mikulski).

Several other aspects of the spending bill which may be of interest to our readers:

• Culture of Life Foundation reports:
  Funding for abstinence education went from $75 million to a little more than $104 million, an increase of 39 percent and more than $29 million from last year's budget. Though the new amount falls short of President George Bush's request of $181.9 million, it still makes headway into achieving parity for abstinence funding versus funding for "safe-sex" programs. A recent study by the Heritage Foundation revealed that the government spends $12 on safe-sex education and contraception promotion for every one dollar spent on abstinence education.
  (See also: "Abstinence Education Funds Hit Record Levels in Congressional Bill" LifeNews.com. Nov. 22, 2004).
  

• Family Research Council: "In the same bill, Congress also banned the patenting of human life, another key win for life. The legislation limits the ability of biotech companies from killing and exploiting human life for economic gain."
  

• There are reports that the bill enforces the Mexico City Policy banning U.S. money to U.N. programs which perform or promote abortion. I'm still researching this aspect, although NARAL released a statement on the 22nd protesting that "language that would have restored previously canceled funds to the United Nations Fund for Population Assistance (UNFPA) was stripped from the omnibus." For the past four years the Bush Administration had blocked funding to the UNFPA "because of the agency's support for China's population control program that involves forced abortions and sterilizations" (LifeNews.com). If anybody has more on this, please comment).
  

The bill is expected to be signed by Bush by December 3.

The revenge of Bob Casey

Here is a real surprise. An article in the National Catholic Reporter that I totally agree with. I checked twice to see if it might actually be from the National Catholic Register instead.

...In his 1996 autobiography, Casey warned: "Many people discount the power of the so-called 'cultural issues' -- and especially the abortion issue. I see it the other way around. These issues are central to the resurgence of the Republicans, central to the national implosion of the Democrats, central to the question of whether there will be a third party. ...[The] Democrats' national decline - or, better, their national disintegration -- will continue relentlessly and inexorably until they come to grips with these values issues, primarily abortion."

Bob Casey isn't around to see the 32-state crater his party left in this year's election. He died in 2000, loyal -- to the end -- to his party, his Catholic faith and his convictions about the dignity of all human life, born and unborn.

But is anybody left to learn from Casey's warning? Don't count on it. Hundreds of thousands of traditional Democrats, barred from any real voice in the party, have simply left. And the tumor within the party has only worsened as the culture war has widened from abortion to the nature of marriage.

California's Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein warns cluelessly that gay marriage was pushed too fast -- as if the troglodytes in the red states (and oh, yeah, in Oregon) need more time to see the light. Others point to Bush's personality, or Karl Rove's evil genius, or John Kerry's bumbling campaign team. The list of excuses is endless.

The 2004 election wasn't about "personality." It was about character -- the Bob Casey, moral values kind. Democrats used to be able to tell the difference. That they no longer can is why my Democrat wife, and millions of people just like her, had no trouble at all pulling the lever for Republicans on Nov. 2.

It is a short article and the beginning is also worth reading.

Life After Roe? The Answer is No

Frances Kissling, president of Catholics For a Free Choice, has published an excessively long article in the Winter issue of CFFC's periodical, inappropriately titled Conscience. The article, entitled "Is There Life After Roe? How to Think About the Fetus" goes into elaborate detail about the pro-choice movement and its beliefs, or lack thereof.

In the opening paragraph, Ms. Kissling writes:

In the thirty years since Roe v. Wade ushered in a new paradigm in the legal understanding of the right to choose abortion, there has been little about the issue that has not been said -- and said time and time again. Supporters of choice have argued that it is important to recognize women as autonomous persons with the moral capacity and moral right to decide whether a pregnancy will be aborted or brought to term. We have enhanced our core argument with references to broader values such as religious freedom, opposition to government intervention in our personal lives and the right to medical privacy. The most powerful of prochoice messages has been the multi-faceted question, "Who Decides?" which highlights both women's rights and keeping government out of the bedroom without ever mentioning either. Inherent in our focus on women's rights has been our belief that fetal life does not attain, at any point in pregnancy, a value that is equivalent to that of born persons, most specifically women, infants or children who are most often cited in discussions of abortion. Our belief about what value fetal life may possess is not yet well articulated and prochoice supporters are not of one mind on this question. Neither it should be noted are the world's religions, ethicists or theologians of one mind on this matter.

I suppose I'll begin with the argument that women are autonomous persons with the moral capacity to decide whether or not a pregnancy will be aborted, an argument that is apparently enhanced by values such as religious freedom, opposition to government intervention in people's personal lives and the right to medical privacy. The argument, simply stated, is absurd. The fact that women are autonomous persons, the fact that people have the right to religious freedom, the fact that the government shouldn't be deeply involved in people's personal lives and the fact that people deserve privacy does not, cannot, and never will justify murder. Everyone is an autonomous person; that doesn't give everyone the right to decide who they will or will not kill, or when to kill them. Everyone deserves religious freedom, but this is not primarily a religious issue. The government shouldn't be involved in every little aspect of people's personal lives, but the government has the right and indeed the responsibility to protect the common good, and especially the responsibility to prevent the murder of more than forty-five million people. People have a right to medical privacy, but not if they're using medicine to kill people.

The real issue, which pro-abortion lobbyists will not address, is that the "fetus," as they call an unborn baby, is a human life. There is no scientific basis for the point of view that an unborn baby is not a human life. Thus, this is not just a matter of religious freedom or medical privacy, it's a matter of life and death for millions upon millions of human beings.

Ms. Kissling goes on to say that the value of "fetal life" has not been well-articulated by the pro-abortion movement, nor are the world's religions of one mind on the matter. I submit that the reason the value of "fetal life" has not been articulated by the pro-abortion movement is precisely because "fetal life" doesn't have value in their eyes. The above paragraph written by Ms. Kissling would certainly lead one, rather easily, to that conclusion. As for the world's religions, she's right -- unfortunately, there is no consensus among the world's religions. But it is important to note that there is widespread support for the pro-life movement in all of the world's religions, and that there are many Christian denominations and other religions that are pro-life. Some pro-life Protestant churches include the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Assemblies of God, the Church of God in Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), the Church of the Nazarene, the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), the Southern Baptist Convention and hundreds of others. As for the Catholic Church, Kissling's spiritual home, it is unequivocally clear in teaching that human life begins at conception and that abortion is absolutely wrong in all circumstances.

Because the Church's teaching is unequivocal, and because Kissling continues to so publicly and forcefully violate it, it's time for us to demand that the American Bishops take some kind of ecclesiastical action against Kissling and Catholics For a Free Choice. The USCCB has made statements about Catholics For a Free Choice on two separate occasions, and Archbishop Chaput has answered questions about CFFC, but none of the Bishops will take ecclesiastical action against Kissling. This led her to challenge the Bishops to excommunicate her in 1999, claiming that the lack of ecclesiastical action against her made her a Catholic in good standing. This scandal cannot continue. The Bishops will not do anything about anyone, but they must do something about her. And they must do it now. For more information on Kissling, read this article.

As I mentioned in a previous entry on Fides, Spes, Caritas, I have started a petition to be sent to the Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal McCarrick asking them to take some (non-specific) ecclesiastical action against Ms. Kissling. The petition does not ask the Holy Father or the two Cardinals to excommunicate her, but simply to take some ecclesiastical action against her. There is a wide range of possibilities available to them, including excommunication, interdict, or simply enforcing Canon 915. I'm urging everyone who is scandalized by Ms. Kissling's public and forceful attacks against the Church and the unborn to sign the petition, which will be presented to the Holy Father and the two Cardinals on January 1, 2005. Perhaps if they see that there are Catholics who want to see action taken to prevent the scandal that Ms. Kissling is causing, they will take some kind of ecclesiastical action against her.

