They Can Change

Two Catholic congressmen, Rep Mark Foley (R-FL) and Rep John McHugh (R-NY) recently voted against an amendment to repeal the ban on abortions in military facilities. What's the big deal? Well, both of them had previously voted to repeal the ban. As a Catholic I am hopeful they changed their positions not for political purposes but because their faith guided them. Let us hope and pray that other Catholics in the House and Senate will have similiar conversions of heart.

To see how other Catholics in the House voted regarding this amendment, check out the updated report at Catholics in Congress.

House rejects reinstatement of abortion in overseas military hospitals

The House of Representatives rejected a measure to permit abortions in overseas military hospitals by a vote of 233-194, according to Zenit.org:

"Our military hospitals have a proud and honorable tradition of saving lives in the most threatening regions and circumstances," said Cathy Cleaver Ruse, spokeswoman for the U.S. bishops' Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. "They should not be forced into the dishonorable business of abortion."

In 1988 the Reagan administration established a policy prohibiting elective abortions in military hospitals.

The policy was overturned by President Bill Clinton in 1993, but a military survey of Army, Navy and Air Force doctors stationed in Europe was unable to find medical personnel in the armed services willing to perform abortions.

Congress overturned the Clinton policy in 1996 and the House measure on Wednesday was an attempt to reinstate it.

"Abortions rising under Bush? Not true," says FactCheck.Org

"Abortions rose under the Bush administration." You may have heard this cited by a few of of our "progressive" bloggers, not to mention Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and Senator John Kerry. However, FactCheck.org says it's not true, publishing The Biography of a Bad Statistic:

A number of politicians and organizations have been circulating an interesting and surprising idea: that abortions have gone up under George W. Bush's watch.

The claim is repeated by supporters of abortion rights as evidence that Bush's anti-abortion policies have backfired, or at least been ineffective.

But the claim is untrue. In fact, according to the respected Alan Guttmacher Institute, a 20-year decline in abortion rates continued after Bush took office . . .GET THE WHOLE STORY.

The Other Stem Cell Bill

Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act Press Release

(Washington, DC) - Landmark legislation creating a new federally-funded stem cell therapeutic and research program for the scientifically sound collection and inventory of umbilical cord blood will be on the floor of the House of Representatives the week of May 23rd, [Catholic] Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) said today.

The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act creates a new federal cord blood stem cell program, reauthorizes and expands the current federal bone marrow stem cell program, and establishes a new federally-funded data program with a single electronic access point so doctors and patients can research and tap into the therapy that is best suited to treat the life-threatening condition they are facing.

To highlight the groundbreaking medical implications of Smith's legislation, Smith will hold a press conference with doctors, patients, and other lawmakers supportive of the legislation.

"Umbilical cords are a rich, non-controversial source of stem cells, but currently hospitals throw millions of them away each year because we do not have the infrastructure needed to properly collect and store them," said Smith who has been championing this legislation for three years. "The best kept medical secret has been that thousands have been successfully treated with cord blood stem cells for more than 67 diseases including Leukemia and Sickle Cell Anemia. The infusion of federal funds will make this medical miracle available to thousands more and will ensure that research continues so that this source of stem cells can treat many other debilitating diseases," Smith said.

"Published studies have shown that cord blood stem cells have the capacity to change into other cells types, which give them the potential to treat many other debilitating conditions such as spinal cord injury, Parkinson's, diabetes and heart disease," Smith said.

Additional Reading:

Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote about this bill at National Review Online here.
"Adult Stem Cell Research Bill Gains Momentum as House Vote Nears", LifeNews.com
"President Bush Prefers Adult Stem Cell Research Bill, Aide Says", LifeNews.com

Judge Pryor and Hope v. Pelzer

Several weeks ago Nathan at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis laid out his reasoning why Judge William Pryor should be denied a seat on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and why Catholics should not support him. President Bush nominated then Alabama Attorney General Pryor to the bench in 2003. He was filibustered by Senate Democrats, but the president recess appointed him to the 11th Circuit where he has served for the last year. In addition, following re-election the president re-nominated now Judge Pryor. Nathan published his concerns following Judge Pryor's renomination and added to them following the death of Terry Schiavo. It was the 11th Circuit Court which denied Terry's parents a motion to reconsider and Nathan believed then that Judge Pryor voted with the majority of the Court to deny the petition. I showed that was not necessarily true, which Nathan accepted. He feels that there is some "circumstantial" evidence to suggest Judge Pryor voted with the majority, but that we cannot know for sure. Now with the Senate heating up over the president's filibustered nominees Nathan is once again airing his concerns about Judge Pryor, as well as Judge Priscilla Owen and Judge Janice Rogers Brown.

One point Nathan brought up about Judge Pryor which I never was able to address was the charge that he defended torture. Here is what Nathan wrote concerning an Alabama case which went all the way to the Supreme Court.

In Hope v. Pelzer, Bill Pryor defended Alabama's practice of handcuffing prison inmates to hitching posts in the hot sun if they refused to work on chain gangs or otherwise disrupted them. The Supreme Court, thankfully, rejected Pryor's insidious argument. The practice of both the hitching post and the chain gang constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in the United States Constitution, and it is certainly inconsistent with Catholic social teaching.

At the time I knew nothing about the case, so I did not comment on it. Nathan called me on it twice:

Is his defense of "the hitching post" and "chain gangs" in Hope v. Pelzer consistent with Catholic social teaching? (I would particularly like to hear your opinion on this; I consider this by far his most serious offense and the point which absolutely cannot be reconciled with Catholic social teaching).

I would still like to hear your opinion on Hope v. Pelzer, which you have conveniently avoided twice now. Perhaps you've avoided it because Pryor's position on that is indefensible.

With the fight in the Senate for these nominees and the appropriate use of the filibuster ongoing I have been reading up on the president's nominees. With Hope v. Pelzer and Judge Pryor's supposed position of defending torture still weighing on me, I came across the Committee for Justice's backgrounder (below) on Judge Pryor and his actions in regard to Hope v. Pelzer: Once again, Nathan does not have the facts straight. It is likely Nathan is merely repeating the misinformation that liberal interest groups are putting out there rather than purposefully misleading his readers. As the backgrounder below points out, Judge Pryor was not defending the use of the restraining bar, which borders on torture, rather he was defending, as he was obligated to do as AG, state employees who were being sued for using it and supposedly knew that its use was unconstitutional. Given that the use of the restraining bar was declared constitutional in at least six previous federal cases, it is hard to see that these guards should have known that the Supreme Court would sometime in the future declare it (by only a 5-4 vote) unconstitutional. The whole of the backgrounder follows:

The Restraining Bar Case. Pursuant to his obligations to defend Alabama against lawsuits, General Pryor raised another immunity-related defense - the defense of qualified immunity - in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Hope v. Pelzer.75 According to the Supreme Court, qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."76 The Eleventh Circuit has made it clear that the purpose of this immunity is to allow government officials to carry out their discretionary duties without the fear of personal liability or harassing litigation,77 by ensuring that only the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law are subjected to liability.78

For a time in Alabama, prisoners who would not work or who fought with other prisoners on work detail were handcuffed to a restraining bar by Alabama Department of Corrections prison guards until they decided to work with the other prisoners or the work day ended.79 Under the regulation ordering use of the restraining bar, officers were required to provide prisoners with food, water, bathroom breaks, and medical attention.80

The plaintiff in the case, a prisoner convicted of rape, filed suit against three prison guards who allegedly placed him on the restraining bar. The prisoner never alleged that the three guards he was suing in any way failed to provide him with food, water, bathroom breaks, or everything else required by the regulation. Instead, the convicted rapist was seeking money damages for the allegedly unconstitutional actions of the guards.81 This is despite the fact that, by the time the prisoner's case was litigated in court, the Alabama Department of Corrections had ceased using the restraining bar.82

