Liberty and Justice for All A Few

From the pages of Life Matters! . . .

by Pamela F. Hennessy
Contributing Editor, Life Matters!

Who has the right to decide who lives and dies? Apparently, America's courts feel fit to take on the conundrum.

This week, the United States Supreme Court vacated a stay that blocked the execution of serial killer Michael Ross. This effectively removes the obstacles between the convicted killer and his own date with death.

Michael Ross, by his own acknowledgment, killed eight women in Connecticut and New York, and had been scheduled to die by lethal injection the previous Wednesday. Because of the ongoing legal battle, the Department of Corrections postponed the execution twice. It is now scheduled for January 29, 2005.

The reason this country's highest court was asked to consider this particular case is because Ross wants to die. You read that right.

Michael Ross recently dismissed his defense attorney and accepted his fate, stating he was ready to die. However, a District Court Judge, Robert Chatigny, imposed a stay of Ross' execution so that his mental competency could be determined—a necessary protection of Ross' rights. The case made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court and they dutifully agreed to hear it.

The outcome, however, was not to the liking of those seeking to protect Ross' life.

Public Defender Gerard Smyth told the press: "We are certainly disappointed the Supreme Court has decided Mr. Ross can be put to death without a thorough investigation of his mental capacity."

Robert Nave with Amnesty International also seemed disappointed with the decision. He openly puzzled: "We don't understand why the court would refuse to give adequate time to look at Michael Ross' competency in a full and fair manner."

I can understand his disenchantment.

Though the Supreme Court did not produce the answer that Ross' advocates were seeking, they did consider the case. In that same week, the Court was also to decide whether or not to hear the case of Schiavo v. Bush. This was the case that pitted Florida's Governor, Jeb Bush, against the husband of an incapacitated Florida woman, Terri Schiavo. "Terri's Law" was the law that enabled Bush to protect Ms. Schiavo from having a gastric feeding tube removed—an action that would cause her death by dehydration and starvation over the course of many days.

Ms. Schiavo is a brain-injured woman whose right to live or die has been the subject of a years-long and fiery court battle. Her estranged husband has sought to remove her assisted feeding and hydration so that she dies. Her parents have asked the courts for permission to act as her guardians and provide her the necessary care so that she may live. Her true medical condition and wishes are matters of great dispute and mystery.

The circuit court (specifically, Judge George Greer) found that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state even though evidence established her condition to be that of a responsive and aware person. The court also found that Terri would not want to live incapacitated even though the only supporting evidence offered was hearsay testimony of alleged casual remarks.

In October 2003, Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed by court order. While hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the hospice where this was happening, more than 180,000 others signed a petition to Governor Jeb Bush to take action. Petitioners cited the failure of the courts to enforce Florida's guardianship laws that protect vulnerable people like Terri Schiavo and the fact that Terri Schiavo did not meet the state's statutory definition of Persistent Vegetative State—a prerequisite for this type of action.

After nearly a week without food and water, Florida lawmakers passed House Bill 35-E into law and Ms. Schiavo's enteral nourishment was resumed.

This immediately sparked legal action by her husband, Michael Schiavo. Schiavo sued Governor Bush over the constitutionality of Terri's Law, stating that it encroached upon his wife's right to privacy and that it was a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

Governor Bush and his counsel, Attorney Kenneth Connor, asked the courts for discovery, jury trial and the ability to take depositions and testimony. They were not only denied those fundamental rights, they were handed a summary judgment by circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird that ruled Terri's Law to be unconstitutional. Judge Baird issued this ruling without hearing the first word of testimony or reviewing the first piece of evidence.

In the United States, laws are considered constitutional unless proven otherwise. Since the burden of proof would rightly be on Mr. Schiavo and, since the Governor was denied the opportunity to present his case, the actions of the circuit court seem hasty and appreciably contrary to law. The matter passed through the court of appeals and on to Florida's Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Florida Supreme Court sided with Mr. Schiavo and determined that Terri's Law was unconstitutional.

The Governor took his case to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that both he and Terri Schiavo were denied federally protected due process rights. The US Supreme Court receives hundreds of petitions every year and accepts consideration of a very small fraction of them. The case of Schiavo v. Bush was not to be one of those cases.

The United States Supreme Court rejected the case without so much as an opinion, thus ending any hope of Governor Bush protecting the life of one of Florida's vulnerable citizens. For the moment, Terri Schiavo's life goes on but the stays protecting her are prone to evaporate just as Terri's Law has.

Compare, if you will, Michael Ross and Terri Schiavo:

• One is an admitted and convicted serial killer. The other is an innocent and vulnerable person.

• One has chosen to accept his punishment and is willing to face death. The other cannot speak for herself and cannot make her choices clearly known.

• One has been given the ultimate protection of law. The other has been abandoned by the system.

• One is still considered a living, breathing human being who is entitled to equal protection. The other has been long discarded by the courts.

In the United States, we afford even the most diabolical of criminals due process and evenhandedness because we are a civilized and just society. Anything less would be tyranny. Why is it, then, that we deny the same protections to those of us who have become disabled or dependent?

When I hear of cases like these, I cannot help but wonder if the real criminals are the ones in the black robes. It is long past time for our lawmakers to enact measures that will protect vulnerable Americans and it is long past time for our courts to remember who the innocents are.

Editor's Note:

Pamela Hennessy, a marketing and media executive in Florida, has served as a volunteer for the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation since November 2002.

Specter Watch

The Thing Is has a post on Sen Specter keeping his word, so far, on judicial nominees.

Gospel Fallacy

A few days after the Democrats' November defeat, Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings suggested that the party needed a "come to Jesus" moment.

His colleagues seem to have taken him literally. Former Indiana Representative Tim Roemer, who is running for chairman of the Democratic Party, could be heard arguing that "Jesus talks more about the concern for the poor" than he talks about gays and abortions." [Source]

So this is who the Democrat's tout as being pro-life. Somebody who can not properly order the preferential treatment of the poor with abortion. I guess it is no surprise that politician are not apt theologians, but to use the argument of what Jesus mentions in the Gospels as how to order a legislative agenda shows a deep misunderstanding. To go by this standard they would have to drop incest, rape, minimum wage laws since they didn't warrant Gospel mentions either. If Roemer does become DNC chair it will probably be much like pro-life Harry Reid whose first act as Minority leader was to rip Justice Thomas, one of the few pro-life judges on the court.

Brownback to the World Bank?

But what about Brownback in '08?

Will End of Terri's Law Mean End of Terri's Life?

