My faith makes no difference for me

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared Sunday on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." I transcribed part of the interview from what was played today on the Laura Ingraham show which I had recorded.

GS: Your a Catholic, how do you reconcile your political positions on abortion, on gay rights, on the death penalty. There opposed to the positions of the Catholic Church - how do you reconcile that:

AS: That's easy, I never had one sleepless night over it

GS: So do I.

AS: Because it makes no difference to me I represent the people of California. The people of California not all of them are Catholics. So therefore I do not bring in my religion into this whole thing. As a matter of fact religion should have no effect on politics. If you make a decision it should not be based on religious beliefs it should be based on what is it and how can you represent the people of California the best possible way. We have a combination, we have Jews, we have Christians, we have Hindus, we have Buddhists, all kinds of different religions here and they say there is a 140 some religions in this state and I have to represent all of them and make the decisions based on what's best for the state.

GS: So your faith plays no role in the forming of your political philosophy?

AS: Not for me, there are people who do it and for me I do not make decisions based on what has, what I have learned through my Bible studies, what I have learned through my religious classes in schools or when I went to Sunday school in Austria.

I guess Arnold doesn't have to channel John Kerry since John Kerry is still alive (I am not speaking politically here), but it is a pretty close simulation of the distorted reasoning we heard on the campaign trail this year. This idea that politician have to be morally schizophrenic in a democracy. That there moral values must be locked up in one part of their brain so as to not contaminate their political actions. If we had to program Star Trek robots with this philosophy they would go into paradox meltdown as soon as you hit the on switch. With this type of logic you could not represent anyone because it is very rare (if it ever happens) to have issues where there is a one hundred percent concurrence. In almost every instance you are making a decision that goes against what some group of people believe. What is worse though is not that politicians say such nonsense, but that they can usually say it with the majority not blinking an eye or screaming in pain from a sprain due to to twisted logic.

A Question for Howard Dean

Howard Dean should be asked whether Democratic members of Congress should support two abortion related pieces of legislation introduced in the House and Senate. They are:

Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) (H.R. 748)
Child Custody Protection Act (S. 8)

Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (S.51, H.R. 356)

Currently there are 118 co-sponsors of CIANA in the House, 10 are Democrats (3 of those are Catholic); there are 23 co-sponsors of CCPA in the Senate, none are Democrats. There are 34 co-sponsors of the UCPAA in the Senate, none are Democrats; there are 104 co-sponsors in the House, 9 are Democrats (4 of those are Catholic).

Mr. Dean recently said the following:

"We have to remind Catholic Americans that the social mission of the Democratic Party is almost exactly the social mission of the Catholic Church," Dean said. "The idea that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven is not a plank of the GOP platform. So it seems to me that we have a right to have a claim on Catholic votes based on Catholic teachings."

Talk is cheap (and sometimes disingenuous). Mr. Dean, prove me wrong and show us some leadership and tell your party's members in Congress to support and approve this legislation.

Rome Speaks, While Bishops Squeak

As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen, from the Florida frontlines, on Thrown Back:

Earlier this week, Cardinal Renato Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace spoke out against ending Terri Schiavo's life by dehydration and starvation. The Cardinal, citing constant Church teaching and more recent statements by Pope John Paul II, said:

If Mr. Schiavo succeeds legally in causing the death of his wife, this not only would be tragic in itself, but would be a grave step toward the legal approval of euthanasia in the United States.

I would like to remind everyone in this connection, about all that the Holy Father has said in past days to the Pontifical Academy for Life, confirming that the quality of life is not interpreted as economic success, beauty and physical pleasure, but consists in the supreme dignity of the creature made in the image and likeness of God. No one can be the arbiter of life except God himself.

Now that Cardinal Martino has spoken, will that move the Bishop of St. Petersburg, Robert Lynch, to a forceful witness on behalf of Terri?

As I remarked in this week's Crisis E-Letter, Bishop Lynch has been all but invisible regarding Terri. And the Florida Bishops' Conference hasn't been much help, either, issuing only this rather weak statement earlier this month.

The problem, as my friend Brian Saint-Paul said in the E-Letter, is that these bishops seem to be unwilling to apply Church teaching to what is known about Terri's case.

We've had bishops from outside Florida, such as Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln, NE, and Archbishop Burke of St. Louis, MO, speak out strongly in support of Terri's right to live.

Pope John Paul II made a very forceful statement about the right to nutrition and hydration at a medical conference on the "vegetative state" last spring. Now we have a Cardinal at the Vatican speaking out.

Where are the bishops of Florida? [Several links added.]

Editor's Note:

Where they usually can be found when the life in danger is not that of a cold-blooded murderer. a tyrranical despot, or a bomb-wielding terrorist, i.e., missing in action.

• For another honorable exception, see the statement issued by Bishop Robert Vasa, of Baker, OR.

Greer Sets March 18 as Murder Terri Day

From the pages of Life Matters! . . .

Twice before, the Associated Press reports today,

Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed by court order, and both times it was restored. The last time, in 2003, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush pushed through a state law—later ruled unconstitutional—that authorized him to resume the feedings six days after they were stopped.

On Friday, state Circuit Judge George Greer set a new date for removal of the feeding tube for March 18, prompting the Schindlers' attorney to promise yet another flurry of legal filings.

"Greer's ruling came on the fiftenth anniversary of Terri Schiavo's collapse on February 25, 1990," a collapse whose origins remain uninvestigated to this day.

Meanwhile, Terri's defenders continue to mobilize, as the Philadelphia Inquirer reports:

Alia Faraj, a spokeswoman for Florida's governor, said the influx of e-mails, plus "hundreds and hundreds of phone calls a day," was "overwhelming." Most, she said, were in support of efforts to save Schiavo's life.

On Friday, Gary Cass, executive director of the Christian-focused Center for Reclaiming America, delivered a petition signed by 107,000 people—at a rate of 5,000 per hour...

A Web site, www.blogsforterri.com, is getting more than 1,800 visits per day, up from fewer than 200 about two weeks ago.

CURE trusts you will continue to do your part. You could start by signing this petition, as we have done.

Pray and act for Terri!

Catholic Lawyer to Defend Ten Commandments Monument

Marvin Olasky interviews Texas AG Greg Abbott on his upcoming presentation to the Suprme Court on the Ten Commandments case:

On Wednesday, March 2, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is scheduled to present before the U.S. Supreme Court his defense of a Ten Commandments monument on the state capitol grounds. But this is of more than Texas interest: Mr. Abbott hopes the court, which refused to hear the appeal of former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, will use the monument as an example of how the Ten Commandments may be displayed.

Mr. Abbott graduated from the University of Texas in 1981 and studied law at Vanderbilt University. He took a break while studying for the bar exam in 1984 and went for a jog, but a 75-foot tree at least eight feet in diameter fell on him, damaging his spine and almost killing him. He says that while lying in the hospital he thought that he was still alive for a reason. Since then he has been in a wheelchair, partly paralyzed. He is a Catholic and strongly pro-life.

From General Abbott:

I fully believe, and will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court, that the Texas Ten Commandments monument is constitutional and that government may recognize religion's undeniable role as a foundational aspect of our nation's law and culture.

And as I present my argument, I will be mindful that looking down on me and the justices in that historic chamber will be a carving of Moses holding the very tablets that are at the center of this debate.

General Abbott goes on to discuss abortion, the Federal Marriage Amendment, and how faith impacts policy decisions. Sounds like another faithful Catholic in the Public Square.

