The effect of WYD

From a piece today by Colleen Carroll Campbell:

A new study by Catholic University of America sociologist Dean Hoge reports that 26 percent of American priests ordained this year are World Youth Day veterans.

Interesting and good to see the fruits of JPG and WYD. I hope the contributors at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis are not too upset about this. (See here and here to read what I am referring to.)

Catholics in America

Catholic News Agency: "Bible Belt Catholicism: changing face of Church is young, tech savvy and faithful"

Good piece on the growth of Catholicism in the South.

....

MSNBC: "Roman Catholicism: 'Hail Mary' Is More Than a Football Play"

A short article on young Catholics and how different many of them are from other Catholics in America.

From the Coalition for Darfur blog, news on Catholic representative Christopher Smith's work in support of human rights in Sudan.

Diocese of Cleveland - Giving a Platform to Pro-Abort Pol?

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

-- "Catholics in Political Life" United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Heart, Mind & Strengthnotifies its readers that the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland is hosting a talk by pro-abortion congressman Sherrod Brown, Democrat, who has ambitions to become governor.

Further information about the event, scheduled on Sept. 2, 2005, contact Tom Allio @ Catholic Commission. P.O. Box 434, Akron, OH 44309-0434 Phone: 330-535-2787 www.catholic-action.org.

Clarification for our readers: Sharrod Brown is a Lutheran -- I posted with the presumption that the USCCB's prohibition on honoring or, in this case, giving platforms to, politicians who act in opposition to Catholic principles was not limited to those of the Catholic faith.

The Diocese of Cleveland may differ, but I believe any politician with a pro-abortion voting record should not be given a platform at a Catholic event.

Prof. Peter Singer: Apologist for Killing the Innocent

Don't take my word for it. Australian-born professor Peter Singer has his own website at this link. Go to the "FAQ" section and draw your own conclusions. These are my opinions and conclusions based on what I read at Singer's own website. Singer defines a person as someone who can anticipate the future. At one point, in his FAQ section, he restates his position by saying that a person is someone "who wants to go on living." Once personhood is denied to those who supposedly don't want to go on living or who cannot make plans for the future (I guess pick the formulation you like better), then killing such a non-person is not taboo. My friends, all hell breaks loose.

If you read the website, you will see that Singer is against racism, sexism, and speciesism--speciesism is apparently exemplified by the preference of the human species over other species (scroll down to FAQ Section II). And we all know what racism is: elevating the accident of racial background to supreme importance. We can define sexism as arbitrary discrimination based on gender. Yet, Singer himself practices an "ism" that also arbitrarily elevates an accidental quality, such as race, into something so important that it can cost you your life, even if you are an innocent.

Singer is guilty of blatant ageism. In his discussion and defense of infanticide in the FAQ section of his very own website, he focuses on the wishes and needs of parents as paramount in the decision to kill an infant, whether disabled or completely healthy (scroll down to FAQ Section III). A genuine thinker and philosopher--not to say any common sense person--would immediately see the central issue: what gives a parent the right to kill his or her infant? All that Singer points us to are the wishes and desires of the infant's parents or of other parents who may wish to adopt the infant.

What differentiates parents from the infant? Mere chronology. The parents are older, the parents are thus in control, the parents have the power. This ageism is no less arbitrary than the "isms" of racism and speciesism that Singer rejects. (Note: for the sake of argument only, I am ceding to Singer the arbitrary quality of what he calls speciesism; that issue is a topic for another time). But Singer's "ism" goes beyond mere ageism. He also defends euthanasia of the elderly. What gives someone the right to kill off the elderly? In the end, it comes down to power: someone has the power to kill off the elderly who are in no position to defend themselves. The killing of infants and the elderly defended by Singer reflects a very old ideology: "Might makes Right."

Singer's incoherent defense of killing the innocent passes for ethics even though he utterly fails to justify the arbitrary conclusion that the stronger have the right to kill the weaker. The scandal is not just philosophical or intellectual. The scandal is also academic. Ivy League Princeton University has rewarded Singer with a prestigious perch from which to offer to the world his incoherence. This fact takes me back to an earlier post at CatholicAnalysis.blogspot.com in which I noted how academic freedom is misused to protect views that fail to meet the academic minimum of quality reasoned argument.