Dissenters Begin to Howl Over Election Results

Several days ago I wrote about how the defeat of prime time Catholic dissenter John Kerry ensured that there was no presidential validation of Catholic dissenters (see post for 11/11/04). Frank Joseph, M.D., who regularly sends out e-mails following current Catholic issues, sends out today a Catholic News Agency article documenting the liberal howling that confirms the "no validation" insight.

In the article, Frances Kissling, the head of the pro-abortion and anti-Catholic "Catholics for a Free Choice," for once gets it right-- once you get past the name-calling and heterodox jargon. She points out that the re-election of Bush energizes conservative Catholics both within the Church and in the political arena.

Here is an excerpt from her rant:

Kissling said she is concerned about the impact the election results will have on the Catholic Church in the United States. "The most troubling aspect of all this is the extent to which Bush's victory will further empower an incredibly arrogant, intolerant, anti-woman and anti-religious freedom faction in my church," she said.

Source: Catholic News Agency, 11/22/04 (emphasis added).

That "faction" in the Church is the sense of the faithful whose so-called arrogance is really boldness, whose so-called intolerance is really restating Catholic truths, whose so-called anti-woman stance is really a long overdue authentic feminism, and whose so-called anti-religious freedom slant is simply affirming that an informed Catholic conscience is never pro-abortion. Long live the "faction." More importantly, long live the truth motivating the "faction."

Senator Specter

Looks like they scared Specter.

Frist told Specter he must produce a written statement pledging his cooperation as chairman. What he wrote pledged only that judicial nominations would get out of his committee. That was not good enough, Frist told him Wednesday night. He would have to pledge support for Bush judges and declare himself open to a rules change blocking filibusters of judicial nominations. Specter must have been frightened. He wrote a new four-paragraph statement incorporating the majority leader's demands.

Meet Nancy Keenan -- "President Death"

NARAL Pro-Choice America has elected a new president, who I am lovingly referring to as President Death. Her name is Nancy Keenan, and you can find out more about her here, here and here. So far, what interests me most is the unholy alliance that has already been tentatively formed between pro-abortion Catholic Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader and Ms. Keenan. Apparently, Ms. Keenan is also a pro-abortion Catholic:

She also showed the force of her pro-choice commitment and the strength of her personal leadership when she stood up to a public effort to excommunicate her from the Catholic Church.

Ms. Keenan has served in a number of state political offices in Montana. Besides her strong support for abortion, Ms. Keenan has also helped People for the American Way oppose voucher programs. Yes, she is truly delightful.

Apparently, when you translate the information from NARAL from LibSpeak into English, she intends to use her status as a Catholic to proclaim abortion on demand (choice, in LibSpeak) as an American value. Ms. Keenan and NARAL Pro-Choice America appear to have deluded themselves into thinking that just because Keenan is from Montana, "the heartland of America," she can convince the American people that abortion on demand, the murder of innocent unborn human beings, is an American value. She says:

As a public servant from the heartland of America, I know that respect for a woman's personal privacy and her right to choose are truly American values. We can and we will unite a new generation of American women and their families around these shared values, and preserve and protect our hard-won rights.

So, what can you do?

I recommend writing to or calling Bishop George Thomas and Bishop Anthony Milone, the two Bishops with dioceses in Montana, as well as Cardinal McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington, D.C. Here is their contact information:

His Eminence Cardinal Theodore McCarrick
Archdiocesan PastoralCenter
5001 Eastern Avenue
Hyattsville, MD 20782-3447
Phone: (301) 853-4500
E-Mail: chancery@adw.org


His Excellency Bishop Anthony Milone
Diocese of Great Falls-Billings
P.O. Box 1399
Great Falls, MT 59403-1399
Phone: 1-800-332-9998
E-Mail: bishop@dioceseofgfb.org

His Excellency Bishop George Thomas
Diocese of Helena
P.O. Box 1729
Helena, MT 59624
Phone: (406) 442-5820
E-Mail: webmaster@diocesehelena.org

If you decide to write to the Bishops, I would recommend attaching copies of the statements from NARAL Pro-Choice America, especially the one with Ms. Keenan emphasizing her public service in the heartland and her belief that abortion on demand is an American value, as well as the one emphasizing Ms. Keenan's status as a Catholic who boldly stood up to an attempt to excommunicate her.

If this doesn't mean scandal to these three Bishops, I don't know what will.

Introduction and welcome to Nathan Nelson

I'd like to take a moment to extend a welcome to Nathan Nelson "a 20-year-old layman and freelance writer from the Diocese of Steubenville in Ohio, [and] a member of the Militia Immaculata." Some readers might be aware of his blog Fides, Spes, Caritas, "a Catholic commentary on current events in the Church and especially in the United States political system," which I've referenced a number of times in earlier posts.

In light of Nathan's excellent writing on political topics that are pertinent to we are pleased to feature his contributions as a guest-blogger on Catholics in the Public Square.

Some recent writings by Nathan Nelson:

• "Stopping Specter" CatholicExchange.com. Nov. 15, 2004.
  
• "What Went Wrong? A Democrat Muses about the Election" CatholicExchange.com. November 13, 2004. [Clarification: the reflections contained therein are worth reading, but the title is somewhat misleading -- on Nov. 14th, Nathan renounced his affiliation with the Democratic Party].
  
• Specter of Reality. (No, it's not about Specter.)
  

Another Catholic Governor Wants Millions for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Governor Jim Doyle, wants to join fellow Catholic and governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and spend $750 Million for Embryonic Stem Cell Research in Wisconsin.

On the heels of California voters approving a $6 billion measure to finance unproven embryonic stem cell research, Wisconsin's governor wants the Badger State to spend $750 million on the controversial science. Governor Jim Doyle announced plans Wednesday to use a combination of public and private money to conduct research that would destroy human embryos to harvest their stem cells. That money would build on the nearly $1 billion the state has spent on medical research facilities over the last decade. "Other states, like California, are trying to play catch-up and build from scratch what we already have," he said. Some of the projects Doyle wants require legislative approval while others the governor can begin on his own through moving money in the state budget. The state's leading pro-life group said it will work feverishly to make sure the legislature does not approve taxpayer funding of research that destroys human life. "Wisconsin Right to Life supports the use of tax dollars for the use of ethical research which does not involve the creation and/or destruction of human life," said Barbara Lyons, Executive Director for Wisconsin Right to Life. "We will work with legislators to insure that Governor Doyle's proposal is amended to exclude unethical research."

I do not know much about Gov Doyle. I do know that Catholics in the diocese of Milwaukee have a wonderful shepard in Archbishop Dolan (I knew of him from the time I lived near St Louis) and are in need of leadership in La Crosse.

Let us pray for the four bishops in Wisconsin and all Catholics there as they battle the culture of death.

Ignatius Insight interviews Raymond Flynn

Valerie Schmaltz of Ignatius Insight interviews Raymond Flynn, pro-life Democrat and former mayor of Boston, "who is credited by John Kerry with the Massachusetts senator's first successful try for the U.S. Senate" and this time around decided "enough was enough" and publicly challenged Kerry to renounce his pro-abortion litmus test of the Supreme Court in the New York Times.

"While the 2004 election was an important and historic first step in Catholic political involvement, it must be a challenge and an invitation for more Catholics to get involved.

"Catholics must never again be treated like second-class citizens where both parties can ignore us or take us for granted. Catholic values, which helped build a great country and Church, must never again be dismissed by politicians, the media, or judges."

Ray Flynn is national chairman of Catholic Citizenship, "a national voter education movement that is committed to the values and teachings of the Catholic faith. Its major principles are pro-life, pro-family and pro-poor," and calls on Catholics " to exercise 'Faithful Citizenship' by becoming politically involved and informed citizens. Our goal is to see campaigns organized by parish instead of precinct; voting Catholic first and Party second."