Catholics ATTACK Diocesan Social Action Directors

Earl and Christopher have both posted on the news that Karl Keating voted for neither John Kerry nor George Bush. This all began with a National Catholic Reporter article which I posted on over at Catholics for Bush. Here is that post.

That's right. Catholics who remained faithful to Catholic teachings as promulgated by the Magisterium, during last year's election campaign harassed, disrupted, resisted, targeted, inundated, got ugly with, were hostile, showed little civility, were confrontational, challenged, were very vocal, and coarse toward diocesan social action directors. Wow! This is quite the accusation. Yet, according to Joe Feuerherd over at the National Catholic Reporter and Professor William Dinges of Catholic University of America there were "very vocal and relentless ... ideologically motivated and situated" Catholics who acted in "self-righteous, authoritarian, exclusionary and really in fundamentalist-like ways" during the election year. Wow, again!

These Catholics were supposedly motivated by Catholic Answers' Voting Guide for Serious Catholics. I would like to think that the eyes of these Catholics (from the "right wing of Catholicism and who practice a "red-faith", as in Red state) were merely opened by the Voting Guide and they were really motivated by the actual teachings of the Catholic Church referred to in the Guide. For if you read it you should see that the five non-negotiable issues do not compare to other issues such as immigration, tax rates, how or whether to reform Social Security, the death penalty, the war in Iraq, etc. These issues are important, make no mistake, and the principles of Catholic social teaching help Catholics determine how to deal with them. There may be many ways to deal with how to reform Social Security and handle illegal immigration in our country, but there is only one position on abortion, ESCR, human cloning, euthanasia, and same sex marriage. On this there is no question. The Church documents referred to in the Guide make this clear. Read it and I hope you will see that.

Karl Keating responds to all of it here.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam's take is here.

Comments from Open Book readers.

Much Ado About Nothing

My able editorial confrere Christopher Blosser aptly characterizes the National Catholic Distorter's "revelation" that Karl Keating, the man behind Catholic Answers' Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics did not vote for President Bush as "Joe Feuerherd's Hollow Victory."

The resulting brouhaha is simply more of the same much ado about nothing.

The only revelation that would have been an genuine news scoop, after all, would have been if Mr. Keating had somehow voted for CINO Kerry.

As I affirmed repeatedly before the 2004 election and reaffirm today, Catholic voters, as other pro-life and pro-family voters, had three morally licit choices when it came to voting for the top office:

• Voting to reelect President Bush.
• Voting for a candidate with a better stand on the nonnegotiable issues.
• Not voting for that office.
  

While I heartily concur with Karl that his selection among those options is a private matter, in presidential elections to date, I have exercised each of these options—though not in the same election.

At the same time, I do not believe that simply casting a vote for the reelection of President Bush, reluctantly or not, under the circumstances Chris outlines below renders ones moral convictions suspect as a mere exercise in partisan politics. That is the big lie parroted by the secular humanists who march under the Red banner of separation of church and state.

Besides, while as a voter whose sole political allegiance is to the Catholic counter-revolution, I stand for "Principle Before Party," when I cast my ballot on that precise basis for those offices for which I do vote, the candidates all seem to come with party affiliations. It seems to be the nature of the beast.

Witness to the End

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

"In the twilight of his papacy, as age and illness ravage his body, Pope John Paul II's moral voice remains strong, warning the faithful and faithless alike of how evil in the world—abortion, homosexual marriage and other sins—threatens our eternal salvation," editor Mark Masferrer writes in the Lufkin Daily News.

"Memory and Identity is a 227-page volume, consisting of exchanges that the Pope had with two Polish friends, the philosophers Josef Tishner and Krystof Michalski, in conversations that took place more than 20 years ago at the papal summer residence in Castel Gandolfo," Catholic World News reports.

Pope John Paul writes forcefully against same-sex marriage, which he says is part of an "ideology of evil."

It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if (same-sex marriage) is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.

And with the same vigor that he defends marriage, the Holy Father defends its fruit, drawing a parallel between abortion as "the legal extermination of human beings who have been conceived but not yet born" and the earlier killing fields of the Holocaust.

We have to question the legal regulations that have been decided in the parliaments of present-day democracies. The most direct association which comes to mind is the abortion laws....Parliaments which create and promulgate such laws must be aware that they are transgressing their powers and remain in open conflict with the law of God and the law of nature.

In in his book, the Holy Father challenges us on the moral consequences of our choices. "That has been a hallmark of John Paul II's papacy," notes Masferrer, "speaking out against evil in all its forms, especially when it pertains to questions of life."

In a February 28 story on the spiritual significance of the Pope's physical sufferings, Newsweek writes that "his condition crystallizes his ferocious attachment to life—the most central, coherent and consistent teachings of his papacy—whether that life is threatened in the womb by abortion or in old age by euthanasia."

As Masferrer concludes:

That "ferocious attachment" to a core belief is what we should all strive for. As the Pope shows, it makes it so much easier to decide where you stand on the supposedly tough questions of the day.

Background behind the challenge to Roe v. Wade

On January 21, 2005, CPS reported that Norma McCorvey, aka. "Jane Roe", had appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

On February 22nd, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the challenge.

Via After Abortion, blogger Purposeful Dreamer has the story of what really happened, "very telling details, directly from the attorneys representing Norma McCorvey." Check it out.

Joe Feuerherd's Hollow Victory

National Catholic Reporter's Joe Feurherd has provoked a flurry of comments on Open Book with this week's revelation that Karl Keating -- head of Catholic Answers and publisher of the -- refrained from voting during the 2004 presidential election:

But then there's the big question: Weren't you in cahoots with the Bush campaign, pushing a partisan agenda designed to derail Kerry's campaign?

"I didn't even vote for Mr. Bush," says Keating, who didn't vote for Kerry either. "I sat this one out." He continued, "I've got problems with President Bush and problems with Senator Kerry" though his lack of support for the president, he said, was related mostly to issues "beyond what is mentioned in our Voter's Guide."

"I haven't been happy with any president since Grover Cleveland," said Keating.

Which is a non-negotiable point of agreement between Keating and me.

Karl Keating and the non-negotiables (Part II) National Catholic Reporter Vol. 2, No. 8. 2/24/05.

Feurherd begins his column with the exultation:

"That's right, the author and promoter of the "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" -- the 2,500-word pamphlet that urged Catholics to base their vote on five "non-negotiable" issues (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and gay marriage) -- did not support the Republican nominee."

On the one hand, I confess that I'm a little disappointed. In a close race between a Republican candidate who was moderately pro-life (that is to say, with reservations regarding cases of rape/incest, and a supporter of capital punishment), and a Democratic "pro-choice Catholic" candidate who, as a matter of policy, took positions on nearly all the non-negotiable issues in clear violation of Catholic teaching, there's a good case for keeping the latter out of office (even if only "buying time" for the pro-life movement until a genuine Catholic candidate comes along). With the race as close as it was, had Kerry gotten the upper hand and emerged the victor, Catholics who "sat out" the election might have had second thoughts.

On the other hand, given the way Voter's Guide was criticized as partisan propaganda, it looks like Keating might have justifiable reasons for sitting out the past election. As he confirmed for fellow commentators on Amy Welborn's blog:

[Karl Keating]: I didn't tell Joe Feuerherd that I voted for no one. I told him I "sat out" voting for either Kerry or Bush. I think his column conveys that understanding, even if it allows a broader one.