In my view, universities should practice quality control by rewarding reasoned argument and not by lending prestige to arbitrary ideology that merely keeps repeating in some form or another of academic jargon the prejudice, the prejudgment, that might makes right. Academic prestige and freedom were never intended to reward "philosophers" begging the fundamental and perennial questions of human life. But, today, more and more universities have lent their prestige to providing platforms for ideologues who fail to grapple seriously with the fundamental issues of the ages. The colleagues of such ideologues should be the first to point out fiercely the logical incoherence and self-contradiction that pass for philosophy in the case of Singer and others. Like it or not, academic prestige should be bestowed on those who argue logically and not on those who merely tell us that might makes right, even if they are adept at writing in the preferred style of academic journals.

Does a politician's adherence to Catholic values conflict with the common good?

It seems FindLaw columnist and Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton believs it does. She argues in an article titled, "How Senator Rick Santorum, In Acting for His Church, Persistently Fails to Consider the Larger Public Good", that Sen Santorum represents the interests of the Catholic Church at the expense of the greater public good. She sees Sen Santorum's actions, at the order of "religious lobbyists" as harmful. How so? His Catholicism:

...prevented him from being "part of the solution" in the priest abuse crisis. He could have proposed federal legislation to help solve the crisis. Instead because of his Catholicism and position as a US Senator he was able to provide "cover for the Church".

...made him provide a "financial windfall to the Catholic University of America at the expense of veteran's health.

...made him promote "creationism" at the expense of science in schools.

...made him promote abstinence-only education, which is "education in religious values" and "utterly divorced from social reality".

...made him co-sponsor legislation giving "workers the right, in their jobs, to refuse to sell products regarding which they have moral objections".

...made him vote for legislation banning "abortion on all military bases".

Professor Hamilton is wrong. How so?

Besides Sen Santorum, there are 23 other self proclaimed Catholics in the Senate. Though she mentions Sen Kennedy she does not point out if other Catholic senators are harmful. Besides Sen Kennedy there have been other Catholic senators who have acted similarly, but there have been other non-Catholic senators who have also. Does Prof Hamilton see their actions as sacrificing the public good? She does not say. By looking at Sen Santorum's "harmful" actions we will see that though his faith leads him it does not require him to sacrifice the public good.

A federal solution to the crisis?

Prof Hamilton believes Sen Santorum could have been "part of the solution" to the priest abuse crisis, yet she offers no solutions as to what the federal government could have done. (To be fair, she has proposed "federal" solutions in other articles.) I do find it surprising that a Constitutional law professor who believes very much in the "separation of Church and State" would want the federal government involved in the policing of the Catholic Church. The crisis is being handled at the local and state level and the Church for the most part is cooperating through payments to victims and providing information to prosecutors on abusive priests. In addition, the bishops themselves have established a task force to develop policy to better protect children. There were no calls from others in the Congress or the president for action on this matter. No one suggests their religious faith made them do nothing. It is absurd to think so. And though the abuse of children by priests was a horror for not only Catholics, but for many Americans, it is difficult to see that it was necessary for the federal government to act. As for Sen Santorum's 2002 remarks, why is it now with just over a year until Pennsylvania voters decide whether or not to send Sen Santorum back to the Senate for another term, everyone is in an uproar over these remarks? Agree or disagree with them, the timing is very telling of what those critical of the senator really think. Why did they not speak up back in 2002?

