Monday, October 31, 2005
Friday, October 28, 2005
Catholic Leadership Conference on Statement on Political Action
Via the Catholic News Agency:
Phoenix, Oct. 28, 2005 (CNA) - “The ultimate political goal for Catholics must be the achievement of public policies and laws that result in the legal protection of all innocent human life and that promote the dignity of each human person without exception and compromise”, states a new document setting guidelines for political action.
The document was published today by the Catholic Leaders Conference (CLC) [The CLC is an annual gathering of the leaders of over 100 Catholic organizations representing in their memberships over 2 million Americans]. It first reminded the importance of participation in the public debate, asserting a specific Catholic tradition in political action, and values this participation as a moral obligation.
The first guideline the document stressed is the existence of a hierarchy between some issues that arise in political debate. Therefore the statements reasserts that “the first obligation of government is the protection of innocent human life from conception to natural death." Therefore setting life issues, such as – direct abortion, euthanasia, and the killing of unborn life for medical research, as non-negotiable
On other issues, the document insists on the importance of Catholic principles such as compassion, justice and charity that would serve as guidelines on issues like taxes, education, foreign policy and immigration reform. It acknowledges that diversity of opinion that could occur as a consequence.
In this respect it reminded the distinction made by the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, to the American Bishops when he stated: “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
Finally it states the part the church hierarchy should play in the political realm.” Catholic priests and bishops first and foremost are shepherds of souls. The role of these shepherds is to instruct and to remind voters, candidates and public officials of the moral obligations and social principles that should guide their political action.”
“The political goal of Catholics into politics is to achieve public policies and laws that result in the legal protection of all innocent human life and that promote the dignity of each human person without exception and compromise” it concludes.
...
CATHOLIC LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE
STATEMENT ON POLITICAL ACTION - October 28, 2005
Phoenix, Arizona – October 2005
We Catholic voters acknowledge the following ten obligations and guidelines. These principles should be a part of Catholic educational programs at every level utilizing all the means of social communications.
1. “In the Catholic tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue; participation in the political process is a moral obligation. Every believer is called to faithful citizenship, to become an informed, active, and responsible participant in the political process.”[1] An informed vote by a Catholic is one that is guided by the authentic moral and social teaching of the Catholic faith.
2. Catholics should recognize that not all moral and social teachings have equal weight in determining how to cast their vote. Some teachings are directly binding and some are guided by individual prudential judgment.
3. The first obligation of government is the protection of innocent human life from conception[2] to natural death. The Church teaches that justice requires this protection. This truth can also be known through reason unaided by revelation. On the specific "life issues" in law and public policy – direct abortion[3], euthanasia, and the killing of unborn life for medical research, Catholic teaching is unequivocal; the defense of innocent human life is an imperative.
4. Catholic voters must first make decisions about their votes based on the moral issues that are non-negotiable. First among these are the life issues.[4]
5. On prudential matters that affect the common good, Catholics of goodwill can disagree. Though there are Catholic principles such as compassion, justice and charity that we should share, there is no single "Catholic" policy on issues like taxes, education, foreign policy and immigration reform.
6. A similar distinction was made by the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, His Emminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, to the American Bishops when he stated: “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”[5]
7. Catholic priests and bishops first and foremost are shepherds of souls. The role of these shepherds is to instruct and to remind voters, candidates and public officials of the moral obligations and social principles that should guide their political action.
8. All Catholics, especially the laity, have a right and duty to be heard in the public square. Catholic moral teachings should be publicly espoused in such a way that they can inform law and public policy and not be artificially limited to the private domain of individual belief.
9. In their political participation, Catholics must not compromise these principles even though, at times, prudential judgment will require accepting imperfect legislation as a means of incremental progress.[6]
10. The ultimate political goal for Catholics must be the achievement of public policies and laws that result in the legal protection of all innocent human life and that promote the dignity of each human person without exception and compromise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Faithful Citizenship, USCCB
[2] Conception, as the Church traditionally teaches, means the earliest moment of biological existence.
[3] Direct abortion is any procured abortion whether chemical or surgical.
[4] There are other non-negotiable matters that are not a part of the current political debate. For example no serious candidate is advocating decriminalization sexual assault. [I would add opposition to torture as a non-negotiable matter that is part of the "current political debate".]
[5] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger Letter to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick for USCCB
[6] Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae
Another Catholic?