One reason I "sat out" was so I could say that I did nothing that could be construed as an endorsement of a major party candidate.

During the campaign some people claimed that the Catholic Answers voter's guide was designed to promote the Republican candidate for the presidency. This was not true. The guide didn't focus on that political contest, and it named no candidates or parties. It merely gave Catholic principles and left it to each reader to apply those principles in federal, state, and local elections.

Suspecting that people such as Frances Kissling would allege Catholic Answers' collusion with the Republican Party (for which I hold no brief), I tried to make sure that I would do nothing that could be construed as an endorsement of a major party candidate.

Beyond that, I think it is a private matter how or even whether I voted in the presidential election.

The Voter's Guide was a valuable educational pamphlet during the 2004 elections, and will undoubtedly be useful in the years to come.

Feurherd may be crowing now, but to the extent that the Catholic laity pay attention to what the Keating's Guide has to say, Catholic Answers may emerge the victor in the end.

On the Air for Life ( February 25, 7:30 a.m.)

From the pages of Life Matters! . . .

Tomorrow, i.e., Friday, morning at 7:30 a.m. ET, I will be a guest on the Steve Kane Show, which airs on WNN at 1470 on your AM dial in South Florida.

We will be discussing the fight for Terri and the fight against euthanasia. You may also listen online at either of the two preceding links.

I ask, no, I beg your prayers that the Holy Ghost may guide my poor words in defense of God's great gift of life—Terri's and her brothers' and sisters'—threatened by the increasingly insidious danger of epivalothanasia (imposed death).

I also invite our readers to call the show's nationwide toll-free call-in number 877-275-2326 to join me in defending the defenseless.

And as always, pray and act for Terri!

• A special thanks to my good friend Lane Core Jr. for his generous promotion of this program on The Blog from the Core—and to Jonathan Bennett (Ancient and Future Catholic Musings).

Earl E. Appleby, Jr.
Director, Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE)

Cardinal Martino appeals for Terri Schiavo

Zenit News Service reports that Cardinal Martino has appealed for Terry Schiavo:

In statements on Vatican Radio, Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said: "If Mr. Schiavo succeeds legally in causing the death of his wife, this not only would be tragic in itself, but would be a grave step toward the legal approval of euthanasia in the United States."

He added: "I would like to remind everyone in this connection, about all that the Holy Father has said in past days to the Pontifical Academy for Life, confirming that the quality of life is not interpreted as economic success, beauty and physical pleasure, but consists in the supreme dignity of the creature made in the image and likeness of God.

"No one can be the arbiter of life except God himself."

Several days ago, Amy Welborn has noted the disturbing silence of the Florida bishops on the case of Terri Schiavo. Perhaps the Vatican's example will lead them to find their voice.

Surprise Intervention Sparks New Hope for Terri,As Stay of Execution Is Extended

From the pages of Life Matters! . . .

As posted by CURE advisor, Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back:

Mary Schindler informed me a little while ago that Judge Greer has extended the stay on the removal of Terri's feeding tube until 5:00 p.m. Friday. Judge Greer did not make any rulings today, but said he needed more time to consider the arguments, and would issue a ruling on Friday.

In a surprise move which, so far, none of the news services seem to have reported, an attorney from the Florida Department of Children & Family (DCF) was present in Judge Greer's courtroom, and indicated that that Department intended to intervene in Terri's case.

Mary Schindler said that she and her family, as well as their attorney David Gibbs, did not expect this development. She told me that the DCF intervention was not made at their behest. "None of us have been in contact with them, and they hadn't contacted us before today", Mary said. "We've been after them for years to step in and investigate, but so far they hadn't done anything."

When I asked Mary if she thought that the DCF intervention was put in motion by Governor Bush, she said "I think that's possible, but I don't know. The first I knew of it was in court today, and we're still trying to find out what it means."

As Mary described the proceedings, apparently the DCF attorney at one point announced her presence, and presented Judge Greer with some papers, which she described as indicating the Agency's intent to intervene in Terri's case. The DCF attorney then asked if she could address the court. Judge Greer's response, Mary said, was "Absolutely not." Judge Greer then made some remark about the papers "being on [his] desk", but indicated that he was not necessarily going to take official notice of them, saying "I don't know if these have been properly filed or not."

Mary told me that the DCF attorney indicated that their intent to intervene and investigate was based on "abuse." Whether that remark referred to the allegations that Terri's condition is a result of Michael's abuse of Terri, or to his actions as Terri's guardian, is not clear.

At this point, the Schindlers themselves are trying to obtain more information about this development. As I learn more, I will pass it along here.

Will the Department of Children and Family successfully intervene? That could be the ray of hope the Schindlers have been praying for.

Update (7:45 p.m. EST):

News of the DCF intervention has started appearing on the news services:

Fox News (based on Associated Press)
LifeNews
Reuters

The Schindlers are "elated" at the prospect of the DCF intervention. Predictably, Michael Schiavo's attorney George Felos is unhappy, saying that the intervention "reeks of the intervention of politics into the case and is an affront to the court."

Of course, coming from Mr. Felos, remarks about "affronts" to the court are a little rich, seeing that he was only able to get Michael Schiavo's confabulations about Terri's supposed wish not to be kept alive in her condition into court by violating (with Judge Greer's connivance) rules of civil trial procedure.

George, this intervention isn't about politics. This move could cost Governor Bush politically. Rather, it's about giving Terri the justice of which she has so long been deprived.

Editor's Note:

Fr. Johansen, as customary, cuts through the peripheral to arrive at the heart of the matter. It is a fundamental requirement of justice that a person who has not been found guilty of a capital crime should not be put to death with the sanction of the courts and under the cover of soi-disant "law." A state that sanctions judicial homicide is not a civilized state.

Hyde to Vatican?

From Robert Novak:

Republican sources are reporting that Rep. Henry Hyde [Catholic and Republican] of Illinois might cut short his last term in Congress to become U.S. ambassador to the Vatican.

The Vatican post, considered a plum appointment by Catholics, has been vacant following the departure of Jim Nicholson to become secretary of Veterans Affairs for President Bush's second term. Hyde is a prominent Catholic layman and a leading foe of abortion.

The 80-year-old Hyde is serving his last two years as chairman of the House International Relations Committee under Republican self-term limits.

He is expected to announce his retirement this spring after 16 terms in Congress.

The congressman has been quoted that he "would surely consider it."

Inane Legal System for Terri Schiavo

As a lawyer sworn to uphold the truth, I have strong words for the inane way the legal system is handling the well-known case of brain-damaged Terri Schiavo whose spouse is absolutely intent on finishing her off in spite of her parents' pleas for their daughter's life. Today's N.Y. Times has a story updating the situation: nutrition and hydration are about to cease. Where do you begin with the catalogue of legal absurdities?

First, the parents have a pending motion to remove the husband as guardian. The motion makes sense since the husband has, according to news reports, since taken up with another woman and even fathered a child by another woman (see Catholic Analysis for 10/19/03). So how can you let the guardian cut off nutrition and hydration while his very right to do so is in question? What kind of court system is that? The only word for it is irrational.

Second, the courts are ignoring highly material and relevant medical evidence. Pardon me, but I thought the legal system was all about evidence. In law school, you even spend a semester taking a course on the rules of evidence. There is recent medical evidence showing that brain imaging discloses that brain-injured persons previously thought to have no consciousness are indeed conscious of what people are telling them (see Catholic Analysis for 2/9/05).