"Sweetheart deal"

Sen Santorum offered an amendment requiring the Old Soldiers' and Airmen's Home to sell excess property to build up its trust fund. The amendment restricted the sale of the property solely to the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington for the Catholic University of America (CUA). Prof Hamilton is correct in pointing out the obvious lack of free-market bidding on the property, but she is way of the mark in suggesting that such a sale would be unconstitutional (under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment). I would think that such a sale to a non-religious institute would be looked at the same way because it was unfair, not unconstitutional. And does the professor have a problem with federal grants to the CUA and other religious educational institutions? She is again wrong in suggesting that the senator made such a proposal because he is Catholic and it was for a Catholic institution. The appropriations bill with the provision passed the Senate and the House with support from non-Catholics who saw this initially as a proper action. Prof Hamilton also suggests that Sen Santorum did this at the expense of veterans and that if it came to choosing between helping his Church or helping veterans he would choose his Church. Nonsense. (It should be noted that Sen Santorum has sponsored an amendment increasing funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Increasing spending is not a popular idea among conservatives and the increased spending here has been opposed by the Bush Administration.)

Intelligent Design in Science Class

Sen Santorum proposed an amendment to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 which reads as follows:

It is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and

(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.

The professor's problem is that the amendment, which passed the Senate 91-8, would supposedly have required a discussion of "intelligent design" (ID) in the science classroom. Though the amendment was stripped from the Conference Report, similar wording was left in recognizing that science curriculum should include this discussion. (As an aside, Prof Hamilton incorrectly stated Cardinal Schonborn recently said "that evolution is inconsistent with Catholic theology." Actually the cardinal merely reminded us that "an unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist." Thus evolution which accepts divine guidance in even a "casual role" is consistent with Catholic theology.) Prof Hamilton also failed to point out that Sen Santorum has rethought his position on this issue, recently splitting with President Bush who has stated that he would like to see ID taught in the science classroom. One would think that the professor would point out this change to her readers, esp. since she saw it as such a harmful act. But then that would weaken her argument would it not?

Abstinence-only Education: "Education in Religious Values"?

Prof Hamilton next takes issue with Sen Santorum's support for abstinence-only education. She states that this is "nothing but education in religious values, utterly divorced from social reality". Actually many if not most of abstinence-only education is secular based. And the reality is that "sexual activity at an early age has multiple harmful consequences; most sexually active teens say they wish they had waited until they were older before having sex; sexually active teens are more likely to be depressed and to attempt suicide; abstinence education programs are effective in reducing teen sexual activity; abstinence programs dramatically reduce out-of-wedlock childbearing; and parents overwhelmingly support the values and messages of true abstinence education." Where are the religious values here? Given this reality, abstinence-only education is truly looking at benefiting the public good Prof Hamilton is so worried is being neglected.

Faith in the Workplace not in the Public's Interest

The professor next calls out Sen Santorum for co-sponsoring the "Workplace Religious Freedom Act" (S. 667) because it could give "workers the right, in their jobs, to refuse to sell products regarding which they have moral objections". This is the conscientious pharmacist issue. In other articles about this subject Prof Hamilton points out that Sen John Kerry, not known as the same kind of Catholic Sen Santorum is, also is co-sponsoring this legislation. In addition, Sens Clinton, Schumer, and Corzine are also co-sponsors! And on top of that, the legislation has the support of various religious groups including, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Council of Churches, the North American Council for Muslim Women, the Sikh Resource Taskforce, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the American Jewish Committee, and Agudath Israel of America. The legislation would require employers to accommodate the religious observances of their employees as long as providing such accommodations will not impose an "undue hardship" upon the employer. Thus, employers would be encouraged to afford employees flexible work shifts so that they may observe religious holy days and permit employees to wear religiously required garb at work. I am not entirely sure the provision Prof Hamilton points out above is the focus of this bill. Given the co-sponsorship of Sens Clinton and Schumer I doubt that it is. But again, that truth would weaken her argument.

Oh, and Abortion

Last, the professor lambastes the senator for not allowing abortion in military medical facilities. This is disturbing to her because our military men and women may not have other "abortion" options. Unfortunately, they usually do, but that is not the issue. Besides the military men and women, the rest of the public must be a consideration here, for they may not want their taxes being spent on the murder of innocents still in the womb. Why is that not mentioned by the professor? Why is it that the "public good" in this situation is only allowing abortions in military medical facilities? By the way, the ban has support in both the Senate and the House.

