Bad Man Executed

Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post obituary:

By the end of his rule, human rights groups estimated, he had presided over the killing of at least 300,000 Iraqis and the torture and imprisonment of tens of thousands more.

"Record of Infamy Ends in Iraq," by William Branigan, 12/29/06, Washington Post, at this link


This end is no surprise: "For all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52b, ESB). What is surprising is that the bad man did not meet this end sooner and that the bad man even had a trial. It is also surprising that he did not meet his end by being torn to pieces by the populace he terrorized for decades. One N.Y. Times writer was amazed at the composure and calm of the bad man at his execution; the journalist viewed this composure as somehow dignified. Those of us who have met stone cold sociopaths in real life are not surprised by such composure, but, in fact, would expect it.

Virginia Catholic Alliance Live Blog: Jeff Caruso of the Virginia Catholic Conference

Shaun Kenney is hosting the first ever Virginia Catholic Alliance live blog at 10:00 am on Tuesday, 19 December. His guest will be Jeff Caruso, Executive Director of the Virginia Catholic Conference, and they are now taking questions. (click here)

The Conference, which represents the mutual public-policy interests of the Diocese of Richmond and the Diocese of Arlington, and engages in advocacy on respect-life, social-justice, and education issues, will be taking up the following items (among others) in the new legislative session:

Prohibiting state funding for embryonic stem cell research

Abortion clinic regulations

Increasing the minimum wage

Providing state assistance to parents whose children attend non-public schools for the purchase of their non-religious textbooks

Preventing minor's access to pornography. (Arlington's Bishop Loverde just wrote an excellent pastoral letter on the subject.)

The Virginia Catholic Conference's 2007 Legislative Agenda (PDF).

Welcome to Jay Anderson (Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate)

Over the course of well, the past year, I couldn't help but notice Jay Anderson of Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate blogging on practically the same topics. Noting our mutual interests on issues involving Catholics in political life (as well as an appreciation for St. Thomas More), it was inevitable that he would receive an invitation to join our little cooperative. So a hearty welcome to Jay Anderson!

(Jimmy Akin on) Ramesh Ponnuru On Pro-Life Issues

[Jimmy Akin] recently participated in a telephone Blogger Briefing put on by the Family Research Council (FRC). The event was organized by Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost, who works at FRC. His idea is to help pro-life/socially conservative bloggers connect with figures in Washington (lawmakers, think tank types, commentators) who thus far haven't been as available to the pro-life part of the blogosphere.

For the initial installment of the briefing, the guest was Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor and commentator for National Review and the author of the book The Party of Death.

The conversation began with Ramesh summarizing the recent history of abortion in American politics and what he thinks is likely to happen with it in the future. . . .READ MORE

See also Jimmy's follow-up post: "Ramesh Dusts Off His Crystal Ball"

Archbishop Chaput on Decline of "Religious Involvement in Democratic Society"

Speaking to a crowd of some 700 people gathered in Garden Grove, California, for the Orange County Catholic Prayer Breakfast, Denver’s Archbishop Charles Chaput OFM Cap. decried the growing exclusion of religion from the public square, and called for a shift in perspective regarding the place of religious believers in a democratic society.

The prayer breakfast, which was modeled on a similar event held in Washington D.C., is an effort to fulfill Pope John Paul II’s call for a “new Evangelization.” The event began with the praying of the Rosary and a Mass, followed by breakfast and Archbishop Chaput’s address.

The archbishop, who is well known for providing a strong Catholic voice on important moral issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage, immigration, and the death penalty, said that in recent years people in both major American political parties have wrongly tried to blame the conflicts in American public life on the active participation of religious believers. [. . .]

However, he pointed out, there are key differences between non-sectarian public institutions and a secularist ideology. No Christian, Chaput said, should want to live under the tyranny of a secularist ideology. “Whenever you hear loud fretting sparked by an irrational fear of an Established Church, somebody’s trying to force religious believers and communities out of the public discussion of issues.”

“Secularism isn’t really morally neutral. It’s actively destructive…It ignores the most basic questions of social purpose and personal meaning by writing them off as private idiosyncrasies,” the archbishop said.

Americans are, “losing the Founders’ perspective on the meaning of our shared public life,” Chaput added. “Certain beliefs have always held Americans together as a people.”

“We have wealth and power and free time and choices and toys -- but we no longer see clearly who we are,” he lamented. . . . READ MORE

Source: Denver Archbishop decries trend of discounting religious believers in political life Catholic News Agency. Dec. 7, 2006.

The full text of Archbishop Chaput's talk -- “Seeing Clearly” -- can be found at the Archdiocese of Denver website.

Sen. Brownback Considers Bid for U.S. Presidency

Sen. Sam Brownback, who is considering a White House bid in 2008, said Monday the Republican field has room for a 'full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative' and pledged to make a final decision next month.

The Kansas senator said he was not discouraged from running by the Democrats' strong gains in this month's midterm elections, including majority control of the House and Senate.

'It does not make it less likely,' he said in an interview. 'I really believe that the basic conservative ideas and ideals were not repudiated. Our execution was.' . . .

'I think there's room for a full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative in the field,' Brownback said. 'I fully agree that other people have much higher name identification than I do. No question about that. But I think what you have to look at is the policy positions they get out once you have an effective campaign.'

Brownback, who was elected in 1996, is a forceful foe of abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. He also has taken a prominent role in the fight against genocide in Sudan's Darfur region.

Source: Kansas Republican Eyes Presidential Bid, by Sam Hananel. Associated Press. (Via RedState.

More Brownback info from Jay Anderson @ Pro Ecclesia

I support the U.S. Catholic Bishops on Iraq

The nation's Catholic bishops on Monday (Nov. 13) called for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq "at the earliest opportunity":

"Our nation's military forces should remain in Iraq only so long as their presence contributes to a responsible transition," the statement reads. "Our nation should look for effective ways to end their deployment at the earliest opportunity consistent with this goal."

Got to hand it to the Bishops -- they've managed to come up with a position that President Bush, Congressman Murtha, and Noam Chomsky could agree on.

Hat tip: Domenico Bettinelli.

President Bush's Choice for Family Planning Post Criticized

According to the Washington Post, liberals aren't very happy with President Bush's appointment for the head of the family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services:

The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women."

Eric Keroack, medical director for A Woman's Concern, a nonprofit group based in Dorchester, Mass., will become deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the next two weeks, department spokeswoman Christina Pearson said yesterday. . . .

Marilyn Keefe, interim president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents 4,000 family-planning clinics, said Keroack's work "seems to really be geared toward furthering anti-choice, anti-contraception policies." She added that despite the congressional election results, the appointment "goes to show you the importance of controlling the White House and how important federal agencies are in the delivery of health services."

Deal Hudson on "What the Election Means for Religious Conservatives"

Deal Hudson brings another perspective to the elections (What the Election Means for Religious Conservatives Nov. 15, 2006:

In a national conference call with religious conservatives, Sen. Sam Brownback said that President Bush squandered the mandate of the 2004 election by pursuing social security reform when he could have taken action on an important social issue, such as the federal marriage issue.

He also rejected the idea that the election represented a repudiation of social conservatism because the Democrats who were recruited to beat incumbent Republicans were precisely that, social conservatives! Six of the Democrat freshmen are pro-life -- the biggest group since the eighties.

Pro-abortion Republicans, Brownback pointed out, were the biggest losers. A dozen of them are not coming back and that represents about half their total. Congressional Democrats, as a result of who won, are slightly more conservative than before, while Republicans are significantly more conservative.

Patrick Hynes, author of In Defense of the Religious Right, asked Sen. Brownback what religious conservatives can learn from their five losses on ballot questions: Arizona's same-sex marriage amendment, California's parental notification initiative; Oregon's parental notification initiative; Missouri's embryonic stem cell and human cloning initiative; and South Dakota's abortion ban.

Sen. Brownback stated that in Missouri, social conservatives were out-spent 20-to-1 and every major Republican state office holder, including the governor, supported the measure. Nevertheless, the measure only passed with 50.3 percent of the vote.

Regarding South Dakota, Sen. Brownback suggested that going for the full ban with no exceptions for rape and incest may have been a mistake. Nevertheless, he applauded the initiative as a courageous effort to launch an important national debate.