As my co-editor Christopher Blosser notes in a comment below, "Fr. Johansen (Thrownback) explains why we shouldn't give up hope" of saving Terri Schindler-Schiavo's life." CURE believes we should never give up hope, and I believe our readers here will find Fr. Johansen's report of interest. We'll keep you posted, since Terri is certainly a "Catholic in the Public Square" as well as in the judicial crosshairs of our killer courts. –Earl Appleby, Jr., Director, Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE)

From the pages of Life Matters . . .

As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrownback:

As many of you already no doubt know, [Monday] the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it would not hear Florida governor Jeb Bush's appeal on behalf of Terri's Law, the law which enabled him to intervene to save Terri's life.

This is without doubt a setback for the Schindlers, and this pretty well spells the end for Terri's Law. I can't say I'm very surprised, as I always thought it was unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would involve itself in a question regarding Florida state law.

While the decision is a setback and disappointment, this is not the end of the road. It's not time to start panicking yet.

As the Schindlers point out at Terri's Fight, there are still other matters pending in the courts which could be the means of saving Terri's life.

There are three cases pending:

1. A petition pending in the Second District Court of Appeals in Lakeland, FL, regarding Terri's right to the free exercise of her religion, rights which the Schindler's attorneys believe have been violated.
   


2. On Friday, January 28, in the Probate Court in Clearwater, FL, Judge Greer will hear the Schindler's motion to protect their daughter's due process rights.
   


3. A petition is before Judge Greer to remove Michael as Terri's guardian and to replace him with Terri's brother and sister, Bobby Jr. and Suzanne. They believe that Michael's numerous conflicts of interest with his ward, Terri, disqualify him from continuing as her guardian.

So we need to keep praying (especially about the hearing on Friday), and keep fighting!

I've been trying to reach the Schindlers since [Monday] afternoon, but they've been swamped with calls and e-mails so I haven't spoken to them yet. As soon as I talk to them and have more information, I'll post an update.

Editor's Note:

Any updates posted by Fr. Johansen will be crossposted on Life Matters! as customary. Further information, as always, can be found at the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation, which featured in our right nav bar under "Life Lines" and which we urge our readers to visit regularly for the latest developments.

Scalia to judges: Use history, tradition to interpret religious issues

Another article on Justice Scalia.

Scalia, 68, said judges use what he called "abstractions" -- or judicial tests -- to interpret religious cases when they should be looking to the text of the Constitution itself.

"The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say," he said.

An "originalist," Scalia has said that the Constitution means the same thing now as when it was first drafted. He rejects the notion that judges should be mindful of a "living" Constitution that is interpreted differently in changing times.

Scalia said judges should rely on long-accepted practices and customs when considering a variety of religious issues, from giving tax exemptions to religious institutions to deciding if a member of the military can wear religious apparel.

"Tradition and historical practice is stronger" than tests created by the Supreme Court to decide establishment clause and free-exercise clause cases, he said.

Subsidiarity is Conservative

One of the distinctive contributions of Catholic social teaching is the principle of subsidiarity. According to the Catechism, subsidiarity means that "neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies" (CCC, 1894). If we focus on subsidiarity, the political world looks quite different from the perspective of many liberal Catholics who still embrace the Democratic Party. This difference is due to the fact that subsidiarity is a politically conservative principle.

The liberal distaste for subsidiarity--for local decision-making--is rooted in the elitism that permeates so much of American liberalism. It is an elitism on full display in certain high status college campuses. In one book on the Bush White House, the author quotes George W. Bush on his philosophy of government: "My philosophy trusts individuals to make the right decisions for their families and communities, and that is far more compassionate than a philosophy that seeks solutions from distant bureaucracies" (Ronald Kessler, A Matter of Character [Penguin, 2004], p. 58).

It seems that Bush's embrace of subsidiarity is rooted in his dislike of the elitism he saw at Yale:

"What angered me was the way such people at Yale felt so intellectually superior and so righteous . . . . They thought they had all the answers. They thought they could create a government that could solve all our problems for us." . . . . There's a "west Texas populist streak in me, and it irritates me when these people come out to Midland [Texas] and look at my friends with just the utmost disdain," Bush said. He wanted to "get away from the snobs."

Kessler, p. 31.

So here is the conservative President hated by so many liberal Catholics espousing what, in my view, is the central principle of Catholic social teaching. At this point, some might say, "Hold on. What about the Church's preferential option for the poor?" Good question. Subsidiarity is based on man's dignity as free and rational and seeks to make full use of those divinely ordained traits (see CCC 1884). Subsidiarity aims at the common good. To have a preferential option for the poor means seeking to aid the poor in the best way possible. Aiding the poor by respecting their human dignity and by being close enough to know what the poor really need and want is what subsidiarity contributes to implementing the preferential option for the poor. The Church speaks of a personal love and compassion for the poor--you cannot deliver personal love and compassion while distant from and ignorant of the lives and needs of the poor (see CCC 2447-48). The preferential option for the poor must also include the call to conversion as part of helping the poor (see CCC 1888)-- a facet exhibited by Bush's savagely mocked faith-based initiatives.

If we look closely, as George Weigel has pointed out, it seems that the conservatives are the ones most in tune with the Church's social teaching. Just consider who favors and who opposes school vouchers for the poor--a paramount issue of subsidiarity. This political reality will surprise many and anger many.

Supreme Court Abandons Terri to Judicial Murder

From the pages of Life Matters!. . .

The essence of civilization is this: The strong have a duty to protect the weak. We know that in a culture that does not protect the most dependent, the handicapped, the elderly, the unloved, or simply inconvenient become increasingly vulnerable. –President George W. Bush

The President's ringing defense of innocent human life rallied defenders of life from across the nation who braved the biting cold to March for Life in our nation's capital, but his message fell on deaf ears at the United States Supreme Court, the traditional end of the annual march's route.

Indeed on the very day that more than 100,000 Americans marched in defense of innocent life, the nine justices of the High Court folded their Pontius Pilate hands to pass a virtual death sentence on Terri Schindler-Schiavo, who is innocent of any crime save, perhaps, having a disability in a TAB (temporarily able bodied) tyranny.

As John-Thor Dalbujrg and David Savage report in today's Los Angeles Times:

The justices dismissed without comment Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's claim that he had the power and responsibility to keep Schiavo alive after a state judge authorized removal of the tube through which she receives food and water.

The governor was appealing a September decision by Florida's Supreme Court that found "Terri's Law" -- a measure passed by the state Legislature that gave Bush the one-time power to order the tube reinstated—violated the separation of powers.