Word in DC is that there could soon be another Catholic on the SCOTUS. The president is considering Judge Samuel Alito and SEC Chairman Chris Cox, both Catholics. My money is on Alito who is sometimes referred to as Scalito for the Italian hertiage and judicial philosophy he shares with Justic Scalia.
Samuel Alito Jr
Age: 55
Education:
Princeton University, B.A, 1972
Yale Law School, J.D., 1975
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on February 20, 1990. Confirmed by the Senate on April 27, 1990, and received commission on April 30, 1990.
Professional Career:
U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1987-1990
Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985-1987
Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981-1985
Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977-1981
Law Clerk, Hon. Leonard I. Garth, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1976-1977
Here is some information on Judge Alito and abortion:
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.
Here is a short bio on Judge Alito. And another here.
Chairman Cox's record is impressive. Here are ten reasons ConfirmThem gives for his consideration on the SCOTUS:
1) He is brilliant. 2) He is a wonderfully principled conservative. 3) He has a tremendous resume at Harvard Law, as a federal appeals court clerk, running a business translating Russian newspapers, serving in a solid law firm doing important work, serving in Reagan’s counsel’s office vetting judicial nominees, serving 17 years in Congress including either 10 or 12 in leadership, chairing important committees that reached bipartisan consensus on crucial matters, thinking deeply and writing cogently on constitutional issues while in Congress, and now SEC chairman. 4) He just was confirmed unanimously (I believe) to the SEC, with bipartisan praise, so he’s tough to attack politically. 5) He enjoys excellent relationships across the aisle because, even though he is so conservative, he is so consistently fair, courteous, etc. 6) Republicans like him enough that if Dems DID try to filibuster him, there is NO QUESTION the GOP would invoke the constitutional option to pass him, and in the process obviously kill the filibuster against judges for good. 7) Bush and Cheney both like and respect him. If he gets confirmed,he embarrasses Barbara Boxer for her blue slip against his Ninth Circuit nomination. 9) He is so telegenic, so articulate, so quick on his feet, so obviously brilliant and upstanding and dignified — but still so youthful in terms of energy level, etc., making him dynamic — that the Dems won’t be able to lay a hand on him during hearings, as he explains our jurisprudential philosophy even more effectively than Roberts does. I.e, he is the perfect person to make this a “teaching moment” for the country and help bring the general public even more firmly on our side. 10) He’s only 53, and appears to be in great shape, so he should be able to serve for 25 years.
His record as a congressman is strongly pro-life and pro-family. He voted: for a ban on Partial Birth abortions, to deny funding for military facilities to perform abortions, to deny funding for UNFPA, against federal funding of ESCR, to ban human cloning, to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts in matters relating to the Defense of Marriage Act (which defined marriage as between a man and a woman), for Terri's Law, which ordered the federal court to reconsider the case of Terri Schiavo, and to reaffirm the United States commitment to the UN Convention Against Torture.
I guess we will find out on Monday or Tuesday.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Maryland Lt.-Gov. Michael Steele to run for Senate
"What a Steele" - John J. Miller profiles Maryland's Lt. Governor Michael Steele, who is something of a unique figure, being a black Republican (apparenly there are only 59 elected black Republicans in the United States), and a staunch pro-life Catholic in a predominantly pro-abortion state.
He will also be running for U.S. Senate next year.
(Thanks to Eric Johnson @ Catholic Light).
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
S.AMDT. 1977
Earlier this month the U.S. Senate passed an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill which would prohibit all U.S. personnel from engaging in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees anywhere in the world. The Catholic Church teaches...
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. (Gaudium et Spes n. 27; Evangelium Vitae n. 3)
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. (CCC 2297)
... 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." 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."... (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, n. 404)
All 24 of the Catholics in the Senate voted for the amendment. The final vote was 90-9.
The amendment has an uncertain future in the House and in the House/Senate conference committee which will reconcile the differences in the two Defense Appropriation bills from the two chambers. As well, the President has threatened to veto the bill if the anti-torture language is not removed. The administration's thinking is that the Global War on Terror (GWOT) may require the use of torture to extract information from detainees.
The veto threat and probable lack of similar language in the House bill may be why 46 Republican senators 'bucked' the president on this issue. The thinking is that they get to be against torture knowing that the provision will never make it into the final version of the bill.