General Pryor's argument was simply that the three defendant guards should not be sued for money damages, because the relevant case law at the time did not come close to establishing a clear rule that the restraining bar was unconstitutional. Under established Supreme Court precedent, state officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."83 One year before the conduct at issue in Hope took place, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama rejected the Eighth Amendment claim of an Alabama prisoner who was attached to a restraining bar for five hours after he refused to work and scuffled with guards.84 In fact, federal district courts in five other Alabama cases decided before the conduct at issue in Hope took place also rejected claims that handcuffing a prisoner to a restraining bar or other stationary object violated the Eighth Amendment.85 Because of the lack of clear guidance from federal courts, General Pryor believed the guards had no idea that their actions, which were ordered by then-Governor Fob James and the former prisons commissioner, were in any way illegal. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with General Pryor in 2001, dismissing the prisoner's suit on qualified immunity grounds.86

Because the convicted rapist appealed to the Supreme Court, General Pryor had no choice but to ask the Court to uphold the Eleventh Circuit's decision. Although a bitterly divided Supreme Court held 5-4 that the three prison guards were not entitled to qualified immunity,87 General Pryor's colleagues once again rallied to his side. Fifteen state Attorneys General filed an amicus brief in support of General Pryor's position in the case, including ten Democrats.88 The Attorneys General fully agreed with General Pryor's mainstream argument, noting: "It would not be appropriate to expect lay state officers to anticipate what was not grasped by several contemporary federal courts - and to hold those officers personally liable for this lack of prescience."89


75 536 U.S. 730, 733 (2002).
76 Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
77 See Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1346 (11th Cir. 2002).
78 See Chesser v. Sparks, 248 F.3d 1117, 1123 (11th Cir. 2001).
79 See Hope, 536 U.S. at 733.
80 See Respondents' Brief, 2002 WL 481135 at *21-22.
81 See Petitioner's Brief, 2002 WL 313546.
82 See Petitioner's Brief, 2002 WL 313546 at *1 n.2.
83 Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
84 See Lane v. Findley, No. CV-93-C-1741-S (Aug. 4, 1994).
85 See, e.g., Ashby v. Dees, No. CV-94-U-0605-NE (N.D. Ala., Dec. 27, 1994); Vinson v. Thompson, No.CV-94-A-268-N (M.D. Ala., Dec. 9, 1994); Hollis v. Folsom, No. CV-94-T-0052-N (M.D. Ala., Nov. 4, 1994); Williamson v. Anderson, No. CV-92-H-675-N (M.D. Ala., Aug. 18, 1993); Dale v. Murphy, No. CV-85-1091-H (S.D. Ala., Feb. 4, 1986).
86 See Hope v. Pelzer, 240 F.3d 975, 981 (11th Cir. 2001).
87 See Hope, 536 U.S. at 741-42.
88 See Brief of the States of Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, et. al., 2000 WL 471808.
89 Id. at *28 (citation omitted).

This was not about the constitutionality or appropriateness of the restraining bar, rather it was about money and whether or not these guards were entitled to immunity given that the use of the restraining bar in Alabama had been previously declared constitutional. It was not Judge Pryor's place as AG to argue whether or not this practice was constitutional. He was only defending the state employees, again which he is obligated to, who were following what they believed, given the previous federal rulings, was a constitutionally appropriate rule.

Once again there have been false statements about Judge Pryor's position on a issue important to Catholics and all people for that matter. What is his position on torture? I do not know. I am sure Nathan will assume that it he holds a pro-torture position, but the fact of the matter is that we do not know and that it is unfair and false to say that he does. Judge Pryor's actions in regard to Hope v. Pelzer do not warrant opposition to him from Catholics and do not disqualify him from being nominated by the president to the 11th Circuit.

Crisis Editor on AIDS/Condoms Issue

Brian St. Paul, editor of the Catholic magazine Crisis, has recently addressed the media hate campaign against our Church over the issue of condoms as AIDS prevention in Africa. Brian lays out the research showing that increased condom use has not reduced the rates of HIV transmission in Africa, but instead appears to have encouraged even more high-risk behavior. Brian also emphasizes that the effectiveness of condoms is only 90%, and I agree with his conclusion that anyone who is willing to take a 10% avoidable risk of contracting HIV is just, in my words, plain crazy.

The research showing the ineffectiveness of condoms in preventing AIDS makes sense. The problem in Africa is promiscuity. Promiscuous males are not interested in the niceties of using a condom--they are by nature and personality reckless individuals. We are dealing with extremely reckless behavior given the fact that the epidemic is well-known. This African reality parallels the current problem in the United States where media reports indicate that high-risk homosexuals seem to be abandoning any allegedly "safe sex" techniques. We are dealing with a malady of the soul and personality. The solution is to make reckless individuals less reckless by education. The solution in Africa is to empower women to stop allowing themselves to be the vessels for arbitrary male sexual gratification and to enforce laws against rape in support of the dignity of women. In fact, when all is said and done, the most effective response to the AIDS epidemic in Africa is precisely Catholic moral teaching backed up by governments willing to protect women from rape. In addition, it is worth noting that Africans are a religious people for whom a religious/cultural approach is going to be very persuasive.

The AIDS epidemic in Africa should be addressed within a moral, religious, cultural, and legal framework suited to the highly religious and tribal nature of Africa. The favored secular Western technological solution of inundating the continent with condoms is not working.

Here are the Crisis editor's comments in full with added emphasis:

Will Condoms Really Stop AIDS In Africa?
Special Crisis e-Report, May 19, 2005

Dear Friend,

If you've watched any of the mainstream news coverage of the Catholic Church in the past month, you've heard several charges repeated over and over: The Church needs to ordain women to address the vocation shortage... the Church needs to change its attitude on contraception and abortion to better accommodate modern realities... the Church needs to moderate its stance on homosexual behavior to be more inclusive... the Church needs to drop its claim to contain the fullness of salvation, since it hinders ecumenism. Chances are, you're already well equipped to address these objections.

But there's one charge that seems to throw Catholics for a loop. It goes something like this: By maintaining its ban on condom use, the Catholic Church is contributing to the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. Condoms have been demonstrated to prevent infection 90% of the time. If the Vatican cared more about people's lives than a rigid doctrine that most Catholics reject, they'd make an exception to allow condom use to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Such a move would do more for "life" than would maintaining a position that allows millions to die as a result of unprotected sex.

Sounds convincing at first, doesn't it? So convincing, in fact, that most Catholics have trouble addressing it.One approach, of course, would be to explain the Catholic moral/theological position on why contraception is inherently evil. But while absolutely true, that approach isn't terribly convincing to a non-Catholic, let alone a non-Christian. After all, logic and philosophy are easily dismissed as abstractions when human life is involved.

But the debate over condoms in Africa need never get to that point. In fact, the whole matter can be settled without ever bringing in moral theology. You see, the fatal flaw in the pro-condom argument is both simple and devastating: Condoms aren't working to stem AIDS in Africa. Take for example a March 2004 article in the medical journal, Studies in Family Planning (cited by the Zenit News Agency, June 26, 2004). Titled "Condom Promotion for AIDS Prevention in the Developing World: Is It Working?," the piece was a meta-review of the scientific literature on the question.The results shocked condom advocates. In the article, researchers Sanny Chen and Norman Hearst noted that, "In many sub-Saharan African countries, high HIV transmission rates have continued despite high rates of condom use." In fact, they continued, "No clear examples have emerged yet of a country that has turned back a generalized epidemic primarily by means of condom distribution."No surprise, then, that Botswana, Zimbabwe, Kenya, and South Africa -- the nations with the highest levels of condom availability -- continue to have the highest rates of HIV prevalence ("The White House Initiative to Combat AIDS: Learning from Uganda," Joseph Loconte, Executive Summary Backgrounder).