Sen. Brownback agreed that the failure to pass the same-sex marriage amendment in Arizona is of great concern. Arizona, he said, became the first state in the country to reject such a ban by democratic means. Sen. Brownback echoed a previously expressed sentiment that religious conservatives need to work especially hard in the interior west Sunbelt region to counter a vibrant libertarian sentiment. . . .READ THE REST

Republicans Chastened in Typical 6th Year Mid-Term Election

The election results as of this hour follow. Democrats gain 27 seats in the House and so control. Now, the House consists of 229 Democrats to 198 Republicans. Republicans can win the House again with new leadership and with dynamic, forceful, and imaginative opposition to the Democrat lunacy you can expect over the next two years. One key factor last night that the media will likely not focus on: the Democrats won in some places by running candidates with conservative Republican views. That means that in some districts where Democrats gained seats conservatism still is the reigning political philosophy. It will be interesting to see if House Republicans can form a strategic alliance with those conservative "Democrats," as was done during the Reagan years.


Senate control is still undecided. It looks like the results in Montana will decide if we get a Republican Senate to review the next Supreme Court nomination. Pray for Montana. The big shocker last night was the loss in Missouri. The great blessing in the Senate races was the win in Tennessee. So, as of now, the Senate numbers are 49 Republicans and 47 Democrats, with 2 undecided (Virginia and Montana). The other big disappointment last night was the apparent loss of Michael Steele for Maryland Senate. Steele would have been a great addition to the Senate as an African-American Republican. The Republican Party deserves credit for recruiting him as a candidate and for also recruiting African-American candidates for governor in Ohio and Pennsylvania. One day we will break the dysfunctional Democratic stranglehold on the African-American vote.


My observations on the election:


1. It's time, as noted before, for dynamic and forceful opposition based on a consistent, bold conservative philosophy. The Democrats offer nothing constructive for the nation. It will be easy to expose that.


2. Build a working alliance with new and old conservative Democrats in the House, as in the Reagan era.


3. Put pressure on the Iraqis to stop the sectarian fighting soon, or seriously consider partition once and for all. With partition, the U.S. can support its real allies in Iraq and take specific aim at its enemies (those who harbor terrorists), instead of continuing to wait on dysfunctional Iraqi politicians to get their act together. Partition may be the key to separating the sheep from the goats and thus bring clarity to the conflict. Partition may also deny terrorists the chance to take over an intact nation-state with great oil wealth.


4. Note that a two bans on "gay marriage" passed-- in Tennessee and in Virginia. Also, note that a conservative Christian Republican Sarah Palin won the Senate seat in Alaska against a veteran Democratic politician. She is a great fresh face for true conservatives. And, speaking of true conservatives, it is a good thing that a Republican liberal like Chafee lost in Rhode Island. It's a welcome purging of a pro-abortion Republican. Also, note that in Michigan, a proposal to ban traditional affirmative action approaches passed. That means that public institutions will be forced to find creative ways to help the economically disadvantaged of all races without creating racial conflict. The fact that Michigan, a state that tilts Democratic, passed the ban is a sign that we need to leave racial preferences behind in the quest for social justice. School vouchers are the best way to attain the just goals of genuine affirmative action. So Republican losses don't necessarily mean a defeat for conservatism.


5. Now is a great opportunity for the President to come out swinging and take bold, challenging initiatives. He will hold a news conference today at 1 p.m. The losses for the Republicans in the sixth year of a Republican White House are historically typical for the incumbent party. It's the typical price you pay for winning the presidency twice in a row. The presidency is worth that price. Here is the historical perspective from a Washington Post article from earlier this year (January 29, 2006):


History appears to favor the Democrats. Midterm elections in the sixth year of a two-term presidency have proved particularly difficult for the party in the White House. Republicans suffered significant losses in the midterm elections of 1958, 1974 and 1986, the sixth year of presidency for Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon and Ronald Reagan, respectively. Democrats took a bath in 1966, the sixth year of the combined administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.


But there was a notable anomaly. In 1998, aided by public backlash against Republican calls for impeachment, Democrats gained seats in the House and held even in the Senate in Bill Clinton's sixth year in office.

Whether that was an aberration or the disintegration of the pattern of the "six-year itch" will not be clear until November. Nor will it be clear, even if the Democrats gain nominal ground in November, whether that signals a broader shift away from the Republicans that could carry over to 2008 or was merely an outcome typical of midterm elections.


"Bush's Midterm Challenge," Washington Post, Jan. 29, 2006, by Dan Balz, at this link.


Adversity breeds character, initiative, boldness, dynamism, and clarity. Take the gift and run with it.

Elections 2006

Just a brief roundup of posts, perhaps updated as the evening progresses. Oswald Sobrino has a post as well. And of course ongoing election night chatter from the National Review.

• Voting with Michael Steele, by Sonny Bunch. Weekly Standard Nov. 7, 2006, on the woes of being a Black Conservative Republican:

  Standing in line to vote with his wife, the pair wearing matching blue Under Armour windbreakers, Steele was surrounded by folks who clearly had no desire to vote for him. They made snide comments behind his back. "They're just trying to trick us, but we know better," exclaimed one elderly woman. She went on to explain that Steele's great "trick" was not cutting to the front, but instead choosing to stand in line like everyone else. . . .

• For Orson Scott Card, there is only one issue this election day RealClear Politics Nov. 6, 2006:

  [A]s a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

  But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

  (Response & discussion over at Jimmmy Akin's)

• Paul Zummo ("The Cranky Conservative") mirrors my thoughts -- "Ideologically this election is a clear choice.":

  Steele is a true blue, Catholic conservative. I was impressed by him the first time I saw him speak at a Knight of Columbus gathering last winter. He's an engaging speaker who has full command of the political scene, and he's on the same page as me on the issues that truly matter. So, there was never any doubt as to whether or not I would vote for him.

  But as the campaign has progressed, it's become much more important to me to see him win. This morning I saw a picture of Ben Cardin, and I think it was the first time I had seen his face during the campaign. That should give you an indication of the absolutely atrocious campaign that the invisible man has run. On the other hand, Steele has run one of the most magnificent campaigns I have ever observed. Sure, the puppy add might have been a bit of fluff, but it was also a smart ad that showed that Steele was a little different from the rest. His campaign has accentuated the positive, a stark contrast to Cardin, and especially the pathetic Webb-Allen fiasco (more on that in a second).

  Cardin's basic line of attack is basically to accuse Steele of actually liking George Bush. While that sort of campaign makes copious amounts of sense in a heavily Democratic state, and I can't really blame Cardin for taking advantage of Bush's unpopularity, the lack of substance truly aggravates me. On every level I want Steele to pull this out.

• Domenico Bettinelli, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have much of a choice (Whither the Catholic Voter?" ):

  There’s the dark warning that if you don’t go to the polls and vote for your Republican candidate, then the evil Democrats will win. On the other hand, what if there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two on issues that matter to me? In Massachusetts, both the Republican and Democrat candidates are pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research, and effectively pro-gay marriage. (The Republican supports civil unions which are gay marriage in all but name.) So what’s left? Taxes?

The Wall Street Journal is providing An hour-by-hour guide to tonight's Election results. Stay tuned. . . .

Seven principles to use in the public square

What we claim to believe as Christians must inform all aspects of our lives.

by Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

In his comments to the 2006 Gospel of Life conference on Oct. 28, Archbishop Chaput outlined seven simple principles that Catholics should use to inform their actions in the public square — this year and every year, whether elections loom or not.

1. Relationships have consequences. If we claim to love someone or believe something, we should act accordingly. A married man should be faithful to his wife all the time, every day, in every way. In like manner, a baptized person should seek to be faithful to Jesus Christ all the time, every day, in every way.

2. Jesus gave us the Church as our mother and teacher. She speaks for Jesus Christ and teaches in His name. Therefore, we owe the same fidelity to the Church that we owe to Christ.

3. Jesus told us to “make disciples of all nations” and to be “leaven in the world.” The Epistle of James tells us to be “doers of [God’s] word, and not hearers only,” and that “faith without works is dead.” What we claim to believe as Christians, we need to then prove by our actions — in every aspect of our lives; our families, our friendships, our work and business dealings, and also in our political choices. Otherwise we’re just lying to ourselves and others.

4. Catholic teaching has two basic principles we should use in judging every public issue: First, does this issue advance the dignity of the individual human person; and second, does this issue promote the common good? We can never choose one of these principles to the exclusion of the other. We need to follow both. A public policy can’t truly serve the common good if it violates, or allows to be violated, the sanctity of someone’s fundamental human rights, from conception to natural death.

5. We should bring our faith to bear on all public issues. But not all public issues are equal. Many are important. But some, like the right to life itself, are foundational.

