Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Fr. Pavone (Priests for Life) on the Confirmation of Samuel Alito

From Fr. Pavone's e-letter on the confirmation of Samuel Alito:

As I bring you my latest column . . . let me also comment on two news items from today.

First, of course, Justice Samuel Alito was confirmed and sworn in today as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Again we see that elections have consequences. This new Justice, who will be much friendlier to pro-life concerns than was Sandra Day O'Connor, would not be on the Supreme Court today if all of you had not worked as hard as you did for the elections of 2004. It was the coming change of the Supreme Court that motivated so many of us.

I ask you to pause and reflect for a moment. Where is all the power of the pro-abortion movement? Why couldn't the pro-abortion and other liberal organizations that are so well-funded and have so many friends in Hollywood, the media, and the political world, stop the confirmation of Justice Alito? They certainly wanted to and they certainly tried. For that matter, why weren't they able to keep President Bush from a second term?

The fact is that we have things that they don't have, including a stronger grassroots network, and the right message. So thank you again - and let's gear up now for the elections of 2006 and 2008 so that we can replace more Supreme Court Justices!

On another note, you may have seen the news that Coretta Scott King, wife of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., died last night. Her niece, Alveda, told me this morning that the family appreciates your prayers. (You may send a note of condolence to the King family at mail@priestsforlife.org.) Alveda, as you know, continues fighting for Dr. King's dream of equal dignity for all human beings by fighting for the right to life of unborn children. We are happy to have her as our director of African-American outreach.

"Elections have consequences." Remember that: one can only wonder what the Supreme Court would look like had Senator Kerry been elected, or where the pro-life movement would be today.

Monday, January 30, 2006

Pope Benedict's Deus Caritas Est

Deus Caritas Est is essentially the meditation of Pope Benedict XVI on love -- love as it is (sometimes erroneously) considered to be by the world and love as expressed in all its richness in the biblical tradition, in the love of God for Israel and as it is exemplified in the Eucharistic sacrifice of our Savior.

The second part of the encyclical is an explication of how love is to be embodied in our daily life as Christians, -- in our love of (and service to) our neighbor, and what that entails in light of our faith.

I've posted to Against The Grain a roundup of or reaction from bloggers, journalists and pundits (including a few observations of my own). However, there is simply no excuse for not reading the encyclical in full. I quickly realized (reading it over a Saturday afternoon) that it's one of those texts where, if I went after it with a highlighter, I'd quickly run out of ink. =) So if you haven't read it already, I strongly recommend taking the time to do so this week.

Saturday, January 28, 2006

Alito Filibuster? Not.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Failed pro-abortion presidential candidate John Kerry waged an 11th-hour campaign to mount support for a potential filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, but even members of his own party bemoaned his quixotic effort. Although Kerry is out of the country hobnobbing with international political leaders in Switzerland, he manned the phones to call his colleagues and urge them to filibuster Alito next week. The calls came after news reports surfaced showing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist planing to call for a cloture vote Monday afternoon to end debate on Alito's nomination and hold an up or down vote Tuesday. On Thursday, Alito picked up the support of two more Democrats and two others said they would not support a filibuster. Even Democratic leaders recognized the writing on the wall. "No one can complain on this matter that there hasn't been sufficient time to talk about Judge Alito, pro and con," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor Thursday. "I hope that this matter will be resolved without too much more talking." Despite it likely being doomed to failure, Kerry's filibuster attempt has picked up two supporters -- fellow pro-abortion Democrats Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Ron Wyden of Oregon. TAKE ACTION: Make your views about Judge Alito's noination known by contacting your senators. You can reach them by going to: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Both Republican and Democrats agreed on Friday that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito not only has enough votes to be confirmed, but enough to stop a last-minute filibuster threatened by a handful of Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has planned a cloture vote for Monday to close off debate on Alito's nomination to replace retiring pro-abortion Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Frist's motion needs 60 votes to be approved and leaders on both sides of the aisle say that will happen. "Next Tuesday, a bipartisan majority will vote to confirm Judge Alito as Justice Alito," Frist said. For confirmation, Alito has the firm backing of 52 of the 55 Republicans as well as three Democrats: Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. In addition, Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Ken Salazar of Colorado and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine are all opposed to a filibuster. Akaka and Salazar oppose Alito and the others are undecided. That's at least 55 votes to approve Alito for the high court and 60 votes to stop the filibuster. Those totals are likely to increase as a handful of undecided lawmakers make up their minds. Despite the filibuster threat from three pro-abortion Democrats -- Massachusetts senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Oregon's Ron Wyden, Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Alito's confirmation is inevitable. "We're going to have a vote Tuesday morning," Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said. "Everyone knows there are not enough votes to support a filibuster, but it's an opportunity to people to express their opinion [against Alito]."
Yes, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy being controlled by their puppet masters. Thankfully, there are some Democrats who have refused to be led by these "masters".