Hit Piece

This supposedly scholarly article is more of a hit piece on Catholic politicians in general and Sen Santorum in particular. It seems clear Sen Santorum's is not a Catholic agenda. Noting support from various non-Catholic senators and organizations for the actions above how could it be? And though Senator Santorum's Catholic faith may drive how he votes on issues such as abortion, Catholic teachings do not require him to make "sweetheart" deals with or "provide cover" for Catholic institutions. His faith obviously affects how he sees the public best served in regards to how to educate our youth on the subjects of sex and science, but this is true for many if not most of our representatives in Congress. Many Americans use their religious values to determine what is the public or common good. And given that he has changed his views (on where to teach ID) over the last few years, how can it be said that the Catholic Church drives how he acts on these and other issues? Prof Hamilton would be well served if someone passed her a copy of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith's Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life. I would hope that if she reads it she will see that a Catholic politicians faith, which is tied to reason, does inform his or her judgement on core issues such as abortion. She wil also see that that there can be disagreement, even among Catholics on other issues, such as the minimum wage. Lastly, I would point her to the senator's own words dealing with the very issue she tackels in her article: He states:

I affirm that your creed and values shape what is best for the state. In fact, I believe politicians have an obligation to the state and its constituents, to do what is in their best interest. In reality, there should never be a conflict between your creed and your legislation because both should be oriented toward the good and what is best for society.

But again, this is a hit piece dressed up for FindLaw, so it is likely Prof Hamilton could care less about reconsidering her point of view.

(Crossposted at Catholics for Santorum)

John Roberts May Not Think Abortion Law "Settled" After All

From LifeNews.com:

Observers of the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts have been trying to dissect his views on abortion. In a legal brief for the administration for former President Bush, Roberts argued Roe v. Wade was bad law and should be overturned. Later, in his 2003 appeals court nomination hearings, he called Roe "settled law."

In an effort to explain Roberts' views, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, last month, said Roberts was required to say Roe was "settled law" because appeals court judges are not expected to overturn high court precedent.

That left it open for Roberts to decide, as a member of the Supreme Court, that Roe v. Wade could be overturned.

In a Tuesday meeting with Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, Roberts confirmed that suspicion.

Wyden said he was concerned by Roberts' answer to a question he posed about whether he still believed the Roe abortion decision is settled law.

Roberts told Wyden the notion of "settled law" depends on what court one is a member of -- opening himself up to the possibility of overturning Roe. The Supreme Court is clearly different from the Court of Appeals, Roberts explained.

Roberts: Congress wrong about Schiavo intervention?

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

[S]enator, Ron Wyden of Oregon, said that Roberts, while not addressing the Schiavo case specifically, made clear during an hourlong meeting that he was displeased with Congress' attempt to force the federal judiciary to overturn a court order withdrawing her feeding tube.

"I asked whether it was constitutional for Congress to intervene in an end-of-life case with a specific remedy," Wyden said, in a telephone interview after the meeting. "His answer was, 'I am concerned with judicial independence. Congress can prescribe standards, but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds.' "

The answer, which Wyden said his aides wrote down word for word, would seem to put Roberts at odds with leading Republicans in Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, both of whom led the charge for congressional intervention in the Schiavo case this past spring. DeLay said at the time that the federal judiciary had "run amok."

Now, let's look at that answer again:

'I am concerned with judicial independence. Congress can prescribe standards, but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds.'

I do not believe the Congress was prescribing a "particular remedy" to the Schaivo case, they were only asking the appeals court with jurisdiction to look again at this case. Though those members of Congress supporting this legislation may have wanted a "particular remedy", the legislation itself did not direct it.

IMHO, this is another attempt, much like the pro bono work on the Romer case, to paint Judge Roberts in a bad light with conservatives. Liberals like Sen Wyden are having a difficult time opposing Judge Roberts so they are trying to get conservatives to oppose him instead. Will it work?

UPDATE: Shannen Coffin clears up what really happened at the Wyden-Roberts meeting.

