It strikes me that our approach to pluralism in race and culture furnishes the paradigm for approaching religion in public life. If someone suggested that an African-American had to keep his race confined to his house and wear white face in public, the suggestion would be immediately condemned as racist and bigoted. A healthy public life welcomes diversity in public and then figures out ways to share differences among peoples so as to enrich everyone. The question of religion is more complicated, of course, because religion is a way of life with moral demands, and moral demands overlap with law and politics. But the solution is not to put religion in a private closet, because that imperils the freedom of everyone. American “separation” of church and state is supposed to encourage the practice of religion as part of the common good, respecting every difference and oppressing none.

Sometimes I think that the fear of religion going public is really a fear that someone or some event will tell us to change, to convert. A call to change one’s ways is an insult to those wed to the status quo. A religious challenge can be more easily ignored by simply labeling it unconstitutional. Religious people and institutions, however, cannot quietly acquiesce in their own marginalization from public life. The nature of faith forbids that solution.

Cardinal Francis George. Excerpted from "A Lenin in America" Denver Catholic Register July 27, 2005.

Rep. Hyde to Sen. Durban: One Catholic to Another . . .

Here is the text of a letter [.pdf format] Illinois Congressman Henry J. Hyde sent today to Senator Durbin, in response to his questioning of Judge John Roberts, Jr.:

I read with some interest comments attributed to you in news reports detailing your Monday meeting with the President's Supreme Court nominee, Judge John G. Roberts, Jr.

While we may disagree on various domestic and international issues, we have also found common ground over the years on numerous matters of importance to all Americans. As Catholics, we certainly share a common experience, including the awful legacy of anti-Catholic bigotry that permeated American politics well into the 20th century.

"Irish Need Not Apply" signs were common in the storefront windows of Chicago's neighborhoods until a few years ago, a bias driven largely by the Catholic faith shared by most Irish-Americans. I want to believe you do not wish to turn back the clock on that ugly period of our history, and that's why these comments attributed to you concern me.

No one of our faith -- or that of any other denomination or religion -- should be excluded from public office for his or her religious values. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution unequivocally prohits a litmus test: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States."

"Practicing Catholics Need Not Apply" cannot become a rallying cry of modern day religious bigots who would seek to drive from the public square all federal office candidates of faith. I hope that your question to Judge Roberts, if accurately reported, does not constitute an opening salvo in a process in which the candidate's faith will constitute sufficient justification for denying him a speedy confirmation.

Very truly yours,

Henry J Hyde
Chairman

Via ConfirmThem.com, a project of Redstate.Org.

New Study Shows Access to Contraceptives Doesn't Stop Unplanned Pregnancies

From Culture & Cosmos comes word of a new study which might help the pro-contraception folks in the pro-life movement realize the folly of the idea that contraception reduces abortion.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood and openly supports abortion and widespread access to contraceptives. The report placed great emphasis on the fact that 48 percent of pregnancies in the US are unplanned. Of those unplanned pregnancies, 47 percent end in abortion, 40 percent are carried to full term and 13 percent end in miscarriage. Advocates of abortion often argue that to decrease abortions, unintended pregnancies must be reduced through increased access to contraceptives. But the Guttmacher Institute's research indicates that 53 percent of women who have unintended pregnancies used a contraceptive method during the month they got pregnant.

The study also notes the importance of marriage in reducing abortion, the reasons women decide to abort their babies, and the disproportinate numbers of minorities who abort their babies. The full report can be found here.

The "95-10" Initiative, which the group, Democrats for Life, is promoting, includes health insurance coverage for contraception and increased federal money for pregnancy prevention education which would likely include information on the use of contraception. Will this data give them second thoughts on promoting contraception? Let us pray that it does.

Torture and the U.S. Senate

Those of you familiar with the Catholics in Congress report know that I included opposition to torture as a non-negotiable action for the Catholic officials surveyed. This week two amendments to the defense appropriations bill in the Senate (S. 1042) have been introduced by Sen John McCain dealing with torture and interrogation.

One of the amendments proposed was "To prohibit cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons under the custody or control of the United States Government." Part of the amendment as initially submitted stated:

(a) In General.-- No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

The amendment was modified by Sen McCain himself to include the following waiver:

(b) Presidential Waiver.--(1) The President may waive the prohibition in subsection (a), on a case-by-case basis, if the President--

(A) determines that the waiver is required for a military or national security necessity; and

(B) submits the appropriate committees of Congress timely notice of the exercise of the waiver.

Following the modification, Sen McCain stated:

Mr. President, this amendment would prohibit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. Government. The amendment doesn't sound like anything new. That is because it isn't. The prohibition has been a longstanding principle in both law and policy in the United States. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 states simply that: No one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory, is the same. The Binding Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration, ratified by the Senate, prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. On last year's DOD authorization bill, the Senate passed a bipartisan amendment reaffirming that no detainee in U.S. custody can be subject to torture or cruel treatment as the U.S. has long defined these terms. All of this seems to be common sense and in accordance with longstanding American values.

Sen Warner of Virginia then stated:

I want to endorse the McCain amendment. Essentially what he is doing is codifying what is policy now. I think it is of such importance that it would require this bill to do so.

Why Sen McCain added the waiver likely has to do with the threat of a presidential veto of the appropriations bill if the original amendment was included. The waiver, I assume was part of a deal between the White House and Sen McCain to avoid a presidential veto of the bill. Sen Warner stated this will codify what is already U.S. policy. Yet, the waiver would allow the president to actually order "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment...on a case-by-case basis...if required for a military or national security necessity." Sen McCain references the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Binding Convention Against Torture all which prohibit "torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment". But the amendment would actually give the Congressional go-ahead to the president to use "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" if he deems it necessary! That's right. Not prohibit it, but allow it. My take is that Sen McCain is making a distinction between torture on the one hand and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment on the other. A prohibition against the use of torture seems to be U.S. policy already, though there appear to have been some unfortunate exceptions. It may be that this Sen McCain's intent is to restrict U.S. interrogators in their use of "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" and not torture since there is already is a policy in place prohibiting torture. So what the amendment would give is a limitation on the use of "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" but not outright prohibit it.

My question is, what is the difference between torture and "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment"?

When it comes to what the Church teaches, I believe there really is no difference. Kevin Miller has written about this over at HMS Blog:

From Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes (no. 27; cf. VS 80; bold added in these and following quotations):

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself ..., whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as ... torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; ... all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.

From the Catechism, no. 2297:

Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

Note that the Catechism speaks of "violence," period - it doesn't say it has to be severe. Note also that while the Catechism might seem to leave open the use of violence to do things like extract information about ongoing plots, it has to be read in the context of GS, which rules out "torments" and "attempts to coerce the will," period. And any lingering doubt about the latter point should now be resolved by the new Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Last week, I mentioned the brief quotation from its paragraph on torture that was quoted in a paper I heard at the UFL conference. I now have the Compendium, and here is a longer quotation.

404. ... In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: "Christ's disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer's victim."830 International judicial instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances. Likewise ruled out is "the use of detention for the sole purpose of trying to obtain significant information for the trial."831 ...

830John Paul II, Address to the International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva (15 June 1982), 5: L'Osservatore Romano, English edition, 26 July 1982, p. 3.
831John Paul II, Address to the Italian Association of Judges (31 March 2000), 4: AAS 92 (2000), 633.

There are no loopholes here. There is to be no torture or other coercion. And, I continue to maintain, this is a matter of right reason - non-Catholics should be (and should have been) able to see its truth and importance.

Both torture and "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" are always morally wrong. I would like to have seen Sen McCain's original amendment considered and approved by the Senate. It is unfortunate for Catholics and all Americans that it will not.

Good Analysis of Responses to Roe v. Wade

A few days ago (July 22nd) in NationalReview.com, Edward Whelan, a former Supreme Court law clerk, wrote a good analysis of the situation concerning Roe.

Whelan listed three ways to classify the attitude of a Supreme Court candidate toward Roe:

1. Pro-Abortion: someone who believes that the Constitution contains a right to abortion. Someone with this view would continue to uphold Roe.

2. Pro-Life: someone who believes that the Constitution requires recognizing the unborn child as a legal person entitled to full protection from abortion. In my view, this legal position, as concisely described by Whelan, is indeed correct. I have argued for this view at length in my own book Unpopular Catholic Truths, parts of which you can read at Amazon.com. As Whelan points out, the scientific and genetic evidence supports this view. Obviously, a person in this category would vote to reverse Roe.