Sen Brownback in Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone profiled Senator Sam Brownback recently. I mentioned it on the Catholics for Brownback blog yesterday.

Nathan over at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis has a post on some of the senator's remarks in the piece. He asked us to respond. I left my comments.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Catholic[?] Governor of Michigan wants human cloning to come to Michigan

Governor Jennifer Granholm wants human cloning to come to Michigan. Yes, another Catholic public official wishes to further the culture of death in her state and our country. Let us hope and pray that Cardinal Maida is doing all he can to convince her how wrong she is.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Archbishop Chaput: Christian case for marriage is one of liberation and human dignity

A look at language — and marriage: The Christian case for marriage is one of liberation and real human dignity

How we frame our thinking about a question helps to shape the answer we arrive at. The language of a discussion is a crucial part of the discussion itself. If we don’t examine and challenge the vocabulary of a debate, we can count on losing it.

I remembered this recently while reading a local news headline that said, “Proposals target gay rights.” The story dealt with this year’s simultaneous efforts to define marriage in our state constitution, and to establish the legal status of “domestic partnerships.”

The headline was interesting. Before the first word of the first paragraph, it encouraged readers to think about the story’s content in a specific way. A story about, “Family activists voice concern,” might have led readers to view much the same information very differently.

We need to approach these issues with three simple principles.

First, the nature of marriage is a matter of common sense and long tradition, rooted in practical experience. It’s not simply a “religious” issue. Marriage as a lifelong relationship between one man and one woman exists for the benefit of children and the protection of women. Society depends on children and the way we form their lives. Emotional fulfillment is an important factor in good marriages, but that’s not the main purpose of the relationship. Marriage exists to create a supportive environment for the rearing of children and the protection of women as they mother — whether people are “religious” or not. The fact that marriages frequently fail does not change the purpose of marriage. Rather, it proves that we too often do a poor job of preparing people for what marriage really entails and supporting them in the demands of mature married life.

Second, if we’re serious about our faith — if Jesus Christ really is the “way, the truth and the life,” and the organizing principle for our lives — we need to carry our convictions into our public policy thinking. They are not just our private preferences. We should never apologize for this. If we don’t live what we believe, then what we claim to believe is empty piety. Catholics can compromise about many issues in daily political life. But we can never barter away the nature and sanctity of the human person or those institutions that nurture, form and support the human person.

The Christian case for marriage and the family is a message of liberation and real human dignity. It is not “against” anyone. It is for the happiness of human society. Any effort to reframe and misrepresent that truth needs to be vigorously challenged. We need to govern our actions toward all people with the virtues of justice, charity, mercy, wisdom and prudence. But “tolerance,” if it leads us to live a lie or compromise away the truth about human relationships, is not a virtue. It is the opposite.

Third, all persons were created by a loving God and deserve the protection of the law. Society’s legitimate, preferential treatment of marriage should never become an excuse for prejudice. Extending legal and financial benefits to persons in different kinds of non-marital relationships can make sense, depending on the circumstances. But we need to proceed with clear thought regarding the consequences. It does little good to enshrine marriage in the Colorado state constitution, on the one hand, while we legally recognize other unions that compete with it for equality.

“Marriage” as a word has meaning because of its foundational role in our understanding of family and society. It’s much more than just another voluntary emotional relationship. If we remove, or even indirectly compromise, the central role and preferential treatment of marriage in our culture, we undermine both our families and the long-term health of our society.

Catholic Think Tank series at Notre Dame

From the Catholic News Agency:

"Students launch Catholic Think Tank series at Notre Dame"

The Catholic Think Tank of America Lecture Series, a student initiative at the University of Notre Dame, was launched yesterday with Honorable William Pryor, Jr., a U.S. Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The series is intended to bring direct discussion to students about religious and spiritual issues and their relation to practical areas of life. It will feature prominent Catholics from across the faith's spectrum, and non-Catholics, discussing aspects of spiritual life.

The second speaker in the series is Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit, Mich. He will speak on Catholicism and war Feb. 23 at 7:30 p.m.