The refusal clears the way for Terri's adulterous husband "to have her feeding tube unhooked by a state court order"—in other words, to starve her to death.

The Schindler family, who have heroically defended Terri throughout the ordeal to which Michael Schiavo and his judicial accomplices have subjected her, mounted the podium at the March for Life to implore pro-life America to join them in defending Terri from her impending murder.

"It's judicial homicide. They want to murder her," Robert Schindler, Schiavo's father, told reporters Monday. "I have no idea what the next step will be. We are going to fight for her as much as we can fight for her. She deserves a chance."

Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE) was founded on the premise that every innocent life deserves a chance and that, accordingly, euthanasia must be vigorously combated without compromise or exception. Accordingly, we join the Schindlers and Terri's many friends in urging you to visit the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation to see how you can act to defend her life.

Read, pray, and act—today and tomorrow! God bless the Schindlers! God bless Terri! And may God bless you for caring.

Bush's Second Term, Abortion and the Road Ahead

President Bush addressed the March for Life attendees today "by telephone from Camp David, sending his support without attending the event, just as Republican presidents have done each year since Ronald Reagan entered office." (New York Times January 25, 2005).

You can read the full transcription of his call on the White House's website. Speaking to rally organizer Nellie Gray, President Bush recalled pro-life legislative advancements made during his first term in office, and acknowledged the great amount of work yet to be done:

The America of our dreams, where every child is welcomed in law -- in life, and protected in law may still be some ways away, but even from the far side of the river, Nellie, we can see its glimmerings. (Applause.) We're making progress in Washington. I've been working with members of the Congress to pass good, solid legislation that protects the vulnerable and promotes the culture of life. I signed into law a ban on partial birth abortion. (Applause.) Infants who are born despite an attempted abortion are now protected by law. (Applause.) So are nurses and doctors who refused to be any part of an abortion. (Applause.) And prosecutors can now charge those who harm or kill a pregnant woman with harming or killing her unborn child. (Applause.)

Some liberal critics of President Bush have interpreted his comment that an end to abortion "may still be some ways away" as a sign of insincerity, alleging that the President was never really genuine in his pro-life campaign promises during the presidential election. (Jcecil3 apparently is of this opinion).

However, the Bush administration and fellow Republicans can hardly be charged as being complacent on abortion during Bush's first term in office. We should also remember that Kerry opposed (and voted against) much of the pro-life legislation Bush cited in his phone-call, and continued federal support of crisis pregnancy centers and abstinence programs probably would not have fared well had Kerry been elected. (Kerry would have also repealed the Mexico City Policy, withholding federal funds to NGO's that promote or provide abortions overseas).

Whatever Bush's shortcomings (and yes, I won't dispute that there have been disappointements), I for one am relieved that we have a President in the White House that pro-lifers can work with, rather than a "pro-choice Catholic" in league with Planned Parenthood and NARAL, persistently at odds with his Church, and utterly opposed to the pro-life movement.

Perhaps something we can all agree on is President Bush's reminder that legislation alone cannot be treated as a panacea, but rather

. . . a true culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws. We need, most of all, to change hearts. And that is what we're doing, seeking common ground where possible, and persuading increasing numbers of our fellow citizens of the rightness of our cause.

The legislative accomplishments that we have seen already -- such as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act -- together with the emergence of public awareness campaigns like BlackGenocide.Org, SilentNoMore, can I believe be taken as an indication that Americans are changing, that they are coming a greater awareness of the humanity of the unborn, and the true horror that is abortion. We can pray that such conversions of American hearts will continue.

• Further discussion at Amy Welborn's Open Book
  
• "Bush backs proposed pro-life bills" Washington Times January 25, 2005.
  

Cardinal Denies Sanctioning Sash Sacrileges

As posted by my fellow pundit Barbara Kralis on Fidelis . . .

Cardinal Arinze denies he approved a U.S. archbishop giving sash-wearing "gays" Holy Communion

During the past five years, on the Catholic Church's most holy day, Pentecost Sunday,(1) openly "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender" persons wearing rainbow-colored sashes have gathered in large groups inside several U.S. cathedrals to protest the Church's teachings and divine laws against sodomy.

Scandalized and sorrow-filled faithful sit watchfully in the pews as sash-wearing persons whose acts are "intrinsically disordered"(2) walk arm and arm down the aisles in an attempt to receive the Holy Eucharist. While almost all U.S. Bishops have denied these protestors Holy Communion, it is known that four bishops continue to give them the Eucharist. Thus the scandal of a few continues to inflict disunity on the Church.

On December 14, 2004, Catholic News Service (CNS) published an article entitled "Archbishop speaks to Vatican Officials about Rainbow Sash protests." CNS is owned and operated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). CNS quotes Archbishop Harry Flynn of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

Archbishop Flynn said that while in Rome during his December 2004 ad limina meeting,(3) he privately discussed whether sash-wearing "gays" should be allowed to receive Communion with His Eminence Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. He told CNS that after speaking to Cardinal Arinze, he was not asked to change his policy of giving the Eucharist to sash-wearing homosexual activists. He said he received no sense that the Vatican was pushing for a single policy on this matter.

"I got the clear understanding that this is recognized as a very complex pastoral issue which must constantly be looked at in all its ramifications," CNS quoted Archbishop Flynn as saying.

There was encouragement to keep on teaching and also to be aware of the forces everywhere, including the United States, that are against the long tradition of the teachings of the Church.

Archbishop Flynn added, "Sometimes we don't come to the same conclusion about how to handle it."

In a letter to this writer, dated January 15, 2005, Cardinal Arinze has refuted the statements given by Archbishop Flynn. Cardinal Arinze's secretary wrote:

Dear Ms. Kralis,

His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Arinze, asks me to thank you for your communication regarding a news release from the Catholic News Service dated December 14, 2004. It concerns the Cardinal's private discussion with the Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis, His Excellency Archbishop Harry J. Flynn.

Cardinal Arinze wants you to know that the report was not exact and does not show his stand. He has written Archbishop Flynn about it.

Rainbow Sash wearers, the Cardinal says, are showing their opposition to Church teaching on a major issue of natural law and so disqualify themselves from being given Holy Communion.

I wish you a happy New Year.

Sincerely,

Does this indicate that the Catholic faithful in the Archdiocese of St. Paul will suffer scandal once more on Pentecost Sunday 2005?