Anti-abortion provision tucked in spending bill

From HoustonChronicle.com:

The abortion language would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals. Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such "conscience protection" to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers.

House and Senate negotiators have tucked [this] potentially far-reaching anti-abortion provision into a $388 billion must-pass spending bill, complicating plans for Congress to wrap up its business and adjourn for the year.

The provision may be an early indication of the growing political muscle of social conservatives who provided crucial support for Republican candidates, including President Bush, in the election.

A good sign. The success or failure of this provision will be a key indicator to future pro-life legislation. Let us pray that this provision will be successful.

UPDATE: Looks like this legislation passed. Of course, it was over the strong objections of Catholic[?] senators Maria Cantwell, Olympia Snowe, and Barbara Mikulski.

Hold Specter to his promise.

Senator Specter may have won the nomination to Senate Judiciary Chair, but as Human Events Online reminds us, a formal vote on Specter's ascension won't happen until January, and opponents of Specter shouldn't call it quits just yet:

"Anything can happen in two months," said the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, who led a protest against Specter earlier this week on Capitol Hill. "Let's face the political realities, but I don't think it's both morally or strategically wise to throw in the towel this early."

Mahoney told HUMAN EVENTS his Christian Defense Coalition was still planning to hold a nationwide protest against Specter on December 9. On that day, constituents are encouraged to visit their senators' home-state offices to voice their concerns about Specter.

Meanwhile, Lane Core, Jr. ("Blog from the Core") calls our attention to the following press release by Specter on Nov. 18, 2004:

I have not and would not use a litmus test to deny confirmation to pro-life nominees. I voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist after he had voted against Roe v. Wade. Similarly, I voted to confirm pro-life nominees, Justice Scalia, Justice O’Connor and Justice Kennedy. I lead the successful fight to confirm Justice Thomas which almost cost me my Senate seat in 1992.

I have assured the President that I would give his nominees quick Committee hearings and early Committee votes so floor action could be promptly scheduled. I have voted for all of President Bush’s judicial nominees in Committee and on the floor, and I have no reason to believe that I’ll be unable to support any individual President Bush finds worthy of nomination. . . .

Lane muses: "Arlen must have had to agree to this to get the chairmanship."

Let us hope that this is the case -- and in the event that he is appointed, demand that he stand by his words.

You Bet Your Life . . . Or, Rather, His

From the pages of Catholics in the Public Square . . . With the unanimous backing given anti-life Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) by his go-along to get-along GOP colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, it appears that Specter's chickens have now hatched. In any event, the roosters are strutting with the cock of the walk, outgoing Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT), crowing, "It's a done deal, yes, a done deal."

You will recall, no doubt, the scene in The Passion of The Christ when the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate washes his hands of the blood of the Innocent One that he is about to sacrificing to appease the mob for the sake of political expediency. Deja vu, all over again.

"Anyone who has followed [Sen. Specter's] career should have bet on his survival," the Philadelphia Inquirer editorializes. I guess the chump bet would have been to place your money or your vote on the principles of the "pro-life" members of the old boys' club they call the Senate.

Consider, if you will, Senator Specter's enabler, Rick Santorum—an admittedly unpleasant task—but that's a subject for another commentary.

It is times like this that remind me why I am an independent.

Those Who Get It, Dems That Don't

The Democrats have a problem, Time senior writer Joe Klein concedes in last Saturday's issue. "It was partly illuminated by the exit polling, in which 22% of respondents said they voted, primarily, on 'moral values,' and was reinforced by a subsequent Pew Research poll, in which the number rose to 27%."

"Religious faith is the implicit Republican solution to the personal traumas of the middle-class," Klein observes.

The fact that overworked parents are scared to death that their unsupervised kids are taking life lessons from the sex, drugs and weirdness spewing from their televisions and computers. Liberals scoff, but the balm that comes with being part of a religious community—the Bible study, youth groups, choirs and, yes, the moral absolutes that often accompany such communion—is real and comforting, unlike the promise of complicated and expensive government programs.

Klein gets it, but as for the Democrats.

Kerry, like many other Democrats, never truly understood this reality. He did not bother to visit the Southern Baptist Convention or any other fundamentalist group to say, "Look, we're going to disagree on some issues, but there are lots of things we have in common, and I want to hear your point of view." He did not take a "listening tour" through rural Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi; he simply ignored the South. When Whoopi Goldberg lewdly compared the President to a body part...Kerry—who was in the audience—came onstage and said entertainers like Goldberg represented "the heart and soul of America." He did not criticize the mayor of San Francisco when he broke the law to perform gay marriages. He condoned late-term abortions.

The Democrats, Klein concludes, have been "enthralled by the most intolerant of their interest groups."

The liberals' defense of abortion beyond the first trimester has no moral rationale unless the life of the mother is at risk. Their full-throated embrace of freedom of speech ignores the social pollution caused by the arrant commercialization of the culture. If Democrats cannot concede even these points and show a real appreciation for the values of faith, they will have a hard time winning national elections anytime soon

.The values gap. Those who get it win. Dems that don't lose.

Supplemental Reading:

For the opinions of one college student and columnist, see Judson Cox, "Why The Democrats Lost," The Fence, November 15, 2004. "Deeply held Christian beliefs are to Democrats what water was to the witch in 'The Wizard of Oz,'" Cox declares, adding, "Gay marriage and abortion are the sacraments of their godless religion."

For a jaundiced view, see Max Blumenthal, "The Christian Right's Humble Servant," AlterNet, November 15, 2004. Despite such biased rhetoric as "liberal social politics" to describe support for killing babies and perverting marriage, the article details the grassroots efforts of evangelical Christians and faithful Catholics.

Finally, for a fairly object assessment, see Anthony Robinson, "Making Sense of Moral Surprise," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 14, 2004. "Liberals need not give up on the values dimension of public issues," Robinson concludes, "but they ignore the values of personal responsibility, family and moral life at their peril."

Politicians say the darndest things

A Catholic priest at St. Augustine Parish in Andover has asked state Representative Barbara A. L'Italien to step down as cantor and leader of the children's choir because of the legislator's support for abortion rights and gay marriage.

''He said because of my views, he did not want to have me on the altar at church anymore," L'Italien said yesterday, adding that she had refused the request from the Rev. William M. Cleary nearly two weeks ago.

L'Italien has been attending Wednesday night children's choir practices and plans to act as cantor again during the holidays, unless she receives a written order from Cleary, she said.''I'm trying to be a good Catholic," L'Italien said. ''But this should be a separate issue. Church should be a sanctuary for me and my faith and not have anything to do with my work." [Source]

This attitude is really not so surprising. First we had the false dichotomy of church and state with the alleged wall of separation to prevent you from actually voting based on your faith. Now we have the separation of work and church. Her comment is just so laughable and devoid of reason. Would her excuse also go for a professional robber? "Hey I only rob people while working, my being in the choir is a separate issue." Well maybe - after all most politicians also force money out of your pocket with the treat of force so maybe this example argument wasn't sufficiently ad nauseam.

I can imagine a last judgment scene with Jesus separating the sheep from goats. "Excuse me Mr. Christ. I think there has been some mistake! I am suppose to be with the sheep. Jesus replies 'whatever you do to the least of them you did to me.' Just a second -are you referring to my support for abortion? If you are then that is where the mistake was made. That was done at work. Hey what do you mean depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire. I already told you that was at work."

Hatching Chickens: A Senate Specialty

With yesterday's endorsement by outgoing Senate Judiciary Chairman Orren Hatch (R-UT), the tide appears to be turning for the bid of pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) to succeed Hatch as chairman—that is, of course, if there were a tide to begin with beyond the rhetorical sop the GOP traditionally feeds its pro-life supporters.