3. Substantively Neutral: someone who believes that the Constitution does not address the abortion issue and that abortion should thus be left for the states to resolve. Whelan characterizes Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia as falling within this category, meaning that they would vote to reverse Roe v. Wade.

From what I gather, Whelan favors the so-called "Substantively Neutral" position and classifies Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts in this category. I can see why he does so, but I think the "substantively neutral" label can be misleading. By this label, Whelan means that someone in the "substantively neutral" category views the Constitution as neutral on abortion. But certainly someone in this category is not himself neutral or deferential toward Roe v. Wade. Everyone in the "substantively neutral" category would vote to reverse Roe v. Wade.

The bottom line is that Judge Roberts will, from all indications, vote to reverse Roe v. Wade, under whatever category he eventually fits. As far as I am concerned, voting to reverse Roe under whatever label is effectively pro-life. In other words, Whelan's "pro-life" and "substantively neutral" categories are both really pro-life. My own view is that a passionate and excellent advocate arguing before the Supreme Court will one day have a very good chance of persuading a majority of the Court to adopt the straightforward "substantively pro-life" legal position: the scientific and genetic evidence demonstrates that the unborn child is a person entitled to constitutional protection from murder. As a lawyer, I firmly believe that this "substantively pro-life" position is indeed the correct legal position that can be ignored only by ignoring science which continues and will continue to demonstrate the personhood of the unborn. But, in the meantime, I will be enormously delighted to have a so-called "substantively neutral" majority simply reverse Roe and turn the abortion issue back to the state legislatures and so end the Court-imposed dictatorial regime of abortion on demand.

Note: In the body of Whelan's article, there is a link to his own passionate testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that is well worth reading.

Time for Action on Supreme Court Nominee

The pro-life Family Research Council is asking us to sign a petition to Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter urging him to make sure that the Roberts confirmation hearing is fair and orderly and not a repetition of the Bork fiasco in 1987. Go to this link to sign the petition. You can also e-mail the Family Research Council "Action Alert" to family and friends. Back in 1987, I don't even think e-mail existed; and certainly there was no internet. Let's use the tools that God has given us for 2005.

Are Senate Democrats Anti-Catholic Bigots?

Wendy Long is upset:

Liberal pressure groups and Democratic senators, including Durbin, have long sought to impose a litmus test for federal judges, and especially Supreme Court justices. Men and women of Christian, particularly Catholic, faith need not apply.

....

Let's put aside the fact -- and it is a fact -- that no one can conjure up even a hypothetical scenario under which the United States Constitution contravenes the teaching of the Catholic Church. It has not happened yet in our country's history, and it's not going to happen in the future.

The main point is: President Bush and Judge Roberts understand that judges cannot make policy -- pro-Catholic, anti-Catholic, or otherwise. Everything in Judge Roberts' record tells us that he is committed to the same judicial philosophy as that of President Bush: to apply the Constitution and laws as written, and not to make laws up or rewrite the Constitution in judicial decisions. Judges can't make the laws governing abortion, marriage, or anything else. All they can do is apply them. Accordingly, in the view of President Bush and Judge Roberts, a Supreme Court justice's personal, political, or religious views cannot be used as the basis to decide a case.

If it turns out that Turley is reporting accurately, it will not be the first-time offense for Senator Durbin. He did the same thing to U.S. Court of Appeals judge William Pryor, a devout Catholic whom Durbin and others tried to block from the federal bench. The religious inquisition of Judge Roberts, then, is really a smokescreen for the liberal litmus test about issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Along with Senators Kennedy, Kerry, Schumer, and others, Senator Durbin treats judges like policymakers who wear black robes and are appointed for life. Like all liberals, they fundamentally misapprehend the role of the judge under our Constitution: to be a neutral umpire, applying the laws as written by the elected representatives of the people.

Because liberals can't win popular support for their policy agenda — things like mandating abortion on demand for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, forcing states to redefine marriage, and erasing God permanently and completely from the public square -- they force it on people through the courts. And they are afraid that Justices who are people of religious faith can't be pressured into ruling from the bench in favor of their liberal policies.

So when Senator Durbin tries to corner Judge Roberts about some hypothetical "conflict" between Catholicism and the U.S. Constitution, the senator from Illinois is engaging in exactly the kind of religious witch hunt that the Framers of the Constitution sought to prevent in Article VI of the Constitution, which reads: "no religious Test shall ever be requires as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The test is just harder to recognize, because although Durbin himself professes to be a Catholic, what he really objects to is a faithful Catholic -- that is, one who, for example, personally accepts Church teaching on abortion.

....

The irony of this reported inquisition is almost too much: Senator Durbin, a self-professed Catholic, questioning the loyalty to the Constitution of a brilliant judge who has demonstrated his faithfulness to the law, even when he personally disagrees with it.

Judge Roberts is too much of a gentleman to do what is really required with anti-religion bullies like Senator Durbin: Ask the senator what he does when his religious faith conflicts with public policies he advocates.

The faith of John Roberts

Jonathan Turley has this tidbit in a piece today titled, The faith of John Roberts:

Judge John G. Roberts Jr. has been called the stealth nominee for the Supreme Court — a nominee specifically selected because he has few public positions on controversial issues such as abortion. However, in a meeting last week, Roberts briefly lifted the carefully maintained curtain over his personal views. In so doing, he raised a question that could not only undermine the White House strategy for confirmation but could raise a question of his fitness to serve as the 109th Supreme Court justice.

The exchange occurred during one of Roberts' informal discussions with senators last week. According to two people who attended the meeting, Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral. Roberts is a devout Catholic and is married to an ardent pro-life activist. The Catholic Church considers abortion to be a sin, and various church leaders have stated that government officials supporting abortion should be denied religious rites such as communion. (Pope Benedict XVI is often cited as holding this strict view of the merging of a person's faith and public duties).

Renowned for his unflappable style in oral argument, Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself.

UPDATE: Seems the Judicial Confirmation Network is a bit upset with Sen Durbin over the above question to Judge Roberts.

UPDATE II: Sen Durbin's office is reporting the question above was never asked. Reuters is reporting that Sen Cornyn asked Judge Roberts if his faith would affect his decisions:

"He recognized that anybody who cannot do that ... is unsuitable for the bench," Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said after a private meeting with President Bush's conservative candidate for the high court.

Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but for those who are relying on Judge Roberts' Catholic faith to lead him to overturn or limit Roe need to look elsewehere. There are still good reasons to believe that he would overturn or limit Roe.

Pro-Life Leaders Say John Roberts is a Reliable Abortion Opponent

For those worried that Judge Roberts is another "Souter" check out this piece from LifeNews.com:

Leonard Leo, chairman of Catholic outreach for the Republican Party and someone who has known Roberts for 15 years, agrees.

Even though Roberts has never ruled on an abortion issue, Leo says Roberts opinions on other hot political topics show "a respect for the text and original meaning and a presumption of deference to the political branches of government."

....

Leo also points to the Roberts' family's strong Catholic faith, his wife Jane Sullivan Roberts' longtime work with Feminists for Life, a top pro-life women's group, and he said the Roberts moved to a new church to follow the transfer of their priest -- known for his pro-life views and defending traditional Catholic teachings.

The Full Post: "Sources: Judge Roberts is Indeed Pro-Life"

Here is my full post that is linked to below in an earlier entry:

Two sources from opposite ends of the political spectrum agree that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts will be a pro-life justice. From the liberal end, Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman has this tidbit from an unnamed source:

"At least one friend and former close associate I spoke to thinks that, given the chance, Roberts WOULD vote to strike down Roe. But you can't prove it -- and interlocutors in the Judiciary Committee won't be able to prove it either."

Howard Fineman at this MSNBC link.

From the conservative pro-life end, the Republican blog RedState.org has endorsed Roberts' nomination with this tantalizing remark:

"There is much we do not know about John Roberts. There is also much we do not "officially know," but privately are sure of. We at RedState know Judge Roberts is right on life and is right for the Court."

See RedState.org for July 21, 2005 (emphasis added).