There may be another reason. The amendment's sponsor, Sen McCain, originally proposed it earlier in the summer. Shortly after, he re-worded the amendment adding a Presidential Waiver on the prohibition of "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.". Perhaps emboldened by the president's recent weakness in the polls, the amendment which passed contained no such waiver. That weakness may have enabled those 46 Republicans to ignore the threat of a veto and vote for the anti-torture amendment. Maybe they saw the amendment as a necessary action to reign in military and intelligence organizations, which seem at best confused or unsure of what interrogation standards to use or at worse to accept the use of torture as an acceptable means of interrogation.
Still another reason may be Sen McCain himself. Here are his remarks on introducing the amendment:
Mr. President, war is an awful business. I know that. I don’t think I’m naïve about how severe are the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is a grim, dark business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant the service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them and their comrades, but some of what had to be done by their hand to prevail.
I don’t mourn the loss of any terrorist’s life nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next.
What I do regret, what I do mourn, and what I do care very much about is what we lose, what we -- the American serviceman and woman and the great nation they defend at the risk of their lives – what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence – we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, our greatest strength – that we are different and better than our enemies; that we fight for an idea – not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion – but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.
I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. Well, we drew strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from our faith in our country. Our enemies didn’t adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But everyone of us knew, every single one of us knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival, but to our attempts to return home with honor. Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such dishonor.
The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt, as they hold the international conventions that enshrine them such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on torture in contempt. I know that. But we’re better than them, and we are the stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in this war that our servicemen and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others – even our enemies.
Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history, and by the sacrifices – the many terrible sacrifices -- that have been made in our defense – we are obliged to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country’s honor to prevail; that they are always, always – through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss – they are always, always Americans, and different, better, and stronger than those who would destroy us.
God bless them as he has blessed us with their service.
It could be these words moved his otherwise reluctant senators to vote for the amendment. As a Catholic, they moved me and reminded me that this is not merely a religious, let alone Catholic, issue. One can, by reason alone, see the wrong of torture. These words also reminded me that this issue is not just about those who may be tortured, but by those of us who would allow, order, and carry it out, and what it say about us.
Nevertheless, as Catholics we should take great interest in the outcome of this amendment. As stated above the evil of torture is true and should be recognized by right reason and not just on faith in the teachings of the Church. Like opposition to abortion, ESCR, human cloning, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia, opposition to torture is a non-negotiable. Many Catholics do not see it this way. I admit I too saw torture differently. The arguments for justifying torture though are are eerily similar to some arguments made by pro-abort Catholics.
One such argument is that we must keep abortion legal in order to prevent women from being forced into "dangerous" back-alley abortions. The argument continues that Roe is keeping women alive for legalized abortion is safer for women. Now, compare this argument to one from the pro-torture crowd: They argue that we must allow the use of torture in order to prevent the deaths of are men and women in the military or worse in the civilian population. A popular argument is the suitcase nuke in the middle of a major US city. A captured terrorist supposedly knows of its location. Torturing the terrorist, like allowing a women to abort her child, supposedly will result in finding the suitcase nuke and keeping us all safe. Neither argument is convincing. Though women may seek back-alley abortions if abortion becomes illegal, there is little, if any, evidence that more women would die as a result. And there is no guarantee that torturing the terrorist in the example above would result in determining the location of the suitcase nuke and saving the citizens in the city.
Another similarity among these two camps is that the fetus is somehow less human than the rest of us and so is expendable. Terrorists and insurgents in the GWOT are described in much the same way and thus not worthy of the same protections as uniformed military. (A major difference here is that the unborn are innocents while terrorists and insurgents held captive are accountable for their actions and decisions. This accountability though in no way justifies their being tortured, but does make understanding opposing torture more difficult and complex.)
In both arguments, evil is being justified to do a good. Even if we could guarantee preventing the death of women during abortion or our providing for our safety from terrorists, abortion and torture are not justified. (CCC 1753)
Serious Catholics have no qualms about unconditional opposition to abortion and see through arguments like the ones above. Yet, many of these same Catholics similarly justify support for torture. Let us pray that they soon end such justification. The 24 Catholic senators, for whatever reason, have helped the Senate take a hopeful step. Let us also pray that the president and the House take this step as well.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Tim Kaine's Stance on Abortion
Taking note of Christopher's earlier post on Tim Kaine, a Catholic and candidate for governor in Virginia, I wanted to share some thoughts on his views on reducing abortion, which I have not had a chance to post till now. Mr Kaine's plans to reduce abortion is as follows:
I have a faith-based opposition to abortion. As governor, I will work in good faith to reduce abortions by:
1. Enforcing the current Virginia restrictions on abortion and passing an enforceable ban on partial birth abortion that protects the life and health of the mother;
2. Fighting teen pregnancy through abstinence-focused education;
3. Ensuring women's access to health care (including legal contraception) and economic opportunity; and
4. Promoting adoption as an alternative for women facing unwanted pregnancies.
We should reduce abortion in this manner, rather than by criminalizing women and doctors. Too often politicians are interested in scoring political points, rather than in reducing the number of abortions. Many of the legislative proposals introduced in the General Assembly, like the ones to require unnecessary building standards for doctor's offices that perform abortions, are just political grandstanding. They encourage division and lawsuits rather than contributing to the goal of reducing abortions.