Third, the media has very recently documented the case of a brain-damaged woman who began talking for the first time in 20 years (see ABC News story). How much more specific does the medical evidence have to be for a finder of fact to take notice? The story has circulated so widely in the media that I, for one, would be comfortable as a judge of taking judicial notice of the event, which means a judge can consider the fact as established by common knowledge, much as we know that the sun rises in the east.

Fourth, the parents are arguing for freedom of religious expression. They assert that as a Roman Catholic Terri Schiavo would have wished to comply with the recent statement of John Paul II that patients should not be denied nutrition and hydration. Do the wishes of a strangely persistent husband who has apparently already turned to another woman trump evidence of intent to follow the highest authority of one's religion?

Fifth, the legal system as a system of equity must follow the same rule the medical profession claims to follow: first, do no harm. Courts will hesitate long and hard before ordering irreparable acts like tearing down a building. What is the rush in this case involving ending a life when the issues and the evidence have not been adequately addressed?

Sixth, related to the last point, is the common sense observation that life deserves the benefit of the doubt. Here we see the combined arrogance of both the medical and legal professions (by the way, I have and have had physicians in my own family). There is an astonishing tendency for medical professionals to make statements with a level of certainty that the facts belie. As a lawyer, I know that courts must always aim to be reasonable. It is not reasonable to treat certain medical opinions as certain when there is in fact great doubt. It is unreasonable to jump the gun.

Charles Dickens wrote famously and with vehemence of the injustices of the legal system of nineteenth century Britain. What material for vehement satire would a twenty-first Dickens have with the legal (and medical) system of twenty-first century America.

Get Ready

From the New York Times:

When the Supreme Court resumes its term on Tuesday, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will again be absent from the bench because of his illness. Although he is not bedridden and has been regularly attending the justices' private conferences, his empty black leather chair will certainly set off a new round of speculation and chatter about his tenure on the court.

The strong expectation, senior administration officials and others said, is that Chief Justice Rehnquist is making his best effort to serve out the remainder of the term that ends in June before resigning. And the only question, they say, is whether the 80-year-old chief justice, who is suffering from thyroid cancer and the effects of his treatment, will be able to do so.

Minutes to Midnight: America in the Dock

From the pages of Life Matters! . . .

"It's high noon in America when it comes to that disabled Florida woman whose feeding tubes could be removed as early as this week," Michael Brown begins his indictment in today's Spirit Daily, continuing:

It is beyond comprehension that a nation could sit back and watch the slow, painful death of a woman who can talk, who is aware, who expresses laughter, who has swallowed on her own, who expresses fear, whose parents love her.

But those of us for whom the fight for Terri Schindler-Schiavo is not our first, our tenth, or even our 100th battle—not our first fight for life nor our last—know only too well that that surrender to the law of the jungle was made long ago and that rather than high noon, it is, if seen from an optimistic viewpoint that rivals Pollyanna, minutes to midnight in America.

• Where was the national outrage, a quarter century ago when Clarence Herbert, a 55-year-old security guard, was starved to death on doctors' orders in the Kaiser Permanente Hospital in Harbor City, CA, in 1981?


• And where was the public outcry in 1983 when the nephew of Claire Conroy, an 84 year-old resident of a New Jersey nursing home, described as "conscious but confused," sought to have her starved to death?


• And how many protested when the Florida Second District Court of Appeal—yes, that District Court—ruled that 75-year-old Helen Corbett, deemed "incompetent," could be starved to death in 1986?


• Or when 45-year-old Massachusetts fire fighter, Paul Brophy, became the first person to be starved to death on court order that same year?

Suffice it to say that he was not the last. We are well past midday indeed!

Someday, God willing, there will be another Doctors Trial like the one held in Nuremberg in 1946-1947, and those who committed such heinous crimes against humanity as starving to death innocent victims unable to defend themselves—and those who aided and abeted them—will stand in the prisoners' dock.

So too, shall a Nation that turned a deaf ear to such infamies perpetrated in its name and with the complicity of its courts. If not in man's court, then in God's, where at last the victims of man's inhumanity to man will find a tribunal where justice prevails.

Greer Stands By as Michael Harms Terri Again

From the pages of Life Matters! . . .

As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back:

According to Hyscience, the hearing on Bob & Mary Schindler's request to extend or renew the stay on removal of Terri's feeding tube, which was to have taken place at 2:30 this afternoon, has been postoned until Wednesday.

In a related story, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals, in an all-too-predictable ruling, denied the Schindler's motion for that court to delay issuing its ruling on their Papal Appeal, which was based on Terri's First Amendment rights as a Catholic.

What this means is that the Second District Court will issue it's ruling tomorrow, and thus the stays on Michael removing Terri's food and water will expire. Since Judge Greer won't hear the Schindler's motion until Wednesday, Michael may have a "window of opportunity" to remove Terri's feeding tube.

Will he do so? Will he attempt to present Judge Greer with a fait accompli? How badly does he want Terri dead?

Editor's Note:

Fr. Johansen, who will soon be traveling to Florida to support Terri's family, has posted a number of pertinent reports on Thrown Back, including a link to his informative article in the November 2004 Catholic World Report, "Saving Terri's Life."

Pray and act for Terri!

The Best From Bloggers' Best for Terri

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

In this issue of Point Blank, we go beyond the parish to bring you the best of Bloggers' Best for Terri Schiavo, graciously compiled by Dory at Wittenberg Gate.

The Cold Heart of a Killer

Our emotions are a part of what constitutes our humanity, and empathy combined with conscience is what makes us humane. Cold indifference and a clinical attitude in determining who is or isn't fit to live were the hallmarks of that other civilised approach, which left the ground in the forests white from the ashes of its victims. –Catez Stephens, Allthings2all

No One Should Have To Do Tricks To Live

Terri, and humans in general, are valuable because of their "kind" rather than their substance or utility. Those who have suffered severe brain damage are just as valuable and worthy of protection as the brightest scholar or the most talented athlete because they are members of the human class. It is not necessary for Terri to "prove" her worth by talking or swallowing. She is human. –Tim, bLogicus

Survival of the Fittest Makes A Nation Unfit to Survive

A female deer will kick its own fawn to death, if it's too much competition for food. Packs of animals leave wounded or disabled members to die. Is that what humans do too? –C. Schweitzer, Insane Troll Logic

Hospice From Hell

Judges are impartial, right? Not Judge George Greer, the judge that has ordered Terri Schiavo executed by starvation and dehydration, twice. Our good ole boy judge has worked side by side as county commissioner with Barbara Sheen Todd...[who] is on the board of—you guessed it—the hospice where Terri Schiavo is kept prisoner by her husband, Michael Schiavo...Also, Judge Greer's fellow judge, Judge John Lenderman is the brother of Martha Lenderman, also on—you got it—the same hospice board...The judge also accepted as the basis of his rulings, the "opinion" of a third doctor who is the brother of a close associate of George Felos, Michael Schiavo's right-to-kill attorney, and very significantly, former Chairman of—you got it again—the same hospice board. –Hyscience

Something Michael Should Think About Besides His Belly

Life is God's gift—for God alone to take back—and so too is the ultimate end, purpose, and meaning of life a gift from God, to be found in eternal life, which comes from God alone. To try to snatch that gift away—either by force or by neglect—is a mistake that can have eternally deadly consequences. –Penitens, A Penitent Blogger

The Last Word

I am not a theologian, a philosopher, [or] a politician...I am a mother, wife, daughter and a Christian. A theologian can write persuasively about Imago Dei and how only God can know our time. A philosopher may write about natural law and our innate revulsion at the taking of a human life. A politician may debate the use of torture for terrorists that leads to death, than draw parallels to the torture of, starvation and dehydration, of those more innocent....But a Christian mother, wife, daughter asks, no, pleads to our great God for a miracle. God champions the oppressed. O Lord, Terri cries, we cry. The Lord hears our cries. –Mine & Thine

Pray and act for Terri!