One media article I read speculated that Roberts has avoided controversial statements on hot issues precisely to avoid confirmation problems. That certainly makes sense given that he twice missed confirmation in the past: once in 1992 because of Clinton's election and more recently in 2001. He finally made it to the federal bench in 2003. So he has known since the early nineties that he is someone who would likely be nominated by a future Republican president for a federal judgeship. For whatever it is worth, today's N.Y. Times described Roberts as a friend of Clarence Thomas and also mentioned that Roberts' unambiguously pro-life wife works on the board of a Catholic charitable organization along with the wife of conservative legal scholar Robert Bork who was famously denied confirmation in 1987.

The proof is in the pudding. But the signs are good. The rest is in God's hands.

Sources: Judge Roberts is Indeed Pro-Life

Oswald over at Catholic Analysis has the latest.

Redefining the Mainstream

That's how the always lucid Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report summarizes the likely impact of John Roberts on the Supreme Court. Barone's analysis is, as always, comprehensive and worth reading (here is the link). Yet, as Barone points out, even with Roberts on the court, there will still be, at least, a 5 to 4 majority for Roe v. Wade.

But there is more than one way to skin a cat. Roe and its progeny can be undermined by pushing on the edges. O'Connor, to her everlasting disgrace, voted to strike down state laws banning partial birth abortion (contrary to the cheap accolades permeating the media, I have never been, even slightly, tempted to associate Sandra Day O'Connor with judicial brilliance of any kind; she is one of thousands of mediocre judges and lawyers who are the unfortunate norm in my former profession). If Roberts votes to uphold state bans on partial birth abortion, we are heading in the right direction: recognizing the humanity of the partially born child. By banning partial birth abortion, the truth about legal abortion is thunderously clear: the only distinction between murder and legal abortion is the location of the body. And if location is too irrational a basis for allowing legal killing, then we are forced to recognize the truth that a unique human person is continuously and ineluctably developing from the point of fertilization.

We yearn, with great hope, for the day when the Supreme Court proclaims the undeniable: the unborn child is a legal person entitled to all the legal protections of any other legal person. We certainly have sane ways of taking care of the needs and circumstances of the mother without engaging in the barbaric and primitive solution of murdering the innocent--a solution which also severely and forever harms the mother. Judge Roberts will, from all indications, bring us closer to that great day.

Roberts Nomination & Catholic-Baiting

And so it begins.

The lead article in today's The American Prospect, an online magazine, says that President Bush's selection of Judge John Roberts for a seat on the Supreme Court is evidence of his "Playing the Catholic card."

According to Adele M. Stan, Bush is "betting he's bought himself some insulation - any opposition to Roberts, particularly because of his anti-abortion record, will likely be countered with accusations of anti-Catholicism."

She says this is a "timely pitch" to "conservative Catholic voters prior to the midterm elections"; she urges "liberal Catholics" and others to protest Roberts.

Stan goes even further on her blog, AddieStan, by saying "Rome must be smiling" at Bush's choice. She asks that readers contact the Democratic Catholics on the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject Roberts.

William Donohue reminds us that Jew-baiting is unacceptable, so why isn't Catholic-baiting?

"Now let's apply this logic to President Clinton's selection of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer for the Supreme Court. Did he do so because he liked 'Playing the Jewish card'? And did he do so because he wanted his critics to be seen as anti-Semites? For good measure, was Israel 'smiling' when Clinton chose Ginsburg and Breyer?

"The fact that Jew baiting did not accompany the nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer shows how this nation has progressed.

"Practicing Catholic"

Judge Roberts is a "practicing Catholic". This according to Feddie at Southern Appeal. Nathan in the comments for one of the recent posts states this also.

UPDATE I: More on this aspect from the Chicago Tribune:

"He's just a good, solid Midwest guy," said Bob MacLaverty, who roomed with Roberts their senior year of high school at the La Lumiere School, a private school in La Porte, Ind. "He is absolutely the same guy. It's refreshing to see. Very sharp, but not arrogant at all."

At that time, La Lumiere School was a small all-boys school that had been founded a few years earlier by Catholics who wanted a school for their sons. Though the classes had only about 25 students each, the school had a strong reputation for academics and fielding solid sports teams.

---

Shannen Coffin, a Washington lawyer who has worked with and argued against Roberts, said he was also willing to take on cases that didn't necessarily mold with his personal political views. He described Roberts as a "traditional Catholic" who does not talk about his religion.

"He's a guy who'll show up for mass on Sunday and that's sort of his own business," said Coffin, who attends the same church.

(HT: IrishLaw at Confirm Them, who wonders how Roberts' Catholicism may influence his judicial philosophy.)

UPDATE II: The NYT is reporting that Judge Roberts and his wife are "devout Catholics".

UPDATE III: From CNS:

Roberts is a native of Buffalo, N.Y., who moved with his family to Long Beach, Ind., when he was in elementary school. There he attended Catholic elementary and high schools. He was captain of the football team and class president at La Lumiere, a Catholic college prep school, before going on to earn undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard.

His wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, is also an attorney who graduated from Holy Cross College and Georgetown University's law school. She also has degrees from Brown University in Rhode Island and Melbourne University in Australia.

She has been active in Feminists for Life, and is a member of the board of governors of the John Carroll Society, a Catholic lay organization that sponsors the annual Washington archdiocesan Red Mass before the opening of the Supreme Court term.

The Robertses, who have two children, are members of Little Flower Parish in Bethesda, Md., near their home in Chevy Chase, Md.

If confirmed, Roberts would be the 11th Catholic ever to serve on the court and the fourth among current members, joining Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.

UPDATE IV: Feddie at Southern Appeal reports on a some comments made by Howard Fineman on Roberts being Catholic and Hugh Hewitt's response.

Fidelis statement on Roberts Nomination

Fidelis is a Catholic-based organization working with people of faith across the country to defend and promote the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and the right to religious liberty by electing pro-life, pro-family and pro-religious liberty candidates, supporting the confirmation of judges, and promoting and defending laws faithful to the Constitution of the United States.

WASHINGTON, July 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following the nomination of Judge John Roberts of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by President George W. Bush to serve as Associate Justice for the United States Supreme Court, Fidelis warned Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senators Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin and Russ Feingold to keep anti-religious bigotry out of the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

"Judge Robert's confirmation hearings are ripe for anti- religious bigotry," said Fidelis President Joseph Cella. "Judge Roberts is a faithful Catholic, who is devoted to his wife and children. With the history of Catholic and Christian judicial nominees attacked because of their religious faith and family life in past Senate confirmation hearings, we call on Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Ranking Member Senator Patrick Leahy, Senators Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin and Russ Feingold to prevent this vile brand of hate politics from entering this important process. Judge Roberts is an eminently qualified jurist, and his outstanding legal credentials and temperament should enable his confirmation prior to the Supreme Court reconvening on October 3. "

Cella said: "We expect that Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings must follow nothing less than the three-fold high standard of being responsible, civil and Constitutional. The statements by every Senator, Republican, Democrat or Independent about Judge Roberts will be watched. If any Senator crosses the line and attacks Judge Roberts because of his Catholic faith or family life, they will be held accountable."

Fidelis recently completed their initial advertising campaign in the run-up to the Senate confirmation hearings. The print ads ran in Roll Call and in the Nevada Appeal, and a radio ad in Nevada, citing the role that anti-religious bigotry played in the Senate confirmation battle of Judge Bill Pryor.

The ads highlight anti-religious statements made by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Article VI of the United States Constitution states: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States," which expressly prohibits such religious tests.

Cella said: "A judicial candidate's promise to soundly interpret the Constitution is often not enough for many Senators. In order to disqualify a particular judicial candidate, some Senators have resorted to a quasi-inquisition of a candidate's personal religious beliefs, and that cannot be tolerated. We will work with Catholics and all people of faith to defend Judge Roberts who will likely be attacked because of his faith and deeply-held beliefs," Cella stated.

To learn more and view and hear the Fidelis ads, log onto http://www.fidelis.org.

John Roberts Dance Party

. . . to lighten the mood for a minute, GOPVixen explains why President Bush was smirking when he announced John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court.

NRLC Press Release on Judge Roberts Nomination to Supreme Court

From the NRLC Press Release:

ROBERTS NOMINATION HIGHLIGHTS
UPCOMING CASES ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION, PARENTAL NOTIFICATION

WASHINGTON -- Following today's announcement regarding the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to serve as associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, the following statement was issued by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in Washington, D.C.