Okay, yes, because of Roe and Casey the right to kill an unborn child is legal. Mr Kaine wants to work, it seems, within that reality. Great. Except for the promotion of contraception I have no problem with this plan. Yet, his stance of not wanting to "criminalize" abortion is a problem. This is important to Catholics because of what John Paul II taught us in Evangelium vitae:
When it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects". (Evangelium vitae n. 73)
I applaud Mr Kaine's position on the death penalty and I am encouraged to see that his faith has supposedly formed his views on it. But it seems clear that his faith does not form his views on abortion. To be fair, his faith may play some part here, but an "absolute personal opposition to procured abortion" is missing and that makes all the difference.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Saturday, October 22, 2005
"Thank You, Tim Caine!"
Thank you, Tim Kaine - the blog ExcessiveCatholicism covers the Virginia gubernatorial race between Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Jerry Kilgore:
Now, Kilgore has attacked Kaine for his stance against the death penalty in a series of pretty powerful ad hominem ads.Kaine was unapologetic. I saw him on TV, and a reporter asked him about the ads. He shrugged and said something like, "I'm Catholic and I'm against abortion and the death penalty."
Thank you, Tim Kaine! That's how politicians -- and people in general -- should treat their Catholicism. "Sorry, I'm not changing any sooner than the Truth does." This stands in sharp contrast to President Kennedy's sellout to anti-Catholics, and Mario Cuomo's laughably thin excuse for ignoring Catholic teaching.
The author wonders "I'm surprised that Catholics in the Public Square hasn't been all over this one" -- I plead ignorance and my being on vacation, but check out the post for some good coverage.
Update: Apparently Tim Kaine's stance on abortion leaves something to be desired -- thanks to my colleague David for a good analysis of his position.
Friday, October 21, 2005
California Catholic School Teacher Fired After Pro-Abortion Volunteering
Sacramento, CA (LifeNews.com) -- A drama teacher at a Catholic school in Sacramento has been fired from her position after a concerned parents presented school officials with a picture of her escorting women to a local Planned Parenthood business for abortions. Bishop William Wiegand dismissed Marie Bain from the all girls Loretto High School when he learned of her pro-abortion volunteer work. Katharyn McLearan of Planned Parenthood told KTXL-TV that the development was "very disappointing." She admitted that Bain volunteered for the abortion business once a week to help women get past protesters and inside the abortion facility. "It's very daunting to have people yelling at you and she was here to be a friendly face. She would wear a planned parenthood vest, just really welcome them in," McLearan told the Fox station. However, KTXL reports that Bishop Wiegand's dismissal order said Bain's "public participation in the procurement of abortions is morally inappropriate and unacceptable." "We can't have it," added Dom Puglisi, Catholic Schools superintendent.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Wisconsin Governor Vetoes Pro-Life Medical Conscience Clause Bill
Madison, WI (LifeNews.com) -- Wisconsin Gov. [and Roman Catholic] Jim Doyle vetoed legislation on Friday that would help medical professionals from being forced to participate in anti-life practices such as abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. The Democrat claimed the bill would cut off needed medical services. "Because it puts a doctor's political views ahead of the best interests of patients, this legislation ought to be called the 'unconscionable clause,''' Gov. Jim Doyle said in a statement. "It is a disservice to patients and to our health care system." Doyle vetoed a similar bill in 2004 and Wisconsin Right to Life legislative director Susan Armacost said the governor's actions would make it tough on medical workers who feel pressured to participate in such acts. "They feel it's very necessary,'' she told the Associated Press. "The whole atmosphere is not very amenable to people who don't want to kill their patients." Read the complete story.
That's right, another Catholic going all out to make sure medical professionals are not forced to act against their consciences.