How could this be? After all, we're told that condoms are 90% effective. And that's precisely the problem.This claim -- so prevalent in condom-promotion literature -- is actually a tremendous strike against using condoms to reduce AIDS. Think of it: Assuming that the 90% figure is accurate (a highly contested point), that means that 10% of the time, condoms don't offer protection against transmission. That's one out of ten. If you and I were to go skydiving, and I told you, "Don't worry... the parachutes work 90% of the time," how comfortable would you be making that jump? Now, of course, the fact that a condom fails to "work" doesn't mean the person will automatically contract HIV/AIDS.

Nevertheless, this is hardly the solution to the crisis. You see, the pro-condom lobby's exaggerations over the effectiveness of its product is actually making the problem worse, for one simple reason: Condoms provide a false sense of security to those who use them. Being convinced of their effectiveness and feeling invulnerable, users will simply continue -- or actually increase -- their high-risk behavior. In this way, the claimed 90% effectiveness rate plummets in proportion to the increase in self-destructive behavior. This phenomenon is borne out in the countries that focus on condom distribution to fight the disease.

But while condoms clearly won't solve the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa (or anywhere else), there is an approach that will: abstinence. Indeed, in African nations -- where HIV/AIDS is transmitted almost exclusively through sexual contact -- abstinence is the obvious solution. And better yet, it has been proven effective. Uganda at one time had the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the world. Starting in the mid to late 1980s, their government instituted a program to teach abstinence before marriage and fidelity to one's partner afterwards. They only reluctantly advised condoms for high risk groups (like prostitutes) whom they knew would not accept the other two approaches. Billboards, radio announcements, print ads, and school programs all promoted the virtues of abstinence and fidelity to prevent HIV/AIDS.The results were astonishing. In 1991, the prevalence rate of HIV was 15%. By 2001, it had dropped to 5%. It was the biggest HIV infection reduction in world history. Among pregnant women, the drop was even more dramatic (as reported by CNS News, January 13, 2003). In 1991, 21.2% of expecting mothers tested positive for HIV. By 2001, the number had plummeted to 6.2%. Compare this with the 2001 numbers from Kenya (15%), Zimbabwe (32%), and Botswana (38%). All three countries focus on condom distribution, and all three countries continue to see their rates rise.

But wait, the condom advocates object. The Ugandan "miracle" is simply the result of more widespread condom use. Not so, says Dr. Edward C. Green, an anthropologist at the Harvard University School of Public Health. Dr. Green was a strong proponent of condom distribution to stem HIV/AIDS... that is, until the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) hired him to study the reasons behind the success in Uganda.The results of his research left him little doubt. "Reduction in the number of sexual partners was probably the single most important behavioral change that resulted in prevalence decline," he noted. "Abstinence was probably the second most important change" (testimony before the Subcommittee on African Affairs, as reported by Joseph Loconte)."It is a very indicting statement about the effectiveness of condoms," he told Citizen Magazine. "You cannot show that more condoms have led to less AIDS in Africa.... I look at the data and I see that what might be called a more liberal response to AIDS -- more and more millions or billions of condoms -- has simply not worked, especially in parts of the world with the highest infection rate, Africa and the Caribbean."

Unfortunately, not everyone was pleased with Dr. Green's conclusions. USAID shelved his study and enlisted a well-known condom advocate and employee of ETR Associates (an organization dedicated to "safe-sex" education) to write a new one. Apparently, USAID wasn't concerned with the apparent conflict of interest. This is especially tragic, as the effectiveness of abstinence and fidelity education has been demonstrated by numerous research groups. As Loconte notes, evidence for the success of Uganda's approach has come from "USAID, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Harvard Center for Population and Developmental Studies, the Ugandan government, and numerous independent studies published in medical journals. "Yet we're still told condom distribution is the solution to the AIDS crisis in Africa. And the Catholic Church is an easy media bogeyman, standing in the way of that effort. Ironically enough, Uganda's successful approach is very close to that recommended by the Church. The only exception, of course, is the African country's concession to giving condoms to prostitutes. But if the people of that nation -- and indeed, of the world at large -- took seriously the Catholic notion of the dignity of women and the nature of sexual intercourse, that last point would be addressed as well.

But what about allowing condoms for faithful married couples, where one partner is HIV/AIDS positive? Isn't that reasonable? Actually, it's not reasonable at all. Love requires sacrifice. And a person who claims to love another would never knowingly put his beloved in danger. But that's precisely what this approach does. Imagine if I get drunk one night and drive my wife around town. That's not a loving act. And it doesn't suddenly become loving just because I tell her to put on her seatbelt. When an HIV/AIDS positive person has sex with someone who's free of the disease, he puts that person at grave risk. That's not love... that's selfishness.In a marital situation where one spouse is HIV/AIDS positive and the other negative, the loving thing to do is to abstain from sex. In those cases, love must be shown in other ways, like the self-sacrifice that abstinence requires.It's not easy, but real love rarely is.

I'll talk to you next week,

Brian [St. Paul, Crisis Editor]

Father Pavone on "95-10"

National pro-life leader commends pro-life Democrats

WASHINGTON DC, USA, May 17 (CNA) - Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, commended Democrats for Life of America's "95-10" Initiative, which aims to reduce the number of abortions.

"A pro-life stance is far more consistent with principles Democrats claim to hold than is a pro-abortion stance," said Fr. Pavone at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington. The "95-10" Initiative enjoys the support of a number of pro-life Democrats in Congress.

The pro-life priest said his support does not mean that the initiative is not in need of further modification and debate. But he conceded that the initiative was a good starting point. [I am assuming this has to to with the proposals to promote contraception in insurance coverage and the possibility that sex-ed proposal would promote condom use.]

He also challenged Democrats and Republicans "to resist the temptation to dodge the abortion issue.

"Abortion is an act of violence that contradicts not only what a political party should stand for, but what America already stands for - the equal dignity of every human life," he said. "Abortion must not only be limited; it must be ended."

Fr. Pavone added: "It important that the pro-life movement and the Church not be identified exclusively with one or another political party, for the simple reason that the right to life is rooted in human nature and the nature of God, not political platforms."

Pope Benedict meets the parents of Terri Schiavo

In this picture released by the Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano, Pope Benedict XVI meets with Terri Schiavo's parents, Roy Schindler, right, and Mary Schindler presenting him with pictures of their daughter at the weekly general audience in St. Peter's square at the Vatican, Wednesday, May 18, 2005. - YahooNews.com.

Ecumenical Euthanasia: Galluping to Death

From the pages of Life Matters! . . .

"Reporting a number that will surprise some," Editor & Publisher informs us, "the Gallup Organizations today said its latest poll found that 75% of Americans support euthanasia—allowing a doctor to take the life of a patient who is suffering from an incurable disease and wants to die. This, Gallup noted, was up 6% since 2004."

While the anti-life media casts the fight against euthanasia as a cause of "rightwing fundamentalists" in the divide-and-conquer strategy described in my latest op-ed for Spero News, faith-based opponents often play into their hands by stereotyping euthanasia supporters as "leftwing secular humanists." Yet Gallup reports that "even evangelical Christians said they backed euthanasia, at 61%, as did 71% of rural residents."

Weekly churchgoers also support the concept (51%). So do self-described conservatives (63%), though that trails liberals (82%).

The wording of poll questions is crucial, but one would have to swallow camels while straining at gnats to find much solace in Gallup's query:

When a person has a disease that cannot be cured, do you think doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient's life by some painless means if the patient and his family request it?

Even more disturbing is the conclusion of Editor & Publisher's account:

In another interesting finding, 59% of the overall sample said they would consider ending their own life, if in severe pain, by some painless means.