UPDATE II: Ed Gillespie's letter to the NYT provides some more info.

Beware this "Catholic" in the Public Square

Jeanine Pirro has decided to try and unseat Sen Hillary Clinton of New York. Mrs Pirro is a "Catholic" who supports abortion "rights" and same-sex marriage. She may give Sen Clinton a run for her money, but in the end will end up losing to the former First Lady. It will be interesting to compare their views on abortion and same-sex marriage, as well as ESCR and human cloning, to see if there are really any differences between these women. If there are will the differences be enough for Catholics in New York to vote for her? Arguments have been made in the past that Catholics could justify voting for Rudy Giuliani in a race with Sen Clinton. Maybe they can be made with Mrs Pirro?

Fr. Sirico on Mario Cuomo, John Roberts

Rev. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute ["for the study of religion and liberty"], made a guest appearance on the Laura Ingraham Show this morning to discuss Mario Cuomo's interview with Timothy Russert (Sunday - Meet The Press - transcript), the Catholic faith of John Roberts and the greater issue of the role of Catholics in public life.

You can listen to the interview by clicking here (3.5 mb .mp3 file). It's a good one. As Sirico noted, is on occasions like this that the press likes to trot out Catholics "with a dubious relationship to the Church" to present themselves as the ideal of how Catholics ought to behave in modern secular America . . . as opposed to say, the strange folk.

(Via Marc Vander Maas @ Acton Institute Powerblog).

More discussion of Cuomo at Amy Welborn's.

NARAL "Drowns" Abstinence Teachers and "Blows up" Pro-lifers

First NARAL threw their "Screw Abstinence" party and now they have a cartoon video on the their web site drowning an abstinence teacher and blowing up and decapitating pro-life demonstrators. Dawn Eden has broken the story over on her blog, The Dawn Patrol. And before any of our more "progressive" readers state I am over reacting read Dawn:

...if the American Life League's Web site featured a cartoon depicting an ALL superhero blowing up nonviolent Planned Parenthood activists, would Planned Parenthood just shrug it off?

Would Senators Kennedy or Kerry or Congresswoman Pelosi shrug it off? Of course not. They would use such an action from ALL to discredit the pro-life movement. There should be outrage and a demand that this government funded organization take this animated video (targeted towards children) off their web site. There won't be though.

Cuomo: Is Roberts a Vatican Robot?

Press release from the Catholic League on "Catholic" Gov Cuomo's comments yesterday re: Judge Roberts:

NEW YORK, Aug 8 /Christian Wire Service/-- Catholic League president William Donohue commented today on what former New York State Governor Mario Cuomo had to say yesterday about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts:

"Mario Cuomo said yesterday on 'Meet the Press' that he wants senators to ask John Roberts the following questions: 'Are you going to impose a religious test on the Constitution? Are you going to say that because the pope says this or the Church says that, you will do it no matter what?'

"Now if a non-Catholic had suggested such questions, he would quickly be branded a Catholic basher. But it should be no more excusable for a Catholic to raise such questions. For Cuomo to float the idea that John Roberts might be a Vatican robot is as shameless as it is anti-Catholic. By doing so, he not only provides fodder to the enemies of the Catholic Church, he further discredits his credentials as a Catholic spokesman."

Another Catholic in Congress

From the AP:

Schmidt Wins 2nd District Special Election

CINCINNATI (AP) -- Republican Jean Schmidt held off an unexpectedly tough challenge from Democrat Paul Hackett to win Tuesday's Second Congressional District special election.

With all precincts reporting unofficial returns, Schmidt won with 52 percent of the vote.

Schmidt is the first female to be elected from the Second District.

The campaign to replace Congressman Rob Portman has drawn national attention largely because of Hackett's Iraq war service and his criticism of President Bush.

Portman left the House when he was named US trade representative.

Schmidt is a faithful Catholic and a welcome addition to the U.S. House of Representatives. She will soon be added to the Catholics in Congress project which surveys and tracks the votes and other acts of the now 132 Catholics in the House of Representatives and the 24 Catholics in the Senate. The survey looks at votes and other actions which deal with six non-negotiable issues for Catholics.