Recently, the Rainbow Sash Movement issued a nationwide call for others who oppose the Church's teachings on sodomy to join them on May 15, 2005 by wearing the Rainbow Sash in a parish or a cathedral. Will Cardinal Mahony, Los Angeles, and Bishops Clark, Rochester; Flynn, St. Paul/Minneapolis; and Gumbleton, Detroit; once again give the sash-wearing sodomites Holy Communion in open dissent from Church teaching?

The Church's teaching and divine law are so well defined on the matter of sacrilegious reception of Communion that virtually all U.S. Bishops have dutifully denied these manifestly sinful persons the Eucharist. As stated in the Code of Canon Law, c. 915, they are not to receive the Eucharist.(4)

In fact, the decision of the USCCB to deny the Eucharist to groups of militant "gay" protesters at Masses during their plenary meetings was a precedent set by Cardinal James A. Hickey, Archbishop of Washington, DC, at a Mass in St. Matthew's Cathedral in 2000.

It is well to note that the Rainbow Sashers did not wear their sashes to the 2004 Pentecost Sunday Mass at Cardinal Mahony's cathedral as a way of saying "thank you" for his warm reception in years past. Cardinal Mahony has notified the Rainbow Sash Movement that the Los Angeles Cathedral will welcome their members as part of the Catholic family and that when they present themselves for Communion, they will receive it. (5)

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual acts committed by "gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders" to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan. Such acts go against the natural moral law and "close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."(6)

Let us pray that the munus episcopale or office of the bishops or episcopes (overseers) will guard the truth that has been entrusted to them by the Holy Spirit and bring all souls to God, no matter the cost, even persecution and death. (2 Tim 1:14)

"It was at Antioch [where Ignatius was bishop] that the disciples were called Christians for the first time." (Acts 11:26) St. Ignatius taught:

The Bishop holds the supreme office in the community not by his own efforts or merits, nor by men's doing, nor for personal glory. No, he holds it through the love of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.(7)

Endnotes:

1. Seventh Sunday after Easter, Whitsunday; an important solemn Holy Feast honoring the visible descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles. It honors the establishment of the Church founded by our Lord on St. Peter. It occurs 50 days after Easter; the priest's vestments are red signifying the Holy Spirit and the tongues of fire. The coming of the Holy Spirit on this Feast is the complement of the Redemption, and the Spirit of God comes into the hearts of men.
2. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357-2359.
3. The obligation incumbent on certain members of the hierarchy of visiting, at stated times, the "thresholds of the Apostles," Sts. Peter and Paul, and of presenting themselves before the pope to give an account of the state of their dioceses. The object of the visit is not merely to make a pilgrimage to the tombs of the apostles, but, above all, to show the proper reverence for the Successor of St. Peter, to acknowledge practically his universal jurisdiction by giving an account of the condition of particular churches, to receive his admonitions and counsels, and thus bind more closely the members of the Church to its Divinely appointed head. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912)
4. Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. (Code of Canon Law, c. 915)
5. Rainbow Sash Movement PR Newswire Press Release, May 27, 2004.
6. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to be Given Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, §4; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357.
7. St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Philadelphians.

Pro-abortion Catholics in Congress

American Life League is on the case. You can find their new ad here and a full listing with reasons why these 72 Catholics are on this list here.

Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus on "communio" & respect for the Eucharist

As for the controversy about pro-abortion Catholic politicians receiving Communion, we must hope that the discussion started will continue. This is not just about pro-abortion politicians. It engages the much deeper question of the connection between "communion" and receiving Communion.

To be rightly disposed to receive the Eucharist is to be in communion with the Church, which includes faithful adherence to the Church's magisterial teaching. Especially in America where there is a multitude of Christian denominations, many Catholics have assumed the Protestant attitude that the local parish is simply their religion of choice.

The parish is the local franchise of the Catholic Church, much as they might patronize the local franchise of McDonald's. It is further assumed that everybody has a "right" to receive Communion, just as everybody has a right to purchase a Big Mac.

Obviously, this is a severe debasement of "communion" and Communion. In the Eucharist, we receive Christ and Christ receives us, incorporating us into his body the Church, which is, most fully and rightly ordered through time, the People of God in communion with bishops who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

To be rightly disposed entails confessing whatever in our lives contradicts or compromises that "communion" with Christ and his Church and then receiving absolution. Sadly, the sacrament of reconciliation has fallen almost into desuetude in many places, and certainly not only in the United States.

One, therefore, must hope that the election-year controversy over pro-abortion politicians will lead to a much more comprehensive renewal of Catholic understanding and practice with respect to authentic "communio."

Excerpt from Zenit's interview w. Fr. Neuhaus "On the Eucharist and Its Relationship to "Communio" January 23, 2005.

Questions for further reflection and discussion:

• To what extent have American Catholics understood the communion controversy in its proper light -- that is to say, a question of the individual's relationship with the Church and "in faithful adherence to the Church's magisterial teaching"?
  
• To what extent do American Catholics retain a distinctly Protestant attitude toward communion and their role in the Church? -- Exemplified, I think, by Senator Kerry during the presidential election: hopping from one denomination to the next, receiving communion from Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and appearing oblivious to the underlying meaning and implications of his doing so.
  
• How have the Bishops performed in taking the communion controversy of last year to educate Catholics in their diocese about the meaning of (and respect for) the Eucharist as a sign of one's communion with the Church?
  

Remembering Roe v. Wade

• A First-Hand Account of What Goes on Inside a Chula Vista Abortion Clinic, San Diego News Notes January 2005.
  

  Via Amy Welborn.
  

• Barbara Nicolosi reflects on what might have been in "Owning January 22":
  Before they could save anyone, the scientists who were supposed to cure AIDs and cancer and Parkinsons and Alzheimers, had their skin flayed off with our burning saline solution.
  

  We lost countless "alternate sources of energy when the genius who was going to free us from the tyranny of the combustion engine, had his ideas sucked into a vacuum along with his tiny body.
  

  The greatest soprano of human history never got past the silent scream as we pulled her arms and legs off one at a time and reassembled them on a sterile stainless silver tray. . . ."

• How lying marketers sold Roe v. Wade to America, by David Kupelian. World Net Daily January 20, 2005, on the marketing campaign devised by Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of pro-abortion vanguard group NARAL:
  "I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Bernard Nathanson, reminiscing about the early days of the abortion-rights movement in the late '60s and early '70s. "We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical . . ."

  Nathanson is now a Catholic and pro-lifer, and has given an account of his conversion in The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind (Regnery Publishing, 1996).
  