The man who is prepared to murder himself—under the "appropriate" circumstances—will be quite willing to sanction ending the lives of others, whose condition is worse than his own, especially when it is rationalized by secularists and religious alike in the practice CURE calls "ecumenical euthanasia."

Supplemental Reading:

• For a more detailed breakdown of the survey results, see David Moore, "Three in Four Americans Support Euthanasia," Gallup News Service, May 17, 2005.

Catholic College Blasted for Honoring Rudy Giuliani

(CNSNews.com) - Pro-life activists say a Catholic college in Baltimore, Md., has no business inviting Rudy Giuliani to speak at its commencement exercises. The former New York City mayor also will receive an honorary degree from Loyola College on Friday, May 20.

"It is unconscionable for Loyola College -- a Catholic institution -- to host Rudy Giuliani given his outspoken support of abortion-on-demand, which stands in direct opposition to the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church and his own self-proclaimed faith," said Jack Ames, founder of the Maryland group Defend Life.

Loyola's Interim President David Haddad calls Giuliani a "courageous figure, a man whose leadership and resolute response to the attacks of September 11 represents the ideal of citizenship and public service."

Students in Loyola's graduating class of 2005 were in the first week of their freshman year when the terrorist attacks happened - and many them are from the New York and Washington areas, the college noted.

"The mayor's presence will no doubt be both inspirational and meaningful to them and to their families," Haddad said in a statement on the college's website.

Defend Life said Giuliani's leadership is not the issue; his support of abortion-on-demand is the problem:

"Loyola's rationale for inviting Giuliani is exactly why he should be disqualified," Ames said. "While recognizing the impact that 9/11 -- which took the lives of over 3,000 innocent Americans -- has had on these graduates, Loyola is failing to realize the unmistakable impact that legalized abortion has had on that entire generation."

Ames said every day, more than 3,500 babies are killed by surgical abortion - "meaning a full one-third of this graduating class's generation has been eliminated because of those who support so-called 'choice.'" [Source]

Rudy Giuliani has described himself “I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” and when asked about partial-birth abortion ban replied “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” He is more then just a Republican version of John Kerry, he is perhaps worse since he doesn't even try to dodge behind the ole "personally opposed, but.." line.

Point Blank (Round 23): CDF's Archbishop Levada

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

Special Edition: From Rottweiler to Cocker Spaniel?

"When he was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI was known as the hard-line enforcer of church doctrine for John Paul II. But the man the new Pontiff has just named to fill his old job, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, [San Francisco Archbishop William Levada] is harder to pin down," Jeff Israely writes for Time's European edition. In an effort to shed some light on the matter, Times Against Humanity presents our customary bullets Point Blank.

Solomon—San Francisco Style

Moving to San Francisco in 1995, he is known for his diplomatic skills, which temper his conservative positions on most doctrinal issues. For example, though a vocal opponent of Mayor Gavin Newsom's flurry of gay weddings last year, Levada had earlier worked out a Solomonic solution that resulted in health benefits for gay partners. He has been criticized for his slow and secretive response to priest sexual-abuse scandals in San Francisco,where at least 68 lawsuits over alleged abuse are still pending....

That practical streak may mean Pope Benedict XVI expects Levada, 68, to pay more attention to the administrative demands of his new job than to the ideological ones. A traditionalist inside the Roman Curia was initially shocked at the choice. "He's not at all the darling of the right," he said. But Vatican sources say the appointment was a sign of the trust and respect Benedict has for the American prelate. –Jeff Israely, "The Man Who Would Be Ratzinger," Time, May 15, 2005.

Levada has a reputation as someone with the capacity to find imaginative solutions to difficult problems. A leading case in point came in 1997, when the City of San Francisco threatened to withdraw funding from any social service agency that did not provide health benefits to domestic partners. I was in Los Angeles at the time and was assigned to cover the story, and it seemed for a brief period that the city and the church were at a stalemate. At the eleventh hour, however, Levada proposed allowing employees to designate anyone they wanted as a recipient of benefits on their health plans—an aunt, a parent, a good friend, etc. In that sense, the church was making benefits more widely available, without endorsing same-sex relationships. One Catholic theologian at the time called the decision "Solomonic," though some critics still felt it fudged over the church's opposition to homosexuality. –John Allen Jr."Levada to head Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith," National Catholic Reporter, May 13,2005.

How About More Roman Influence in "U.S. Church"?

Pope Benedict XVI's decision to elevate an American archbishop to a job as chief defender of church doctrine could give the U.S. church more influence in Rome.

The appointment of San Francisco Archbishop William Levada also puts a conservative clergyman with a record of pragmatic approaches to problems in the Roman Catholic Church's most influential job.... [Editor's Note: And we thought it was the papacy.]

Joking about then-cardinal Ratzinger's nickname as "God's Rottweiler," Levada told a news conference in San Francisco he saw himself "more a cocker spaniel than Rottweiler." As archbishop of San Francisco, Levada adhered closely to church teachings, but he displayed a flexible approach to issues that allowed him to find solutions and avoid controversy.

In 1997, he reached a compromise with Mayor Willie Brown over a local domestic partner law under which Catholic Charities was required to provide health insurance and other spousal benefits to gay and unmarried partners of its employees. Levada sidestepped the gay issue by emphasizing that health coverage should be available to everyone, and helped persuade the city to broaden the requirement so that any member of a household—including blood relatives—could receive benefits.

Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, which oversees the church's public policy in the state, said Levada has shown flexibility. "It's an example of a pragmatist who is trying to find a creative solution." –"Benedict Selects American as Defender of Church Doctrine," USA Today, May 15, 2005.

"Given Benedict's focus on relativism—the idea that the truth is negotiable, especially in the areas of euthanasia, stem cell research and abortion—in the United States and Europe, it's interesting he would reach into the U.S. for doctrine's top watchdog," said Tom Roberts, editor of the National Catholic Reporter....

While Levada may be just one more traditionalist in Rome, he may also bring something traditionally American—innovation.

Many point to the unusual compromise he brokered in 1997 when the city of San Francisco threatened to cut funding to all agencies not offering domestic partner benefits. He proposed letting employees designate anyone they wanted as a recipient, expanding benefits and saving a Catholic Charities funding source while not endorsing same-sex relationships.

"Of course, if you're a gay activist moving toward an issue of principal you'll see that as a way of avoiding things, but if you're trying to move conservatives forward with practical results, that's actually pretty creative," said church historian Paul Murphy, director of the Lane Center for Catholics Studies and Social Thought at the University of San Francisco, a Jesuit school. –Robin Evans, "Pope's choice for important post means doctrine congregation not likely to change with American head," Kansas City Star, May 14, 2005.

On Friday, he did not go into any detail but seemed to allow for at least some discussion. Asked whether issues such as birth control, married clergy and female priests would be raised once he assumed his new role, Levada replied: "Catholics discuss these things. I haven't talked to Pope Benedict about them. I'll have to wait and see."

Marriage for priests is "not a doctrinal issue and won't come before the Congregation," he continued. Birth control "might."
A change in Vatican style may be ahead once the graduate of St. Anthony High School in Long Beach and St. John's Seminary College in Camarillo moves to Rome in August. Church observers say he will bring American understanding of dialogue and the importance of individual conscience in a democratic society....

Asked Friday whether a more moderate successor should be appointed in San Francisco, Levada joked: "It's hard for me to imagine anyone more moderate than me." –Larry Stammer and Maria LaGanga, "This San Franciscan's Road Leads to Rome," Newsday, May 14, 2005.

Advantage, Levada?