SaveTerri.com - Background on Terri's Case

Paul Copeland, who heads SaveTerri.com, provides background information on Terri Schiavo in four convenient posts on "The Case Against Terri Schiavo":

1. Part I: Terry's Feeding Tube -- Noting that "in the media there has been a lot of talk about the gastronomy tube, perhaps influencing some folk to believe that intense medical care must be used to keep Terri alive," Paul explains exactly what a gastronomy tube is, and what is involved in taking care of Terri.
   
2. Part II: Is Terri in a Persistent Vegetative State? -- Granting that "it is a good and fair question and needs to be looked at very carefully so that the general public, that's you and I, can make an informed opinion," Paul takes a look at the evidence.
   
3. Part III: Terri's "Death Wish" -- Paul looks at the claims of Terri's husband that she "wanted to die"
   
4. Part IV: Is Terri being "force-fed"?, Paul examines the claim by Michael Schiavo that Terri would not have desired to be kept alive under such circumstances, with some speculation as to why Michael "would say this approximately six years after being awarded significant malpractice damages for his wife's brain injury."
   

Breaking News! - National Catholic Reporter lashes out at "conservative groups"

Horrors! -- Joe Feuerherd of the National Catholic Reporter is on another rampage, charging that the laity's reception of the USCCB's document "Faithful Citizenship" is being undermined by conservative groups (National Catholic Reporter Feb. 17, 2005) -- that is to say, "Catholic traditionalists, conservatives and neoconservatives, the 'radicalized element' of the antiabortion movement, Republican political partisans and 'evangelicalized Catholics,'" citing an investigation by Catholic University of America associate professor of Religious Studies William Dinges, who interviewed 22 diocesan social action directors around the country.

Naturally, among the chief culprits cited are Catholic Answers for their distribution of Voter's Guide for Serious Christians during the presidential election, and the actions of certain bishops who "threatened to withhold Communion from pro-choice Catholic politicians." The nerve of them!

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam provides a sufficient fisking of Feuerherd's rant.

Bloggers' Best for Terri: Act Now for Life!

From the pages of Life Matters! . . .

Tomorrow, Wittenberg Gate, whose host Dory is a stalwart defender of Terri, will host a Bloggers' Best for Terri Schiavo. As Dory advises:

Any blogger may submit one best post on behalf of preserving Terri Schivo's life or closely related subjects such as euthanasia or caring for a person with a disability.

Commendably, Dory has not left nonbloggers on the sidelines, noting "Anyone who does not write a blog may also submit an article or just a few quick lines by including the entire text in an e-mail."

So there are no excuses! Now is the time to speak in defense of our defenseless sister.

Submissions should be sent to this e-mail address by noon today EST. Additional details and submission instructions are available here.

Act now! A precious and irreplaceable human life is on the line.

Michael Moves In for the Kill, As Political Cowardice Yields to Judicial Tyranny

From the pages of Life Matters! . . .

As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back:

As I wrote last week, the stays preventing Michael Schiavo from ending Terri's life will expire next Monday.

And so, as this Newsday story reports, Michael is going to waste no time in exercising his lethal resolve regarding his wife:

Michael Schiavo has said that he will remove the tube when the final court stay ends. The current stay is now set to end Tuesday.

George Felos, Michael's attorney, has always contended that Michael has the right to kill Terri any time he wants. Now it looks as though he's going to follow through on that.

But the Schindlers are not going to lie down and passively allow this to happen. In a news conference this afternoon, Bob Schindler vowed to continue the fight:

"In 2000, we said we will fight for Terri with every ounce of strength we have, and we still have many ounces," Bob Schindler said.

The fight involves the possibility of getting Governor Bush to intervene, though Bush himself has not offered much optimism for that scenario.

There are also efforts underway to lobby the Florida legislature to make changes in Florida statutes that would offer other avenues to safeguard the lives of Terri and other disabled persons, whose lives are currently inadequately protected under the law. However, while a number of legislators have expressed support for such legislation, it is widely believed that the fate of Terri's Law has cowed many Florida representatives from undertaking another legislative gambit.

George Felos, emboldened by his victories in court, has gone so far as to say that any legislation affecting Terri is unconstitutional:

In response to the family's renewed efforts, George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo, said the Florida Supreme Court "made it very clear" that neither the Legislature nor the governor has authority to overturn previous rulings in the case.

"I think the Legislature knows that, and anything they would pass would be unconstitutional," Felos said. (emphasis added)

Will those who reverence life and see Terri as a human person, and not just a "useless eater", be able to prevail again? If we are to protect her life, and the lives of all the weak and innocent, we must mobilize NOW!

• Pray!
• Offer penance in reparation for sins against the dignity of life.
• Spread the word.
• Call your local talk radio station.
• Ask your priest, bishop or pastor to speak out.
• Send a donation to Terri's Fight to support the effort to save Terri's life.
• Organize a rally in support of Terri.
• Write and call the President to demand that he speak out and intervene.

Cardinal Arinze "ends the debate" on Communion

LifeSiteNews.com reports that Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, addressed the issue of communion by pro-abortion ["pro-choice"] Catholic politicians and the Rainbow Sash movement in an interview with Raymond Arroyo, host of the EWTN show 'The World Over':

Arroyo questioned the Vatican Cardinal saying: "Last year, you were asked at a press conference whether a politician, a Catholic politician who supports abortion publicly should be permitted to the Communion rail, should be permitted to receive Communion publicly. What is your response to that?"

Cardinal Arinze responded, "The answer is clear. If a person says I am in favour of killing unborn babies whether they be four thousand or five thousand, I have been in favour of killing them. I will be in favour of killing them tomorrow and next week and next year. So, unborn babies, too bad for you. I am in favour that you should be killed, then the person turn around and say I want to receive Holy Communion. Do you need any Cardinal from the Vatican to answer that?

LifeSiteNews interprets the Cardinal's remarks as having "ended the debate" on the question of communion. One might hope that when a Vatican Prefect in charge of the sacraments has spoken, the matter may be considered closed. But alas, I suspect that certain Bishops here in America will continue to offer no resistance when obstinately pro-choice Catholic legislators demand their "right" to communion.

Arinze went on to confirm the same policy with respect to the Rainbow Sash Movement, clarifying the nature of a conversation he had with Archbishop Harry Flynn of Minneapolis - St. Paul, who had alleged that Arinze was open to the distribution of communion in such circumstances. [Click here for the full story].

Cardinal Arinze is among those considered most papabile. In 2002 Cardinal Ratzinger personally recommended in an interview that the next head of the Church should come from Africa -- saying, "I personally feel that this would be a good sign for Christendom in its entirety." His comment was interpreted by some as implicit backing for Cardinal Francis Arinze.