“Liberal pressure groups will insist that Senate Democrats filibuster against Judge Roberts, unless he pledges in advance to vote against allowing elected legislators to place meaningful limits on abortion," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "Millions of Americans will be watching to see if the Democratic senators bow to these demands."

In an interview conducted by Hugh Hewitt with Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, on April 11, 2005, the following exchange occurred: Hewitt: "Do you oppose and urge a filibuster for John Roberts?" Aron: "Yes, we would." See: http://www.hughhewitt.com/nan_aron_interview.htm

In 1990, as a Justice Department official under the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Roberts wrote a brief in a pending Supreme Court case stating the Administration position "that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. . ."

After being nominated in 2001 by President George W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Judge Roberts was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16-3, and confirmed by the Senate by unanimous consent on May 8, 2003.

More from Fr. Pavone on Judge Roberts

I see Christopher points to a press release from Fr. Pavone. Here is his newsletter from tonight:

---

Dear Friends,

Just a few minutes ago, President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Judge Roberts is highly qualified and has proven legal abilities.

Now, his nomination will go to the Senate while he will be questioned about his judicial philosophy and credentials.

We can also expect, unfortunately, that many Senators will seek to derail his nomination with vicious personal attacks against his faith, his belief in strict interpretation of the constitution, and any rulings that he has made that do
not fit their public policy ends. They will question him about abortion and Roe vs. Wade, as if that decision cannot be reversed and belongs to some kind of sacred, unchangeable dogma. In regard to this, of course, it is important to keep in mind what I said in a recent column, that is, that the current Chief Justice of the United States is one of the original dissenters in Roe vs. Wade. If he can hold that position, so can an Associate Justice of the Court. A belief that Roe should be overturned should certainly not be considered an obstacle to serving on the Court.

Expect some Senators to attack Judge Roberts for his religious and personal beliefs. Many have argued in the past that those with strong religious beliefs do not belong on the Supreme Court. This would effectively eliminate every faithful member of any faith from service on the highest Court in the land.

To achieve their goals, some may choose to filibuster Judge Roberts. Doing so would set a dangerous precedent. It would be the first time in history that a minority of Senators prevents the full Senate from fulfilling its duty to provide advice and consent on a Supreme Court nominee. This would create a constitutional crisis, as a minority of Senators would unilaterally amend the Constitution without going through the necessary process to do so.

We can fight those who would engage in these bigoted and unfair tactics, but we need your help to do it!

Please take a few minutes to contact your Senators and tell them you expect a fair up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate! Tell them, furthermore, that any religious or moral beliefs that Judge Roberts expresses should not disqualify him from confirmation. Simply call (202) 224-3121 and ask for your Senator. You will need to make two calls, one for each Senator.

And please keep up to date on this judicial confirmations battle by going to our website, www.priestsforlife.org and clicking on the link for "Judges." Be sure to join our prayer campaign for the Supreme Court at www.PrayerCampaign.org Remember, this will be a battle. Pro-abortion advocates have suffered many losses in the legislatures, and many losses at the voting booth. The Courts are their only real stronghold of political power, and they don't want to lose that! You and I need to urge our Senators to do the right thing. This is what we voted for in November's election - a positive change on the Supreme Court! Let's keep the momentum going!!!

Thank you!
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director of Priests for Life

Knights Approve of Roberts Nomination

Supreme Knight calls Supreme Court nomination "a first rate choice" Judge Roberts "among the finest judges in the land"

(NEW HAVEN, CT.) - Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson, head of the 1.7 million member Knights of Columbus, this evening called Judge John Roberts "a first rate choice for the United States Supreme Court." President Bush announced that he would nominate Roberts in a nationally-televised address earlier tonight.

"Judge Roberts is exactly the kind of nominee that members of both parties have described as the kind of choice the President should make," Anderson said. "He is one of the brightest legal minds in America, graduating at the top of his class at Harvard Law School, and has a well-deserved reputation for fairness, integrity and superb judicial temperament on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit."

"During his years in private practice," Anderson recalled, "he argued a case pro bono - free of charge - on behalf of some of the District's neediest welfare recipients, who were about to lose their benefits under the D.C. Public Assistance Act. He is someone who knows and appreciates the plight of the poor, especially those who have the most difficult time getting fair and even-handed treatment in our legal system."

"Judge Roberts' experience in private practice, in the Executive Branch, and as a Judge make him exceptionally well-qualified to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, and we applaud President Bush for making such an excellent nomination to fill the vacancy created by Justice O'Connor's retirement,"Anderson concluded.

The Knights of Columbus is the world's largest Catholic lay organization, with more than 1.7 million members around the world.

John Roberts - Nod of Approval from Fr. Pavone

(Via Domenico Bettinelli), President Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts gets a nod of approval from various figures which may give an indication of where he stands on the life issues:

National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez:

Since the Washington Post wrote about Bush's women and abortion today, how about Judge Roberts's? John Roberts's wife, Jane, has served as executive vice president of Feminists for Life (one of my favorite groups).

More reactions at the NRO's Bench Memos.

Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life [press release]:

"I am thrilled that the President has kept his promise by selecting a nominee who understands the importance of strictly adhering to the Constitution," Pavone said. "The President's selection of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. shows that he has a fundamental understanding of the types of judges that we need on the Supreme Court, judges who understand the difference between applying law and rewriting law. I look forward to working to ensure that Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. is treated fairly and receives a timely up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate."

Roberts and Abortion

The Associated Press on Roberts and the abortion question:

The biggest question mark may be his stand on abortion.

Abortion rights groups contend that he tried during his days as a lawyer in the first Bush administration to overturn Roe v. Wade. Roberts helped write a brief that stated 'we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.'

Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for the appeals court seat for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: 'Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.'

Judge John Roberts

JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS BACKGROUND

Judge Roberts is Exceptionally Well Qualified.

Judge John Roberts has the keen intellect, impartiality and temperament, sound legal judgment and highest integrity necessary in a Supreme Court justice.

He rules based on the application of existing laws and specific facts of the cases before him, rather than making new laws or creating new policies based on personal opinion.

It's not surprising that The National Journal has said that "John Roberts seems a good bet to be the kind of judge we should all want to have - all of us, that is, who are looking less for congenial ideologues than for professionals committed to the impartial application of the law."

Judge Roberts has Extensive Experience.

Prior to his service on the D.C Circuit (often referred to as "the second highest court in the land" and the bench from which three current Supreme Court Justices came to the Court), Judge Roberts argued a remarkable 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Only a handful of the 180,000 members of the Supreme Court bar come close to that record of accomplishment.

Judge Roberts was graduated Summa Cum Laude from Harvard University in only three years. After graduating from Harvard Law School with high honors and serving as an editor of the Harvard Law Review, Judge Roberts clerked for Judge Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit and later for Justice William Rehnquist at the Supreme Court.

After his clerkships, Judge Roberts served in the Department of Justice and later as Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan before going into private practice.

After three years in private practice, Judge Roberts returned to the Department of Justice as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, a position in which he briefed and argued a variety of cases before the Supreme Court.

Judge Roberts Widely Respected for his Fairness.

Upon his nomination to the D.C. Circuit, 152 members of the D.C. Bar wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee to note that Judge Roberts is "one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate." Signers, ranging from Democratic lawyers like Lloyd Cutler and Seth Waxman to former President George H.W. Bush's White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, cited his "unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness."

Anne L. Bryant and Julie Underwood of The National School Boards Association have noted that Judge Roberts "is always willing to take the time to do things right; and he is willing to support others who exhibit similar values. Above all, he personifies the qualities of an outstanding jurist with his even-temper and respectful demeanor."

In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued-free of charge-before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District's Public Assistance Act of 1982.

Judge Roberts Should be Confirmed Before the Fall Term.

Judge Roberts personifies the qualities President Bush said he would seek in a Supreme Court Justice. The American people have every right to expect the Senate to provide a fair hearing, a floor debate in which all views are heard, and a timely vote so that the Supreme Court can convene for its Fall term on October 3rd with all justices in place.

Judge Roberts was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16-3, and confirmed by the Senate for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by unanimous consent.

President Clinton's two nominations took an average of 58 days from nomination to confirmation. Over the past 30 years, the confirmation process has averaged 72 days from nomination to confirmation.