Following a day of closed-door meetings with Republican leaders and members of the Judiciary Committee, Specter and Hatch emerged to say "they were hopeful that Specter would be awarded the chairmanship," Susan Milligan reports in today's Boston Globe.

"Senator Specter handled himself very well. Frankly, I'm for him," Hatch said, standing next to Specter after a nearly two-hour meeting to discuss the Pennsylvania senator's fate. "I believe he'll be a great chairman."...

The Senate will not officially name its chairmen until next year, when the new Congress convenes. But the endorsement of Hatch—a conservative, antiabortion lawmaker—was a key indicator that Specter will head the Judiciary Committee, the panel that considers judicial nominees. Hatch also said no one on the committee spoke against Specter during the session.

This isn't the first time that Hatch has betrayed the babies—the infamous states rights Hatch amendment on abortion comes to mind—but where are his "pro-life" colleagues?

For the most part it appears, right there with Orren behind anti-life Arlen's ascendancy. Hatch, Helen DeWar informs us in today's Washington Post, "was joined by former Senate GOP leader Trent Lott (Miss.) and deputy party whip Robert F. Bennett (Utah) in predicting victory for Specter."

Lott, who previously endorsed Specter for the job, said he would get it "because he's earned it, and he'll be a good chairman." Lott said he had told Specter to avoid being too defensive.

After, all what is there to defend? Didn't President Bush and Specter's junior colleague, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), help him defeat a strong primary challenge by pro-life Rep. Pat Toomey?

You might think that Sen. Santorum bears a particular responsibility to right this wrong, but there you go thinking again, something the Stupid Party frowns upon. Here's why:

"One of Mr. Specter's most ardent supporters has been Sen. Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Republican who leads the pro-life forces in the Senate and who has stuck his neck out for his seatmate on several occasions," Charles Hurt reports in today's Washington Times.

Mr. Santorum, who faces his own tough re-election in two years, helped Mr. Specter overcome a tough primary challenge earlier this year and has lobbied on Mr. Specter's behalf during this most recent firestorm.

"Sen. Santorum has been enormously helpful," Mr. Specter said yesterday after meeting with Republican leaders. "He has gone above and beyond the call of duty." "My number one priority in the next two years is to re-elect Senator Santorum," Mr. Specter added.

I'm sure Rick will be grateful, Arlen, since he will need extra help from your pro-abort friends in his next election race. One just hopes he is not so delusional as to aspire to national office after his repeated betrayals of principle.

Sen. Bennett, Hatch's junior colleague from Utah, described the grassroots campaign to deny Specter the chair "a tempest in a tea pot."

That remains to be seen. I am not referring to the Senate's future actions but to ours, the pro-life, pro-family Americans—Catholics, Protestants, and others—who re-elected President Bush and, please God, will make a critical difference in chosing his successor in 2008.

With uncharacteristic humility, Sen, Specter stopped short of claiming victory. "No chickens have been hatched, and I don't count chickens before they hatch," he declared.

Come to think of it, that's exactly how Specter sees the unborn child. Is there not one Republican Senator with the backbone and integrity to stand up to defend him in this critical battle?

Sen. Larry E. Craig (Idaho), a Judiciary Committee member and leading conservative, said he was "working closely" with Specter to resolve the dispute.

Conservatives like Hatch and Craig are great at working with their liberal friends like Specter, but won't anyone work with us to protect our preborn brothers and sisters?

If only my old boss, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC), still served in a Senate where chickens are hatched, and Hatch is a chicken.

Task Force Report

From a Report by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick for the "Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians" issued today.

Now that the election is over, we have an important opportunity to come together around our common commitment to protect human life and dignity and advance the common good. As Catholics, we all have a preeminent obligation to protect the lives of unborn children, to oppose euthanasia, and to defend marriage. Our tradition also clearly calls us to stand up for those who are poor and to promote justice and peace. These are not options for us, but obligations of our faith. In the coming months, we must all work together to advance all these values. We do not believe that our commitment to human life and dignity and our pursuit of justice and peace are competing causes. While we do not believe that all issues have equal moral claims, we will work to protect those whose lives are destroyed by abortion and those who are dying of hunger, we will strive to protect human life from the moment of conception until the moment God calls us home and we will strive to pursue peace. We will work for human life and dignity, for justice and peace. This is who we are and what we believe.

... So now, on behalf of the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, I would like to outline several steps that will be taken in our Conference during the coming months to fulfill the commitments we made in Denver.

1. The Committee on Doctrine, with assistance from the Committee on Pastoral Practices, has agreed to take up the matter of Church teaching on the proper disposition to receive Holy Communion,not only for politicians, but for all of us.
   
2. There will be continuing consultation on the complex theological and canonical aspects of these matters within our Conference and with the Holy See.
   
3. The Task Force is developing resources and tools to help the bishops follow through on the commitments we made, namely:
   
   
   1. We must keep our pledge to "teach more clearly." The Task Force is developing a "Reader on Catholics in Public Life" with excerpts from Papal, Conciliar and USCCB statements on the responsibilities of Catholics in public life. This "reader" would be made available to bishops to be used as the basis for teaching, dialogue and persuasion.
      
   2. We pledged to do more "to persuade" all people that human life is precious and human dignity must be defended, and to help Catholics act on our principles in public life. To help us do this, we will share with each other examples of how bishops have undertaken efforts to engage, persuade, and mobilize the Catholic community.
      
   3. We made a commitment to maintain communication with public officials who make decisions every day that touch issues of human life and dignity. We will continue to reach out to leaders in public life to explain our principles and to dialogue with them.
      
   4. We affirmed that the Catholic community and Catholic institutions should "not honor" those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. The Task Force plans to consult with leaders in Catholic education, Catholic health care, and Catholic social services to discuss how we can together best carry out this guidance.

We welcome and affirm the discussion of the "culture of life" in the campaign, and the focus on "moral values" in the exit polls. We can only hope that this will lead to real action to protect unborn children, defend marriage, protect the lives and dignity of all those who are poor and vulnerable and promote peace in a violent world. The treatment of the "least of these," beginning with unborn children and including all those who suffer in our nation and world, are at the heart of our mission in public life.

Just in time now that the election is over they can get back to business of committees meeting committees to try to determine an action in regards to receiving Communion. Do we really need more committees to determine "proper disposition to receive Holy Communion, not only for politicians, but for all of us"? I can save them a lot of time and effort since the teaching is already quite clear. If you are not in union with the Church or are not in a state of grace you should not be receiving Communion. Why do they have to worry about the guidelines for everybody? For those whose sin or support of sinful behavior is not a public matter then there is no sanction that can be leveled. It is only for public sinners that a determination for appropriate sanctions is required. This will probably end up with another document to "teach" and to just leave it up to the individual to determine their actions.

Cardinal McCarrick was able to determine that it was not appropriate for John Kerry to attend the Al Smith Dinner yet still can not provide the leadership to determine the sanctions for those receiving Christ in the Eucharist by those supporting the culture of death. Pro-abortion speakers are banned from being honored by Catholic institutions, but they can still go receive the source and summit or our faith. With the business as usual elections at the Bishops recent meeting I am sure that we can expect a business as usual final report on this matter.

Where Stands the President? Inquiring Minds Want to Know

Lester Kinsolving, who has covered the White House since the Nixon days, has been dubbed the "pit bull" of the White House Press Corps by Matt Drudge and far worse by such critics as Andrew Sullivan, the perversion panderer who once smeared the intrepid reporter as "a crack-pot of the far right." But enough of our inquisitor, on to the inquiry.

Where does our pro-life President stand on the overturning of the Supreme Court's infamous abortion edict Roe v. Wade? Where does he stand on the impending designation of anti-life Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA), in whose election he played a key role, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee?

These are not insignificant questions when one considers the likelihood of President Bush nominating future Supreme Court Justices, including a possible Chief Justice, voer the course of his second term, and I, for one, salute Les Kinsolving for asking them.