Cardinal Arinze himself is not averse to speaking his mind about where the Church stands on matters of morality. Readers might recall he caused quite a stir at a 2002 Georgetown graduation ceremony by describing the family as "under siege" and "opposed by an anti-life mentality as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. It is scorned and banalized by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions and cut in two by Divorce."

The Cardinal's words provoked a mixed reaction by students and faculty, some expressing their appreciation for the refreshing display of fidelity to the Church's teachings; others scandalized and embarassed, not accustomed to such strong and vehement language on the enlightened campus of a Jesuit university.

Update!

• I might have predicted this response from Kerry supporter Ono Ekeh ("His eminence is full of crap").
  
• Much more thoughtful discussion at Open Book (Amy Welborn).
  

Blogs for Terri: Join the Fight for Life!

The Terri Schiavo Blogburst now has over 50 blogs and growing. Its sponsors are considering issuing a press release when the tally hits 100. We applaud the organizers' vision of 100-plus blogs demanding justice for Terri and coverage by the MSM. (mainstream media).

If you are a blogger, I hope that you will join their ranks as Catholics in the Public Square has done. Here is the code to add Terri's blogroll to your blog.

Be sure to email Hyscience at hyscienceblog@3oaks.com to let him know that you have joined us. And visit the Terri-Schindler-Schiavo Foundation daily to read the latest information and alerts.

If possible, try to post something on Terri every day. You are welcome to crosspost any of our reports and commentaries on Life Matters!

Pray and act for Terri!

Permanent Bias Drives "Permanent" Labeling

From the pages of Life Matters! . . .

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

A Kansas woman, Sarah Scantlin, recently began talking after 20 years of brain-damage induced silence. Her doctors "believe critical pathways in the brain may have regenerated."

But of course, Judge Greer, George Felos, Michael Schiavo and Dr. Ronald Cranford "know" that Terri Schiavo can never improve or recover in any way. That's why they haven't even attempted therapy for over a decade.

We're just supposed to ignore Kate Adamson [vide], Rus Cooper-Dowda, David Mack, and the dozens of others like them who have had recoveries from supposedly "permanent" brain injuries—and now Sarah Scantlin.

Editor's Note:

As the recoveries cited above and others in CURE's files evidence, what is truly "permanent" is the lethal bias of the TAB Culture of Death towards persons with disabilities. We are privileged to note that Rus Cooper-Dowda, an intrepid defender of life, serves on CURE's Board of Advisors, as does Fr. Johansen.

Will High Court Bar Higher Code of Law?

"Next month, the Supreme Court considers whether it is constitutional to display the Ten Commandments on public property," Bob Atherney begins a recent edition of the PBS newsweekly Religion & Ethics.

It is an issue that has triggered strong emotions and competing opinions. A court in Kentucky said that state cannot display the commandments. But a court in Texas said it's okay there. Tim O'Brien surveys the arguments and the people making them.

Yet another reason we need new judges with old values.

Lege.

Vide.

Jimmy Akin on Proper Interpretation of the Catechism

Jimmy Akin has two very interesting posts today on Cardinal Ratzinger and the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1. In Consistently Pro-Life," Infallibility, and Capital Punishment, Jimmy disputes the charge that Catholics should be "consistently pro-life" -- a phrase reminiscent of Cardinal Bernardin's "seamless garment" -- on account that such rhetoric "is commonly used to hijack (or neutralize) the issue of abortion by relating it to other issues of a different character" (ex. capital punishment, use of military force, welfare or social programs) about which Catholics may have, to quote Cardinal Ratzinger, a "legitimately diversity of opinion."
2. Ratzinger on the Catechism supplements the above article with a citation from Cardinal Ratzinger's Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, demonstrating that
   . . . the Catechism presents the teaching of the Church without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have. Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions (esp. in the area of social teaching), there remains due liberty for theologians (and others) when they encounter something that has been proposed only tentatively.

Lest we be mistaken, it is not that the other issues don't matter, or that Catholics shouldn't take into consideration the teachings of the Church on these issues, as expressed for instance in certain encyclicals. At the same time, during the course of such reading, Catholics (whether 'conservative' or 'progressive') should be cautious not to impose an equality of value and doctrinal weight where it does not exist.

Will Washington's Birthday Find Terri Starving?

From the pages of Life Matters!

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

In a little reported ruling [on February 4], the Florida Second District Court of Appeals denied a re-hearing of the Schindlers' Papal Appeal, which argued that removing Terri's feeding tube would be a violation of Terri's First Amendment religious rights.

By handing down its ruling without issuing a written opinion, the Appeals Court has also precluded further appeals by the Schindlers to higher courts. I cannot help but suspect that this was an intended consequence on the court's part.

With the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of a hearing of Terri's Law, and the Florida Second District Court of Appeals' denial of the Papal Appeal, this means that there are no more appeals pending in Terri's case. That means that the indefinite stay issued by Judge Greer in Florida last fall will lapse within 15 days of the issuance of the Appeal Court's ruling.

Bottom line:

As I understand it, on Monday, January 21, Michael Schiavo will be able to go back to Judge Greer and request a new "death order" setting a new date for the removal of Terri's feeding tube. The only thing that will prevent this is if the Schindler's attorneys can find new grounds to file another appeal or convince Judge Greer or a higher court to issue another stay.

We need to start praying and getting the troops mobilized again. Terri's life is in grave danger.

I'll have more to post soon. [Editor's Note: When he does, you may read it here.]

Update, February 14, 8:00 p.m.:

It should be noted that the Schindlers are expected to appeal the Appeals Court's decision. As Baptist Press News reports today:

The Second District Court's decision, when it is finalized procedurally Feb. 22, will most likely end a current stay issued by Pinellas County Circuit Judge George Greer that is keeping Schiavo alive. The stay halts his 2000 ruling that said healthcare workers—at the request of Terri's husband and guardian, Michael Schiavo—could discontinue feeding Terri. Once her feeding tubes are removed, she will die by starvation and dehydration—most likely within seven to 10 days.

Attorneys for the Schindler family plan to attempt to appeal the Second District Court's decision and thus take the issue of a disabled person's religious liberty rights to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For the latest developments, keep up to date with the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation.

"Brain Death," Not Death, Pontifical Academy Advised

From the pages of Life Matters! . . .

"At a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, dedicated to the discussion of organ transplants, a former president of the Catholic Medical Association has demanded a more accurate definition of when death occurs," Catholic World News reports.

Current criteria used by doctors to determine "brain death"—the point at which vital organs may be removed from a donor—are not adequate, argued Dr. Paul Byrne. He pointed out that at the time the organs are removed, the donor's heart is beating, his body is warm, and other vital organs are still functioning.

"Brain death is not death," declared Dr. Byrne, who has written extensively on the matter.

In an article published in the October 2001 issue of Catholic World Report, Bishops Fabian Bruskewitz, Lincoln, NE, and Robert Vasa, Baker, OR, and their co-authors stated that the removal of unpaired vital organs cause the death of the donor and that, accordingly, the donation of such organs is never morally licit.

Pope John Paul II has urged doctors to define clear criteria for the death of an organ donor. Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the chancellor of the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, said that last week's meeting in Rome had been devoted to that purpose.

Supplemental Reading

• For additional information, visit The Truth About Brain Death.

Congressman Bobby Jindal - Catholic Apologist?