The White House has demonstrated an unprecedented level of consultation with Senators from both parties, consulting with more than 70 Senators, including every member of the Judiciary Committee and more than two-out-of three Democrats.

Personal Background.

Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., was born in Buffalo, New York, on January 27, 1955. Raised in Indiana.

He is one of four children (the only boy, and second oldest).

Judge Roberts lives in Bethesda, Maryland, with his wife Jane Sullivan Roberts and their two children.

---

(via Jill Stanek)

Another Catholic on the SCOTUS?

The buzz this afternoon is that the president will nominate Edith Clement tonight to fill the vacancy on the SCOTUS. I have read that she is a "devout Catholic".

UPDATE: Evidently Judge Clement married a non-Catholic. Here's some more "information" on the Catholic aspect of her background.

UPDATE: Looks like Judge Clement received a phone call from the WH. They said they would be going in "another direction".

The Party Matters

From Fr Frank Pavone's recent Priests for Life column:

When deciding on the candidate for whom you cast your vote in an election, a number of moral principles have to be considered. As I have often written in the past, the position of the candidate him/herself on the most important issues is of key importance, because by putting that person in a position to vote on legislation, you help to move public policy either closer or farther away from the moral law.

But that very consideration also means that the positions of the party to which the candidate belongs also matter. By putting that candidate in office, you also help to put his/her party into power. This has to be taken into consideration, too. Voters need to ask how much the election of a particular candidate will shift the balance of power between the parties, and what will happen when a particular party takes control. Voters should know the platform of the party and the official positions of party leadership on the same moral issues on which the individual candidate is evaluated.

At times, in all parties, the individual candidate will take a different position than his/her party on fundamental moral issues. Yet if the election of that candidate would shift control to his/her party, which holds the opposite position on those issues, a vote for that candidate, in effect, works against the position the voter may be trying to advance.

In short, the party matters.

To illustrate why the party matters, let's look at what happens in the United States Senate.

The Majority party in the Senate chooses the Majority Leader. The Majority Leader has control of the Senate schedule and agenda. This includes the ability to select the timing for floor proceedings, that is, debates, consideration of amendments, and voting, both for legislation and nominations.

The Majority Party has a majority on all committees (except the Ethics Committee), usually in close proportion to its share of the body as a whole. The Majority Party on every committee also controls a majority of the staff on the committee.

The Majority in each committee recommends to their caucus a Committee Chairman. Typically, their selection is rubberstamped by the Majority Party in the Senate. The chairmen, in turn, set the agenda of their respective committees. This is an extremely powerful post. For example, chairmen sometimes refuse to schedule hearings on nominees and legislation, and this effectively kills them. In other words, the best candidate in either party could introduce the best legislation imaginable, and it would never come out of committee. The party matters.

Considerations about what party would be in power as a result of the outcome of a particular election become especially relevant when the opposing candidates take the same position on issues of key importance.

Reflections like these are not an endorsement of a party; rather, they are an aspect of the duty that we as clergy have to articulate the moral dimensions of voting. If they benefit one party over another, that's not by our choice, but by the choice of the party to take the positions it takes.

I tend to agree with Fr. Pavone, but this brings up an interesting question: If I have the choice between a candidate from the Majority party who is pro-abortion and a candidate from the Minority party who is pro-life and the balance of power, say in the U.S. Senate, depends on who wins this election, who should a Catholic vote for? Fr. Pavone does not address that in this column. Maybe he has in the past. I would be interested in what our readers think.

Daring Catholic Voices in the Public Square

Part of the subtext of the new papacy of Benedict XVI is the idea of Catholics and Christians in general learning to speak out boldly and radically against the suffocating secular "dictatorship of relativism" in the West. Yesterday, on the pages of the Detroit Free Press, we saw a fine example of this type of needed boldness in action. In Michigan, the "Catholic Lite" governor has proposed a plan to reduce unwanted pregnancies which includes requiring health care plans to cover contraceptives. Now, the truth is that some Catholics, who otherwise agree with the Church's teaching against contraception, have in the past been tempted to take such actions in stride as culturally inevitable and unchallengeable and so have remained silent. But that atmosphere and reluctance are changing, due in no small part to outspoken faithful Catholics like Dr. Janet E. Smith, who holds the chair in Life Ethics at Detroit's Sacred Heart Major Seminary.

She responded to the pro-contraception move in Michigan and its endorsement by the editorial board of the Detroit Free Press with her own guest column in the same newspaper. She takes no prisoners. Instead of trying to argue merely at the edges of the issue, she boldly goes to the crux of the issue: contraception is bad for people and for society.

Here are some excerpts from Smith's column:

The widespread promotion and provision of contraceptives inevitably nurtures a cultural acceptance of sex outside of marriage--precisely what any culture friendly to children should be trying to reduce and prevent.

. . .

Contraceptives facilitate sex outside of marriage; sex outside of marriage with or without contraceptives is irresponsible.

. . .

The only sensible way to combat unwed pregnancy is to promote the facts, values and behavior that persuade individuals to abstain from sex before marriage. Such persuasion will only happen, however, if young people are led to see that abstaining from premarital sex is a terrific if not indispensable preparation for healthy marriage. Having control of one's sexual powers--preserving them as a gift for one's future spouse--is a wholly attractive concept that will protect many important goods in life, not the least of which are children growing up with a mother and father in the home. Meanwhile the best way to help the married avoid unintended pregnancies is to teach methods of natural family planning--completely healthy methods, ones that strengthen relationships and cost nothing to use.

Dr. Janet E. Smith, July 14, 2005, Detroit Free Press (emphases added).

And the big change for many American Catholics is the bio at the end of her column: she holds a chair in ethics at the official Catholic seminary of the Archdiocese of Detroit. She is not a marginal figure. I would not in the least be surprised that her column attacking the evil of contraception may be the first time that many Catholic readers, or readers of any background for that matter, may have heard such a vigorous attack on contraception. And it comes from a professor at the official seminary. Times are changing. The dissidents, modernists, and theological liberals must be aghast that, almost 40 years after their attacks against Humanae Vitae began, the message that contraception is evil is still being proclaimed. We are now approaching the 37th anniversary of that pivotal and revolutionary encyclical on July 25th. Let us all, whether professors or not, be resolved to keep proclaiming this radically Catholic and Christian truth to all, without fear or hesitation.

Historical Note on the issuance of Humanae Vitae:

Pope Paul VI issued the encyclical against contraception on July 25, 1968, the feast of St. James the Apostle or St. James the Greater. Interestingly, St. James the Greater was the apostle who inspired the Spanish Christians to roll back the Islamic military conquest of most of Spain in the eighth century. It took 800 years; but the Christians, as we all know, were ultimately successful in finally taking back all of Spain by 1492. Some Islamic radicals are still smarting over that Christian reconquest.

Today, Western Europe finds itself in a catastrophic demographic crisis of low birth rates due to widespread contraceptive use. Today, Western Europe is increasingly anxious about the presence of millions of Moslems within its borders--just consider the continuing coverage of the recent London attacks by second generation British Moslems. In my opinion, it is indeed prophetic that Paul VI issued the encyclical condemning contraception on the feast of the Apostle who inspired the defeat of Moslem conquest in the West. By ignoring that condemnation, Western Europe has facilitated a new Moslem "conquest" of sorts that shows no signs of abating. It is ironic that, in the long-term, secular Western Europe's best defense may lie not in police work but rather in abandoning contraception.

"Catholic right" gears up for Supreme Court fight

Analysis from NCRonline.org

Blogs & the Supreme Court Nominee

Soon it is likely that the President will name his Supreme Court nominee. And then all hell will break loose; and the blogs, including this site, will be in the thick of it as they were in the thick of the last presidential election. Blogger Hugh Hewitt who blogs at this link published earlier this year an insightful book on blogging with the no-nonsense title of Blog (Nelson Books, 2005). (The book does have problems, though, especially because of its overdone analogy of the blog revolution with Luther's revolt against the Catholic Church. I gather from the tone and other references in the book that Hewitt is an evangelical Protestant. He overplays the analogy with Luther primarily because Luther actually did the opposite of what good blogs do. Good blogs uncover truth and evidence that has been ignored in order to present a more complete picture. Luther did the opposite: he created the Western paradigm for selectively distorting Scripture by imposing personal ideology and taste on the sacred books apart from a balanced and "catholic" (in the sense of wholistic) tradition of interpretation. That type of distortion is exactly what so much of the mainstream media also does today. We call it media bias. I plan to discuss the book in more detail in a future book review at Catholic Analysis.)