6. As Catholics, we need to think and vote according to our consciences. But a human “conscience” doesn’t suddenly happen out of thin air. It needs to be cultivated, grow and be formed in the light of truth, so that we can understand the difference between good and evil in a genuinely Christian way. Conscience is never simply a matter of personal opinion or preference. It’s not what we want to do, but what we know we should do because of God’s truth in our hearts. We discover that truth by thinking and praying seriously over what Christ’s Church teaches, and trying to conform our actions to her moral guidance.

7. Jesus tells us to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” That means we have a serious duty to respect and appropriately serve public authority. But Jesus doesn’t tell us how much actually belongs to Caesar — and in fact, all of the important things about our lives belong not to Caesar, but to God. God should always come first. When we seek first to be “faithful citizens” of our real and ultimate home — heaven — then we naturally become better citizens of this world, because we become sources of virtue and character and justice for the people around us, even when our message is unpopular. The more truly and faithfully we live as Catholics, the more truly and faithfully we serve our nation’s best ideals and deepest needs.

Pope Benedict Outraged by Actions of Pro-Life Catholic Laity.

Perked your curiousity? -- Check out Fumare.

A Roundup . . .

A few stories -- some dated, others recent -- which caught my eye in the past several months . . .

• Bishop Doran on . . . Everything. Amy Welborn's Open Book - a discussion of the column by Bishop Doran of Rockford, IL, and the now-famous excerpt:

  Many of the issues that confront us are serious, and we know by now that the political parties in our country are at loggerheads as to how to solve them. We know, for instance, that adherents of one political party would place us squarely on the road to suicide as a people.
  

  The seven “sacraments” of their secular culture are abortion, buggery, contraception, divorce, euthanasia, feminism of the radical type, and genetic experimentation and mutilation. These things they unabashedly espouse, profess and promote. Their continuance in public office is a clear and present danger to our survival as a nation.
  

  Since the mid-1940s we have been accustomed to look askance at Germans. They were protagonists of the Second World War and so responsible for fifty million deaths. We say, “How awful,” and yet in our country we have, for the most part, allowed the party of death and the court system it has produced to eliminate, since 1973, upwards of forty million of our fellow citizens without allowing them to see the light of day. They have done their best to make ours a true culture of death. No doubt, we shall soon outstrip the Nazis in doing human beings to death.

  
  
• Fr. Martin Fox (Bonfire of the Vanities) asks: Can the Church excommunicate pro-abort pols?:

  . . . So, I got thinking: if the bishops together -- or a particular bishop -- were to do this, how would it work? (Can anyone tell me if any bishop in the U.S. has actually done this? I mean, actually excommunicated anyone over a public policy position, such as abortion or related issues?)

  
  
• Hope vs. Despair: Remembering Terri Schiavio, by Fr. Rob Johansen. National Review Online. March 31, 2006.
  

• Maggie Ghallager on "Why electing Rick Santorum matters" TownHall Oct. 18, 2006:

  Here's the one thing I know about Bob Casey: I don't know much about what he would actually do, because that's the way Bob Casey likes to run his campaign.
  

  Here's the one thing I know about Rick Santorum: Nobody in America has earned the undying hatred of the hard left for his courage in standing up and fighting for basic American values, whether it's the value of every single human life, or the importance of marriage as the union of husband and wife.

  
  
• A fake-"Catholic Voter Guide" has been published by the Democrats, reports John-Henry Westen for LifeSiteNews.com:

  An attempt to recapture the Catholic vote has been launched by Democratic supporters. A new 2006 Voter Guide has been put out by "Catholic in Alliance for the Common Good" (CACG) a group headed up by Alexia Kelley who in 2004 worked as a religion advisor to John Kerry in the closing weeks of his campaign. . . .

  Jay Anderson (Pro Ecclesia) has compiled a roundup of posts on the 'Dueling Voting Guides'.
  

• From Michael Liccione (Sacramentum Vitae):

  Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix has published online a new booklet entitled Catholics in the Public Square, the first of a series on various hot Catholic topics to be published by major American prelates. Here's the first line of the Zenit story where I learned about this: "All Catholics have a duty to bring faith to the forefront of political debates..." (Giving Politics a Faith Lift Zenit News Oct. 15, 2006)

  
  
• Cardinal McCarrick Continues to Conceal Rome's Insistence that Pro-Abort Politicians Be Denied Communion - Part I; Part II, by John Henry Western. LifeSiteNews.com Oct. 23, 2006. Western takes aim at McCarrick's "habitual" neglect of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the US Bishops, pointing out that obstinately pro-abortion Catholic politicians, after being duly instructed and warned, "must" be denied Communion.
  

  McCarrick, who headed a USCCB commitee to investigate the matter (which deliberated for several years ), revisited the issue recently in an October 17th address to Canadian bishops:

  The "Communion issue," Cardinal McCarrick told the Canadian bishops last Tuesday, "became ground zero in the struggle to identify 'the real Catholic Church' in the United States." A significant portion of his speech was devoted to the "attacks" bishops on either side of the debate received.
  

  Without mentioning its name, Cardinal McCarrick singled out the largest Catholic pro-life group in the US, American Life League (ALL). "I was a target of some of this criticism. At first, it disturbed me when a full-page ad was taken out in a local newspaper attacking me," he said of an ALL ad campaign. He added: "A short time later, however, at the time of one of the USCCB general meetings, a full-page ad appeared attacking all of the Bishops of the United States for not uniformly denying Holy Communion. At that point I felt that I was in good company. Finally, the same groups publicly attacked me together with the then Cardinal Ratzinger, which made me even more convinced I was in good company!"
  

  In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com ALL President Judie Brown responded to Cardinal McCarrick's allegations. "His spin is very interesting because none of our ads have attacked him or any other bishop," said Brown. "We simply asked them and continue to repeatedly ask them to enforce canon law 915. That isn't an attack, that's their job, and asking a bishop or a cardinal to do their job is not an attack." Speaking of the ad which included Cardinal Ratzinger, Brown explained, "The ad that put him in the 'company' of Cardinal Ratzinger, simply asked a question of the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, which of these men is presenting the truth."

  The document which the US Bishops task force headed by Cardinal McCarrick finally put out called Catholics in Political Life had some very good points and received praise from the pro-life community. (see coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jun/04062102.html) The document also was acceptable to the Vatican and then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the US Bishops Conference to note that the document was "very much in harmony" with his general principles.

  
  

Barone on House Elections

Here is the link to the Michael Barone Blog. Barone, as regular readers of my blog know, is my favorite political analyst (he also has a Michigan connection since he grew up in the Detroit suburbs). Barone sees a close House election with ultimate control resting on turn-out and possibly--quite interestingly--on some conservative Democrats refusing to vote for a Speaker Pelosi. I wouldn't be surprised to see some conservative Democrats switching to Republican if the results are very close. So two practical things to consider: first, go out and vote Republican and remind other pro-life voters to make sure they vote Republican on November 7th, and, second, don't believe the liberal media hype about a Democrat "wave" election. Most important of all: pray that the pro-life party retains control of all of Congress.

What Some "Catholic" Universities Allow (Warning: Graphic Language; Don't Read If You Don't Want to be Upset)

With great reluctance, I reprint a portion of an opinion column by David Brooks that appeared in the Op-Ed section of the N.Y. Times on Thursday, October 5, 2005. I say great reluctance because I have a strong distaste for the vulgar. But I also have a strong distate for denial. Catholicism in America is shot through with great denial of many highly dysfunctional realities. That's why we got the explosive scandals that, in my opinion, have been addressed internally only because of the financial pressure of lawsuits. You could write a treatise and a research project on the roots of this strong strain of psychological denial in U.S. Catholicism.

For years now, several Catholic colleges and universities have hosted the performance of a pornographic play by Eve Ensler called "The Vagina Monologues." Most famously, Rev. John Jenkins, the current president of Notre Dame University, viewed the play and decided to let it continue to be shown on campus. Here is a description of the situation at Notre Dame from the school's own website:

In February [2006], Jenkins attended a student performance of “The Vagina Monologues” and a student-faculty panel discussion that followed. “These panels taught me and perhaps taught others that the creative contextualization of a play like ‘The Vagina Monologues’ can bring certain perspectives on important issues into a constructive and fruitful dialogue with the Catholic tradition,” Jenkins wrote April 5. “This is a good model for the future,” he said. “Accordingly, I see no reason to prohibit performances of ‘The Vagina Monologues’ on campus, and do not intend to do so.” The permission for future performances drew immediate criticism from Bishop John M. D’Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend who said he was “deeply saddened by the decision.” He had previously asked that performances be ended.

From Notre Dame University website at this link: http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=16904 (from an article dated April 14, 2006).