Asking a straight question, while admittedly rare in the DMC (dominant media culture) is one thing. Getting a straight answer, as Les could tell you, is another, but listen and judge for yourself. (Or, if you prefer, read the transcript.)

The Democratic Party - Time to Abandon Ship?

My colleague Earl has provided us with a roundup of very disheartening posts by liberal bloggers ("Blue State of Mind", indicating that they clearly have no wish to reform the platform of the Democratic Party in response to the report that those who voted for Bush overwhelmingly did so on the basis of "moral values." If such comments are representative of the Democrats in general, it does paint a very bleak picture for the future of this party.

It is in relation to this article that I'd like to call readers' attention to Nathan Nelson (Fides, Spes, Caritas), a "20-year-old layman and freelance writer from the Diocese of Steubenville in Ohio", who recently switched his party affiliation from Democratic to Independent to voice his disillusionment.

Nathan's decision was chiefly prompted by a post-election announcement to the Democratic National Commitee's website announcing their commitment to

". . . protect the federal courts -- including the Supreme Court -- from being stacked by extremists who will erode civil rights. We will support the appointment of judges who will uphold our laws and constitutional rights, not their own narrow agendas."

Nathan's brilliant response to the Democratic National Committee is worth reading, and perhaps one to forward to your Democratic congressman.

Democrats for Life contend that their party might be renewed from within, but in the wake of recent actions by Democrats, others are concluding that the DNC's unwavering commitment to abortion and ridicule of pro-life religious voters as "extremists" is a sure sign that its time to abandon a sinking ship.

You decide.

Comparing Bishops & Catholic Vote Totals

Although we have learned to take exit polls with a grain of salt, a regular Catholic Analysis reader from Minnesota looked at some comparative Catholic vote totals from CNN exit polls (click states on map to get full exit poll results) and got some interesting results.

"I was looking at the CNN exit poll data by state available on their website, and trying to determine if there is any correlation between a Bishop's public stance on Communion for a pro-abortion candidate (i.e., Kerry) and the percentage increase (or decrease) in the Catholic vote for Bush in that particular state.

For instance, in Colorado, where Bishops Chaput and Sheridan took public positions on the issue, Bush fared better among Catholic voters by 10%--other double-digit gains were in GA (+13%), MA (+17%), MD (+14%) and HI (+14%)--states with bishops (at least some) who took public positions on the issue. Others include NJ (+7%), NY (+11%), SD (+10%) and NE (+9%).

In my own state [Minnesota], where there was no such leadership on the issue, Bush lost 2% of the Catholic vote vs. 2000.

Of course, there are many other factors that could have had an effect on the Catholic vote (e.g. demographic shifts, etc.), but the numbers were interesting.

Just some food for thought."

The totals are indeed food for thought and are further evidence that the social issues of abortion and gay marriage played a role in the increased Catholic vote for Bush. Especially interesting are the totals highlighted in red above: a 17 point jump in Massachusetts, 11 points in N.Y., and 7 points in New Jersey!

A persuasive case can be made that the jump in N.Y. and N.J. is due to the devastating impact of the Sept. 11th attack on that geographic area, but this argument does not explain the jump in Massachusetts. In fact, in Massachusetts, orthodox Catholics had to organize themselves in the middle of the year to speak out strongly against gay marriage (see YourCatholicVoice.com).

One leader in that effort predicted very early this year that the Catholic vote would make the difference in the election because his sense was that many Catholics were tired of being mocked by the stands of phony Catholics like Kerry. The data so far backs him up. His may have been the best prediction of the election season.

A Blue State of Mind

Those who mock the God-ordained laws that lie behind what the media trivializes as "moral values" are obviously disconsolate with the outcome of the 2004 presidential election and even more disheartened by the emergence of Christians in the public square that contributed so significantly to it. CPS has searched Blue Blogdom to bring our readers a half dozen of these liberal lamentations:

Torture Bad—Unless in the Womb?
Feeding Babies Good—Feeding Terri Bad?

I'm not at all comfortable with calling the people who exit polled that their political priority is "values" Christians, because (not entering into the quicksand of knowing others' hearts, 'cause that's more their thing) what we think we know about those people is what the evangelical protestant right, political arm, has told us about them and I wouldn't believe the evangelical protestant right, political arm, if they told me to wear my raincoat to a monsoon and my own values (torture bad, feeding babies good, need at least one reason that proves out for killing 100k iraqis) don't allow for quite a lot of rather bad stuff they support, I think hereinafter when discussing them I'm simply going to refer to them as "values" voters. So much for that. -jmhm, Sisyphus Shrugged

No Set Rule for Morality?

To say someone is voting based on morals that would imply that they had a choice between something (or someone) who was moral, and someone (or something) that was immoral. The problem with this is there's no set rule as to what is moral and what is immoral. The people making this claim are holding up the Bible as the end all be all, but even then they only want to pay attention to specific parts of it that back up their stance. Now it's been a few years since I've read the Bible...but I'm pretty damn sure I remember something about "Thou shall not kill", maybe one of the commandments or something. So, according to that, killing people would be immoral. So things like going to war, and the death penalty would fall on the immoral side. But that hasn't been discussed. This is really just a group of people who don't like gays trying to find a way to say they don't like gays without coming right out with it. Bush is against gay marriage so he's more moral. But he's all for killing people. That anyone could look at his record and say he's more "moral" is just insane. -Sean Bonner

God Is Everywhere—and All the Time

Jesusland, so concerned about Values and so often unable to live up to those Values, went to the polls in force to turn those born-again values into Law. They want their God everywhere, all the time. See, if Jesusland Law becomes Civil and Criminal Law, the residents of Jesusland will never have to think about anything ever again. (Many Jesusland people are so terrified of the outside world and its sweet, sweet temptations that they rarely leave their suburban mega-church.) -Ken Layne

Intolerant of Dictionaries—A Bad Spell of Liberalism

dear karl rove...the nation has surely moved towards a direction of greater intolerence. if you want to claim that as a republican direction be my guest. intolerant of people choosing who they wish to marry, intolerant of a woman choosing what she wants to do with her womb, intolerant of americans choosing not to be believers in the easterbunny/santaclaus/godblessamerica Christianity that has more to do with politics than scripture intolerant of facts intolerant of the UN, fiscal responsibility, and the US constitution -Tony Pearce [Caution: Vulgarity on banner.]

Racist Rant Equates Race With Vice

What I'm most depressed by is the passage of all 11 of the anti-gay marriage ammendments. The idea that 11 states of the country of my birth would ammend their Constitutions with this type of bigotry in the year 2004 makes me ill. Does anyone really think that 40 or 50 years from now, we won't be looking back on this era with the same type of disgust and incredulity with which we now view Jim Crow laws? The trend of history is pretty clear on these matters, human rights eventually prevail, and those that stood in the way forever have their good names tarnished by the bigotry and hate they spouted in return for some cheap political capital. -Seth Bokleman, Seth-Tech

No Good Reason at All

One of my conservative friends suggested that if the Democrats kept nominating candidates that were in thrall to "third-rail issues" like abortion, perhaps we should consider moderating our positions to attract more voters—and start winning. I suggested that I would compromise on abortion rights when Republicans loosen up on gay marriage. Not that they have any reason to compromise at all now. -Donna, Live in the Delirious Cool

Supplemental Reading:

• For a litany of abuses suffered by "red" America, see "Blue States Shout Until They Are Red in the Face, The Galvin Opion, November 10, 2004.
• For media bullets on the 2004 race, see "Point Blank (Round 17)," Times Against Humanity, November 15, 2004.

Specter Should Go

The inside political baseball has recently centered on whether Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania should be allowed to become chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary committee whose job is to approve new judges and new Supreme Court justices.