Here is an excerpt on what lies ahead, written presciently by Hewitt earlier this year before the Supreme Court vacancy actually transpired:

What is coming soon--perhaps even in the summer of 2005--are clashes between competing blog camps. The perfect interblog storm is brewing and will break when the next Supreme Court nominee is sent from the White House to the presidency [here Hewitt means the "Senate"]. . . . Because there are so many accomplished lawyers and law professors who are blogging, they will quickly establish story lines and mine and excerpt the nominee's opinions, articles, and internet-available after-dinner speeches. . . . Becuase the stakes are so high with such a closely divided court, the energy that will be expended on trying to shape public opinion will be enormous. . . . The blogs will move much more quickly, and with much greater authority than MSM [the mainstream media]. They
will make or break the nominee.

Hewitt, pp. 103-104 (my additions in brackets).

Whether blogs will make or break the nominee is beyond me at this point in time. But I agree with Hewitt that there will be an "interblog storm." I hope to do my part here and at Catholic Analysis to defend a qualified nominee who will vote pro-life on the Supreme Court. My assumption is that our pro-life President will do the right thing, and thus that pro-life blogs will join the battle on behalf of the nominee. As noted above, Hewitt's book has a serious problem with its main historical analogy, but my guess is that many Catholic blogs will be happy to join him in defending the President's pro-life nominee.

Abortion reduction

Why do pro-aborts not want waiting periods and parental consent laws? Because they actually work in reducing abortions!

From the AP:

The number of abortions in Minnesota dropped to a 30-year low in the first full year after the state passed a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions.

(HT: The Corner)

Caring for the Least

James K. Fitzpatrick always does a good job of pointed out how it is okay for Catholics to agree with conservative ideas in helping the poor:

Columnists Fr. Richard McBrien and Sr. Joan Chittister are already huffing and puffing and waving their arms looking to trap in the backcourt, while Catholic columnists such as Mark Shields and Maureen Dowd are doing their part in the secular media to close off the passing lanes.

They are telling us that it makes little sense to work to protect the rights of the fetus if we are not going to provide the child with government assistance to secure its educational and medical needs after it is born; that the Democrats’ commitment to poverty programs makes them “more moral” from a Catholic perspective than the Republicans, notwithstanding the Democrats’ positions on issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage; that Republicans are “indifferent to the plight of the poor.”

---

Consider the following observations by Myron Magnet from the February 25th issue of The Wall Street Journal. Magnet is editor of The City Journal, a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. The Manhattan Institute is a free-market think tank. But so what? If what Magnet says makes sense, it makes sense. Or, to be more precise, if a Catholic is convinced that Magnet makes sense, why accuse that Catholic of being a greedy Republican indifferent to the plight of the poor?

Magnet starts by agreeing with the Church’s teaching that we have a responsibility to care for those who genuinely cannot care for themselves. The man is no Social Darwinist: “Yes, we need a safety net,” he writes. “But we don’t need a European-style welfare state. What’s called for is the traditional American ‘opportunity society,’ as much a boon to the poor as to everyone else.” In other words, Magnet is offering not a way to escape our responsibility for social justice, but what he believes is a better way to care for the least of our brethren.

Magnet prods us to reject the “liberal orthodoxy about how to help the poor, which a half century’s worth of experience has discredited. If you want to help,” he argues, “liberate them from dependency through welfare reform; free their communities from criminal anarchy through activist policing; give them the education they need to succeed in a modern economy by holding their schools accountable; and let them enjoy the rewards of work by taxing their modest wages lightly — or not at all.”

What does he mean by “liberating them from dependency through welfare reform”? He contends that welfare payments often provide the “money to fuel self-destructive behavior. Rather than understand that an inner transformation is what such a person needs, the welfare worker might well try to persuade him that his plight stems from an unjust economy, which provides him insufficient opportunity, or even purposely keeps a fraction of the population unemployed, so as to hold down the wages of those who are working. His problem thus is the result of vast, impersonal forces, of which he is the victim (and doubly the victim if he is black in “racist America”). In other words, capitalism is inherently defective and unjust, and therefore we need a welfare state to mitigate its harshness.”

---

What does Magnet propose as an alternative to the welfare state? Pretty much what has been advocated by supply-side economists over the past few decades. “What has always made America exceptional is limitless opportunity for everyone, at all levels — the ability to find a job, to advance up the ladder as you improve yourself, and to prosper. The poor especially have flocked to these shores for just this chance, and proved the promise true. A giant welfare state,” in contrast, “hampers the job creation that makes all this opportunity possible.”

At this point, many Catholics, on both the Left and the Right, will bristle, protest that Magnet is overly confident in the workings of the free market. They will argue that he offers an unfair, one-sided picture of the effects of poverty programs on the poor; that there are millions of Americans who have relied upon temporary government support to get through times of economic distress to go on to become productive, contributing members of society.

Fair enough. If a Catholic takes this position he is expressing a political point of view — to which he is entitled. He is reacting to his observations about the impact of poverty programs on the poor and the economy in general. He is expressing confidence that the federal government can be an effective instrument of social justice. There is nothing contrary to the Church’s social teachings in thinking that way. One could point to numerous passages in the social encyclicals that support such a point of view.

But it is also in line with the Church’s social teachings to look at the world around us and conclude that Magnet is on target; that the European welfare-state model cannot work; that less government involvement in the economy promotes the economic growth that creates the jobs and economic opportunities that continue to draw immigrants to our shores; that jobs are what the poor need, not more government programs, no matter how well-intended those programs may be. The social encyclicals leave room for prudential judgment about what level of government regulation of the economy is called for at any particular moment in time. That is what the principle of subsidiarity is all about.

Magnet’s line of reasoning may be wrong. That case can be made. Get out your calculator and give us the numbers if you think so. But it is a cheap shot to assume that those who agree with him are expressing a disregard for the social teachings of the Church.

Read the entire article.

Why replacing Justice O'Connor is so important

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional, Appeals Court Rules

St. Louis, MO (LifeNews.com) -- A federal appeals court has ruled that the national ban on partial-birth abortions is unconstitutional. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ban does not pass constitutional muster because it does not contain an exception for the health of the mother, even though doctors say its unnecessary. The measure, the first ban on any abortions since the Roe v. Wade ruling, has a life of the mother exception. But, members of Congress did not include a health exception because "health" can be used to validate a partial-birth abortion for virtually any reason. However, the 8th Circuit upheld a decision by U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf, who was one of three judges to strike down the ban in separate lawsuits filed by abortion advocates. Kopf, and judges in New York and San Francisco, both pointed to a 2000 Supreme Court decision overturning a Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortions because it, too, did not contain the disputed exception. Retiring Supreme Court Justice Sanda Day O'Connor was the deciding vote in the case. Judge Kermit Bye of the 8th Circuit wrote that, "we believe when a lack of consensus exists in the medical community, the Constitution requires legislatures to err on the side of protecting women's health by including a health exception." However, doctors say that the three-day-long abortion procedure is never necessary in emergency health situations. According to a Justice Department brief, the American Medical Association convened a panel to study the issue of partial-birth abortions. The expert panel “could not find ‘any’ identified circumstance” where partial-birth abortion “was ‘the only appropriate alternative’” to preserve the health of the mother." Read the complete story.

Where is the outrage?

Will Senators Kerry, Landrieu, Harkin, Cantwell, and Murray denounce this? Will Representatives McCollum, Clay, DeLauro, and Delahunt show some outrage? Each of these legislators received substantial monetary contributions during their campaigns from NARAL. Each of them is Catholic. I suspect all will remain quiet about it. As Catholics I do not know how they can.

It is one thing to support sex-education which focuses on contraception, but it is quite another to advocate, like NARAL is, against abstinence education. Neither position is acceptable, but fighting abstinence education like this seems evil.

(HT: Amy Welborn)

Fr. Schall on "The One War, The Real War"

Returning for a minute to David's question What should we do, then?, it seems that Fr. Schall has penned an appropriate response to the questions inherent in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis' position on the London bombings:

Just at a moment when many liberal western media and political sources insisted that this war was "caused" by overreaction on the part of President Bush to 9/11, the Islamic militants oblige us with another graphic incident. They will not go away until actually defeated. They do not negotiate or give advanced warnings. They kill the innocent, in cold blood, precisely because they are innocent and unprepared to defend themselves. They see and justify this arbitrary killing as a legitimate means to their religious and political end, the conquest of the world for Islam. . . .