• Redstate summarizes the situation as it appears today:
  The Republican Party is now in a difficult position: pro-lifers recognize that this battle has moved to the courts, and will accept no more partial measures. There are few if any remaining ways for the GOP to use legislative policy to finesse the issue, and it is clear that the coming cycle will make or break the party's status with the pro-life community. The movement whose influx dramatically changed the party in the 1970s now seeks nothing less than a reliably pro-life Supreme Court nominee to change the balance on Roe - and what they demand will not be politically easy to achieve.

  And reminds us of "the most passionate and eloquent understanding of the abortion issue, one that came from another Republican White House": Ronald Reagan's "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation".
  

• Photographs from the San-Francisco March for Life on FreeRepublic.
  

• RoevWade.org.
  

Scalia: Faithful live for Christ

Justice Scalia, a Catholic, spoke before a Knights of Columbus Council in Baton Rouge.

The justice -- in Baton Rouge to address the Knights of Columbus Council 969 centennial celebration without charging a fee -- told a largely Roman Catholic crowd of 350 at the Holiday Inn Select that there's nothing wrong with "traditional Christianity."

"To believe in traditional Christianity is something else," Scalia said. "For the son of God to be born of a virgin? I mean, really. To believe that he rose from the dead and bodily ascended into heaven? How utterly ridiculous. To believe in miracles? Or that those who obey God will rise from the dead and those who do not will burn in hell?

"God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools ... and he has not been disappointed."

Scalia praised "traditional Catholics" who say the rosary, go on pilgrimages, kneel during the Eucharist and "follow religiously the teaching of the pope," adding that "intellect and reason need not be laid aside for religion. It is not irrational to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses who had nothing to gain. There is something wrong with rejecting a priori (deductively) the existence of miracles."

"Jane Roe" Challenges Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

Norma McCorvey -- formerly known as "Jane Roe" -- has requested that the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, according to the Associated Press:

"Now we know so much more, and I plead with the court to listen for witnesses and re-evaluate Roe v. Wade (news - web sites)," said McCorvey, who says she now regrets her role in the case. . . .

Two lower courts last year threw out McCorvey's request to have the ruling reconsidered.

But in a strongly worded concurrence, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) judge Edith H. Jones criticized the abortion ruling and said new medical evidence may well show undue harm to a mother and her fetus.

The last major abortion decision by the Supreme Court came in 2000, when the court ruled 5-4 to strike down Nebraska's ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortion because it failed to provide an exception to protect the mother's health.

Justices since then have shown little interest in wading back to the emotional issue.

As CatholicKerryWatch reported last year, Norma became a Christian and renounced her role leading to Roe Vs. Wade. She now heads up Roe No More, an organization dedicated to overturning the landmark case. Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests For Life was instrumental in her conversion to the Catholic faith in 1998.

(Via AfterAbortion).

• "My Journey to the Catholic Church", by Norma McCorvey & Fr. Pavone. (the text of a short supplement to Norma's book, Won by Love).
  

Specter Goes Back on his Word

Is this an I told you so moment? Maybe. An interesting note on this new controversy is the role of one Catholic senator by the name of Sam Brownback of Kansas.

One figure looming large, but who has not yet spoken out on this issue, is Sen. Sam Brownback. According to Senate insiders, Brownback was very active early in the controversy in November and early December when Specter's candidacy and position as Judiciary Chairman was in doubt. Brownback's staff met with a number of grassroots organizations actively opposed to Specter's chairmanship. And this was before Brownback knew he would be sitting on the Judiciary Committee.

"A moral crisis much bigger than abortion"

Duncan Anderson on "a moral crisis much bigger than abortion that even conservative politicians and talk-radio hosts don't dare discuss":

When Pope Paul VI released "Humanae Vitae" ("On Human Life") in 1968, all expected him to bless the brave new world of contraception. Instead, he dropped a bomb that is ripping apart the Western world to this day. He condemned contraception and warned that it could "open wide the way to marital infidelity." He said it was "an evil thing" to make it easy for the young to break the moral law. For men, he added, getting used to contraception could tempt them to "forget the reverence due to a woman" and "reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires."

The Pope also warned that if men allowed themselves to claim total control over their bodies and the creation of new life, they were inviting totalitarian governments to take over that control. Communist China would do just that in the 1970s, with its policies of forced sterilization and abortion.

We have learned that civilized society cannot survive the consequences of "sex without consequences."

Perhaps from heaven Pope Paul is calling, "Told you so."

Duncan Anderson is part of TheFactIs.Org, a new online magazine and blog on social policy, a joint project of the Culture of Life Foundation and the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM):

"The Culture of Life Foundation works on domestic social policy and gather the facts and science related to the culture of life broadly understood. C-FAM monitors activities at the United Nations and through its lobbying and coalition building, affects international social policy.

TheFactis.org staff, writers and outlook are unashamedly and unequivocally Catholic yet we believe what we have to say is relevant to a wider audience and we strive to engage all people of faith and goodwill."

A welcome addition to our list of blogs and resources.

New "outing" of pro-abortion Catholics in Congress

LifeSiteNews reports:

WASHINGTON, January 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - American Life League, the nation's largest grassroots Catholic pro-life educational organization, will hold a press conference on Monday, Jan. 24 to unveil a two-page ad identifying the 72 pro-abortion Catholics in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate.

The ad, which will span two full pages, is scheduled to run in the Washington Times on Jan. 24.

As Archbishop Burke reminded us back in November, and more recently during a march on a Planned Parenthood abortion mill, the election may have ended, but battle is just beginning.

Is the Curtain Closing on Roemer's Sideshow?

My fellow editor David Schrader reports below on former Indiana Congressman Tim Roemer's bid for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). As David declared here last December, "This is a campaign Catholics in the Public Square will be watching."

CNN anchor Kelly Wallace recently interviewed Roemer. An excerpt from that interview follows:

Wallace: Could the Democratic Party change its position on abortion? Tim Roemer is running for head of the Democratic National Committee. And he is opposed to abortion, anti-abortion rights....He joins us from Washington....

Your critics have taken issue with your position, being anti-abortion rights....Kate Michelman, the former head of NARAL...says, "Tim Roemer's candidacy for chairman of the party threatens the very principles for which the Democratic Party has stood for many years." She says, "His views and record are closer to those of George Bush." How do you respond to that?

Roemer: Well, first of all, Kelly, I don't want to steer this party to the right. And I disagree with those that want to steer it to the left. We need an inclusive party.

Senator Kennedy in remarks this week to the American people said we should not be a party that litmus tests on abortion or any other single issue. I agree with that. I think we need ideas and values. We need to connect to voters in the South and the Midwest that quite frankly don't think we care about some of those values.