Governor Asks Supreme Court to Reverse New Hampshire Abortion Law
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Putting him at odds with the official state response to a pro-abortion lawsuit seeking to overturn the state's parental notification law, New Hampshire Gov. [and Roman Catholic] John Lynch submitted a legal brief to the Supreme Court invalidate the measure. Lynch's brief says two federal courts, a district one and an appeals court, have both ruled against the law and he claims the nation's highest court should as well. "As governor, and as a father, I believe parents should be involved in these important decisions," he said. "But we must also recognize that there are cases where that is not possible -- and we should not risk the health and safety of young women in those cases." However, the official state brief submitted to the court by Attorney General Kelly Ayotte for state lawmakers says the law is needed to make sure parents are not denied the ability to help their daughters when they're considering an abortion. Lynch's brief supports Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, which filed the lawsuit. Read the complete story.
Ah yes, another Catholic public official doing all he can to limit abortions in his state.
Monday, October 10, 2005
German "John the Baptist" Beatified
I reprint below today's Vatican Information Service article on the beatification of German Cardinal Clemens von Galen (1878-1946) who vigorously denounced the Nazi program of euthanasia in that era. I call him a German "John the Baptist" because he was indeed a voice crying in the wilderness while so many others--but note not Pius XII who made von Galen a cardinal-- ignored the savage crimes occurring in Germany, including Allied leaders. Recently, a periodical polled various personalities on what things were likely to disappear in the next several decades. Pro-death Princeton philosopher Peter Singer opined that the traditional sanctity accorded human life would disappear. And so today the Nazi mentality continues, the mentality that cries out "Long live death!" Von Galen, instead, cried out that euthanasia and the rest of the Nazi package were horrible evils. We should do the same in the age of the martyred Terri Schiavo. She was, so to speak, a witness or "martyr" for the truth that she wanted to live although many found her will to live repulsive. She was killed because she witnessed to the will to live. Here is the VIS article:
BLESSED VON GALEN: DEFENDED RIGHTS AGAINST THE NAZIS
VATICAN CITY, OCT 9, 2005 (VIS) - Today at 9.30 a.m., Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins C.M.F., prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, presided at a Eucharistic celebration in the Vatican Basilica during which, by order of Benedict XVI, he read the Holy Father's Apostolic Letter proclaiming as Blessed, Servant of God Cardinal Clemens August von Galen (1878 - 1946), bishop of Munster, Germany.
At the end of Mass, the Holy Father arrived in the basilica to venerate the relics of the new blessed and, after addressing some words to the assembly, imparted his apostolic blessing.
The Holy Father greeted pilgrims and civil and religious authorities from Munster and other parts of Germany, who had come to Rome for the ceremony. Speaking of Cardinal von Galen in off-the-cuff remarks, he said: "All people, especially we Germans, are thankful because the Lord gave us this great witness of faith who brought the light of truth to shine in times of darkness, and showed the courage to oppose the power of tyranny. But we must also ask ourselves where did he get such intuition from, at a time when intelligent people seemed blind? And where did get the strength to oppose, at a time when even the strong showed themselves to be weak and vile?
"He drew intuition and courage from the faith, which showed him the truth and opened his heart and his eyes. He feared God more than he feared man, and God gave him the courage to do and to say what others did not dare say and do. Thus, He gives us courage and again exhorts us to live our faith, teaching us how this can be achieved in simple and humble things that nonetheless are great and profound."
The Pope also stressed how the new Blessed "shows us this simple Catholicity, in which the Lord meets us, in which He opens our hearts and gives us discernment of spirit, courage of faith, and joy at being saved. Let us give thanks to God for this great witness of the faith and pray that he illuminates and guides us."
Returning to his prepared text, the Holy Father continued: "Among the many witnesses of Christ in the twentieth century, the figure of this zealous pastor and generous bishop stands out. The Lord gave him the heroic courage to defend the rights of God, of the Church and of man, which the National Socialist regime gravely and systematically violated in the name of an aberrant neo-pagan ideology.
"His beatification today again presents him as a model of profound and intrepid faith. We invoke the intercession of the new Blessed: may he bless the Church and human society in Germany, Europe and the entire world."
Later, during the Angelus, Benedict XVI reminded the thousands of faithful filling St. Peter's Square that Blessed von Galen was "an intrepid opponent of the Nazi regime. Ordained a priest in 1904, for a long time he practiced his ministry in a parish of Berlin, before becoming bishop of Munster in 1933."
"In the name of God, he denounced the neo-pagan ideology of National Socialism, defending the freedom of the Church and human rights which were being so gravely violated, and protecting Jews and others whom the regime considered as refuse to be eliminated."