. . . There are not "two" wars -- one in Iraq and one against the terrorists. There is but one war, wherever it is fought, including in London or Baghdad. The terrorists are fully capable of being everywhere. They are invariably Muslim radicals intent on a world mission at least claiming a religious duty. They are not primarily "caused" by poverty or any of the usual ideological reasons given to justify terror. . . .

The main battlefield of the war is not Iraq or even London tubes. It is in the media and public opinion in the United States and Europe about whether the will to do what is necessary to prevent these attacks is firm enough over a long period of time. Civilian and suicide bombings have a political purpose and a religious purpose.

The political purpose is a calculated risk that continued bombings would show that Western powers cannot defend their own populations. Consequently, they should cease trying. They should rather, in return for "peace," submit to Islamic neutralization of their territories, a kind of compromised second-class citizenship. Likewise, they should withdraw from any effort to prevent such attacks in Muslim lands themselves.

The religious purpose of this war, in the minds of its advocates, is to succeed in subjecting the world to Allah. This purpose, no doubt, sounds preposterous. But I think that we misunderstand the problem if we do not disassociate what these terrorists themselves say from our theories of "terrorism." The problem is not caused by fanaticism or some political, sociological, or psychological derangement. . . .

. . . Al-Qaeda forces may have seen their reputation so questioned by the effects of the Afghanistan and Iraq phases of the war that they felt it absolutely necessary to show some flashy sign of strength. If so, this too is in effect a sign of their weakness. They revealed themselves for what they are once more. It has been taken as a truism that it is better to fight these forces on their own grounds and not in London or New York or Madrid. The war overseas does not prove that it is not effective, but that it is. But the latter three cities, however orchestrated, are part of the same war.

In this sense, we can be grateful that the Islamic terrorists in London again called our flagging attention to the real war, the one against those who first declared war against us in the name of their religious and political mission. The first effort has been and still is to undermine any effective opposition. Whether this purpose can be achieved by terrorism and its effect on public opinion remains to be seen.

Excerpts from "The One War, The Real War", by Fr. James Schall. Ignatius Insight July 8, 2005. (See also the James V. Schall, SJ Online Archive).

USCCB Head, Bishop Skylstad, Writes President Bush On Supreme Court Vacancy

Dear Mr. President,

As the nation ponders the legacy of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the occasion of her retirement from the bench, we are reminded that the legacy of a Supreme Court Justice is long and the influence of the Court on the life of the country and the development of the Law is considerable. At this time, I want to take the opportunity to draw to your attention the qualities that I hope you would contemplate as you decide on the appointment of her successor.

When a nomination is made, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops does not participate by endorsing or opposing specific nominees. Our concern is for principles and policies rather than for personalities. We will maintain that position with regard to this Supreme Court appointment and to those that will come in the future.

However, because of the Supreme Court’s ability to affect both principles and policies, I urge you to consider for the Court qualified jurists who, pre-eminently, support the protection of human life from conception to natural death, especially of those who are unborn, disabled, or terminally ill. I would ask you to consider jurists who are also cognizant of the rights of minorities, immigrants, and those in need; respect the role of religion and of religious institutions in our society and the protections afforded them by the First Amendment; recognize the value of parental choice in education; and favor restraining and ending the use of the death penalty. There are many specific applications of these and other fundamental matters which the USCCB has addressed or will address in the future through amicus briefs.

Our prayers are with you as you make this decision which is so crucial for our nation.

Sincerely in Christ,

Most Reverend William S. Skylstad
Bishop of Spokane
President


UPDATE: Two takes on Bishop Skylstad's letter (here and here and here). Similar thoughts had crossed my mind when I first read the letter. So, as Catholics do we want justices who will act has Bishop Skylstad hopes or do we want legislators to act as he suggests the justices should act?

UPDATE II: Another response from the folks at Mirror of Justice.

UPDATE III: Amy Welborn has also commented (here and here).

UPDATE IV: Mirror of Justice again. There seem to be two arguments about the letter. 1) Bishop Skylstad seems to be advocating the "seamless garment" argument by including protecting innocent life with abolishing the death penalty; and 2) he seems to be confusing the roles of the judiciary with those of the legislature.

So, what should we do then?

That is the question I pose to the contributors at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. They have posted on the terrorist attacks in London and taken the opportunity to once again call for an end to the war on terror or at least a change in strategy. The post is closed to comments so I hope no one will be bothered that I comment here.

The contributors pose some "hard questions, unpopular questions".

In the wake of yet another deadly attack, we wonder if it might be time to reevaluate our methods in the war on terrorism. After New York, Madrid, and now London -- not to mention the countless attacks throughout the Middle East -- is it perhaps time for a new approach? After September 11, international coalitions invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq, in the hopes of eradicating global terrorism. On the contrary, however, global terrorism has been strengthened and it seems that al-Qaeda is thriving. One of America's primary goals was to keep the war on terrorism off of our shores -- so far we have done that, but at what cost? By fighting so hard to keep the war on terrorism off of our shores, have we inadvertently brought it to the shores of our friends in Europe? Today it came to the shores of the United Kingdom; months before, to the borders of Spain; after this, we cannot know where or when it will strike again.

Is it not time for us to raise the legitimate question: Can the violence of terrorism truly be fought with violence in return? Is it not time to ask ourselves if the war on terrorism will be won by winning land and body counts, or by winning hearts and minds? Is it not time to ask ourselves if we should put aside our guns and bombs, in favor of words of peace and nonviolent resistance? Is it not time to ask ourselves, in the light of the starkly serious circumstances presented to us today, if we are truly any better off, truly any safer, almost five years into the war on terrorism? Is it not time to ask ourselves if our war on terrorism has perhaps really been what the terrorists have wanted all along? Is it not time to ask ourselves if we have perhaps given them the jihad they were looking for, bolstering their numbers by the violence we ourselves have committed against people who otherwise would not be terrorists?

But they suggest no answers. Well, at least not directly. Some of the questions are answers in themselves. And, Nathan Nelson has previously answered. His answer is to defeat Republicans in 2006 and 2008 and replace them. What does he wish the replacements to do once elected? I am not sure, but that seems to be his answer.

So if the contributors at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis are truly soliciting answers, here are mine.

...is it perhaps time for a new approach? No.

...have we inadvertently brought [the war on terror] to the shores of our friends in Europe? No.

...can the violence of terrorism truly be fought with violence in return? Maybe, but given the nature and ideological hatred they have for us, I doubt it.

...[will] the war on terrorism...be won by winning land and body counts, or by winning hearts and minds? Unfortunately, by body counts.

...should [we] put aside our guns and bombs, in favor of words of peace and nonviolent resistance? Unfortunately, no.

...are [we] truly any better off, truly any safer, almost five years into the war on terrorism? Yes!

...[has] our war on terrorism...perhaps really been what the terrorists have wanted all along? Maybe, but nothing suggests they would have stopped if we had not gone into Afghanistan and Iraq. (See below)

...have [we] perhaps given them the jihad they were looking for, bolstering their numbers by the violence we ourselves have committed against people who otherwise would not be terrorists? Same answer as above.

I understand why they ask these questions. I have asked some of them my self. But, I am not convinced we brought this war onto ourselves. It started before we went into Iraq and even before 9/11. The evidence: American hostages in Iran in 1979, attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, airliner hijackings and hostage takings throughout the 1980s, the first attack on the WTC in 1993, the attack on Khobar Towers in 1996, the attacks on two of our embassies in East Africa in 1998, the planned and foiled attack during the millennium celebrations in Seattle in 1999, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and the attack on our very own Nation on 9/11. So to suggest that our response, the world's response, to 9/11 caused further attacks in Bali, Madrid, and now London is without merit. They have been doing this for a long time and for other reasons which I believe the contributors at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis fail to, or outright refuse, to acknowledge. And though I wish this violence did not need to be met with our own, I have seen no proof that the men who carry out these terrible and horrific acts against civilians will stop if we only attempted to win their "hearts and minds" or by using "words of peace and nonviolent resistance".