So I think in my conversations—and I've had some private conversations with Kate Michelman....We need to make sure that in the future we're not litmus testing on this issue.

And Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Bush, who have different positions on abortion, are in the Republican Party. They can talk. My mother is very much pro-choice. I am pro-life. We should be able to be in the same party.

Wallace persisted:

But your critics might say, with some of your positions again being anti-abortion rights, that perhaps you would in some way swing the party more to the right than to the left. What do you say to that?

As did Roemer:

...I'm tired of losing elections. We lost 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties in the United States. We got beat in all five open Democratic seats in the deep South. We lost ground with Hispanic voters and Catholic voters.....I want to be inclusive as a party. I don't want a litmus test on a single issue.

For my part, as I wrote here earlier:

Given the rabid resistance to the slightest concession to reason and, yes, morality by the Feminazis, any widening of the Democrat Party's tent in terms of pro-life Democrats and their views is apt to be a carnival sideshow: big on promise and short on delivery.

Roemer's candidacy at the request of pro-abortion zealot House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is just another act in that sideshow, one that will be closed down by the Feminazis as Michelman's rant and self-aborted candidacy intimates.

In sum, I concur with Res Publica et Cetera's Publius' forecast on Roemer's chances in his comments here:

I doubt he'll win unless he does a Clinton-Jackson-Gephardt-Gore style about-face, as his giving lip-service to Clinton's "Safe, Legal, and Rare"...won't be nearly good enough to ease the fears of the rabidly pro-abortion faction of that party.

Publius' prognostication is apt to prove true, as the following admittedly incomplete tally from Hotline's DNC poll, as reported by Jim Geraghty on The Kerry Spot suggests:

Howard Dean 31% (58 votes)
Martin Frost 16 (30 votes)
Tim Roemer 4 (8 votes)
Donnie Fowler 4 (7 votes)
Wellington Webb 2 (4 votes)
Simon Rosenberg 2 (4 votes)
David Leland 1 (1 vote)
Undecided/Refused 40 (75 votes)

This becomes even clearer if one considers that when DNC members were asked to indicate their "last choice," Roemer was named by 16 percent (29 votes).

As TKS concludes:

If these 187 members are representative of the entire DNC, then Dean is in good shape, as is Frost. The centrist views of Roemer appear to be a tough pill to swallow for most DNC members.

"Centrist," in this case, of course, is simply a euphemism for "pro-life"—a euphemism in its own right.

Santorum defends role

Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania on bridging his Catholic faith and political decisions.

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum views his job through the lens of his Roman Catholic faith and isn't afraid of the consequences, he told a largely Catholic audience Tuesday night.

The "great gift of America," he said, is that "we are free to espouse that faith in the public square."

Santorum spoke on faith and political life at St. Paul Seminary in Crafton as part of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh's lecture series, "Faithful Citizenship."

"If we divorce public life from faith, freedom itself will fail," he said.

Santorum talked last night about his anger at what he sees as an unfair presumption of neutrality given to politicians who don't bring faith into the public forum.

"If decisions are influenced by faith, it's somehow illegitimate," he said.

Great to hear how the senator's faith plays a role in his decisions. To some though he does not go far enough and I am not talking about all those Toomey supporters.

Members of the Association of Pittsburgh Priests attended Santorum's speech. They distributed an open letter to the senator that calls for his pro-life stance to encompass more than the abortion issue.

The letter also admonishes the senator for his support of the war in Iraq and the death penalty.

"We shouldn't give someone a free pass because they're good on one or two issues," said the Rev. Jack O'Malley, an association member who is chaplain for the state's AFL-CIO.

I cannot help but wonder who Fr. O'Malley supported for President.

A Welcome Surprise from Governor Jean Granholm

Via Amy Welborn, Family News in Focus reports:

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has signed into law a bill designed to show college students there are alternatives to abortion.

With the Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act becoming law, two pro-life groups -- Right to Life of Michigan and Feminists for Life -- have seen some of the fruits of their labors. For nearly five years a project has been under way to create an on-campus resource center for college women who become pregnant, according to Ed Rivet, spokesman for Right to Life of Michigan.

The Associated Press (via MLive.com) reports:

The new law sets up the Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Fund to pay for grants for universities that set up offices where pregnant women or students with children can get referrals for prenatal care, foster care, adoption and other services.

The offices won't be able to give referrals for abortions.

The new fund will consist of state money, if allocated, and private donations.

Such a deliberately pro-life oriented gesture is surprising as well, given the fact that Granholm has in the past identified herself as a "100% pro-choice" Catholic, adopting the morally incoherent position of Senator Kerry, Kennedy, et al. (see "Granholm's abortion stance is off base", by Mark S. Latkovic, Janet Smith and Richard Myers. Detroit Free Press Oct. 17, 2002).

Granholm had vetoed previous attempts by the Michigan legislature to limit partial birth abortion and was the recipient of Catholic protests of her position during the 2002 gubernatorial race.

In light of Granholm's past and vigorous defense of abortion rights, it is indeed doubtful that the present legislative gesture represents a "change of mind" on her part. Nevertheless I concur with Amy Welborn that "grudging kudos" are in order.

More Information:

• StopGranholm.Com a website "developed by a group of concerned Michigan citizens known as the Church & Truth Project to expose the scandalous '100 percent pro-choice' positions of Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who claims to be a practicing Catholic."
  
• (GranholmGarble.Com, a website by the Michigan Right to Life protesting Granholm's views on partial birth abortion.
  

My Way Or Highway: Stupid Party StripsPro-Life Stalwart of Committee Chair

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

Although House Republicans only picked up three additional seats in the November 2 election, "party leaders have been emboldened by GOP domination of all branches of government and appear determined to squelch dissent in their own ranks," Mike Allen observes in The Washington Post.

"We are looking more and more like the Democrats we replaced," a House committee chairman recently confided to Robert Novak, who writes in his syndicated column:

That comment came before he learned, to his surprise and sorrow, that the House Republican leadership had removed Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey as chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. The extraordinary purge buttressed the growing impression of arrogance as Republicans enter their second decade of power in the House.

The excuses for dumping Smith are rather lame. While Smith is derided as a "liberal" by the GOP brass, the conservative columnist describes the Catholic Congressman's voting record as "moderately conservative."

For 2003 (the most recent year for which evaluation is available), the American Conservative Union rated him 71 percent and his liberal rating from Americans for Democratic Action was 30 percent. Beginning his 13th term in the House, the 51-year-old Smith has been a hero in the pro-life movement and a dogged inquisitor into forced abortion in China.