The Holy Father mentioned the "three famous sermons" pronounced by Bishop von Galen in 1941, then recalled how a month after being created a cardinal by Pius XII in 1946, he "died amid the veneration of the faithful who recognized in him a model of Christian courage. Here is Blessed von Galen's ever-present message: faith cannot be reduced to a private emotion, perhaps even to be hidden when it becomes inconvenient, rather faith implies coherence and testimony, also in the public sphere, in favor of mankind, justice and truth."
AC/BEATIFICATION VON GALEN/SARAIVA VIS 051010 (650)
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Why Support the GOP?
The Mark Shea Fallacy (Or, Why Catholics Should Still Support the GOP), by the author of Excessive Catholicism. Oct. 5, 2005
(Note: Mark Shea responds).
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey Jr.'s lead over Sen. Rick Santorum has grown even larger in their U.S. Senate race, according to a poll released Thursday.Source: Democrats Urged to Abandon Election Myths Associated Press. Oct. 6, 2005The Quinnipiac University poll of 1,530 Pennsylvania voters showed Casey leading the two-term Republican incumbent by 18 points, 52 percent to 34 percent, in the 2006 race. That compares to a 50-to-39 percent lead in a July poll by Quinnipiac. Santorum, the No. 3 Senate Republican, spent part of the summer promoting his new book, "It Takes a Family," on television talk shows. The book compares abortion to slavery and accuses feminists of undermining motherhood.
Casey, a Democrat and the son of a popular late governor, has maintained a low profile and done a limited number of media interviews.
The telephone survey, conducted from Sept. 27 to Monday, had a sampling error margin of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
Carl Olson reports from Ignatius Insight: "Both Casey and Santorum are Catholic, but they have differing views on a number of key topics. IgnatiusInsight.com interviewed both men this past summer. Read Casey's interview here (July 2005) and Santorum's interview here (June 2005)."
A Catholic-evangelical split?
From a Tim Chapman column:
Much has been made of Miers evangelical background and conversion to Christianity. Miers membership in a “fundamentalist” (indicating orthodoxy) evangelical church has been a White House selling point to influential evangelical groups whose support for the nomination is seen as crucial if Miers’ bid for a seat on the Court is to weather the initial storm...
...But this line of argument is troubling to many conservative Catholics. Miers was a Catholic before her conversion to evangelical Christianity. There is a concern that the consistent emphasis on “born again” Christianity may alienate conservative Catholics who are an essential part of the President’s pro-life conservative base.
Troubling? For me, at least, it is not so. I would be interested in our readers' and editors' take though.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Harriet Miers: Should we Trust Bush?
For ongoing coverage, I recommend National Review's Bench Memos; RedState.Org; ConfirmThem.com.
Note: This round-up will be updated over the course of today / tomorrow. Stay tuned.
I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record--someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown--to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of.I'm depressed. Roberts for O'Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination--and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.
I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?
The Weekly Standard is the mouthpiece of the Straussian Neoconservative Cabal, if you believe the fevered conspiracy-theorizings of some on the left. As I remarked to one friend, look on the bright side: this is a sign of hope that Bush has liberated himself from the neoconservative spell. ;-)
Executive editor Fred Barnes is not so dour, cautioning:
The president and others at the White House have had long discussions with her about judges. She and Rove were involved in questioning at least five candidates for the court vacancy Roberts has filled. From those talks over the months, I'm told, it became clear to Bush that she had exactly the philosophy of judicial restraint he favors and that she wouldn't "grow" as a justice and turn into a swing vote or a liberal.Also, I'm told, the president is fully aware of the stakes in this nomination. Roberts's replacement of William Rehnquist as chief justice was simply a conservative replacing a conservative. But Miers would succeed a swing justice. With her, I'm told further, Bush believes he would be altering the ideological makeup of the court, moving it to the right. . . .
why did Bush choose Miers? For him, these nominations are quite personal. He wants to feel comfortable with his nominee, confident his pick will be a conservative now and conservative 20 years from now. Bush picked Roberts after being impressed while interviewing him. His doubts were erased (and there were initial doubts about Roberts). My guess is with Miers his doubts were washed away too.