Specter is pro-abortion, and made a post-election statement that in effect warned President Bush that pro-life judges would have a hard time getting confirmed in the Senate. Specter has since disavowed any attempt to "warn" the President and claims that he was merely noting the political reality in the Senate as a whole. But, as Shakespeare would say, methinks he protests too much.

One recent article noted that Specter began his political career as a Democrat who became a Republican as a matter of mere political expedience. Apparently, Specter was rebuffed by the Democratic establishment in an early run for office, and so turned to the Republicans. So, in reality, Specter is a liberal Democrat.

The Republican majority in the Senate is now secure, with a net gain of four seats in the just finished election. Even if a newly rebuffed Specter switches back to the Democratic Party or becomes an independent at this point, it will make no difference. What do pro-life forces gain from accommodating Specter at this point? Some say that rebuffing Specter will alienate other "moderate" Republican senators. What is not mentioned is that, regardless of Specter's treatment, certain "moderate" Republican senators will do anyway what they are already set to do: protect Roe v. Wade as much as they can.

The post of chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is too important to the pro-life cause to leave at the hands of a pro-abortion, thinly Republican senator. Whatever the outcome, the outcry over Specter's assumption of the chairmanship has been a welcome development. Specter may not make it; and, if he does make it, he will have been strongly forewarned that his job is to push the President's appointees and not obstruct them.

Why I decline to discuss "the war" or "social justice"

Over the past week some readers have questioned the 'confined' or 'exclusive' focus of Catholics in the Public Square -- as they had done previusly with CatholicKerryWatch -- in judging the positions of Catholic candidates in relation to some moral issues (abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, same-sex marriage) rather than others (capital punishment, economic policy, the war in Iraq). This criticism was raised in commments on a recent post, and I would like to address it if I may.

"Liberal Catholic" blogger Jcecil believes that "Roman Catholics in America do not take the Vatican seriously on issues that have nothing to do with sex." If I understand him correctly, he is concerned that issues like "the death penalty and social justice issues" did not play a significant factor in determining how Catholics voted in this past election. Above all, he is concerned:

. . . why isn't much said in Catholic blogosphere about the heinous atrocity of Bush's unlitaral act of aggression and how it very clearly violates Church teaching on war?

Why wasn't serious consideration given to Catholics who chose to oppose Bush's war so strongly that they considered a vote for Kerry a viable moral option, depite being solidly pro-life?

Was it a lack of understanding of the Catholic tradition on the part of Kerry Catholics, or was it a lack of humility, avoiding rash judgment, and lack of listening on the part of Bush Catholics?

I can't speak on behalf of my co-editors on what degree the war had in influencing their vote, but whether the Church had in fact formally condemned it as immoral, and whether disagreement with the war in Iraq constituted sufficient grounds for voting for a "Catholic" candidate whose positions explicitly violated the Church's teachings on abortion, stem-cell research, human cloning, etc., I myself agree with Archbishop John Meyers of Newark, NJ ( "Pro-choice candidates and church teaching" Wall Street Journal Sept. 17, 2004):

". . . Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on "just war," he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it.

Abortion and embryo-destructive research are different. They are intrinsic and grave evils; no Catholic may legitimately support them. In the context of contemporary American social life, abortion and embryo-destructive research are disproportionate evils. They are the gravest human rights abuses of our domestic politics and what slavery was to the time of Lincoln. Catholics are called by the Gospel of Life to protect the victims of these human rights abuses. They may not legitimately abandon the victims by supporting those who would further their victimization."

This would explain why my co-editors and I, while perhaps differing on the matter of the war in Iraq, give priority of attention to where Catholic legislators stand on the "non-negotiable" moral issues (as presented in Catholic Answers' 2004 Voters Guide for Serious Catholics).

* * *

My reluctance to judge Catholic candidates and politicians with respect to economic issues in the context of this blog should not be construed as a lack of concern. I try to give serious consideration to the social and economic policies put forth by the parties and political candidates, and trust my co-editors do as well. We all have bills to pay and families to worry about. Naturally we're concerned about bringing home a paycheck, putting bread on the table, keeping a roof over our heads -- all of these issues matter, but we believe they should be placed in the proper context.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver, one of the most vocal Catholic critics of "pro-choice" Catholic candidates in the 2004 presidential race, addresses this question of priorities in November's edition of Crisis: "The King's Good Servant: Some Thoughts at a Crossroad ":

The big picture depends on the small picture. No amount of good policy on immigration, or unemployment, or education, or housing, compensates for bad policy when it comes to deliberately killing the innocent -- beginning with the unborn. The right to life comes first. That's the priority. It's the foundation of every other right. Without it, every other right is built on sand.

Of course, if the right to life is the only issue Catholics focus on, that doesn't work either. In Genesis 9:5, God says, "From man, in regard to his fellow man, I will demand an accounting." James 2:15-17 says:

If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Faith without works is dead. We need to act on what we claim to believe. Vatican II teaches that "the political community exists . . . for the common good [that] embraces the sum total of all those conditions of social life which enable individuals, families and organizations to achieve complete and efficacious fulfillment" (Gaudem et Spes 74).

Catholics have the right and the obligation to demand that their public officials -- and their public policies -- should protect marriage and encourage family life; help the poor and homeless; promote economic justice both at home and abroad; and support the sick, the elderly, and children seeking a decent education. It's not enough to say, "Well, these are matters for private charity." Private charities in this country are already overwhelmed by the demand. For Catholics, it's completely proper for government to be involved in a serious way in solving these problems -- as long as the so-called solutions don't promote or allow killing the unborn and the weak.

It's an excellent essay and call for holiness among Catholics in private and public life, and this brief quotation doesn't do it a bit of justice -- so I would encourage you to read the whole thing.

* * *

Finally, the problem with "social justice" is that the term itself is inherently ambiguous. When critics talk about the lack of attention to "social justice" by Catholics (or Catholic bloggers), one suspects that what they really mean a lack of identification with the social and economic prescriptions of the Democratic Party.

According to Michael Novak, this inherent and problematic ambiguity in the term "social justice" was addressed by the economic theorist Friedrich Hayek ("Defining Social Justice" First Things 108 December 2000):

. . . The minute one begins to define social justice, one runs into embarrassing intellectual difficulties. It becomes, most often, a term of art whose operational meaning is, "We need a law against that." In other words, it becomes an instrument of ideological intimidation, for the purpose of gaining the power of legal coercion.

Hayek points out another defect of twentieth-century theories of social justice. Most authors assert that they use it to designate a virtue (a moral virtue, by their account). But most of the descriptions they attach to it appertain to impersonal states of affairs -- "high unemployment" or "inequality of incomes" or "lack of a living wage" are cited as instances of "social injustice." Hayek goes to the heart of the matter: social justice is either a virtue or it is not. If it is, it can properly be ascribed only to the reflective and deliberate acts of individual persons. Most who use the term, however, ascribe it not to individuals but to social systems. They use "social justice" to denote a regulative principle of order; again, their focus is not virtue but power.

As Novak concludes (rightly, I think), that "social justice is a virtue, an attribute of individuals, or it is a fraud." As to the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, where it stands on economic issues and policies remains a topic heavily debated among Catholics on the right and left. We can agree on the evils of poverty and homelessness, but Republican, Democrat and "non-affiliated" Catholics will continue to debate the prescriptions, with all sides appealing to (and claiming to be guided by) Catholic principles.

It is precisely because there is ample room for perfectly legitimate debate on these topics that I tend not to address them, or include them among the "non-negotiables" as criteria in examining Catholic candidates on this blog.

More on the Democratic Demise

The chancellor of the Archdiocese of Denver, a layman by the name of Francis X. Maier, again confirms what the Democratic establishment will always deny, namely, that Roe v. Wade has cost the Democratic Party millions of votes and cost them the 2004 election. Maier writes in Denver's Rocky Mountain News.