Readers might remember Earl's profile of Louisiana Representative Bobby Jindal featured in Catholics in the Public Square last month. Jindal is the first Indian-American elected to Congress for nearly 50 years and a rising star in the Republican Party. Born a Hindu, Jindal converted to the Catholic faith in his teens.

As I had commented at the time, the blog RedState did an interview with Jindal, in which he was asked what he was reading -- he responded: "I'm reading Ian Ker's biography of John Henry Newman. It's a great book, and he had a profound impact on Oxford and on matters of faith." It might not be much, but I was pleased to know we have a Catholic politician interested in John Henry Newman -- a man of conviction and a great model for Catholic converts.

Well, Vincent of What a Mystery reveals that Congressman Jindal had also been a contributor to This Rock, the prominent Catholic apologetics magazine edited by Karl Keating:

• "Anatomy of a Christian Friendship", January 1998.
  
• "Atheism's Gods", February 1995.
  
• "End of the Oxford Movement" January 1994.
  

In other news, it turns out that Bobby Jindal was behind Congress' ink-stained display of solidarity with Iraqi voters during President Bush's State of the Union Address:

The salute to the voters in Sunday's Iraqi election was organized by Rep. Bobby Jindal, president of the freshman class of lawmakers.

"We all watched with joy as Iraqis dipped their fingers in ink and held them high, proudly proclaiming to the world that they had voted," recalled Jindal in a "Dear Colleagues" letter coordinating the congressional action. He provided the purple ink for both Republicans and Democrats.

"This symbolic gesture will tell Iraqis, and the world, that we believe in their cause and will stand beside them and all peoples who embrace freedom," said Jindal, the president of the House freshman class. "It's been said that partisanship stops at the water's edge. Let us again show that to be true by joining together in this symbolic gesture."

"Congress Salutes With Purple Fingers", by Bob Dart. Palm Beach Post Feb. 2, 2005.

State of the Union

Here are some excerpts (with important phrases highlighted) that are of great interest to Catholics in the President's State of the Union Address last night. The first excerpt makes clear that at least part of the Baby Boom generation that has contributed so much to the catastrophic moral breakdown of our society is intent on doing things very differently from now on:

Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society.

So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.

And the President again endorsed a constitutional amendment to protect marriage between one man and one woman:

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society,

I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

For many Catholics, the best part of the speech is the President's explicit invocation of the phrase made famous by John Paul II (I have yet to hear a Democrat use the same phrase):

Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life. Medical research can help us reach that goal, by developing treatments and cures that save lives and help people overcome disabilities -- and I thank the Congress for doubling the funding of the National Institutes of Health. (Applause.) To build a culture of life, we must also ensure that scientific advances always serve human dignity, not take advantage of some lives for the benefit of others. We should all be able to agree -- (applause) -- we should all be able to agree on some clear standards. I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and sold as a commodity.

And our fight for freedom involves reigning in judges who have no understanding of the role of the judiciary in a democratic society:

Because courts must always deliver impartial justice, judges have a duty to faithfully interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. (Applause.) As President, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate men and women who understand the role of courts in our democracy, and are well-qualified to serve on the bench -- and I have done so. (Applause.) The Constitution also gives the Senate a responsibility: Every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote. (Applause.)

Finally, social conservatism is also compassionate and is willing to turn to the power of faith to help those in despair:

Because one of the deepest values of our country is compassion, we must never turn away from any citizen who feels isolated from the opportunities of America. Our government will continue to support faith-based and community groups that bring hope to harsh places. Now we need to focus on giving young people, especially young men in our cities, better options than apathy, or gangs, or jail. Tonight I propose a three-year initiative to help organizations keep young people out of gangs, and show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence. (Applause.) Taking on gang life will be one part of a broader outreach to at-risk youth, which involves parents and pastors, coaches and community leaders, in programs ranging from literacy to sports. And I am proud that the leader of this nationwide effort will be our First Lady, Laura Bush. (Applause.)

The full text of the speech can be found at the White House website.

2005 Catholic Blog Awards

Nominations have ended and voting has officially begun for the 2005 Catholic Blog Awards sponsored by CyberCatholics.com. I'd like to take a moment to thank I. Shawn McElhinney of Rerum Novarum for nominating Catholics in the Public Square to the category of "Best Group Blog." Although Shawn does not believe his blog "specialized enough to be viable in very many categories," he was nevertheless nominated for "Best Social Commentary," -- a title which any reader of his blog will agree is definitely suitable.

I'm pleased to also note that my esteemed colleagues Oswald Sobrino and Earl E. Appleby are contenders for "Best Political Blog," and that Jeff Miller aka. The Curt Jester has merited nominations for "Most Humorous" AND "Most Bizarre."

So, congratulations all around to all the blogs who were nominated -- and to our readers: if you appreciated the work we've done both on Catholics in the Public Square and our previous incarnation during the 2004 presidential election as Catholic Kerry Watch, we certainly appreciate your support.

Principle Before Party

A pertinent discussion enfolding in the comment boxes in response to my earlier commentary "CINO Candidate Watch: 'President Pataki,'" has led me to considerations that may be of interest to our CPS readers.

In response to a commenter's invitation "to take a look at the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party" should the Stupid Party nominate George Pataki—or presumably a more viable pro-abort such as Rudy Guiliani—as its 2008 presidential standard bearer, Publius responds:

The Constitution Party I understand, but the Libertarian Party? How does that make sense?

Of course, it doesn't, but not merely in terms of the Libertarian Party.

I would hope that after countless betrayals that we have learned at dear cost—dearer for the victims of abortion and euthanasia than for us—that we should not rest our hopes, much less our trust, in partisan political parties.

It is challenging enough to find a candidate we can vote for with a reasonable expectation that he will not prostitute the noble ideals he professes—often in the partisan service of his party, pace Rick Santorum.

Would I endorse the Libertarian Party?

No more than I would endorse the Republican Party or the Reform Party.

But would I vote for a candidate nominated by the convenience of a party whom I believe would honor his pledge to defend innocent life—say a Pat Buchanan or a Howard Phillips?

That's another matter entirely.

That being said, President Bush's successor in the Oval Office will be nominated by the Republican or the Democrat Party.

Inasmuch as the only realistic chance of a pro-life nominee lies in the Republican, it is essential that we work to defeat any anti-life Republican candidates in the primary and, God forbid, should one prevail in the general election.

The nomination of a pro-abortion presidential candidate must be suicide for the Republican Party because the alternative is continued genocide for the unborn. That is why we—unlike political hacks of Santorum's ilk—must continue to honor principle before party.

Archbishop O'Malley bars "Pro-Choice Catholic" from meeting on Diocesian property; Senator Kerry spouts the same-old party line.

The Boston Phoenix reports that Boston archbishop Sean O'Malley has barred Congressman Mike Capuano from North Cambridge Catholic High School:

Compared with last year's furor over John Kerry's taking Communion, the recent decision by Boston archbishop Sean O'Malley to bar Congressman Mike Capuano from North Cambridge Catholic High School may seem insignificant. But it isn't. In fact, the Capuano affair may portend a whole new level of pressure for Catholic politicians who defy Church teachings.

Last month, Capuano -- who represents Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, and Somerville -- planned two constituent meetings in properties controlled by the Boston archdiocese: one at North Cambridge Catholic, and the other at St. Joseph-St. Lazarus Church, in East Boston. A few days before the North Cambridge meeting, however, a Capuano aide learned the archdiocese now refused to make the school available. Worried the church meeting would be next, Capuano pre-emptively canceled at St. Joseph -- St. Lazarus and rushed (successfully) to find two new, secular locations.