Pryor spoke on the role of religion in the judiciary, which has become a greater issue with the recent nominations of Judges John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. He gave one address to Federalist Society at the Notre Dame Law School in the afternoon and another to the larger student community in the evening.
I'm with Oswald that the blasphemous Queer Film Days happening at ND should not occur, but the above event seems to me more appropriate.

As Roe Turns 33, Don't Forget Pro-Life Laws Lower Abortions

Interesting piece from Rebecca Hagelin on a Heritage Foundation study (a 2004 Heritage Foundation study with similar results can be found here) that shows pro-life laws enacted at the state level having an affect on reduced abortion rates. Parental-notification laws, partial-birth abortion bans and informed-consent laws are making a difference.

Our liberal friends like to point out that much of the reduction occurred during President Clinton's watch and he deserves much credit for the economic expansion which helped poor women in keeping and raising their babies. Likewise we hear that contraception is the key to reducing abortion further. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the SCOTUS in its Casey decision noted that abortion was used as contraception. This is what we would have seen from a President Kerry and what we are likely to see from pro-abortion state legislatures.

Changing the makeup of the SCOTUS is but one attack on the culture of death. Electing pro-life state legislators who will enact pro-life laws is another. And this front of the war needs our attention.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

"Notre Dame Queer Film Days" Back Again This Year

Yes, according to this link, the "Notre Dame Queer Film Days" (NDQFD) Festival --in my opinion, a blasphemous combination of words (which is why I set it in quotes)--is back on track set for Feb. 9 through 11th. There it is. But never underestimate the reservoirs of denial that we humans have at our disposal. Here is the link to the sponsoring group. I wonder if campus visits for prospective students and their families are scheduled for the same dates?

Conservative Victory in Canada; Leftist Tilt in Latin America

You can read at this link about yesterday's Conservative Party victory in our northern neighbor. The new prime minister is a conservative economist from western Canada, Stephen Harper. His victory recalls the recent election of a Christian Democratic chancellor in Germany. Look next to France to see if the next French president is friendlier to American foreign policy. There's a good chance that he might be. And so in the "Atlantic" community of Canada and Western Europe it seems that conservative politicians are becoming successful again. Yet, when we look down south to Latin America, we see what appears to be a leftward tilt: the bombastic Chavez in Venezuela and the new Evo Morales in Bolivia are throwbacks to the sterile leftist populism that keeps Latin America in a leftist time warp. In Chile, a leftist was also recently elected president, although she appears to be much more moderate and rational than Chavez or Morales.

What accounts for the difference in these trends? The fact is that Latin America is still mired in deep poverty with distinctly racial overtones. The darker you are, the more likely you are to be stuck in deep poverty. That reality has not changed in centuries. And so Chavez and Morales are able to plug into that long simmering cauldron of understandable bitterness and resentment. And, as we all know, bitterness and resentment aren't good guides for building a better future. In a way, we see something similar here in the United States when you read reports of the racial division and acrimony surrounding the rebuilding of New Orleans. Recently, the New Orleans mayor made a racist comment about ensuring New Orleans comes back as a "chocolate city" that was worthy of the Latin American demagogue Hall of Fame. In Chile, the situation is dramatically different: the population is very homogeneous and so the politics tend to stay within a centrist band even when a leftist is elected.

And so is Latin America just lost in a labyrinth of demographic resentments and hatreds? Of course not. Innovative conservative leadership that emphasizes opportunity for those who happen to be of a darker hue is needed. An "opportunity" conservative with emotional or personal ties to the darker skinned masses of Latin America would be a boon. In a way, we are left with the "great man" or "great woman" theory of history. Some great man or woman with a radically different vision is needed to restart Latin American history. Soon, there will be no more Fidel Castro; and the depth of the leftist debacle in Cuba will finally be fully exposed. The buddy of Chavez and Morales will be exposed as a destructive nut case. And so, maybe, post-Castro Cuba will bring a new wind of change that will finally ideologically move Latin America from statism to opportunity for all, regardless of how you look. Cuba gave Latin America Castro as the apostle of the leftist dead-end. She may somehow give us the anti-Castro as the messenger of the real, practical opportunity for all that is sorely needed south of the border.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Judge Alito Apparently on the Way

Judge Sam Alito is apparently on the way to confirmation this week as the next justice on the Supreme Court. Don't get me wrong; I like our new Chief Justice John Roberts. But Alito's answers before the Senate Judiciary Committee were, in my opinion, better. Alito made clear that he did indeed have a conservative judicial philosophy that seeks to limit the habit of reading extraneous agendas into the text of the Constitution. I thought Roberts was a bit too eager to please. But we shall see.