I do wish there was a better way to end this war, but given the hatred the terrorists have for us, right now we need to fight. The Church, through Her teachings on waging a just war, is a guide for us in fighting the terrorists and their state sponsors. We have failed in some respects to follow this teaching, and we, as Catholics, should point out when our leaders and the men and women in uniform fail, but we should not abandon the effort. Rather we should correct the wrongs and ensure they do not happen again.

For now, the real answer continues to be waging a just war and promoting democracy in the Middle East. The the contributors at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis are free to comment and seriously answer my original question.

Vatican 'Working Document' Says It is Sinful to Support Pro-Abortion Politicians

From LifeSiteNews.com:

The Vatican held a press conference today to present the
"Instrumentum laboris" (working document) for the Eleventh Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, scheduled to be held in the Vatican from October 2 to 23, 2005 on the theme: "The Eucharist: Source and Summit of the Life and Mission of the Church." The document, drawn up on the basis from Church leaders throughout the world to a draft called the "Lineamenta", lamented "the fact that too many faithful receive communion without having sufficiently reflected upon the morality of their lives."

Article 73 of the 88-page document says, "there exist Catholics who do not understand why they commit a sin when they support politically a candidate openly in favour of abortion or other grave acts against life, justice, and peace."

Commenting on the reception of communion, the same article says, "Certain (faithful) communicate even if they deny the teachings of the church or support publicly immoral choices, such as abortion, without thinking that they are committing a personal action which is profoundly dishonest or that they are a source of scandal."

The document calls the disturbing developments "a crisis on what it means to belong to the church as well as a lack of clarity in the distinction between venial sin and mortal sin."

Note: 48% of voting Catholics voted for John Kerry last year.

What Bush's shortlist thinks about abortion

From the online magazine Slate comes some info on those the shortlist and what they did when given the opportunity to decide on cases dealing with abortion. Some highlights:

In 1992 and 1997, Judge Emilio Garza (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit) struck down two Louisiana statutes for restricting abortion more tightly than Roe and Casey allow. But in each case, Garza wrote a concurrence stating his disagreement with those Supreme Court decisions. "I would allow the people of the State of Louisiana to decide this issue for themselves," he wrote in the 1992 case. In 1997, he called Roe and Casey "inimical to the Constitution."

---

In 1991, Judge Samuel Alito (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit) dissented from the lower-court decision—affirmed by the Supreme Court in Casey—that struck down a Pennsylvania law that would have required women to inform their husbands before getting abortions. Alito read the Supreme Court's earlier decisions as holding that an abortion regulation did not pose an undue burden unless it banned abortion, gave another person a veto over a woman's choice, or had the "practical effect of imposing severe limitations." A law that had a "heavy impact on a few women" should be upheld, Alito said.

---

In 2000, as a judge on the Texas Supreme Court, Alberto Gonzales (now U.S. Attorney General) took part in two decisions that applied a state law allowing a teenage girl to have an abortion without notifying her parents if she could prove to a judge that she was "mature and sufficiently well informed." In one of the cases, Gonzales voted to allow a 17-year-old girl to have an abortion under the statute, though he was careful to say that he was simply following the directive of the legislature. "While the ramifications of such a law and the results of the Court's decision here may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view," Gonzales wrote. In the second case, Gonzales held that the teenager petitioning the court had not shown that she had "thoughtfully considered the alternatives" to abortion, but sent her back to the trial court for another chance.

---

You can never say for sure how someone will vote when they get to the Supreme Court—that's the beauty of judicial independence and life tenure. But based on their past statements and decisions, Roberts, McConnell, Garza, and Jones look like good bets to vote to regulate abortion more tightly and, if they get the chance someday, perhaps to overturn Roe v. Wade. Alito would probably do the same. How far Luttig would go is less clear—his statement of respect for Casey is clinical and drained of emotion, which makes it harder to tell. Gonzales' opinions in the Texas cases suggest that he doesn't much like the idea of teenagers having abortions without telling their parents. But in those cases and others, he has been inclined to respect previous Supreme Court decisions. That makes him the potential nominee most likely to follow O'Connor when it comes to Roe—and it explains why religious conservatives are so hostile to his potential nomination.

These highlights were on those potential nominees who are Catholic. You can read the whole piece here to get a sense of where other potential nominees stand.

Today we are All Londoners

They have stood with us and we now stand with them. Our prayers and thoughts are with the people of London.

Pro-Life Democrat Group Honors Catholic Tim Roemer for Opposing Abortion

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Democrats for Life, a national group seeking to reverse the party's intensely pro-abortion position, held their 4th annual Hall of Fame awards dinner Thursday night. At the event, they honored former Indiana congressman Tim Roemer for his outspoken pro-life views. Roemer waged a well-regarded but unsuccessful bid for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee earlier this year. During his campaign, he was panned by abortion advocates who excluded him from interviews they granted to other candidates Yet, Roemer received enough acclaim for his efforts to move the party in a more moderate direction on abortion that the eventual chairman, pro-abortion ex-Vermont Governor Howard Dean, tapped him to be a party spokesman. "We have made more progress in the Democratic Party on the abortion issue in the last six months than we have in the have in the past 30 years," Roemer said in accepting the honor. "We will continue to make more." The former 9-11 panel commissioner told the audience that society "can no longer tolerate a situation where we have as many abortions in this country a year as people dying due to terrorism and war in the world." Roemer spoke in favor of the new 95-10 Initiative the pro-life organization is sponsoring. It's a bundle of legislative proposals Democrats for Life hopes Congress will approve that focus on reducing the number of abortions by 95 percent in 10 years. Read the complete story.

Santorum compares abortion to slavery in new book

Another look at Senator Santorum's new book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, from CNN: Inside Politics.

In the book, Santorum makes the case that abortion puts the liberty rights of the mother before those of her child, just as the rights of slave owners were put before those of slaves.

"This was tried once before in America," Santorum writes. "But unlike abortion today, in most states even the slaveholder did not have the unlimited right to kill his slave."

E-Mail White House on Supreme Court Nomination

In the age of the internet and e-mail, making your views known is easy and convenient. One conservative activist group--I am sure there are others--provides an easy and free way to send an e-mail to President Bush asking him to nominate a new justice in the mold of current Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who are reliably pro-life. Here is the link.

Even with an additional pro-life justice, by my count, pro-life forces are still outnumbered on the Supreme Court. But the journey to victory begins now. We look forward to the day when the murder of the unborn is officially rejected in the United States. This is no time to remain silent. We have come through an important presidential election where victory was crucial precisely because of the chance to appoint new Supreme Court justices. Now is the time to demand what we voted for in 2004.

The Nicholson standard

George Weigel on former Ambassador Nicholson:

Sometime in the next few months, a new U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See will be moving into Villa Richardson on Rome's Janiculum Hill. The shoes waiting to be filled there, and at the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See (which overlooks the Circus Maximus), are large indeed.

Since the post was created during the first Reagan administration, Americans of all faiths and political persuasions have been well-served by their ambassadors to the Holy See: a distinguished group of men and women who have brought lives of accomplishment and good judgment to their work in the Vatican, and with the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See. Some served in relatively quiet periods; others had to tread a rockier road.

Still, I trust none of his distinguished predecessors, no matter what the circumstances in which they served, will object if I suggest that the recently-returned U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, R. James Nicholson (now Secretary of Veterans Affairs), set a new standard of excellence.

Catholic Conservatives launch new 527

From The Hill e-news:

Conservatives have launched a new 527 organization that will seek to impact Senate and House races in the 2006 mid-term election and beyond.

The group is the Fidelis Media Fund. It is connected with a newly formed 501(c)4 advocacy group, Fidelis, a new political action committee, Fidelis America, and a new 501(c)3 research organization, the Fidelis Center for Law and Justice. The connected entities represent a "family of Catholic-based organizations," said president Joseph Cella.

"We'll elect pro-life, pro-family, pro-religious liberty candidates," said Cella, who explained that the pac and 527 will become involved in the "most competitive House races and Senate races," those with a "margin of one or two or three percentage points."

He said that the group would likely be involved in Sen. Rick Santorum's (R) re-election race in Pennsylvania. The Catholic political organizations plan to be active in the battle over judicial nominees, especially fights involving nominees whose religious views are part of the debate.

Cella would not disclose the groups' expected budgets.

For more, check out the Fidelis website.