It is ironic that the reversal of Roe v. Wade would actually be of some political benefit to the Democratic Party by moving the abortion debate to the state level. Such a change in focus would let local Democrats take sides in accordance with what their state voters want--for example, no abortion in Louisiana, but abortion on demand in Massachusetts--without necessarily tying the national candidate to one position on abortion. The Democrats could then return to their traditional states' rights posture.

Maier writes eloquently about the ease with which his wife, a life-long Democrat with deep roots in an activist Democratic family, and many other Democrats voted Republican in this election. That ease centers on the Democrats' adamant refusal to protect the unborn.

Unfortunately, I predict that the Democrats will not change their stand on abortion. As I said before, the best that the Democratic Party can hope for--if it had sense enough to recognize it-- is to have a new Bush Supreme Court "de-federalize" the abortion issue and make it again a state issue.

But even that won't be enough to save the Democratic Party in the long run. For if and when Roe v. Wade is reversed, pro-lifers will push even more for a federal Human Life Amendment that the Democrats will dutifully oppose.

In other words, the Democrats will be in the same posture on abortion as they are on gay marriage. They will oppose the federal constitutional amendments that definitively protect life and protect marriage. In the long run, the Democrats will manage to stay on the wrong side of the abortion issue.

Catholics make up 29 percent of 109th Congress

29 percent! Can you image if they all voted as faithful Catholics, each of them guided by their individual conscience as formed by the teachings of the Church, of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself?

Take note of the men and women below. They all call themselves Catholic, yet many do little to bridge their Catholic faith with their role as legislators. Pray for them! Pray to St Thomas More, the patron saint of statesmen and politicians, that they, like he before them, will follow "the path of truth at a time in history when difficult challenges and crucial responsibilities are increasing." (John Paul II, 31 Oct 2000)

Here are the Catholics in the 109th Congress:

Senate Republicans: Sam Brownback, Kansas; James Bunning, Kentucky; Susan Collins, Maine; Michael DeWine, Ohio; Peter Domenici, New Mexico; Mel Martinez, Florida; Lisa Murkowski, Alaska; Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania; John Sununu, New Hampshire; David Vitter, Louisiana; George Voinovich, Ohio.

Senate Democrats: Maria Cantwell, Washington; Joe Biden, Delaware; Chris Dodd, Connecticut; Richard Durbin, Illinois; Tom Harkin, Iowa; Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts; John Kerry, Massachusetts; Mary Landrieu, Louisiana; Pat Leahy, Vermont; Barbara Mikulski, Maryland; Patty Murray, Washington; Jack Reed, Rhode Island; Ken Salazar, Colorado.

House Republicans: Bob Beauprez, Colorado; Sherry Boehlert, New York; John Boehner, Ohio; Kevin Brady, Texas; Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida; David Camp, Michigan; Mike Castle, Delaware; Steve Chabot, Ohio; Chris Cox, California; Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Florida; Mario Diaz-Balart, Florida; Phil English, Pennsylvania; Michael Ferguson, New Jersey; Mike Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania; Mark Foley, Florida; Jeff Fortenberry, Nebraska; Luis Fortuno, Puerto Rico; Vito Fossella, New York; Virginia Foxx, North Carolina; Phil Gingrey, Georgia; Gil Gutknecht, Minnesota; Mark Green, Wisconsin; Melissa Hart, Pennsylvania; Kenny Hulshof, Missouri; Henry Hyde, Illinois.

Also, Walter Jones Jr., North Carolina; Bobby Jindal, Louisiana; Mark Kennedy, Minnesota; Peter King, New York; Steve King, Iowa; Joe Knollenberg, Michigan; Ray LaHood, Illinois, Frank LoBiondo, New Jersey; Dan Lungren, California; Connie Mack, Florida; Michael McCaul, Texas; Thaddeus McCotter, Michigan; Patrick McHenry, North Carolina; John McHugh, New York; Timothy Murphy, Pennsylvania; Bob Ney, Ohio; Anne Northup, Kentucky; Devin Nunes, California; Butch Otter, Idaho; Richard Pombo, California; Jon Porter, Nevada; George Radanovich, California; Rick Renzi, Arizona; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida; Ed Royce, California; Paul Ryan, Wisconsin; Joe Schwarz, Michigan; Clay Shaw, Florida; Chris Smith, New Jersey; John Sullivan, Oklahoma; John Sweeney, New York; Patrick Tiberi, Ohio; and James Walsh, New York.

House Democrats: Joe Baca, California; Xavier Becerra, California; Timothy Bishop, New York; Madeleine Bordallo, Guam; Robert Brady, Pennsylvania; Mike Capuano, Massachusetts; Dennis Cardoza, California; William Clay, Missouri; Jim Costa, California; Jerry Costello, Illinois; Joe Crowley, New York; Henry Cuellar, Texas; Peter DeFazio, Oregon; Bill Delahunt, Massachusetts; Rosa DeLauro, Connecticut; John Dingell, Michigan; Mike Doyle, Pennsylvania; Anna Eshoo, California; Lane Evans, Illinois; Charlie Gonzalez, Texas; Raul Grijalva, Arizona; Luis Gutierrez, Illinois; Brian Higgens, New York; Maurice Hinchey, New York; Ruben Hinojosa, Texas; Tim Holden, Pennsylvania; Paul Kanjorski, Pennsylvania.

Also, Marcy Kaptur, Ohio; Patrick Kennedy, Rhode Island; Dale Kildee, Michigan; Dennis Kucinich, Ohio; James Langevin, Rhode Island; John Larson, Connecticut; Dan Lipinski, Illinois; Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts; Ed Markey, Massachusetts; Jim Marshall, Georgia; Carolyn McCarthy, New York; Betty McCollum, Michigan; James McGovern, Massachusetts; Mike McNulty, New York; Cynthia McKinny, Georgia; Marty Meehan, Massachusetts; Robert Menendez, New Jersey; Michael Michaud, Maine; George Miller, California; James Moran, Virginia; John Murtha, Pennsylvania.

Also, Grace Napolitano, California; Richard Neal, Massachusetts; James Oberstar, Minnesota; David Obey, Wisconsin; Frank Pallone, New Jersey; Bill Pascrell, New Jersey; Ed Pastor, Arizona; Nancy Pelosi, California; Charlie Rangel, New York; Silvestre Reyes, Texas; Lucille Roybal-Allard, California; Tim Ryan, Ohio; John Salazar, Colorado; Linda Sanchez, California; Loretta Sanchez, California; Jose Serrano, New York; Hilda Solis, California; Bart Stupak, Michigan; Ellen Tauscher, California; Gene Taylor, Mississippi; Mike Thompson, California; Nydia Velazquez, New York; Peter Visclosky, Indiana; and Diane Watson, California.

Extreme Catholic Looks Back at a Prince of the Church

Patric Sweeney of Extreme Catholic welcomes Catholics in the Public Square, and revisits a bit of history, namely, the late archbishop of New York John Cardinal O'Connor's tangle with vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro. According to Sweeney this was the first time a Catholic Bishop publicly criticized a "pro-choice" American Catholic candidate on the issue of abortion, challenging her distinction between her private opposition to abortion as a Catholic and her "pro-choice" stance as a legislator:

She was a two-term Congresswoman from my district in Queens, New York where she had run as a Catholic. She had a famous showdown with Cardinal O'Connor. As far I know it was the first shock -- the first time a bishop was openly critical of the politician's position on life -- in public and by name. . . . A few months after the Ferraro/Cardinal O'Connor war of words, Governor Mario Cuomo would go to the university of Norte Dame and declare the Catholics of the Democratic Party to be in heresy via the personally opposed, publicly support position. I didn't it know it at the time but for the Democratic Party which I belonged to at the time, this was the point of no return.