Other "Catholic" colleges and universities, including D.C.'s Georgetown University (the oldest Catholic college in the U.S.), also host the play (see this April 3, 2006, article [PDF file] in Catholic World Report). You need to know what these so-called Catholic institutions are hosting. If you don't want to be upset, stop reading this post now. Here is the description of the play, with no further comment by me, straight out of the nation's premier daily newspaper:

[The play includes an approving scene about a predator,] a secretary, who invited a 13-year-old girl [the play has since been revised to make the girl 16 years old] from her neighborhood into her car and kissed her. Then she invited the girl up to her apartment, gave her some vodka, took off her underwear and gave her a satin teddy to wear. Then she had sex with the girl, which was interrupted when the girl's mother called. Then she made the girl masturbate in front of her and taught her some new techniques.

"A Tear in Our Fabric," by David Brooks, N.Y. Times, Op-Ed
Section, Oct. 5, 2006 (available free in print version only).

The Elections

I vaguely recall that Teddy Roosevelt once said something about being in the ring, about not standing off to the side, and instead joining the fray. Such a statement would have been characteristic of the ball of energy that was Teddy Roosevelt. Here is the full quote from the Theodore Roosevelt Association website:

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

"Citizenship in a Republic," Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910.

I think we need more Teddy Roosevelts among Catholics and other Christians. The Church calls lay Catholics to be involved in politics. Such involvement means at least in part that we must pray about politics. It's time to start praying.

The media is now full of dire predictions about Republican losses in Congress in the upcoming Nov. 7th elections. I won't believe it until I see it. If indeed these great losses materialize--losses that the biased liberal media is panting for and actively campaigning for in its coverage and timing of its paid polls, then we know that God will draw a greater good out of them.

But in the meantime, I say again: start praying. Pray in your own words. I pray this: that the pro-life party, the Republican Party, may win and retain control of both the House and the Senate so that more pro-life judges can be appointed on the Supreme Court and on other courts and so that pro-death legislation relating to embryonic research can continue to be blocked. May they win so that the ambitious gay agenda can be blocked. May they win so that further restrictions can be placed on the hourly massacre on the unborn and partially born that is abortion. May they win so that we retain the will to fight the forces of evil out to destroy anyone who does not bow the knee to Islam. May they win so that those who want to spread the demonic contraception mentality of self-prostitution to more and more young people will not gain power.

As laity, we are obligated to be politically involved. Our greatest weapon is our prayer. But too often we have been deceived into thinking that, although many pray (sometimes even during the liturgy) for the victory of an athletic team, we cannot pray for the victory of a specific political party. Speaking for myself, I feel obligated in conscience to pray for the victory on November 7th of the Republican Party for all the reasons you already knew and that I have repeated above to remind us. As Teddy Roosevelt would have said, this is no time to adopt an Olympian indifference or air of distant, pious superiority.

The Democrats offer no sane alternative. They retain the pro-death, pro-promiscuity, pro-gay agenda they have embraced now for years. They are lying low and trying to win on the sly by not revealing their true agenda. Let's make sure they don't get the chance to start again the social engineeering that has gutted the national moral character of an entire nation since the late sixties.

Election Day November 7th

As a lay Catholic, I am ready to take a stand on the upcoming Congressional elections on Nov. 7th. Vote Republican. There is only one major party in America today that will protect the unborn, defy the "gay marriage" agenda, assist educational efforts to turn the tide against the contraception/promiscuity culture that is foisted on young people, embrace school vouchers (the most effective social justice , anti-discrimination, and anti-poverty program in America), and support faith-based social action programs against the epidemic of substance abuse in our country. In addition to these social justice issues (yes, the struggle against abortion, the contraception mentality, and the gay agenda is a social justice matter because justice demands obeying the truth about human dignity denied by abortion, the contraception mentality, and the gay agenda), as American citizens, we also face the threat of an Islamist war to destroy us. Only the Republicans will persist in fighting the enemy with whatever it takes at home and abroad. If you want a socially just domestic culture and taking the offensive against Islamic radicalism, then vote Republican.

There is no "social justice" agenda different from the efforts to take on the above social issues. What liberals offer is more of the same tired old social programs that keep people in dependency, many times in a dependency marked by substance abuse. What liberals offer is encouraging the current promiscuity among many by continuing to push the contraception mentality among rising generations. What liberals offer is a blank check to the gay agenda. Notice, incidentally, how the Democrats are not focused on the immorality of the actual behavior of the Florida congressman in the current House page e-mail/instant message scandal: the Democrats are just focused on trying to exploit the scandal for electoral purposes. The liberal Democrats will never condemn the "gay" fascination with pursuing teenage males. In fact, one Democratic congressman in the nineteen eighties was merely censured (reprimanded) by the Democratic-controlled Congress for engaging in sexual acts with a minor in the House page program. That Democrat, unlike the just resigned Republican congressman who apparently did not engage in sexual acts with a minor, kept his Massachusetts congressional seat for many more years thereafter after being protected by the Democratic congressional leadership in the eighties.

There is a focused, calculated media assault prominently led by the N.Y. Times to get a Democratic-controlled Congress. A Democratic Congress would be a disaster for the domestic health of the nation and for the offensive against Islamic terrorists. A Democratic Senate would be a disaster for future appointments to the Supreme Court. So, on Nov. 7th, vote Republican if you want to see your country not go further down the path of the benighted, secularized nations of Western Europe. If you don't want the U.S. to become another France addicted to domestic amorality and appeasement abroad, vote for the Republican candidate in your local elections on November 7th. Don't fall for the mainstream media campaign to distract from the real Democratic agenda of more secularization and of appeasement.

John Kerry Speaks out on Catholic Faith

Revisiting a subject of the 2004 Presidential race, John Kerry gave a speech on his Catholic faith (Kerry Talks of Loss, Renewal of His Catholic Faith, Washington Post Sept. 9, 2006):

In a speech he said he wishes he had given before the 2004 presidential election, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday described his religious life in greater candor and detail than ever before.

Kerry said in Malibu, Calif., that he "wandered in the wilderness" after the Vietnam War but came back to the Roman Catholic Church after a sudden and moving revelation in the late 1980s.

Here is the text of the speech. Naturally the queestion of abortion is raised, and the Senator hasn't budged a bit: nary a mention of the incompatibility of reconciling his staunch Catholic faith with his staunch support of Roe v. Wade. (Via Amy Welborn, whose blog already features a bevy of responses).

Update! - Good commentary from Insight Scoop's Carl Olson as well.

Q: Can you be Catholic and a Democrat?

Former Democratic Committee Chairman asks, can you be Catholic and a Democrat?

Manchester, N.H, Sep. 15, 2006 (CNA) - David Carlin has been a Democrat nearly his entire life. The former Rhode Island State Senator and Chairman of his local Democratic Party, began voting for Democrats in 1960, when John F. Kennedy was elected the first Catholic President of the United States. Nearly 50 years later Carlin is still a registered Democrat, but has written a book wondering if his Catholicism can still be reconciled with the party of his youth.

Carlin, who even received his party’s nomination for a U.S. Congressional seat in 1992, told the Catholic News Agency that he was motivated to write his new book, Can a Catholic be a Democrat: How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion after years of frustration with his changing party.

While he notes that the power and leadership of the party has been shifting for years, Carlin now wonders if reconciliation between his faith and his party is possible any more. . . .

Source: Catholic News Agency. Sept. 15, 2006.

“How a Non-Catholic respectfully communes at Mass” - The Anchoress has a great post on the "communion etiquette" of President George W. Bush and Bill Clinton at Mass, and . . . news that Cardinal O’ Connor and the USCCB was targeted for surveillance by the Clinton Administration's VAAPCON (the Violence Against Abortion Providers Task Force).

Read all about it.

The Overlooked Question on Hispanic Immigration

In our social debates, of course, we get all caught up in numbers: asking how many are coming in, how much money is this costing. It's part of our scientific, bookkeeping modern Western culture. But, sometimes, when all the empirical, numerical questions are asked and even answered we may have forgotten to ask the most important question: who? For Catholics and other Christians, "who" is a more important question to ask than questions about numbers. Our scale of priorities is and should be radically different from that of our technological, secular culture.

That focus on "who" is why when it came to Terri Schiavo, we did not just ask how much it cost to keep her alive. We focused on who she was: a human being with as much dignity as anyone else. We also focus on "who" when it comes to abortion. We don't focus on the economic burden on the mother. We focus on who the child is: a human person of equal dignity with the mother.

I submit that when considering Hispanic immigration we ask the "who" question more, and not just focus on numbers and statistics. Who are these, mostly darker, people streaming over our borders? They are members of the only culture on earth that I know of which names its male children "Jesus," after the Son of God.