Archbishop William Levada, who catapulted Friday into the most influential Vatican post ever held by an American, has a track record of upholding Roman Catholic policies while deftly handling controversy. But his appointment as the chief enforcer of church doctrine was sharply criticized by clerical sex abuse victims, who say he's done a poor job of dealing with the crisis. Levada countered that his experience with the issue is an advantage for the church....The [CDF] reviews all sex abuse claims against clergy, to see whether a priest should be forced out, given a church trial or found innocent....

Last year, James Jenkins, chairman of a watchdog panel Levada formed to review claims against priests in San Francisco, resigned in protest. "It's what (Levada) calls an independent review board. I believe it's compromised. We were manipulated," Jenkins said Friday. "What started out as a good faith effort devolved into something that was nothing more than an elaborate public relations scheme."

Levada called the criticism "off the mark." –Kim Curtis, "New Vatican Enforcer Criticized Over Abuse," The Guardian, May 14, 2005.

In one San Francisco parish alone, all six religious order priests are facing abuse lawsuits...yet [reportedly] the archbishop has not taken action against them.

James Jenkins, who quit as a member of the San Francisco archdiocese independent review board on the sex abuse scandal, said Levada did not appear interested in getting at the truth. "I came to believe the review board was nothing more than an elaborate public relations scheme," he said. –"Vatican watchdog is conservative from liberal city," Reuters, May 13, 2005.

Cardinal McCarrick Would Approve...Indeed, He Has

Levada was credited by Catholic experts Friday with brokering deals on thorny issues that upheld orthodox church teaching without creating controversy.

"Certainly, he's a conservative, but he knows what battles to pick," said David Gibson, a former Vatican radio newsman and author of The Coming Catholic Church. "I think there's a pragmatism that comes with pastoral experience."

Levada served on a task force formed by the U.S. bishops to address the debate that erupted last year over whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should receive Communion. That panel left the decision up to individual bishops.

Levada issued a nuanced statement saying parishioners must accept Catholic teaching that abortion and euthanasia are evil to be in full communion with the church. But he did not say directly that he would deny the sacrament to dissenting politicians. –Curtis, loc.cit.

Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahony said his fellow Californian's "personal understanding of the United States' pastoral realities will also be most useful to the Holy Father," particularly his experience in handling clergy sexual abuse cases. Cardinal Mahony said Archbishop Levada brings "extraordinary intelligence, a deep life of faith, an unwavering commitment to the continuous teachings of the church and vast experience" to the Vatican congregation considered primary in responsibility and influence....Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington said in selecting Archbishop Levada the pope chose "one of the most outstanding bishops in the United States to serve as his close collaborator." –"Fellow bishops proud Archbishop Levada named Vatican's doctrinal head," Catholic News Service, May 13, 2005.

Supplemental Reading:

• See, "Statement of Archbishop William J. Levada," May 13, 2005.
• See also, Phil Lawler, "Archbishop Levada: the Pope's surprising choice," Catholic World News, May 14, 2005.

President to attend National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

President Bush will address the 2nd Annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast next Friday, May 20th at the Washington Hilton in Washington D.C.

"We are honored and delighted that the President of the United States is joining with our Catholic community as we bring action to our faith and commit ourselves to prayer for our nation and the world," said Joseph Cella, president of the prayer breakfast.

Georgia Governor Courts Catholic Vote

Last month, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's "Political Insider" reported:

Two of the most overlooked appearances at the state Capitol this session have been made by the same man—the Most Rev. Wilton Gregory, Atlanta's new archbishop.

He filled in for Zell Miller as the keynote speaker at this year's anti-abortion rally. A week later, Gregory was at the side of Sonny Perdue, as the governor again launched his campaign for a "faith and family services" amendment to the state Constitution.

The governor's strategy in pressing this latter issue has baffled many. It is Gregory, and the Roman Catholics the archbishop represents, who may provide the explanation.

Several paragraph's later, the heart of that explanation is provided:

So what's the payoff for the governor? The future, possibly.

From 1990 to 2000, the number of Catholic "adherents" of the Atlanta archdiocese doubled to 301,488. Demographers think it could do so again by 2010. There's not a denomination in Georgia that can match that growth rate.

When one looks at the two hottest centers of Catholic growth in the South, only Charlotte is growing faster than Atlanta. Largely Catholic migrants from the Northeast, the new residents are middle-class members of a group that, while historically Democratic, has listed more and more Republican since the days of JFK. As the column notes, "Just the thing for shoring up suburbs that are becoming swing territories in Georgia."

Outside Louisiana, Catholics are still rare objects of courtship in the Deep South. Clearly, Perdue recognizes that this is changing. While their numbers are still slim in Georgia, already Catholics have become a crucial part of the religious conservative alliance against abortion that now forms the base of the state GOP.

Further evidence of Gov. Perdue's interest in maintaining that alliance is provided by a press release issued yesterday by Priests for Life in which Fr. Frank Pavone commends the Republican governor for signing the Women's Right to Know Act.

Pro-Life Democrats Offer Mixed Bag of Proposals Designed to Reduce Abortions

95-10 is getting some attention from other sources. "Contraception Equality" is still a sticking point.

A series of legislative proposals aimed at reducing abortions by 95
percent in the next 10 years was recently announced by pro-life Democrats at the Democratic National Committee headquarters. It is a move that may indicate the party is taking seriously recent polling data indicating the party's unwavering support for abortion to be politically damaging. But the proposal contains a provision that would require insurance companies to provide coverage for contraceptives. Such a provision could make it difficult for the proposal to gain the support of stalwart pro-life Republicans that it would need to gain passage.

Called the 95-10 Initiative, it is made up of 17 individual proposals aimed at reducing the number of abortions. The proposals are expected to be introduced as a single piece of legislation by Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, one of about 29 pro-life Democratic members of Congress. Jennifer Moore, a legislative assistant to Ryan, told Culture & Cosmos that the proposal was largely crafted by Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America. The goal of ending 95 percent of abortions was arrived at because it is thought to be the percentage of abortions obtained for reasons other than rape, incest or the health of the other.

Anti-Life Media Jihad Slimes Christians in Divide-and-Conquer Drive

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

"I have been looking at myself, and millions of my brethren, fellow evangelicals along with traditional Catholics, in a ghastly arcade mirror lately—courtesy of The Washington Post and The New York Times," former Times reporter John MacCandlish Phillips writes in today's Manchester Union Leader, affording his readers an insight into the latest campaign by of the dominant media culture (DMC) to slander Christians.

Readers have been assured, among other dreadful things, that we are living in "a theocracy" and that this theocratic federal state has reached the dire level of—hold your breath—a "jihad."

In more than 50 years of direct engagement in and observation of the major news media I have never encountered anything remotely like the fear and loathing lavished on us by opinion mongers in these world-class newspapers in the past 40 days.

In his op-ed, Phillips cites the following examples (to which I have added links and excerpts):

• Maureen Dowd, "DeLay, Deny and Demogogue," New York Times, March 24, 2005:

Oh my God, we really are in a theocracy.

Are the Republicans so obsessed with maintaining control over all branches of government, and are the Democrats so emasculated about not having any power, that they are willing to turn the nation into a wholly owned subsidiary of the church?...

As Christopher Shays, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill to allow the Terri Schiavo case to be snatched from Florida state jurisdiction and moved to federal court, put it: "This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy."

• Frank Rich, "The God Racket, From DeMille to Delay," New York Times, March 27, 2005:

The religio-hucksterism surrounding the Schiavo case makes DeMille's Hollywood crusades look like amateur night. This circus is the latest and most egregious in a series of cultural shocks that have followed Election Day 2004, when a fateful exit poll question on "moral values" ignited a take-no-prisoners political grab by moral zealots. During the commercial interruptions on "The Ten Commandments" last weekend, viewers could surf over to the cable news networks and find a Bible-thumping show as only Washington could conceive it. Congress was floating such scenarios as staging a meeting in Ms. Schiavo's hospital room or, alternatively, subpoenaing her, her husband and her doctors to a hearing in Washington. All in the name of faith....