Source: Access denied, by Adam Reilly. Boston Phoenix Feb. 4, 2005.

Congressman Capuano is a Catholic but, as the Phoenix explains, "consistently votes for abortion rights and supports gay marriage" -- putting him rather at odds with the moral tradition of the Catholic Church:

"I'm not the most proactive Catholic, but I consider myself a religious person, if you want to know the truth," he says. "I'm very comfortable with my own religious beliefs. What I do is between me and God and nobody else -- and that applies to any church, including the Catholic Church."

Capuano's appeal to the private nature of his religious faith mirror Senator Kerry's incapacity to comprehend the Church's criticism of his stance on abortion, as demonstrated in a recent interview with Tim Russert ("Meet The Press" Transcript for Jan. 30, 2005):

". . . Too many people in America believe that if you are pro-choice that means pro-abortion. It doesn't. I don't want abortion. Abortion should be the rarest thing in the world. I am actually personally opposed to abortion. But I don't believe that I have a right to take what is an article of faith to me and legislate it to other people. That's not how it works in America."

Like other "pro-choice Catholic" politicians, neither Capuano and Kerry appear willing to acknowledge the real criticism of their Church:

1. First, that the moral teachings of Catholicism are part and parcel of the Catholic faith, and cannot be compartmentalized and excluded from one's conduct in public life. While this applies to all Catholics, one might say this is especially so if one serves as a legislator, where the moral choices one makes in matters of law has considerable influence over others. Perhaps a reading of Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life is in order.
   

   Capuano's rebellious characterization of his faith as "between me and God and nobody else [not even the Catholic Church]" only goes to illustrate his complete ignorance of the proper role of the Church in the life of its members, and the very meaning of obedience as a sign of faith in the Church founded by our Savior. It wasn't for nothing that Christ told his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me."
   

2. Secondly, the Church's position on abortion and other issues of morality are defensible not as an "article of faith" but by appeal to reason and natural law, which is within the capacity of every American to understand (even, one may hope, poorly-catechized Catholics like Senator Kerry and Michael Capuano).
   

As George Weigel explained in a rebuttal to Kerry's argument during the 2004 presidential campaign:

What belongs to everyone, since this is a national candidacy, is the responsibility to make clear that when Kerry says the Church's pro-life teaching is a sectarian position which cannot be imposed on a pluralistic society, he is willfully misrepresenting the nature of the Church's position -- by suggesting that this is something analogous to the Catholic Church trying to force everyone in the United States to abstain from eating hot dogs on Fridays during Lent.

This is simply false. The Church's pro-life teaching is something that can be engaged seriously by anyone. You don't have to believe that there are seven sacraments to deal with this, you don't have to believe in the primacy of the bishop of Rome to engage this position. You don't even have to believe in God to engage this [pro-Life] position because it's a position rooted in basic embryology and in basic logic, and anybody can engage that. (See Weigel Weighs In, CatholicKerryWatch April 20, 2004)

When I learned that Kerry was going to be on NBC's Meet The Press, I'd entertained the faint hope that he might have matured beyond the crude distortion of Catholic teaching that characterized his run for president. Certainly at this point he is hardly in the position to appeal to "invincible ignorance." So I confess to being a little disappointed to hear him parrot the same old Democratic party line he's spouted before -- i.e., the "Cuomo Defense" -- without showing an honest, genuine engagement with the criticism of his Church.

My apologies to my readers for beating a dead horse, but it pains me to have to revisit a point that should be by known to every "pro-choice Catholic" legislator involved. It's really too bad Tim Russert failed to challenge Kerry's sleight of hand during the interview, it would have made for some real journalism. Instead, he let Kerry get away with inane pronouncements like

"the discussion is not about being pro-abortion. The discussion is about how you truly value life. Valuing life is also valuing choice."

* * *

Returning to the news at hand, according to the Phoenix, O'Malley's move may be a sign that the Boston hierarchy may be taking a stronger and more hand's-on approach in responding to wayward Catholic legislators:

It's also noteworthy that Capuano was sanctioned not by a school principal or parish priest, but by O'Malley himself. Last November, when pro-choice state representative Barbara L'Italien was asked to resign as a cantor at St. Augustine in Andover, an archdiocesan statement indicated that the sanctioning of Catholic politicians would be left to individual priests. Judging from O'Malley's involvement here, however, a more centralized, top-down approach is in the works. If so, Catholic elected officials who enjoy a good rapport with their parish priests may want to avoid getting too comfortable -- because with O'Malley calling the shots, L'Italien's experience could be writ large.

We can hope and pray as much.

Helpful articles:

• "God's Reasons", the role of religious authority in debates on public policy. Remarks by Robert P. George at American Political Science Association Convention (revised and expanded) (1998).
• "Christian Conviction & Democratic Etiquette", by George Weigel. First Things 41, March 1994.

Possible Dem Senate Candidates are Catholic and Pro-Life

The Fact Is has a piece on some 2006 Senate race posturing. The interesting thing about the two pro-life Democrats mentioned is that they are both Catholic.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, smarting from the loss of six Senate seats in two election cycles, are trying to field the strongest possible candidates against vulnerable Senators Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), both of whom face re-election in 2006.

Only problem is, the strongest Democratic candidates in both states are pro-lifers.

Neither Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. (D) nor Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), both of whom are opposed to abortion rights, has announced he will run, but the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is actively recruiting both to challenge incumbents in their respective states.

Abortion rights activists were livid Wednesday when they received an invitation to a Feb. 16 fundraiser for Langevin that is being sponsored by the DSCC.

In the House, Langevin votes mostly pro-life, whereas the liberal Republican Chafee supports legal abortion. A new poll shows Langevin beating Chafee by 20 points, so what are Democrats to do?

Likewise, Bob Casey -- a statewide officeholder with a well-recognized political name -- would almost certainly be the strongest Democratic challenger to Santorum if he could escape a primary. Many pro-lifers in Pennsylvania are still upset with Santorum for saving Sen. Arlen Specter (R) from a hot conservative challenge. They will have no qualms voting for the pro-life Casey and ending Santorum's career.

CINO Candidate Watch: "President Pataki"

"What's the funniest line in New York politics these days? " asks Raymond Keating in Monday's Newsday. According to the chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, it consists of just two words: "President Pataki."

"Who needs Leno or Letterman?" Keating continues.

No matter how many times I read about Gov. George Pataki having presidential ambitions—and there are a good number of such reports around—it makes me laugh. [link added]

Personally, it makes me sick to my stomach, but I find relief in what Keating writes next. Remember, he is an economist, after all, and while he proceeds to make a devastating critique of Pataki's fiscal folly, he leads with the following:

After all, the notion that such a lefty on social issues could gain the Republican nod for the White House is pretty preposterous. It's hard to imagine Republican Party faithful abandoning their pro-life position, for example, to nominate a pro-choicer like Pataki. It not only would go against the principles of GOP social conservatives, but also would amount to political suicide. [emphasis added]

Indeed, if the Republicans nominate a pro-abort to succeed our pro-life President, I suspect Catholics in the Public Square will help pull the trigger.

"President Pataki," as Raymond Keating reminds us, is a bad political joke. On the other hand, maybe its time for the next Governor Keating. Now, that idea doesn't make me laugh, but it does make me smile.