I know of no other culture on the planet where children are intentionally named "Jesus" to signify the Son of God. All of which reminds me as a Catholic Christian of a very famous question: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" (Acts 9:4; RSV). Saul then immediately asked the "who" question: "Who are you, Lord?" Before we get on our high horses and start going after the Hispanic poor coming across the border with the zeal of the Pharisee Saul, we had better meditate first on that famous and prophetic biblical dialogue. The "who" question and the related biblical question about persecution from Acts may be the most important questions for Catholics and other Christians to ask in the entire immigration debate.

As Catholics, our questions naturally overlap with those of our non-believing fellow citizens because we also rightly employ our common reason; but our question lists will, thank God, never be identical. We ask the "who" question when it comes to euthanasia and abortion. We need to ask the personalistic "who" question on immigration also. As Catholics, we always have more to ask. And in the Hispanic immigration debate, the "who" comes, uniquely among all cultures, with the name of "Jesus," the Son of God.

I was against same-sex marriage before I was for it

In an article on Bob Casey Jr.

...Casey, meanwhile, has flip-flopped on adoption of children by gays. (In a 2002 questionnaire submitted to the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference -- the state's Catholic bishops organization -- he said he opposed "legislation allowing homosexual couples to adopt children." In a 2004 questionnaire submitted to PCC, he reversed course, saying he opposed "legislation prohibiting homosexual couples from adopting children.")

...I don't support gay marriage, but I also don't support a constitutional amendment banning it," Casey told The Philadelphia Jewish Voice in October 2005. "However, I do support same sex unions that would give gay couples all the rights, privileges and protections of marriage."

That position put Casey at odds with the proposed Pennsylvania Marriage Amendment, which, like Ohio's, prohibits legal recognition of same-sex unions. The amendment was approved 137-60 in the Pennsylvania statehouse in June, but then stalled in the state senate when it was stripped of the language prohibiting recognition of same sex unions, before passing 38 to 12. (In Pennsylvania, an amendment cannot be placed on the ballot until it has passed both legislative houses in identical form in two consecutive legislative sessions.)

This race has been hailed as one between two pro-life Catholics and it is in fact a good thing that the Democrat saw that they needed to run someone pro-life against Sen. Santorum. For quite a while Casey had been leading Santorum by double-digits, but the gap has recently been closing to be within six points. As of yesterday, finally Bob Casey Jr. has agreed to four debates with Sen. Santorum. His tactic of coasting in without opening his mouth was probably a good idea while he led decisively. But this has failed him in the past in other elections he lost while initially leading. Unfortunately Bob Casey Jr. is no Bob Casey Sr.

Buchanan's Big Blunder

The Drudge Report at this link is publicizing Pat Buchanan's new book which apparently is another jeremiad with this subtitle: "The Third World Invasion & Conquest of America." I have not read the book, but here is a line quoted by the Drudge Report-- and I assume a line made available to the media by the publisher-- as carrying the big marketing punch:

“As Rome passed away, so, the West is passing away, from the same causes and in much the same way. What the Danube and Rhine were to Rome, the Rio Grande and Mediterranean are to America and Europe, the frontiers of a civilization no longer defended” (italics added).

Now, from this one line, again which I assume the author and his publisher want to put up front as telling us what the book is about so that we will want to buy the book, we have a big argument for NOT buying the book. This line put forward by the author's media blitz is proof of deep confusion, obtuseness, and ignorance on the part of Buchanan. In a less public forum, I would use a less diplomatic word than obtuseness.

What this quote says is that the enemies of the West are coming over the Rio Grande into America and over the Mediterranean into Europe. As to Europe, I have no argument if Buchanan is referring to the Moslems from North Africa and elsewhere who are crossing the Mediterranean. The Moslems flooding Europe do not share any of the languages or the historic religion of Europe. While Western religion arose from Judaism, Islam came several centuries after the Incarnation. Moslems are, in my view, non-Western, although there have been important intellectual links in past centuries.

But only someone utterly oblivious to the obvious can put the Mexicans and Central Americans on the other side of the Rio Grande in the same non-Western category as the Moslems flooding Europe. I do not believe that Buchanan is a racist, but I do think that a strong case can be made that his analysis of Hispanic immigration does indeed have a racist component. Why?

Let's get to the point: Buchanan is saying that the Mexicans are not part of Western civilization. Why not?

1. Their native language is a Western European language, the language in which the first novel of the Western world was written: Don Quixote by Cervantes. Spanish is a child of Latin, the quintessential language of Western culture for centuries. In fact, in my personal opinion, compared to French and even Italian, Spanish is much closer in form to Latin than these other two Romance languages are.

2. They are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. The Catholic Church is the mother of Western civilization. The central trunk of Western civilization is Catholic. In the broad scheme of Western history, the Protestant nations of northern Europe are a peripheral offshoot--some might say an aberration--from this main Catholic central trunk of Western culture.

So the Mexicans speak a Western European language closely related to Latin, they are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, yet these are the hordes who signal the end of Western civilization? Forgive me for putting up two other possibilities for Buchanan's view that the Mexican hordes signal the end of the West: 1.) they are poor and 2.) they are dark-skinned.

If Buchanan's objection is poverty, then it is absurd given that it is precisely poor immigrants who have strengthened America. If it is skin color, then Buchanan better make it clear if he wants people to think that Western culture requires a white skin. In my opinion, the promotion of his book implies a racist analysis whether he is aware of it or not. The promotion also explicitly shows great historical ignorance of Western civilization and history. A civilization should have defenders that are familiar with the history of that civilization. Those are the most effective defenders of any civilization.

What Buchanan misses (how could he miss it!) is precisely the big difference, very fortunate for us, between the U.S. and Europe: the immigration problem in the U.S. is Catholic, while that in Europe is Moslem. Now, certainly, immigration is a big problem that must be addressed with a renewed emphasis on law and order and, in my personal opinion, with a guest worker program such as the one we had in the fifties under Eisenhower. But Buchanan does not contribute to a solution by making such an obvious and gigantic cultural and historical blunder in confusing Mexicans with Moslems. Instead of promoting his book, this blunder will lead readers with any basic education to question ever taking the time to read the book. And, even worse and more embarrassing, Buchanan is, I think, of Catholic background--although I would be more certain of that if his last name were Gonzalez or Alvarez.

U.S. News Q&A with Senator Sam Brownback

Q&A with Sen. Sam Brownback, by Dan Gilgoff. U.S. News & World Report August 17, 2006:

Sen. Sam Brownback is widely regarded as a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, a label he lived up to recently in vigorously opposing Congress's attempts to provide funding for expanded embryonic stem cell research. But the Kansas Republican has made common cause with liberals by drawing attention to the genocide in Darfur and irked some conservatives by championing comprehensive immigration reform, which includes a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants. As he mulls over a presidential bid-he says he'll make the decision soon after the midterm elections-Brownback sat down with U.S. News for a wide-ranging interview. . . .

Some Thoughts on Mark Shea, Joseph Leiberman and Ned Lamont

Siding with (and citing) Pat Buchanan, Mark Shea takes issue with the (neo)conservative embrace of Sen. Joseph Lieberman:

Last year, Joe's rating by Americans for Democratic Action was 80. The ACLU gave him an 83, the NAACP an 85, the AFL-CIO a 92, LULAC a perfect 100. In 2004, Joe got a 100 rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League and a zero from National Right to Life. His American Conservative Union rating was zero. His Christian Coalition rating was zero. The National Rifle Association, which grades by letters, gave Joe a big, fat "F."

But as long as you support war in Lebanon, war in Iraq and a "war-fighting Republican Party," in the Weekly Standard's phrase, you get a pass on everything else. Beat the drum for permanent war for global democracy and against Islamo-fascism, and all other sins are forgiven you.

Such is the state of conservatism, 2006. [Source: The meaning of Connecticut", Pat Buchanan World Net Daily August 10, 2006]:

Mark links directly to Buchanan's editorial, but fails to provide readers with the original essay by Kristol (Anti-war, Anti-Israel, anti-Joe: The New Democrats, Weekly Standard 08/14/2006, Volume 011, Issue 45). I'd like to forego the paraphrasing and examine what William Kristol actually thinks:

The key point in Kristol's essay is that "You fight the global war against jihadist Islam with the political parties you have." Not necessarily, he might have added, with the political parties you desire.

As Kristol observes, we have the Republican Party, led by President Bush, whose "heart and mind are mostly in the right place. Its performance as a governing party in time of war is, admittedly, another matter." Despite some legitimate criticisms on what he perceives as a dearth of leadership (Kristol has strong words for Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and has sharply criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war in the past),

". . . at least we have a president who knows we are at war with jihadist Islam. And he is willing to stake his presidency on that fight, and to support others, like Israel, who are in the same fight."