It is a full-scale jihad that our government signed onto last weekend...Harvard Law School constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe pointed out this week that even Joe McCarthy did not go so far as this Congress and president did in conspiring to "try to undo the processes of a state court." But faced with McCarthyism in God's name, most Democratic leaders went into hiding and stayed silent. Prayers are no more likely to revive their spines than poor Terri Schiavo's brain.

• Colbert I. King, "Hijacking Christianity...," Washington Post, April 23, 2005:

Americans of faith—and those lacking one—ought to vigorously resist attempts by power-hungry zealots to impose their religious views on the nation. That means standing up to them at every turn.

It means challenging them when they say of Americans who support a woman's right to choose; the right of two adults to enter into a loving, committed, state-sanctioned, monogamous relationship; the right to pursue science in support of life; the right of the aggrieved to launch aggressive assaults against racism, sexism and homophobia, that they are not legitimate members of the flock....

They are not now and never will be the final arbiters of Christian beliefs and values. They warrant as much deference as religious leaders as do members of the Ku Klux Klan, who also marched under the cross.

• Paul Gaston, "...Smearing Christian Judges," Washington Post, April 23, 2005:

People calling themselves Christians are gathering once again for a crusade against what they consider to be the secular humanist subversion of Christian values. This time the object of their wrath is the judiciary. In the wake of the fanatical and fruitless assaults against the judicial system for letting Terri Schiavo die, the Family Research Council will convene tomorrow what it calls "Justice Sunday," a live simulcast to pit Christian values against "our out-of-control courts."...

The assault on the judiciary is especially revealing. The vicious attacks on Judge George Greer, the Florida jurist who presided over the Schiavo case, reveal the bizarre nature of right-wing Christian fantasies....Judge Greer is a lifelong Southern Baptist, a regular in church and a conservative Republican. None of those credentials protected him from the assaults of fellow Christians.

From March 24 to April 23, Phillips counted 13 opinion columns of "similarly alarmist tone aimed at us on the Christian right." But, as the attacks on the defense of Terri Schiavo, however inadequate, that permeate this media jihad reveal, the target is far broader.

In stereotyping Christians, as it has persons with disabilities, the anti-life media elite seeks to abort the developing alliance between believer and nonbelievers alike who simply believe that persons with disability should not be sentenced to death to serve the interests of the perfect and the privileged. May I have an "Amen?"

New Orleans Archbishop rebukes Loyola University, "Pro-Abort Catholic Legislators"

NEW ORLEANS -- The archbishop of New Orleans on Thursday rebuked Loyola University over an honor for the family of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu and her brother, Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, obliquely criticizing them for supporting abortion rights.

Loyola announced Wednesday it would award a collective honorary doctorate to the Landrieus for their public service - that of former Mayor Moon Landrieu, his wife and their nine children, including the senator and lieutenant governor.

Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes said he had told Loyola's president Rev. Kevin Wildes of his disappointment over the honor, and indirectly criticized the abortion stance of the senator and her brother.

"Not all members of the family have been faithful to the church's teaching regarding public policy," Hughes said in a statement. He added that he would boycott commencement exercises because he didn't want to "confuse the faithful" by giving the "impression that it is appropriate to include in an honor anyone who dissents publicly from Church teaching."

Source: "Loyola criticized over Landrieus honor" Seattle Post-Intelligencer / The Associated Press. May 5, 2005.

Further investigation into Mary Landreiu's past and legislative history, however, produce some suprising details.

• In 2002, the National Right to Life Committee accused her of "breathtakingly brazen deception" by appealing to Catholic voters while concealing her pro-abortion voting record. According to LifeSite news:
  "Landrieu boasted of her record in a 2001 fund-raising letter she sent to supporters, in which she wrote: "I'm proud that both the National Abortion Rights Action League and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America have acknowledged my support of reproductive choice with current 'scorecard' ratings of 80% and 90% respectively."

• Sen. Landrieu's abortion voting record from 1995-2003 is largely negative, according to the (The Catholic Family Association of America).

• In February 2005, however, pro-life activist Sharon Ryan Rodi acknowledged "signs of an evolution in Landrieu's thinking on abortion":
  "It's obvious that in these next four years we will be faced with the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice," she said. "If we are to have Roe vs. Wade reversed, we need strong pro-life Supreme Court justices. . . .

  "When Mary took her position as a feminist in the 1970s, that was what was going on in those days, but I have seen over these years a movement on Mary's part. It needs to be more, and (we need) you to continually ask her and remind her that she is your senator and that you expect her to support the appointment of the pro-life Supreme Court justices that President Bush (nominates)."

• Recently, despite opposition by abortion rights and feminist organizations, Sen. Landrieu joined five other Democrats to support the Republican majority in confirming the nomination of J. Leon Holmes -- "a prominent Arkansas lawyer and former president of Arkansas Right to Life" -- to the Eastern District Court in Arkansas. (Source: NRLC).
  

Was the Archbishop's action warranted? -- Judge for yourself.

Catholic School Cancels Invite to Pro-Abort Governor

A Roman Catholic high school in Cincinnati, OH, has withdrawn its invitation to Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to speak at its graduation ceremonies, the Associate Press reports.

"After further consideration, we rescinded our invitation," Carol Byrd, a spokeswoman for Summit Country Day School, announced yesterday.

Sebelius, a Democrat and the daughter of former Ohio Gov. John J. Gilligan, graduated from the school in 1966....The school initially announced that Sebelius would receive an award at its June 5 commencement.

Denise Smith Amos informs readers of The Enquirer that Joseph Devin, the principal of the independent school, contacted Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk for advice, after receiving a letter from Kansans for Life, a pro-life group that has sought cancellations of other public appearances by the state's pro-abortion governor.

Pilarczyk told Devlin that a diocesan school would not have invited Sebelius, said Dan Andriacco, the archdiocese's spokesman.

"It's discouraging when politics and partisanship are allowed to intrude on something so personal as my relationship to a school that has given me so much," whined CINO Sebelius, mischaracterizing the reason that rescinding the scandalous invitation was imperative.

Andriacco said the archbishop's advice was based on a June 2004 document from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops entitled Catholics in Political Life. It was formulated in response to the question of whether then-presidential candidate John Kerry, who also supports abortion rights, should receive Holy Communion.

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

Sebelius was elected governor in 2002. As Amos reported in earlier coverage:

In mid April, she vetoed a bill that would have imposed stiffer rules on clinics that perform abortions...

A vote to overturn her veto failed last week. Several Republicans recently announced intentions to run against her and trumpet her pro-choice views. [link added]

So much for "Common Ground"

ABORTION STAND HALTS CLINTON'S SHIFT TO MIDDLE

By IAN BISHOP NY Post Correspondent

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is putting the brakes on her move to the political middle by opposing legislation that would bar helping underage girls cross state lines for an abortion without their parents' consent.

Clinton - despite preaching moderation in recent speeches - will toe the Democratic line in the Senate in an effort to block a GOP-backed bill that just passed the House and makes it illegal for anyone to help a girl get a secret out-of-state abortion.

"I don't believe that any young woman should have to make this decision alone. But, tragically, there are sometimes instances in which a young woman simply cannot involve her parents, including rape, violence or incest," Clinton told The Post.

"I oppose the House-passed bill, which glosses over these complicated situations, making criminals out of grandparents, clergy and other adults who try to act in good faith."

The bill punishes adults with up to one year in jail and a $100,000 fine for helping minors bypass restrictive laws in their home states for abortions elsewhere without their parents consent. It also imposes a 24-hour waiting period for out-of-state abortions, even with a parent's consent.