Smith was not only stripped of his chairmanship but of his membership. As The Record notes in its editorial:

Even though the heads of eight veterans groups, including the VFW and the American Legion, recently wrote to House Speaker Dennis Hastert that it would be a "tragedy" if Mr. Smith were removed, the long-time champion of veterans is now off the committee altogether.

During Mr. Smith's 24 years on the veterans committee—including four as its chairman—he helped pass major legislation for veterans, updating the GI Bill, expanding health care and benefits, and establishing a program for homeless vets.

"Since taking the gavel as chairman of the committee, The Trentonian reports, "Smith has authored 13-major bills aimed at helping veterans that were enacted by the Congress and signed into law by the President." Therein lay his crime, putting the needs of the men who fought our wars above the dictates of the party bosses. Or, as the Asbury Park Press aptly put it:

Rep. Christopher H. Smith, R-N.J., learned this week that voting with the House Republican leadership about 80 percent of the time is not good enough.

"It's almost as if no good deed goes unpunished," Smith told The Trenton Times.

In Baghdad, when somebody's bleeding, they're not Democrat or Republican. This is one committee that should have nothing to do with politics.

"It took Democrats 40 years to get as arrogant as we have become in 10," one Republican leadership aide acknowledged. If the Republican establishment continues down its path of rule-or-ruin, I don't think its rule will last for 40 years.

Roemer for DNC

Looks like it may be official.

The move is certain to spark a heated debate about the abortion issue because former Indiana Congressman Tim Roemer, who's Roman Catholic and opposes abortion, wants to lead a party whose platform supports abortion rights.

Though he voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, voted to ban human cloning, and supported the ban on partial-birth abortions during his last term in Congress I am a bit wary when he says things like this:

"In the Clinton years when I worked with them to reduce the abortion rate by 11 percent through counseling, economic security, all I want to do is have a conversation in my party and broaden that tent,"

The abortion rate decreasing in the 1990s had more to due with pro-life legislation coming out of the states and the availability of ultrasounds in abortion alternative clinics than it did with the "economic security" of the Clinton years. Let's hope and pray that Roemer focuses on the need for the former rather than more of the latter.

Profile: Representative Brian Higgins of New York

Congressman Brian Higgins is the freshman Democratic Congressman from New York's 27th Congressional District. In one of the closest congressional races last year, Higgins beat fellow Catholic, Republican Nancy Naples by only 3700 votes. Naples finally conceded after weeks of recounting the votes. The unfortunate reality for the voters of the 27th district was that these two Catholics both ran as pro-abortion candidates. Naples came out against partial-birth abortion, but many saw this soley as a political decision since she also wanted to be on the Conservative Party line on the ballot. (The Conservative Party of New York required all their candidates to be against partial-birth abortion.)

Higgins' campaign website states he is a parishioner of St Martin of Tours Catholic Church in South Buffalo. Yet from my own research of local Western New York media and from the Internet, Congressman Higgins does not always seem to bridge his faith to his policy views. One of these policy views is abortion. Interestingly enough, it seems that as a New York Assemblyman, Higgins garnered an "anti-choice" voting record from NARAL Pro-Choice NY (2002), expressed NARAL Pro-Choice NY's preferred positions "0" percent of the time (2000), voted to restrict Medicaid abortion funding (1999), and voted to bring a bill to the Assembly floor which would have banned partial-birth abortions (1999). Yet in a New York State Legislative National Political Awareness Test from 1998 Higgins supported the ideas that "abortions should always be legally available" as well as that the "New York government" provide funding to "clinics and medical facilities that provide abortion services." In 2002 he voted to require almost all employeers in New York State that offer prescription drug coverage to pay for contraceptives for women. In 2004 a Higgins vote helped pass a bill which would increase the distribution of "emergency contraception" by allowing pharmacists and nurses to prescribe it. And this past year he evidentally won over the folks at NARAL by winning their endorsement over Naples in the House race.

In addition to abortion, Congressmen Higgins does not seem to follow his faith when it comes to defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In that New York State Legislative National Political Awareness Test from 1998, the congressman answered he believed that the "New York government should recognize same-sex marriages". Also, prior to the election, I phoned his campaign and asked for his views on Embroynic Stem Cell Research (ESCR). The very polite staffer I spoke with relayed that Mr Higgins supports the same kind of research Christopeher Reeves advocated, which included ESCR. I also asked the staffer where Mr Higgins stood on euthanisia and human cloning. He stated he did not know and would get back to me. He never did.

Congressman Higgins will likely soon have a chance to let his constiuents know how his faith influences his views on abortion. The Congress will be taking up the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. The bill would require any abortionist to provide specified information to any woman seeking an abortion at 20 weeks or later, regarding the pain that would be inflicted on the baby, and to obtain a signed form accepting or rejecting administration of pain-relieving drugs to the baby. As well, the Child Custody Protection Act, which would make it a federal crime to take a minor across state lines for a secret abortion, in violation of the parents' right to be notified beforehand will likely be voted on. Human cloning will also get much attention in the 109th Congress.

It is early in his career. With prayer and God's grace Congressman Higgins could end up being a Catholic who happens to be a politician. Or he could end up like some many others and become a politician who happens to be Catholic.

St Thomas More pray for him!

-Washington Post Profile

Profile: Lousiana Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco

• Protecting Life

"The two candidates for Louisiana governor agree on a lot of issues, but abortion isn't one of them," the Associated Press reported before the November 2003 election in which Blanco defeated her Republican opponent, Bobby Jindal, becoming only the second woman to serve as governor of a state in the Deep South. (The first, Gov. Lurleen Wallace, D-AL, tragically died of cancer only 16 months after taking office in 1966.)

Republican Bobby Jindal and Democrat Lt. Gov. Kathleen Blanco are Catholic and pro-life. But while Blanco thinks abortions should be allowed in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother, Jindal does not favor abortions under any circumstances. Both favor the ban on late-term or so-called "partial birth" abortions that Congress recently approved and President George W. Bush plans to sign into law. Neither Jindal nor Blanco has [any] plans for abortion legislation.

As John Gizzi observed in Human Events, "Blanco ran dramatically to the right of her party on social issues, opposing gun control, abortion, affirmative action and benefits for gay couples."

In a post-election wrap-up in The Washington Post, Lee Hockstader described the candidates' differences as "primarily stylistic."