Kristol goes on to recognize a similar disposition in the person of Joseph Lieberman, who has distinguished himself from a Democratic party which -- to quote William Bennett -- "think[s] they can become a national party by taking their cues from Howard Dean, George Soros, MoveOn.Org, the Daily Kos, and George McGovern’s appeasement-first philosophy."

Kristol concludes:

There is a political opportunity for the Bush administration if the Democrats reject Lieberman. If he's then unable to win as an independent in November, he would make a fine secretary of defense for the remainder of the Bush years. If his independent candidacy succeeds, it will be a message to Bush that he should forge ahead toward victory in Iraq and elsewhere. Either way, the possibility exists for creating a broader and deeper governing party, with Lieberman Democrats welcomed into the Republican fold, just as Scoop Jackson Democrats became Reaganites in the 1980s. Is it too fanciful to speculate about a 2008 GOP ticket of McCain-Lieberman, or Giuliani-Lieberman, or Romney-Lieberman, or Allen-Lieberman, or Gingrich-Lieberman? Perhaps. But a reinvigorated governing and war-fighting Republican party is surely an achievable goal. And a necessary one.

William Kristol - "Money and Power-Firster"?

I can't say I share William Bennet's or William Kristol's personal enthusiasm for the good Senator and will refrain from indulging in speculation on a presidential ticket. At the same time, I think Mark Shea and Pat Buchanan, in their venting against the dreaded neocons, are being more than a little unfair in their portrayal of Mr. Kristol.

In July 2006, Mark Shea professed his indecisiveness or agnosticism on whether "William Kristol and other neocons are warmongers untethered from reality", on account that "I distrust the reliability of the information I'm getting and I just don't know enough yet to make a judgment that's worth any thing."

Yet, in August 2006, Mark quotes approvingly Pat Buchanan's depiction of William Kristol as one willing to sacrifice core moral principles and "give a pass on everything else" to anybody who "beat[s] the drum for permanent war".

Presumably Kristol is included as well in Shea's description of the current political debate as a struggle between the "God first conservatives and the Money and Power First Conservatives":

And it's quite clear that, for the neocons, the only thing that matters is war and the entire prolife movement and social conservative types can drop dead. The Neocons are All About Power and Realpolitik. Conservatives are morphing into the mirror of their postmodern nihilistic Leftist opponents.

Now, if you listen to the chatter from the anti-war left (antiwar.com, daily kos) and the "paleoconservative" right (The American Conservative), you might recognize William Kristol as a member of the Project for the New American Century, editor of the Weekly Standard, and one of the grand architects of the neoconservative-Zionist conspiracy for perpetual warfare.

Others, however, might recall another side to his political career:

In 1996 he signed his name to The America We Seek: A Statement of Pro-Life Principle and Concern, a joint statement by Catholics, evangelicals and conservatives. In his opposition to human cloning, Kristol has allied himself with Charles Colson, William Bennett, Fr. Neuhaus, James Dobson, George Weigel and other major pro-life religious and conservative voices.

Kristol has demonstrated a personal interest and keen grasp of the issues involved in the recent debate over ESCR (embroyonic stem cell research) and human cloning. In February 12, 2001 he authored an editorial "The Future Is Now" in that infamous neocon propaganda machine otherwise known as The Weekly Standard. Drawing from C.S. Lewis' prophetic The Abolition of Man, Kristol concluded that

"Before this prospect [of genetic human conditioning], before this possibility, every other issue pales not into insignificance, for many other issues are significant, but at least into lesser significance. The challenge of the scientific revolution in genetics and biotechnology, of scientific "progress" loosed from natural, human, or religious moorings, is the challenge we face."

Together with Eric Cohen (editor of the Ethics & Public Policy Center's journal New Atlantis), Kristol co-published The Future is Now: America Confronts the New Genetics (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), providing a substantial introduction to the debate (see contents and excerpts here).

In May 2004, he co-authored another article with Eric Cohen, "The Politics of Bioethics: Playing Defense is Not Enough", The Weekly Standard, Volume 009, Issue 33.

It's because of Kristol's thought on these issues and the overall nature of his writing that I can't help but take umbrage with Pat Buchanan's -- and Mark Shea's -- depiction of him. Frankly, I think the choice of phrase tells us more about a personal animosity toward the elusive neocons and the war in Iraq than it does about Kristol himself.

Lieberman's Pro-Choice Credentials

Shea/Buchanan base their criticism of Lieberman largely on his pro-choice credentials. But, correct me if I'm wrong, Ned Lamont's record on the life issues is no more admirable than Lieberman's -- and if you happen to read some of the more liberal blogs, they're characterizing NARAL's support of Lieberman as a scam, calling into question his loyalty to the pro-abortion cause:

• CT-Sen: Lieberman already dropping; NARAL Kos Feb. 21, 2006
  
• "Lieberman vs. the Day After Pill" Connecticut Bob May 24, 2006
  
• NARAL... R.I.P.: "Repro groups screwing themselves over Lieberman endorsement" Alternet. July 12, 2006.
  
• Incidentally, none other than Michael Schiavo turned out to stump for Ned Lamont (Schiavo speaks on Lamont's behalf Stamford Advocate), criticizing Lieberman's opposition to the removal of Terri's feeding tube (Schiavo: Lieberman Wrong About Terri CBSNews.com July 28, 2006).

There is much one could -- and should -- rightly criticize about Lieberman's record on the life issues, but at the same time we should recognize that his "pro-choice" credentials, as touted by Buchanan, aren't as stolid as he makes them out to be. In the end, given as how Republicans haven't exactly offered any contenders with a fighting chance against the Democrats, we are left with the choice of Lieberman or Lamont in Connecticut. Which leads us to the question:

What's wrong with Ned Lamont?

And as one of Mark's commentators ("Ed the Roman") observed,

Everything for Mark to dislike about Lieberman is there in Lamont, except that he's anti-war.

The problem is that based on comments like "we are strongest when we negotiate with our enemies", he's against the entire war, not just the part in Iraq. Lamont isn't necessarily going to stop with a withdrawal from Iraq. He shows no signs of willingness to do anything about Iran's onward march to nuke Haifa.

Forgive me for the lengthy quotation, but Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, has put it best:

Spin it as he may, the central plank in Lamont’s platform is for the U.S. to accept complete and utter defeat at the hands of terrorists and insurgents in Iraq — and, by implication, before long, elsewhere too. It does not fool most of the people to say, as Lamont did, that he will bring the troops “home to a hero’s welcome.” In the real world, that is not what awaits those who suffer defeat — however painful their wounds, however great their courage under fire.

The war we are fighting — in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere — is nasty and bloody and we are not doing very well. But this is the face of war in the 21st century. We either learn to win such battles or we get used to getting whipped; maybe we even start to like getting whipped. Think of John Murtha almost bragging about the retreats he has favored in the past, from Beirut in 1983 and Somalia in 1993 — as though those retreats did not pave the way to 9/11/01.

What’s worse is that Lamont and his supporters believe America deserves defeat. They don’t say it the way Ward Churchill does but you can read it between the lines. They claim it will not be them or the U.S. that is defeated; only Bush and the hated neocons will be vanquished by the forces formerly led by Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. That is akin to a passenger on a ship saying that when the vessels sinks, only the captain and crew will drown.

So this is a bad day for America, too. There was a time when Americans united against their enemies. But our enemies in this war have been allowed to divide us. Bush may deserve some of the blame for that. But disunity has been the goal of the Lamont/Sharpton/Jackson/Murtha/Soros/Sheehan/Moore/Kos wing of the Democratic party., the wing that triumphed last night in Connecticut.

In the end, we are faced with the question: Is it possible for Kristol to appeal for possible cooperation and common ground between "Lieberman Democrats" and Republicans on the issue of national security without sacrificing pro-life principles?

• See also I. Shawn McElhinney's "Miscellaneous Musings on Joe Lieberman, His Withdrawal From the Democratic Senate Primary, and Possible Wider 2006 Election Ramifications" [audioblog, .mp3 format].
• The Defeatist Party in Full Bloom Oswald Sobrino Catholic Analysis August 9, 2006.
• Symposium: Lieberman's Loss Bill Bennett, Charles Kesler, Larry Sabato more make sense of Connecticut. National Review Online (NRO) August 9, 2006.
• This discussion brought to my mind Jody Bottum's provocative article on The New Fusionism First Things 154 (June/July 2005): 32-26:

  If only as a courtesy to serious figures from the papal biographer George Weigel to the Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, we need to consider the possibility that pure political calculation isn’t the only cause for the recent fusion of social conservatives and neoconservatives.