The House approved the measure last week with a 270 to 157 vote. Fifty-four Democrats crossed over in support. None of New York state's Democratic members of Congress voted for it.

As Clinton pursues a potential 2008 White House bid, her opposition could have long-term ramifications because the overwhelming majority of Americans support parental notification for underage abortions.

Like Clinton, Sen. Charles Schumer opposes the measure, saying it "makes criminals out of friends, relatives, even taxicab drivers and others who may come in contact with a woman who has not notified her parents of a medical procedure she is entitled to under the Constitution. This is a bad bill for women's health."

Mass. Dems Poised To Endorse Marriage Perversion in Party Platform

Despite a nationwide backlash against "same-sex marriage" that led voters to approve bans in 11 states last fall, the Massachusetts Democratic Party is about to endorse this perversion in their party platform, as Raphael Lewis reports in The Boston Globe.

According to state Democratic Party chair Paul Johnston, the party's 3,000 delegates are likely to approve the platform change on May 14, just three days before the infamous legalization of the marriage parody by the Massachusetts courts.

"I don't anticipate any serious debate about it," Johnston said of the party vote that will take place at Paul E. Tsongas Arena in Lowell. "I think most delegates will support it. In this state, the more people get used to the idea, the more support there is."

If approved by the party delegates, the new addition to the Democratic Party's platform will read: ''We affirm our commitment to the Massachusetts constitutional guarantee to same-sex marriage, and all of its rights, privileges, and obligations, and reject any attempt to weaken or revoke those rights."

The vote will, in effect, codify a resolution passed by the state party committee last year.

Democrats in Iowa and Colorado had already endorsed "same-sex marriage" in their state party platforms last year.

"The vote," Lewis notes, "comes at a time when Democrats across the country are trying to reach out to social conservatives."

And they wonder why we're sceptical about the new "family-friendly" face of the Party of Death and Deviance?

Father State Knows Best

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

Writing in today's Boston Globe, Maria Cramer adds to the growing list of reasons to homeschool:

A Saugus man livid about an AIDS booklet his daughter brought home from school wants the state to establish one standard textbook for health education. A Lexington father, upset about a different book that exposed his kindergartner to gay parents, believes that schools should notify parents before discussing same-sex marriage and other adult themes in class.

"Adult themes" as in "adult movies"? Consider this example from the "AIDS EducaTion Series," a student booklet about a boy who contracts HIV, given to the 7-year-old daughter of Paul Stamatopolous, a 39-year-old Saugus truck driver.

A fact sheet about AIDS in the back says HIV is spread by the exchange of infected body fluids like semen and vaginal secretions.

Parents should handle discussions about the sexual transmission of AIDS, he said. "If my daughter had come to me with that question, I would have talked to her," said Stamatopoulos. "She never did. She plays with dolls. Do they have any innocence anymore? Is it all gone?"

Even Superintendent Keith Manville, who promised to bring the issue up at the next meeting of the School Committee, conceded that some of the booklet's language was "kind of strong" for second-graders. Dissatisfied with the school district's initial response, Stamatopolous had taken his complaints to a local television station. You can see who has the childrens' best interest at heart—and not just his daughter's.

Hopefully, the School Committe members will have the good sense and common decency of Mary Kelly.

Kelly, a Milton School Committee member who has three school-age children, said she would want to be notified about discussions on sensitive topics, such as same-sex marriage.

"Quite honestly, I think parents should be advocates for whatever they believe their children should be taught or not be taught," she said.

We do, too, Mrs. Kelly. That is why all four of our children will be homeschooled.

Paul Stamatopolpous' daughter was in the second-grade when her innocence was violated by public school authorities, but David Parker's son was only in kindergarten.

Parker, the Lexington father who was arrested April 27 while protesting the book his child received, contended that the school never gave proper warning about the contents of a book bag promoting diversity. The book bag included a copy of "Who's in a Family?" which shows same-sex partners raising children.

After seeing the book, Parker and school officials had several months of discussions. He was arrested when he refused to leave the school, saying he was protesting because school officials rejected his request to notify him about discussions on adult topics in his child's kindergarten classroom.

After all, you're only the father. And we are the state.

Read and Act!

• See also Maria Cramer and Ralph Ranalli, "Arrested father had point to make," Boston Globe, April 29, 2005.
• Vide.
• Join David Parker and others in protesting the use of the amoral "Who's in a Family?" in the Joseph Estabrook School in Lexington, MA.

Catholic Democratic Assemblywomen takes stand against physician assisted suicide

Though the physician-assisted suicide bill AB 654, the California Compassionate Choice Act, passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee by a one-vote margin April 12, it could face a growing momentum of opposition sparked by two young Democratic Assemblywomen.

Assemblywoman Cindy Montañez (D-San Fernando), 31, broke rank with five other Democrats when she sided with the committee's three Republicans in voting against the bill. That same day, Nicole Parra, (D-Hanford), 35, issued a statement saying, "Doctor assisted suicide is immoral and wrong." Both Montañez and Parra are Catholic.

"I believe that allowing the state to sanction a death in this fashion erodes the sanctity of life," said Montañez in an April 12 statement. "While I understand and sympathize with all the reasons supporters of AB 654 have given me, they still do not outweigh my belief that life is too precious and that we, as a governmental entity, should not be a party to assisted suicide."

In a telephone interview April 19, Montañez told The Tidings she had received at least 2,000 letters against the bill compared to several hundred letters in its support. "This issue cut across different ideologies and religious faiths," said Montañez, noting that the majority of religious leaders she consulted, including San Fernando Region Auxiliary Bishop Gerald Wilkerson, were against the bill.

While Montañez described AB 654 co-author Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) as a close friend who has compassion for others, she said her "no" vote was ultimately based on her belief that life is too precious to end prematurely. Reaction from her San Fernando Valley constituents has been "extremely positive," said Montañez, adding that several legislative colleagues have come to talk with her about their concerns with physician-assisted suicide. [Source]

More at Stake Than a Pharmacist's Beliefs

From the pages of Times Against Humanity...

Every pharmacist takes an oath to make "the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering" their primary concern. Apparently, the "welfare of humanity" has different meanings to different pharmacists, Eric Noe begins his ABC News report.

In several recent incidents, pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions for birth control pills or "morning-after" pills, citing conflicts with their religious beliefs. Now, legal wrangling at the state and federal level is focused on the question of whether pharmacists' personal moral codes should trump their professional duties.

Note the reporter's presumption that "professional duties" are independent of moral law, which is reduced to the subjectivism of "personal codes" and "religious beliefs." Of course, to be fair, this is precisely how the matter is being raised.

When two pharmacists—a Catholic and a Baptist—went to court in a bid to halt an emergency rule by Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) requiring pharmacies that stock the morning-after pill to dispense it "without delay, " their lawyer, Frank Manion, of the American Center for Law and Justice, framed the issue as "one of religious freedom." In other words, a matter of choice. (Indeed, both pharmacists chose to distribute contraceptives.)

"Prior to the rule, their employer respected their choice not to dispense medications that violate their religious beliefs," he noted, adding, "There's nothing in this rule that allows employers to accommodate employees' religious beliefs."

Also known as "emergency contraception," the morning-after pill is essentially a mega dose of birth control hormones that is effective for up to five days after sexual contact, but is most effective the earlier it is used," Noe reports. "It works by preventing female ovulation or the fertilization of an egg by sperm or by interfering with the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus." In other words, it can procure an early abortion.

The controversy leaves pharmacists defending their need for autonomy and places them at the center of the abortion debate. While many agree that legally prescribed and clinically viable prescriptions should be filled regardless of personal religious stances, they are wary of laws that would require them to dispense.