Bush has managed to create an almost perfect storm of contempt for his base, coupled with ongoing contempt from people who will always loathe him. This is more than mere bungling. This is active stupidity. Stupidity that may come only once in a generation. Stupidity that works on so many levels. You almost have to admire the sheer elegance of the stupidity. It tempts you to believe in Stupid Design Theory. A magnificent, towering monument to the ability of a single man to do so much wrong with so little effort. . . .If Miers turns out to be Souter in a dress, I think this will go down in history as the moment when the pro-life movement finally sez "Go to hell" to Republicans who have played them like fiddles, kept them at arms length, made empty promises and lied them onto the reservation for 25 years. For my money, I'm done with the GOP unless, by some miracle, this unqualified crony turns out to be some sort of wonderful SCOTUS judge. But I doubt it.
That's in 1989, when the big shift was going on in Texas and after she had donated to Democrats. If you're looking for an issue that may have pushed Miers to the GOP, abortion seems to be it. Her donation record from 1992 forward is straight GOP. It was in 1993 that she argued that the ABA allow its members to vote on the group's abortion stance. And she's a member of an evangelical church in Dallas. Dallas area evangelical churches are overwhelmingly pro-life.Miers wouldn't be the first Democrat to switch sides, or to do so because she was specifically repelled by her former party's subservience to NARAL and a pro-abortion platform.
"what is known, through official and unofficial channels, paints a picture of a conservative Texas lawyer with rock-solid beliefs on life, strong religious convictions, and a modesty that should allay fears of a renegade Justice determined to remake society through the courts. John Roberts was the silver-tongued, inside-the-Beltway pick for the Court; Miers is the plain spoken red stater."
As the conservative backlash against the Miers nomination continues to grow the party faithful (company men) keep proclaiming that she is an evangelical Christian who subscribes to conservative positions on issues such as abortion and, therefore, we have nothing to worry about. That silly response to conservative criticism of the Miers nomination absolutely misses the point. We don’t simply want a nominee that broadly holds conservative political opinions or might vote in a particular way on a particular issue. We want someone committed to a METHODOLOGY of interpreting statutes and the Constitution consistent with the ORIGINAL INTENT of those who framed them. We are not simply looking for good results, i.e. cases with decisions we like, but rather judges who consistently use the originalist method of statutory and constitutional interpretation.There was a time in this country when jurists of all political persuasions adhered to the originalist methodology. It is an unfortunate sign of the times that such a position is now considered an exclusive position of the right. In reality, originalism is a politically neutral approach that seeks to stay true to the intent of duly enacted laws while keeping the personal preferences of the judge, who is not a legislator, out of the equation.
Dallas Morning News: Miers Opposed Abortion
The question of the hour is: how pro-life is Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers? One of my readers pointed to an ex-campaign manager's statement in the Dallas Morning News that Miers opposed abortion. Here is the link to the Dallas article. Indeed, the article documents the statement that Miers opposed abortion and also documents that she once donated money to a Texas pro-life group. Of even more significance in my mind is that she has been and is currently associated with a pro-life, apparently evangelical church.
Does that mean that she will vote to reverse Roe v. Wade? Now, that is a different question: is there a legal basis to reverse that decision? For any serious lawyer, the answer is easy. Roe v. Wade was a blatant exercise in judicial tyranny. It is extremely easy for any serious lawyer to justify reversing the decision and leaving the entire matter of abortion to state legislatures. There just is no amorphous right to privacy in the Constitution that can justify the courts taking the abortion issue out of the hands of the states. There are privacy protections in the Constitution, but they do not rise to the level of the blank check for judicial social engineering set forth in Roe. The Supreme Court disastrously overreached in 1973, and we are still in turmoil over it. An amorphous right to privacy as embraced in Roe means in effect that the Supreme Court is an appointed superlegislature that can alter American society at will and at whim. That is not the rule of law, but the rule of caprice.
The fact that Ms. Miers appears to hold pro-life views cannot but help in confirming for her the legal analysis that the Supreme Court had no business taking abortion out of legislative debate in the first place on the basis of privacy. My own view is that the Supreme Court should ultimately outlaw abortion based on the right to life of the unborn and partially born, but you need not go that far to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is the first step on a long journey. Let us hope the journey is beginning.