The Irrationality of Appeasement

The mentality of appeasing is alive and well in the Democratic Party and in other parts of American society. It is a scenario eerily familiar to that of England in the nineteen thirties which appeased the world right into World War II rather than snuffing out the Nazis in their initial forays to take over the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia. We have the super-rich Ned Lamont in Connecticut who is now the new Democrat icon. Pardon me, but let me be honest. Lamont comes across as the effete, shrill, and haughty product of a decadent, excessively affluent society.

But let me move quickly away from the personal and get to ideas which are always the better things to discuss. Today, the seminal "good war" is World War II: the struggle against the demonic movement of Nazism and its allies. Yet, also today, we have many who explicitly or implicitly would have advised us to sit out World War II. In fact, they would have advised us to appease Hitler throughout the thirties, the approach that made World War II an inevitable reality. How can that mentality still exist just sixty or so years after the end of World War II? These are not just people who opposed war in Vietnam or Iraq. Many, whether they are willing to admit it today or not, would have opposed a strong stand even against Hitler.

The irrationality of the appeasers remind me of some people who strongly criticize Israel. At first, you listen politely assuming that they are rational; and then, not uncommonly, the other shoe drops: they descend into an anti-Semitic reading of history or similar anti-Jewish tirade. Then your eyes open, and you realize that there was nothing there worth listening to in the first place. A similar eye-opening experience occurs when you realize that today's appeasers would have appeased even Hitler.

Thank goodness that St. Michael and the angelic hosts are not appeasers, or else the book of Revelation would end quite differently. In the face of irrational evil, there comes a point when you fight. That is reality, a reality that is part of the tragedy of evil. The better way is non-violent resistance. But the better way is not always possible. Gandhi could do it in the face of a civilized, democratic British Empire in India. Martin Luther King, Jr., could do it in the face of a civilized, democratic United States. But the Germans could not do it in Hitler's Germany. The Iraqis could not do it in the face of Saddam Hussein. And Israel cannot do it in the face of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran whose stated goal is to destroy Israel--whose absolute hatred for the very existence of Israel is so great that some of them even refuse to pronounce the word "Israel": they use the circumlocution "Zionist entity." My friends, that refusal to even utter the word "Israel" is a sign of the demonic nature of Israel's enemies.

What can Christianity do? Is Christianity inevitably pacifism? Or is Christianity just an indifferent bystander to the tragedy of war? I can share only my personal opinion which is not official Church teaching. The Christian is a knight, a happy warrior, who seeks to advance the Kingdom of God on earth. As such, he or she is a knight for the conditions of peace and for nonviolent resistance. Nonviolent resistance works between and among democratic nations that respect individual rights. That's why it worked against British imperialists and American racists. But nonviolent resistance does not work against Hitlers or Middle East dictators. So the Christian knight struggles to promote democracy and human rights as the arena where war can become unnecessary because nonviolent resistance is feasible in that context.

But when irrational evil raises its head, we cannot bury our heads. We must be willing to give our lives for the oppressed. We must be willing to come to the rescue of others. And that means that armed conflict is inevitable against the forces of irrational evil. Recognizing that inevitability early is the best way to avoid world wars.

Many today still have not learned that lesson. Yet, it is a reality all around us everyday. A reality we depend on, especially in daily life in the United States: the policeman is armed and is willing to stop the criminal with force if necessary. We could not live in the United States without that daily, unquestioned threat of force by police departments throughout the nation. Yet, the same people who are able to live in peace and security in the United States only because of the threat of force against the irrationally evil refuse that same peace and security to millions throughout the world threatened by irrational evil. The policeman has the right and duty to resist irrational evil with force for the sake of our lives. The policeman cannot be a pacifist or a full-time practitioner of non-violent resistance. Yet, in a world full of irrational evil, many spout the fantasy that no policeman is necessary in the affairs of nations.

We have long heard that, for Christians, we are both body and soul. We cannot be indifferent to our bodies in sexual morality because our bodies are essential to our full humanity and personhood. We must also hear again that we are also rational creatures. We cannot be indifferent to common sense because rationality is also essential to our full humanity and personhood. And common sense recognizes that the use of force to fight evil is in many tragic situations a moral obligation. Yes, thank God, that St. Michael and the angelic hosts are not pacifists.

The Defeatist Party in Full Bloom

The defeat of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary further confirms that the contemporary Democratic Party is the party of defeatism that cannot be trusted to fight the war against Islamist fanatics. Of course, some Democrats will try to paint the Lieberman defeat as a bad sign for President Bush because "the voters" rejected Lieberman due to his support of the Iraq war. That predictable spin effort by the Democrats is a grand deception. The "voters" involved here are the liberal Democrats that dominate Democratic primaries in most, if not all, states. Liberal Democrats rejecting Lieberman because of his support of the Iraq war is a non-story. In fact, the real election comes in November when Lieberman runs as an independent. Some predict that Lieberman will win as an independent. Bottom-line: the Democratic Party is the defeatist party that rejects any attempt to win in Iraq and drives out anyone who favors victory in Iraq.

Interestingly, former President Clinton actually campaigned for Lieberman. Senator Hillary Clinton gave Lieberman tepid support. Whom will the Clintons support in the general election: the official Democratic candidate or independent candidate Lieberman? The Clintons live for power, not principle. So they will likely seek to make a calculation on how to minimize the number of Democrats they displease balanced with an urgent concern to appear strong on national security issues. The Clinton calculation will be a sham based on expediency and not on principle or conviction, a sham focused on getting the wife elected President in 2008. If she wins in 2008, the former President can then return to White House policy-making. He will likely seek the role of a special Middle East negotiator who will try to rehabilitate himself in political history by seeing if, this time around, he can finally win the Nobel Peace Prize denied to him when he failed to broker a Middle East peace accord during his administration. Let's see how many, if any, are fooled by the sham Clinton balancing act that will unfold this fall in Connecticut and beyond.

What is of urgent peril to the republic is that one of our major parties is the defeatist party, the best ally that our terrorist enemies have. The Democratic Party is the modern fifth column that our enemies can count on to undermine and sap with constant harping criticism the will to win the war on Islamist imperialism. This trajectory began with the 1972 campaign of George McGovern: that year the Democratic Party went anti-American. Thirty-four years later the trend continues in full force, except that now the enemy is not limited to the small country of Vietnam but is a worldwide Islamist assault that aims to attack both here at home and overseas.

Update: Go to RealClearPolitics.com where John McIntyre gives great political analysis about the Lieberman fiasco for the Democrats. McIntyre hits the nail on the head.

Catholic? Rudy Watch

Nate Nelson has fired up a new blog called Catholic? Rudy Watch. His mission? Oppose the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani for president. As many know, Rudy "disagrees" with Church teachings in re: to abortion, protecting marriage, and ESCR. Looks like Nate wants Catholics to get to know the real Rudy. Great idea Nate!

Reminds one of Catholic[?] Kerry Watch which Christopher, Jeff, and Oswald contributed to during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Tags: Catholic, Giuliani, abortion, ESCR, marriage, 2008

Vote "Yes" to Life - South Dakota rallies in support ofthe Women’s Life and Human Health Protection Act (HB1215)

A friend has relayed news of South Dakota's battle for life:

Pope John Paul II once said: "[W]e are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the “culture of death” and the “culture of life”. We find ourselves not only “faced with” but necessarily “in the midst of” this conflict: we are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.” (Evangelium Vitae, "The Gospel of Life", 28).

This past legislative session, the South Dakota legislature passed the Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act (HB 1215). Pro-abortion individuals and groups, including Planned Parenthood and the inappropriately named "South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families", have collected enough signatures to place this bill on the November 7, 2006, ballot for a vote of the people. The bill will be entitled "Referred Law 6", and a "Yes" vote will affirm the bill, while a "No" vote will kill it.

South Dakota is "in the midst of" a great spiritual battle against the culture of death, as HB 1215 has brought the issue of abortion to the forefront in our state.

The Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls' Catholic Advocate Network has put together a page for more information on HB 1215, along with the following prayer and educational aids:

• Letter to the Faithful from Apostolic Administrator Bishop Samuel J. Aquila [.pdf format]
  

• Response of the Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls to the Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act (HB 1215 - Referred Law 6) An educational booklet to assist the faithful of the Diocese of Sioux Falls in understanding HB 1215 and to encourage them to vote "Yes" to affirm HB 1215 on November 7, 2006. [.pdf format]
  

• Diocesan Prayer Guide or the intention of a successful "Yes" vote on HB 1215.
  