While I respect the informed conscience of a pharmacist who refuses to aid and abet prenatal murder by dispensing abortifacients, religious belief cannot be reduced to a mere mantra devoid of content. For example, if a pharmacist's personal code prevents him from providing drugs merely because they were tested with animals, it should neither be respected, nor, as a general rule, granted the cover of law. I say "as a general rule" because in a laicist state it may be necessary to sanction the absurd for the sake of the greater good of safeguarding the just. Such is the burden imposed on law by a society cut adrift from its moral moorings.

"You don't need a pharmacist at all if you're going to just require them to dispense medications. That takes away their clinical role," said Susan Winckler, vice president of policy and communications for the American Pharmacists Association, which counts about 200,000 pharmacists as members.

Winkler is quite right to note the clinical impoverishment in reducing the role of a pharmacist to a pill pusher. In the end, the real victim is the patient who has been deprived of the clinical application of the noble ideals of a once sacred calling, medicine. Or the child murdered by medicine subverted from healing to killing.

"They're saying that freedom of religion and access to contraception are both fundamental liberties," Manion said. "If that's true, when two fundamental liberties collide, you don't just throw one out in favor of the other, you balance them. And I'm sure you don't balance them by telling pharmacists: 'You have no rights.'"

After all, whom do they think the pharmacist is? A preborn child enroute to his mother's womb?

95-10 Challenge

Nathan over at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis has challenged the editors here at CPS and some other conservative Catholic bloggers to support the Democrats for Life 95-10 initiative. He believes Republicans will oppose the plan on the premise that a pro-life win for Democrats would be bad for the GOP. Though there is much to support in 95-10 I too oppose 95-10 as is and not for political reasons. My reasons are in my comment (below) to Nathan's post below:

First off, the 95-10 Initiative is a worthy endeavor. DFL should be commended as should those pro-life Democrats who support it. You question the Republican Party's commitment to the pro-life cause by asserting that the party is only pro-life for political purposes and not out of any moral obligation to protect innocent unborn children. Though I do not question the commitment of Representatives Ryan, Costello, Roemer, Kaptur, Stupak, Senator Nelson, and the DFL, it would be easy to do so using the same reasoning you give for questioning the GOP. I will admit though, it will be a surprise if the other Democrats, you know the pro-abortion ones, jump on this bandwagon. Does anyone seriously believe it possible that the Pelosis and Clintons in Congress will support such measures which will surely undercut organizations like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc. which have and continue to financially support the campaigns of these pro-abort members of Congress? Just look at the recent vote breakdown on CIANA, a parental notification bill, similar to one of the proposals in 95-10. 59 Democrats voted for the bill. 145 Democrats voted against it. (If I were a cynic I would say that many of those 54 Democrats, knowing this bill would pass, did so for political purposes rather than out of any desire to curb abortion. I am not a cynic though, so I will give these 59 representatives the benefit of the doubt.)

Regardless, I accept your challenge to use this initiative and work with pro-life Democrats. You see, to many of us conservatives this is not about winning a political battle. It is about fighting for children and women and changing the culture in our country. That being said I do have point out two problems with 95-10. Minus these I would have no problem supporting the whole of 95-10. You mentioned them in your post. You listed them as reasons conservatives may give, to oppose 95-10, but you claim that they would not be the real reasons. I am curious about this, since these two problems concern Catholic moral teachings. As Catholics, we believe contraception is intrinsically evil (CCC 2370; Humanae Vitae 14, 16, Casti Connubii 56), so why should we not oppose the insurance coverage of contraception and sex education in schools which would likely promote its use? Sorry, but these two proposals promote a "contraceptive mentality" and as a Catholic I could not support them.

A key aspect which many pro-lifers (including many Catholics) miss is that a "contraceptive mentality" contributes to abortion. Some contraceptives (e.g. IUD, the pill, RU-486) are in fact abortifacients. The "lifestyles and attitudes that contraception fosters create an alleged 'need' for abortion." (Smith, The Connection between Contraception and Abortion, 2004) As well, for over thirty years now contraception has been widely used and is deeply engrained in our culture. One would think this would have already led to a reduction in abortion. Yet, the number of abortions has not decreased. It is difficult to see how increased access to contraceptives would reduce abortion. Besides, contraception facilitates sex outside of marriage and encourages teen sex. This has led to an increase in unplanned pregnancies. Abortion, is used as a back-up contraception in many of these cases. The "contraceptive mentality" decreases sexual responsibility and lessens the sex act to something for mere enjoyment rather than the promotion of its two-fold purpose--the unitive and creative functions. These proposals in 95-10 which seek to increase the use of contraceptives, contribute to the "contraceptive mentality" and very likely would increase the number of abortions.

That is not to say that the rest of 95-10 is unacceptable. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. I would suggest that these two proposals in 95-10 be either removed or modified. Modifications could include: The sex education proposal should increase the focus on abstinence education. There already is more government money promoting contraception than there is promoting abstinence. Studies have shown that abstinence education is working. 95-10 is a great opportunity to increase that focus. The insurance coverage for contraception could be replaced with money and support for family planning counseling and education. I would hope that Rep Ryan packages 95-10 in such a way as to allow members of Congress to vote on individual parts of it rather than having to vote on it as a whole. Either way, members should have the ability to submit amendments which could change the objectional proposals.

I look forward to a continued discussion on this proposal.

"New and Improved" Hilary Spouts Same Old "Blah-Blah"

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

"With many Americans certain that former first lady and current New York Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2008, they point to what appears to be a concerted effort to move her toward the political middle on one of the nation's most contentious issues—abortion," Randy Hall begins his Cybercast News Service report.

Speculation about Sen. Clinton's stance on the emotional issue began after she said abortion "in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women" during a speech to the New York State Family Planning Providers this past January 24.

The decision to have an abortion "is a profound and complicated one; a difficult one, often the most difficult that a woman will ever make," the senator said. "The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

"I for one respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available," she added to gasps from the audience.

The potential presidential nominee concluded her address by proclaiming her hope that "those on both sides of the abortion issue could find common ground." But can the life or death of an innocent child be reduced to merely a political "issue" and how sincere is Mrs. Bill Clinton's pre-2008 makeover?

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said that any suggestion Sen. Clinton is moving to the right is "laughable."

"There may be a rhetorical shift to the middle on a few issues like abortion and defense," Sabato said, but, he added, "She didn't concede anything on the abortion issue. She simply said, 'We ought to talk.' It's the usual political 'blah-blah.'"

Sabato added that conservatives have every right to be skeptical of a "new and improved" Hillary Clinton. "I think there's a significant difference between what she is saying and what she actually believes and would do in office," he said.

In a related development, the Archdiocese of New York has determined that Marymount Manhattan College is no longer a Catholic institution, LifeSite reports. The college had been under fire for inviting Sen. Clinton to give its commencement address and receive an honorary degree on May 20.

"The decision to honor one of Congress' most outspoken and strident advocates of abortion rights was just the latest episode in a long history of secularization at Marymount Manhattan College," said Patrick J. Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society, a national organization dedicated to the renewal of Catholic identity at America's 220—now 219—Catholic colleges and universities.

It appears that Margaret Minson, the school's vice president for institutional advancement, would not contest Reilly's assessment. On being informed that the school had been stricken from the Official Catholic Directory, she retorted that Marymount "has not been a Catholic college for several decades."

"There is tremendous value to clearly and formally identifying wayward Catholic institutions as no longer Catholic," Reilly observed. The man now sitting on the Chair of Peter is apt to agree.

"This is the fourth time since the late Pope John Paul II issued Ex Corde Ecclesiae, the apostolic constitution on Catholic universities, that a bishop has declared an historically Catholic college or university to be not Catholic," notes LifeSite. Chances are that it will not be the last.