What is the wider lesson? The lesson we all know: stick to principle, stick to the truth. In the seventies, the social collapse of the U.S. was reaching its apogee. Abortion became the next barrier to fall as the sexual revolution remade the culture. The sexual revolution was topped off with no less than murder. At that moment of the triumph of evil, many kept the faith. With the confirmation of Sam Alito, that persistent faith in the face of the triumphalistic evil of the seventies sees victory a lot closer.

Now is no time to rest and imitate the empty triumphalism of the evil of the seventies. But we should be aware of what we have been through and will go through. An old Protestant devotional has these words to say to all Christians:

God gets His greatest victories out of apparent defeats. Very often the enemy seems to triumph for a little, and God lets it be so; but then He comes in and upsets all the work of the enemy, overthrows the apparent victory, and as the Bible says, "turns the way of the wicked upside down." Thus He gives a great deal larger victory than we would have known if He had not allowed the enemy, seemingly, to triumph in the first place.

From
Streams in the Desert, compiled by Mrs. Charles E. Cowman, Jan. 18th entry (original publication 1925).

We continue in small and big things to advance the kingdom that will turn "the way of the wicked upside down" (cf. Ps. 146:9). We watch and pray, for we know that the ultimate victory is guaranteed. Here is a fuller excerpt from Psalm 146, in the old King James Version:

Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God;
. . . .
Which executeth judgment for the oppressed; which giveth food to the hungry. The Lord looseth the prisoners:
The Lord openeth the eyes of the blind: the Lord raiseth them that are bowed down: the Lord loveth the righteous:
The Lord preserveth the strangers; he relieveth the fatherless and widow: but
the way of the wicked he turneth upside down.


Psalm 146:5-9 (KJV; added emphasis).

Who are the innocent children killed in the millions since 1973 here within our own borders, but the righteous ones, spoken of in the Psalm, oppressed, hungry for the maternal embrace, imprisoned and bowed down in the legal regime of abortion by those willfully blind to their humanity, treated as undesirable and expendable strangers by society, fatherless, with mothers made into the widows of their own children?

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Election Perseverance

Fr Pavone, of Priests for Life, on the importance of the 2006 elections for the Culture of Life. Read it here.

Haleigh Poutre's Fight For Life

Last week, the Massachusetts Department of Social Services won court-ordered authority to remove the feeding tube of 11-year-old Haleigh Poutre. The MADSS is also under fire for failing to detect and act on signs that Haleigh was abused.

Now, it appears that Haleigh wants to live.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the roundup and extensive coverage.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Rep Chris Smith on President Bush’s approach to fighting AIDS in Africa

Rep Smith wrote a piece in National Review Online today about his recent trip to Uganda. There he witnessed the efforts of our government in combating AIDS. This is a must read in understanding the truth about the Bush administration's approach to fighting AIDS. Some highlights:

The U.S. government has a wide array of agencies on the ground managing HIV-AIDS program funds, including the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes for Health, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Program partners include the African Medical and Research Foundation, Children's AIDS Fund, the AIDS Information Center, and Catholic Relief Services. Only weeks after getting the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) approved, funds went into the field in Uganda and were paying for drug therapy, testing and counseling, and other approaches, including the promotion of abstinence and fidelity in committed relationships.

---

Before leaving for the visit to Uganda, we heard much criticism of its "ABC" program: Abstinence, Be Faithful, and Condoms. Many of those with whom we met are associated with faith-based organizations that promote only the abstinence and fidelity aspects of the ABC program. A representative of one such organization, the Uganda Youth Forum, said that the youth they serve say the organization is unique because it challenges the youth to be abstinent without compromise. Other organizations that include condom use in their education give only a passing reference to abstinence and fidelity that is then undermined by emphasis on the use of condoms. The representative added that sexually active youth are appreciative when someone finally tells them that they can change their behavior, and they do change their behavior.

I believe the Uganda PEPFAR program is a model for handling HIV-AIDS prevention and treatment using a comprehensive public-private partnership. It should be adopted by other developing nations around the world that are also fighting the AIDS pandemic. While PEPFAR does not replace the Global Fund as a means of fighting AIDS, it has been a more immediately successful way of saving lives. John Roberts and many other victims of AIDS are alive and well today because we decided to create a program that suits our views of how this threat should be addressed, and we got funds into the field quickly.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Ruling Isn't the Last Word on Assisted Suicide, Says USCCB Aide

From ZENIT:

WASHINGTON, D.C., JAN. 18, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The Supreme Court's decision regarding use of federally controlled drugs for assisted suicide doesn't settle the legal or moral issues involved in helping people kill themselves, says a bishops' aide.

Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of the U.S. bishops' Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, commented about the case whose decision was announced Tuesday.

Doerflinger explained that the Supreme Court has ruled only that "Congress has not delegated to the U.S. attorney general" the authority to prevent such misuse of federally controlled drugs.

"This by no means settles the legal or moral issues regarding assisted suicide," he said, "but only changes the forum in which these must be addressed."

The bishops' conference aide added in a statement: "In 1997 the Supreme Court unanimously upheld state laws against physician-assisted suicide as constitutionally valid.

"It has not yet addressed the question whether Oregon's law, allowing physician-assisted suicide for certain vulnerable persons, violates constitutional guarantees such as equal protection under law; one federal court answered that question in the affirmative, but its ruling was overturned on procedural grounds by an appellate court."

Doerflinger added: "As the Catholic bishops' conference of the United States said in 1991: 'To destroy the boundary between healing and killing would mark a radical departure from longstanding legal and medical traditions of our country, posing a threat of unforeseeable magnitude to vulnerable members of our society.'

"In no sense can assisting a suicide be called a 'legitimate medical purpose' for any drug. Congress now has an obligation to reaffirm that fact."


The majority of the court explicitly agreed that the federal government possesses the inherent power to prevent narcotics from being prescribed for assisted suicide, for example, by amending the federal Controlled Substances Act. This is what needs to be done.

Tom Marzen, a leading pro-life attorney who monitors end of life issues, said "an amendment to the Controlled Substances Act that specifically states that assistance in suicide is not a 'legitimate medical purpose.'"

A bill passed doing this passed the House in 1999. The Pain Relief Promotion Act (H.R. 2260), would have banned the use of federally controlled substances for assisted suicide and promoted pain relief, was approved 271-156. The bill was supported by 200 Republicans and 71 Democrats. It was opposed by 20 Republicans, 135 Democrats, and one independent. Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) introduced and actively worked for a companion bill, S. 1272. However, the Senate did not take up either H.R. 2260 or S. 1272 because of a threatened filibuster by opponents, led by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). Will the House and Senate bring up similar legislation again? Let us hope so and pray it passes this time.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Right to Life Act

A little noticed bill was introduced last session. Introduced in the House by Congressman Duncan Hunter, it is known as the Right to Life Act. Essentially, it would end abortion by using the Constitution instead of amending it. A simple majority vote is all that is needed to pass the bill as opposed to the two-thirds required to add a Constitutional amendment. The SCOTUS in the Roe v. Wade ruling admitted if there was "a suggestion of personhood...established, the appellant's case [i.e. "Roe" who sought the abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed by the [14th] Amendment." This is exactly what the Right to Life Act would do.

I have added the Right to Life Act to the Catholics in Congress Report. Currently there are 75 sponsors, 19 of whom are Catholic. The text of the bill can be found here.

We must be mindful that we are all made in the image of God and that all life is sacred, and thus must be protected. The Church has alwasy taught that abortion is a grave evil. The Right to Life Act is needed here in the United States. Contact your Congressmen to let them know they should sponsor this legislation. And ask your Senators to introduce similar legislation in the Senate.

Monday, January 16, 2006

Remembering Martin Luther King, Jr.


  • Remembering Martin Luther King Jr., by Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus. Personal memories of the civil rights leader interspersed with a critical review of an autobiography of Dr. King by Marshall Frady. First Things 26. Oct. 2002.
  • The Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University.
  • There is no understanding Dr. King without recognizing the deep Christian faith which fueled his campaign for civil rights. Those interested will certainly appreciate Strength To Love, a fine collection of his best sermons.
  • On Jacques Maritain - from the papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.
  • From an interview with Alveda King, neice of Dr. King (Illinois Leader January 15, 2004):
    "I can remember the days when Jesse Jackson was pro-life, and he went across the country calling abortion genocide. I don't understand how he took that turn or why. I personally believe that any leader, especially African-American leaders -- and I can say this because I'm African-American -- should be compelled to remember the days of slavery and to remember their responsibility toward the children we call the unborn. They are real people too, and they actually have civil rights."
    Check out her pro-life website (thanks Fr. Sistare).