For additional information, please see the website VoteYesForLife.com - a coalition of pro-life organizations and individuals in South Dakota who are supporting the Women’s Life and Human Health Protection Act (HB1215). This campaign is about the South Dakota women who have faced unplanned pregnancies and are sharing their stories.

The work of the Knights

Knights of Columbus pledge to fight for marriage, life, ‘under God’

ORLANDO, August 04 (CNA) - The Knights of Columbus have adopted, this week, significant resolutions on a number of critical social issues including marriage, the sacredness of life, the Pledge of Allegiance, school choice, and support for military men and women.

Brownback Introduces Bill to Fight Assisted Suicide

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - U.S. Senator Sam Brownback yesterday introduced the Assisted Suicide Prevention Act, which would prohibit doctors from prescribing federally-controlled substances for the purpose of physician-assisted suicide.

“When the law permits killing as a medical ‘treatment,’ society’s moral guidelines are blurred, and killing could gain acceptance as a solution for the chronically ill or vulnerable,” said Brownback. “Doctor-assisted suicide could actually create a financial incentive for insurance companies to encourage prematurely ending the lives of those in need of long-term care.”

Last May Brownback chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing to examine the impact of physician-assisted suicide in places where it has been widely practiced. . . .[read more]

Brownback Introduces Bill to Fight Assisted Suicide LifeSiteNews.com. August 4, 2006.

For more on Senator Brownback, see Catholics for Brownback.

An Alternative Analysis of the Middle East War

As usual, the mainstream media is full of opinion columns and analysis pieces saying that Israel is losing the war or is in a box or offering crackpot diplomatic non-solutions. As usual, the mainstream media is wrong. They will always cry "defeat" whenever Israel or the U.S. takes strong action against the Islamist fanatics. Why? My personal opinion is that people who embrace moral relativism find any strong action against evil distasteful and repulsive. They believe that since good and evil are just matters of where you sit, you can't really condemn what the Islamist fanatics do and can't really justify strong military action to put the terrorist organizations out of business. In the morally relativist mindset of the mainstream media, the only exception to their canon of relativism is this one absolute: the U.S. and Israel are always wrong, especially if the non-relativist George W. Bush is involved. Moral relativism in international conflict equals defeatism. The mainstream media is the propaganda arm for that defeatism. It's a curious disease of the soul, but we saw it before in the West when for years Britain and France appeased Hitler, thus inducing Hitler to gamble on World War II. Fortunately, today Britain's prime minister is more Churchillian. But France, to this day, has never regained her nerve. The French moral malaise appears, right now, to be eternal.

Catholic social teaching strongly embraces a healthy pluralism in society, that is, the free, respectful expression of a diversity of views. In that vein, I offer my own analysis of the current Middle East War: Hezbollah and its patrons Iran and Syria have made a major and grave miscalculation. Iran is the leading force in this cabal. By giving Hezbollah the green light to attack Israel, Iran took the same gamble Hitler did in putting German troops back in the Rhineland region of Germany that had been demilitarized by the Treaty of Versailles as a way to protect France from future German attack. Here is how one reference source summarizes what happened: "Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936. It was a dangerous venture, for Britain and France could have overwhelmed Germany, but, resolved to keep the peace, they took no action. Emboldened by this success, Hitler intensified his campaign for Lebensraum (space for living) for the German people" (Encyclopedia American s.v. "World War II"; original italics).

The failure of Britain and France to respond to Hitler's blatant defiance of a binding treaty obligation led to his further adventures: invading Austria, Czechoslovakia, and finally Poland. Only when he invaded Poland did Britain and France wake up and enter the war their appeasement helped bring to reality. Eventually, Britain got Churchill; and the rest is history. Hitler won his Rhineland gamble, but lost the war. Yet, tragically for millions, Hitler could have been put out of commission much earlier without a full-scale World War II.

Iran took the same gamble as Hitler did in the Rhineland. In defiance of a U.N. resolution, Iran and Hezbollah remilitarized south Lebanon to make it a formidable threat to Israel, as the almost daily shower of rockets on Israel proves. Israel could do nothing to meet this looming and mounting threat without a provocation. Then Iran miscalculated and allowed Hezbollah to provoke Israel by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers and killing several others in an attack on Israeli territory. Unlike Hitler, Iran has lost the gamble of her "Rhineland strategy" because Churchill was, so to speak, already in place as the prime minister of Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert is not considered as hawkish as some other political leaders in Israel; but he reacted strongly, responsibly, and like Churchill in the face of the Hezbollah attack on Israel.

In fact, some of Olmert's recent remarks telling Israel to expect more pain and blood in the current war and declaring that Israel will fight on by every means echo Churchill's famous speeches when Britain stood alone against Hitler in 1940 in the Battle of Britain after Hitler had conquered France. The Israeli Prime Minister is defiant of the enemies of Israel and refuses to go along with the appeasement recommended by the lamentable U.N. and by the reflexively appeasing French. Hitler won in the Rhineland because Churchill was not yet the British Prime Minister. Iran has lost in the current war because the Israeli Churchill was already in place. That is a major miscalculation, but fanatics are prone to such major miscalculations because hatred is blinding.

So Israel is not losing this war. Iran and her proxy Hezbollah are losing big: they jumped the gun and gave Israel the green light to destroy their military buildup in Lebanon. In fact, the latest news is that Israel has just taken a welcome and overdue strategic leap and attacked the Hezbollah stronghold in northeast Lebanon. Hezbollah has no place to hide and has opened itself to a full and wide-ranging attack by Israel that is fully justified. And notice that Iran cannot openly join in assisting Hezbollah. Iran must limit its participation to covert action and to its typically hypocritical and anti-Israel rhetoric. The other Hezbollah backer, Syria, is frigid with fear that Israel will take the battle to Syria and finish off the last remaining Baathist regime in Damascus once and for all. All of this would not be possible if the appeasing forces (the U.N. and most of Europe) were in charge. All of this is possible because the Israeli Prime Minister and George W. Bush are both Churchill-like in their grasp of reality: fanatics understand only the strong and fearless application of force. When the enemy miscalculates, forcefully exploit the miscalculation to the full to prevent future attacks. If the West had done that in 1936 when Hitler put his soldiers into the Rhineland, millions would likely have been saved from the casualty lists of World War II.

And remember this: just as Britain's lonely fight against Hitler in 1940 (after France had fallen to Hitler) was really America's fight, so today Israel's fight against Iran is America's fight. Neither Hezbollah nor Iran would hesitate to send the same rockets they are dropping on Israeli towns to Chicago, Detroit, or New York, if they could. Iran is crazed enough to use even a nuclear weapon against Israel and against the U.S. So Israel is fighting our battle there, so we won't have to fight it here later at a much higher cost in lives. Let's pray daily that Israel is swiftly victorious against the forces of evil who seek her annihilation and ours. Our faith allows us to engage in self-defense, and so we can pray for a swift victory for Israel.

Archbishop Chaput on Church vs. State

"I don't think the government should listen to the church - the government should listen to the people and the people should listen to the church."

(HT: New Advent)

"Genocidal Islamism"

That's the phrase being used to describe accurately and honestly the Palestinian, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syrian, and Iranian coalition against Israel, a coalition aimed at wiping Israel off the map of the Middle East, as explicitly asserted by the Hitlerite leader of Iran. My source is Charles Krauthammer's article "Israel's Existence at Stake" at this RealClearPolitics.com link , courtesy of a reader from Rhode Island. The article will make the stakes of the current war clear. Lasting peace will come only from disarmament of both Hamas and Hezbollah and from regime change in both Syria and Iran. So lasting peace is very much a long term proposition. In the meantime, the U.S. must stand fast in full support of Israel. May Israel, the country of our elder brothers in the faith (in the words of John Paul the Great), be victorious in defending herself from her rabid enemies. May the enemies of Israel be put to shame and to flight. May the enemies of Israel be scattered. May the right hand of the Lord rescue his first chosen people who are still bound to the Lord's promises, as St. Paul wrote in Romans 11:29: "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (ESV). Many Catholics are unaware of this surprising verse from Paul that still binds the first Israel to God (the new and second Israel is the Church). But there it is. So to pray for old Israel's safety and continued existence is very Catholic, very New Testament, and very Pauline: another teaching moment.

Update: See this link for comments by Cardinal Schönborn, editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, affirming God's gift of land to Israel. The Cardinal cites John Paul the Great as agreeing that the biblical promise of land to Israel is still valid. See also Catechism, section 839.