Catholic politicians and Catholic judges

Ed Whelan over at Bench Memos comments on E.J. Dionne's op-ed where he states there is no difference between the role of faith for Catholic politicians and Catholic judges and wonders why the bishops did not call out Justice Kennedy for his opinion in Casey like they did with Sen Kerry and other pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Mr Whelan comments:

Surely American bishops can be expected to understand and to explain the elementary point that judges, unlike legislators, are bound to determine the meaning of the law, not to engage in policymaking. The fact that American bishops have not criticized Scalia and Thomas for failing to adopt a “pro-life” reading of the Constitution amply testifies to the point.

Liberals are critical of Roe too!

After recently mentioning that even some liberals see Roe as wrongly decided, a reader seemed skeptical and asked for names. Well, here are some names:

Here are typical criticisms of Roe—from liberals who support a right to abortion:

"What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking." John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 Yale L.J. 920, 935-937 (1973).

"One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." Laurence H. Tribe, The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law, 87 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 7 (1973).

"As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible." "Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms." Edward Lazarus, The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell’s Nomination Only Underlined Them, Oct. 3, 2002 (at http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/lazarus/20021003.html). (Mr. Lazarus was a law clerk to Blackmun and describes himself as "someone utterly committed to the right to choose [abortion]" and as "someone who loved Roe’s author like a grandfather.")

"[Roe’s] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations.... Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution." Archibald Cox, The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government 113-114 (1976).

"Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference." William Saletan, Unbecoming Justice Blackmun, Legal Affairs, May/June 2005 (at http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2005/feature_saleton_mayjun05.msp).

Roe "is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply." Benjamin Wittes, Letting Go of Roe, The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005.

(From Ed Whelan's Senate Testimony on Roe v. Wade.)

John Roberts and Church of the Little Flower

If Catholics in America tend to fall into two broad categories--those who dissent from controversial Church teaching and those who subscribe to it--Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, Jr., would appear to fall into the latter category. He attends Church of the Little Flower, a Maryland parish that heterodox Catholics would regard as an outpost of traditional Catholicism.

Read the whole thing here.

Pennsylvania bishops issue document on stem-cell research

Good info on this topic, so important to many of us. One question from the document:

What about the use of government funding for embryonic stem cell research?

Government funding would further encourage researchers to destroy human embryos. We must oppose the use of our tax dollars for research that involves the destruction of human life. When we enter the realm of public policy, each of us has an obligation to speak up and to take a stand for human life. We cannot proceed down the road of scientific development without sufficient moral reflection and ethical judgment.

You can read the entire document here.

(Via CNA)

"Catholic" senator sets Roe litmus test for Judge Roberts

Catholic News Agency reports that "a Democratic senator said yesterday he would subject Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts to a Roe litmus test. On a Vermont radio program yesterday, Senator Patrick Leahy became the first Democrat to say outright that he would have a Roe litmus test for Roberts."

Catholic Governor will Veto New Rule on Pill

The New York Times is reporting that Gov George Pataki will veto a bill that would make the so-called “morning after pill” available to New Yorkers without a prescription. This is surprising to me since Gov Pataki is known for his support of abortion "rights". Is it his conscience or is it a political move for the potential 2008 presidential candidate?

John Roberts' Catholic Connections

John Roberts' Catholic Connections -- George Neumayr at Beliefnet.com visits Robert's parish, The Church of the Little Flower (Bethseda, MD), notes the traditional preaching of Robert's pastor, Monsignor Peter J. Vaghi, his schooling at La Lumiere, an all-male Catholic prep school; his wife's pro-life legal work for Feminists for Life and the John Carroll Society ("an association of Catholic laypersons united in their desire for an ever deepening and enriching knowledge of their faith and in service to the Cardinal of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.") . . . and concludes that this guy's no Ted Kennedy: "By all outward measures, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has faithfully followed the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church."

Looks like President Bush made a decent pick.