Ms. Ferraro did some stumping for the Senator during the 2004 Kerry/Edwards campaign, briefly making the news when she urged a crowd "to elect John Kennedy as president" at a Mom's For Kerry rally in Frick Park, Pittsburgh.

Michael S. Rose offers a moving tribute to O'Connnor in the St. Catherine Review, which mentions numerous occasions on which O'Connnor invited public controversy by speaking out against the moral vices plaguing our society and defending the weakest among us:

Cardinal O'Connor was probably most well-known for his defense of the unborn and his compassion for pregnant mothers in need. Even after suffering through brain surgery, he delivered a homily in January reiterating his commitment to assist mothers contemplating abortion. He said: "It's a promise I made years ago, that anyone threatened with the possibility of an abortion can turn to the Archdiocese of New York, or personally to me and we'll do everything possible to support the mother and the birth of her baby."

When Bill Clinton vetoed legislation that would ban the partial-birth abortion procedure, Cardinal O'Connor urged Catholics to return to the traditional practice of not eating meat on Fridays in reparation for such barbaric acts.

He provoked a firestorm when he publicly opposed the pro-abortion views of prominent Catholic politicians such as Governor Mario Cuomo and former Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. Both said they opposed abortion personally, but believed women had the "right to choose." The cardinal responded by writing in 1990 that Catholics who opposed the Church's teachings on abortion by "advocating legislation supporting abortion, or by making public funds available for abortion…must be warned that they are at a risk of excommunication."

Cardinal O'Connor was especially vocal in his opposition to President Clinton, speaking out from the pulpit of St. Patrick's Cathedral to denounce President Clinton's support of partial birth abortion. According to Rose, Cardinal O'Connor

". . . had a long-standing order to keep Bill Clinton out of St. Patrick's Cathedral, no matter how important the occasion. In the days following the 1996 crash of a TWA flight near New York, Mayor Giuliani organized a memorial service for the victims' families at JFK Airport. Cardinal O'Connor was set to officiate until he was informed that Clinton planned to attend. "If Clinton is coming, you can count me out," the cardinal told Giuliani, citing the President's disregard for the sanctity of life. . . .

In the actions of an increasing number of bishops today -- Archbishop Chaput of Denver, Bishop Burke of St. Louis, Bishop Gettelfinger of Evansville, among others -- we see a reminder of the influence and example of Cardinal John O'Connor. Thanks to Patrick Sweeney for a look back.

• CNN: Cardinal John O'Connor (1920 - 2000)
  
• Abortion Questions and Answers, an expanded version of the Cardinal's newspaper column on the subject of abortion.
  

Attorney General First, Supreme Court Justice Later?

The NYT has a piece pointing out the supposed GOP strategy in getting Alberto Gonzales appointed to the Supreme Court:

Republicans close to the White House said on Thursday that the choice of Alberto R. Gonzales as attorney general was part of a political strategy to bolster Mr. Gonzales credentials with conservatives and position him for a possible Supreme Court appointment.

These Republicans said Mr. Gonzales had been widely viewed as one of President Bush's top choices for the court. But by first sending him to the Justice Department, they said, Mr. Bush could then nominate a conservative favored by his political base to fill the first vacancy that arises.

For Mr. Gonzales, tenure as attorney general would allow him to demonstrate his reliability to conservative leaders, many of whom say they are unsure of his views on issues like abortion and affirmative action, Republicans said.

I can appreciate this strategy and will reserve judgment on Mr Gonzales's potential nomination to the SCOTUS when and if it happens. Let us hope and pray that this man's true beliefs and judicial philosophy are what we need them to be in continuing to advance a culture of life and protecting marriage in America.

Don't Let Slippery Specter Off the Hook!

"Conservative opposition to Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) becoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee has mushroomed, to the dismay of Senate leaders who hoped it would fade," Alexander Bolton writes in yesterday's issue of The Hill.

As pressure mounts on the Senate leaders and other key Republican Senators in the wake of Specter's arrogant challenge to Pres. George Bush, artful dodger Arlen tries desperately to spin his way off the hook, most recently in a self-serving fantasy in yesterday's Wall Street Journal.

But it will take far more than touted endorsements by GOP groupies like Rush Limbaugh and the Reverend Pat Robertson to fool the faithful, whose first allegiance, after all, is not to the Republican Party or even to our esteemed President, but to the moral principles for which he was returned to office.

As Bolton observes, while some Republican strategists thought (hoped?) the controversy would die down, it has gained momentum, as The Hill headline "Tide Runs Against Specter" indicates.

Conservative leaders such as James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, criticized Specter, as did House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL).

Frist, Santorum and other Republicans reported that their telephones, fax machines and e-mail inboxes were jammed by protests from conservative activists who demanded that Specter not be allowed to succeed term-limited Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT). "This is huge with the base. It's mushrooming, and it's not going away," a GOP Senate aide said.

"Specter is clearly under siege," United Press International declares, adding, "his comments have resulted in a flurry of condemnation from conservative Republicans, despite efforts to backtrack."

And what is not being said may be even more significant. For while Specter clings like a drowning man to a few perfunctory words from wordsmith Karl Rove, Pres. Bush "is withholding serious backing," as James Ridgeway reports in today's Village Voice.

"GOP aides and conservative leaders outside Congress said that Senate Republicans have not 'circled their wagons' to defend Specter," notes Bolton, pointing out that Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) "has been silent."

One GOP aide estimated that nearly 20 conservative groups are involved in the campaign to deny Specter the Judiciary Committee chairmanship.

In defending himself, Specter has been mostly alone, making several media appearances to tamp down the conservative uproar.

"I have not heard of any Republican senators coming to his defense yet, which is good news for us," said Jayd Henricks, director of congressional relations for the Family Research Council, another conservative group hoping to oust Specter. "This is not a good thing for keeping party unity. They may be waiting to see if the storm dies down, but I don' think the pressure's going to let up, from our standpoint."

And that is where you come into play. Don't let slippery Spector off the hook lest this political piranha devour any chance for overturning Roe v. Wade as he lusts to do. Of that, there can be no doubt.

Honor Our Heroes: Veterans Day 2004

As Catholics in the public square, we join our President in honoring our nation's veterans for their sacrifice and service.

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

Americans live in freedom because of our veterans' courage,
dedication to duty, and love of country. On Veterans Day,
we honor these brave men and women who have served
in our Armed Forces and defended our Nation.
–Pres. George W. Bush, Veterans Day 2004 Proclamation
In tribute to our veterans, living and dead . . .

The Sword of Bunker Hill
He lay upon his dying bed;
His eye was growing dim,
When with a feeble voice he call'd
His weeping son to him:

"Weep not. my boy," the vet'ran said.
"I bow to Heav'n's high will—
But quickly from yon antlers bring
The Sword of Bunker Hill."

The sword was bro't, the soldier's eye
Lit with a sudden flame;
And, as he grasped the ancient blade,
He murmured Warren's name:

Then said, "My boy, I leave you gold—
But what is richer still,
I leave you, mark me, mark me now—
The Sword of Bunker Hill.

"'Twas on that dread immortal day,
I dared the Briton's band,
Then captain raised this blade on me—
I tore it from his hand;

And while the glorious battle raged,
It lightened freedom's will—
For boy, the God of freedom blessed
The Sword of Bunker Hill.

"Oh, keep the sword!"—his accents broke—
A smile—and he was dead!
His wrinkled hand still grasped the blade,
Upon that dying bed.

The son remains; the sword remains—
Its glory growing still—
And twenty millions bless the sire
And Sword of Bunker Hill.

("The Sword of Bunker Hill," W. R. Wallance and B. Covert, in Heart Songs: Melodies of Days Gone By, Chapple Publishing Company, Boston, MA, 1909)