Fidelis statement on Miers Nomination
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 — Following the nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to serve as Associate Justice for the United States Supreme Court, Fidelis President Joseph Cella released the following statement: We look forward to learning more about Harriet Miers' commitment to the Constitution and background in the days and weeks to come, and hope that the vetting process by all groups is dignified and respectful. It has been our expectation the President would ignore the call by some Republicans and the Left to maintain balance on the Supreme Court, and that he would select a nominee who is faithful to the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. We hope and pray Ms. Miers will be such a nominee-a qualified nominee in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas, as the President promised the American people. Given President Bush's long personal and working relationship with her, we trust the President knows whether she fits that profile. Ms. Miers is viewed by many as an unknown quantity, thus disappointment, confusion and natural fears about her commitment to the Constitution have emerged. Given the deeply disappointing records of Justices Kennedy and Souter, we hope these concerns are allayed. Knowing Ms. Miers' advocacy on behalf of excellent judicial nominees, and apparent devotion to her faith offers some reassurance to those concerned. Nevertheless, this process has just begun and more questions about her commitment to the Constitution need to be answered.
To learn more, log onto http://www.fidelis.org . 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.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Priests for Life on Miers Pick
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life and president of the National Pro-life Religious Council, thanked President Bush this morning for nominating a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a timely manner, and called upon the Senate to do its work in an expeditious way as well.
"Our prayers are with Harriet Miers this morning as she begins this important process. We trust the President's judgment and his determination to fulfill his promises about the kind of Justices he wants to see on the Court.
"It is the judgment of certain liberal Senators, however, that gives us more concern. The demand that some make for preserving the current ideological balance on the Court, or for more "mainstream" nominees, is ridiculous. Do we have a more "mainstream" Constitution in some generations but not in others? Or do they think it is up to the Justices to re-write the Constitution? In short, there is no Constitutional requirement that Justice O'Connor's replacement should be a clone of Justice O'Connor.
"The place for arguments about ideology and mainstream positions is in political races. For the purposes of confirming nominees to the Court, the focus should be on qualifications to be a Justice, not on personal views on controversial issues."
Who is Harriet Miers?
Well, she is the president's nominee to replace Justice O'Connor.
Here is a WaPo profile.
Profile summary:
AGE-BIRTH DATE _ 60, born Aug. 10, 1945 in Dallas.
EDUCATION _ B.S., Southern Methodist University, 1967, mathmatics major; J.D., Southern Methodist University School of Law, 1970.
EXPERIENCE _ 2004-present, White House counsel; 2003-2004, White House deputy chief of staff for policy; 2001-2003, White House staff secretary; 1995-2001, chairwoman, Texas Lottery Commission; 1972-2000, private law practice; 1992, president, Dallas Bar Association; 1989- member, Dallas City Council; 1985, president, Dallas Bar Association.
FAMILY _ Single, no children.
The right ain't happy about this pick. See here and here.
UPDATE: From Ms. Miers statement this morning:
“It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts and our society. If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the constitution.”
UPDATE II: Her pastor's view via Marvin Olasky:
I talked yesterday with Miers' pastor, Ron Key, who for 33 years (until a few weeks ago) was pastor of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas. “She started coming to church in 1980. She helped out with kids, made coffee, furnished donuts, served on missions committee. She worked out her faith in practical, behind-the-scenes ways. She doesn't draw attention to herself, she's humble, self-effacing." Key has still seen her in recent years because "her mother is 93. Harriet tries to get home as much as she can." When Key and Miers met in 1980, "I don’t know how strong her faith was at that time. She came to a place where she totally committed her life to Jesus. She had gone to church before, but when she came to our church it became more serious to her.... Our church is strong for life, but Harriet and I have not had any conversations on that…. We believe in the biblical approach to marriage."
More from an elder at her church:
On abortion, choosing his words carefully for an on-the-record statement, he says "her personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians... You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church."
UPDATE III: I like this:
President Bush's choice to fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court Justice and moderate abortion rights supporter Sandra Day O'Connor was a leader in an unsuccessful fight to get the nation's largest lawyers' group to reconsider its pro-abortion rights stance.
As president of the Texas State Bar in 1993, Harriet Miers urged the national American Bar Association to put the abortion issue to a referendum of the group's full membership. She questioned at the time whether the ABA should "be trying to speak for the entire legal community" on an issue that she said "has brought on tremendous divisiveness" within the ABA.
...
Although Miers' personal view of abortion was not explicit in 1993, Leonard Leo, a White House adviser on Supreme Court nominations highlighted her efforts as part of the reason that "conservatives should be very happy with this selection."
But not this from a report she submitted to ABA's House of Delegates:
Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child.
UPDATE IV: Check out the cool heads on the Miers pick.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
Posts
Following the 2004 Presidential election, we've expanded our discussion to cover the public policy decisions of Catholics in public service on both sides of the political divide.