By most measures the two candidates were practically ideological soul mates, devout Catholics who oppose affirmative action, abortion, gun control and higher taxes while embracing steps to improve schools, health care and the state's anemic economy. By a narrow margin, Jindal was the more conservative, opposing abortion even in cases of rape and incest and in some instances when a mother's life is in danger.

Of course, the difference between a consistent stand against all abortion and a compromised stand that accepts the killing of some babies involves a matter of principle, whatever your local "pro-life" organization may—or may not—say. According to the Louisiana Right to Life 2003 Voter Guide, both Blanco and Jindal "responded 100% prolife."

In any event, the difference played a key role in Blanco's election campaign, noted the Kaiser Foundation's Daily Reproductive Health Report.

Blanco used "aggressive advertising" that criticized Jindal for his opposition to abortion "without exception" and raised other concerns to turn a "double-digit gap into a close but comfortable victory," the Times-Picayune reports....Both Jindal and Blanco are Roman Catholic and oppose abortion rights; however, Jindal opposes abortion in all cases and Blanco supports abortion rights in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of a pregnant woman. The Louisiana Democratic Party last week mailed a flier that said Jindal is "willing to let Louisiana women die" because of his position on abortion. The flier said, "Jindal's extreme position means the life of an unborn child would always outweigh concerns about the life of the mother and that doctors and their patients would have severely limited options in life-threatening medical emergencies." Jindal said that his position on abortion is "in line" with the Catholic Church and added that he does not oppose medical procedures used to save the life of a pregnant woman that would "indirectly" result in the termination of a fetus.

Blanco, a Cajun, of French descent, "picked up a large percentage of the women's vote, despite being an antiabortion Catholic," the Christian Science Monitor reported. It appears her attack on fellow Catholic Jindal for upholding the teachings of the Church and its divine Founder may have contributed to that tally.

• Defending Marriage and Safeguarding the Family

Last September, by a 4-to-1 margin, Louisiana voters ratified a constitutional amendment banning "same-sex marriage," Ed Anderson reports in The Times-Picayune.

The Louisiana Family Forum, a conservative family-issues group; the Roman Catholic bishops of the state; and hundreds of Protestant ministers had lined up behind the measure, urging their congregants to vote for it. Gov. Kathleen Blanco, a Catholic, said she was going to vote for it but did not participate in any campaign to help pass it.

Blanco's earlier history on the pro-family messure was less heartening, as this excerpt from a May 18, 2004, letter to his parishioners from St. Blog's own Fr. Bryce Sibley indicates.

In dealing with the amendment to our state constitution that would define marriage as a union between man and woman which would hopefully stop and "judicial activists" or other deleterious forces from approving gay marriages in our state, you may be distressed to know that our Governor Kathleen Blanco, a baptized Catholic, is against the amendment. According to The Daily Advocate, as debate on the amendment began on the Senate several days ago, all of the senators had on their desks a flier entitled "Blanco on Gay Marriage Amendment." The single-sheet contained Blanco quotes from two newspapers, in which she questions the need for the constitutional amendment as well as the damage it might do to the state's economy. Senate President Don Hines said he authorized the distribution with Blanco's knowledge.

"On another social issue," AP commented on the Blanco-Jindal race, "both [candidates] also question the need for a law to ban discrimination in the workplace against homosexuals. Blanco and Jindal say they oppose discrimination against anyone but don't think a new law is needed."

Gov. Blanco, however, recently signed an executive order banning discrimination in state government on the basis of "sexual orientation" that lead Rep. Jindal to request written clarification on whether the order will endanger state-financed services run by religious groups, Jan Moller writes in The Time-Picayune.

A three-page letter from Jindal to Blanco, his rival in the 2003 governor's race, says the executive order "may have the effect of overturning a hard-fought bipartisan precedent that has been established and reaffirmed over the course of nearly half a century."

Is Polarization Really So Undesirable?

One of the oft-repeated wails that you will here from "high-minded" commentators is the mournful proclamation that we are a "polarized" nation. It is regularly assumed that polarization is a great evil and must be eliminated. But the problem with this negative view of polarization is that our current polarization is indeed based on genuine disagreement about what is true and real. On one side, some think, for example, that legal abortion and gay marriage are obvious goods. They cannot understand the madness of those who oppose such inevitable progressive principles. On the other side, are those like most readers of this site who view legal abortion and gay marriage as true madness because these practices contradict reality.

The test of sanity is whether your reason, as one professor of mine put it, is measured to, proportioned to, and reflects reality. For traditional Christianity, abortion is insane because it kills what we should cherish. Gay marriage is insane because it defies the obvious procreative design of male and female. Extramarital sex is insane because it is a mutual lie that individuals tell each other: we will pretend that we are committed when in fact we are not. In a fundamental way, true madness is the social pretense that shelters so many obvious wrongs.

It is true madness when we pretend that something is good when it isn't. The examples are legion. Looking at our own community, it was madness for some cardinals and bishops to think that child molesters could somehow be placed back in parish ministry. The negligent authorities were not practicing mercy or forgiveness. They were being irrational. It was madness for the Supreme Court to ever overturn the laws of the states that forbade the killing of unborn children. Roe v. Wade was an irrational court decision that is still tearing the country apart.

An interesting thing about some of these true practitioners of madness is that they are likely to be the first to call their opponents mad. Such name-calling is a substitute for engaging the uncomfortable truth proclaimed by their opposition. The opponents who are falsely called "mad" are those who have the temerity to state the truth plainly, however upsetting to conventional wisdom and its secular pieties. And so Planned Parenthood and other abortion activists view the pro-life activists as insane. So those who congratulate themselves as being compassionate and enlightened view any opposition to gay marriage as irrational hatred of homosexuals.

The pattern of mislabeling the opponent is already there in the Gospel when the Truth came in the person of Jesus Christ. He too was called mad and insane, even by his own relatives. In Mark 3:20-21, Jesus' own "relations . . . set out to take charge of him; they said, 'He is out of his mind' " (NJB). In John 10:20, "[m]any of them said, 'He has a demon, and he is mad; why listen to him?' " (RSV). As we know all too well, the disciples are not above their Master (see Matt. 10:24-25). We too will be called mad or insane or irrational. But we have been told to be happy and rejoice: "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, . . . for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matt. 5:11-12; RSV).

So, from the Christian perspective, polarization is not as bad as it seems. Polarization can be a sign that we are indeed proclaiming the truth as we ought to do so and that we refuse to be cowed into hiding the truth that we have been given. Even George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) saw the truth that "all progress depends on the unreasonable man"--unreasonable in the eyes of the reigning etiquette of false conventions and fads.