    Speaking of which, a family member of Albertus Minimus needs your prayers.

Alito and the Catholics

Interesting article in the Weekly Standard from First Things contributing editor Joseph Bottum about the decline of the Catholic Church in America as institution and the rise of its ideas. Some highlights:

With some exceptions (such as Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver and Francis Cardinal George of Chicago--neither, it is worth noting, implicated in the cover-up of the priest scandals), the vast majority of America's bishops have joined Cardinal Egan in full retreat from public engagement.

And that leaves--well, who is there now to speak for American Catholics? As their ethnic unity dissipated, Catholics have had considerably less need for someone to represent them, in the old, tribal sense of the word. But at the same time, the vacuum in public discourse allows Catholicism to act as a marker of intellectual depth about public philosophy--for good or for ill, depending on your view of the various issues on which it impinges, but always somehow a symbol of something that must be taken seriously.

So, President Bush, reeling from the rejection by conservatives of a nominee perceived as unserious, tossed aside all the diversity qualifications he had claimed for Harriet Miers and picked yet another Catholic for the Supreme Court. It doesn't always prove true, of course (as the existence of pro-abortion Catholic politicians demonstrates), but the American public seems to take serious Catholicism as an immediate sign of moral attention on intellectual topics like the law. Who now speaks for American Catholicism? A good example might be someone like Samuel A. Alito Jr.

NOT THAT ALITO is much of a spokesman for his coreligionists. He's never been a professional Catholic, one of those commentators who make their living off the fact of their faith. Nor has anyone claimed that his earlier jobs at the Justice Department and on the federal bench were obtained through some Catholic quota, the way the Supreme Court for decades had what used to be called the "Catholic seat." According to a report on Beliefnet.com, Alito sometimes attends Mass at St. Aloysius in Caldwell, New Jersey, a church very traditional in both its theology and its sacramental practice. But he's also a registered parishioner at Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament in neighboring Roseland, which is, by all accounts, a fairly typical liberal suburban church, and the parish where his wife teaches catechism to the local children. Nothing in Alito's record suggests a desire or even a willingness to stand as the token Catholic representative for much of anything.

Which, in its way, makes him even more representative. In 2004, during the second presidential debate, John Kerry boasted that he used to be an altar boy, as indeed he did. It was a naked appeal to the old style of the Catholic vote: the ethnic unity that for more than a century delivered the votes of blue-collar urban America to the Democrats. In the end, George Bush won a good majority of Catholic votes--as might have been predicted when Kerry went immediately from mentioning his boyhood Catholicism to explaining why he supported public funding for abortions. Fifty years earlier, Bush's appeal to shared ideas of Catholicism would have been trounced by Kerry's appeal to shared membership in the Catholic Church.

Of course, 50 years earlier, Kerry would have shared the ideas of Catholicism, too. The meeting of evangelicals and Catholics in the opened center of American public discourse was probably bound to produce somebody like President Bush, an evangelical who couched his second inaugural address almost entirely in the language of natural law. But what's particularly interesting is that this somebody is a Republican--for by all rights, it should have been a Democrat. For that matter, so should most of the Catholics that Republican presidents have put on the bench in recent years. Perhaps the privileged upbringing of the new chief justice, John Roberts, would have made him a Catholic Republican anyway (there were occasionally such rare beasts), but Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas would almost certainly be Democrats, if there were left any place for their kind of Catholic thought in the Democratic party.

---

IN THE SUMMER of 2003, the conservative Committee for Justice, upset over the stalled nomination of William Pryor to the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ran advertisements accusing the Democrats of imposing a "No Catholics Need Apply" rule on potential federal judges. When the antireligious advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State issued its predictable attacks on John Roberts and Samuel Alito as raging Catholic theocrats determined to tear down the wall between church and state, the Catholic League's Bill Donohue responded with the same rhetoric of a litmus test designed to keep Catholics off the courts.

In one sense, such claims are palpable nonsense: Among the Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, and Richard Durbin are just as officially Catholic as Samuel Alito, the nominee they spent four days grilling last week. Of course, those same senators are manifestly not believers in the coherent system of Catholic thought in the American context that a set of (mostly) conservative theorists have developed in the 33 years since Roe v. Wade was handed down. The Committee for Justice simply got the phrasing wrong. In truth, for the Democrats, Catholics are more than welcome. It's Catholicism that's right out the window.

That kind of Catholicism is not, by any means, the same thing as sincere Catholic belief. One doesn't have to accept the natural-law theories of, say, Princeton's Robert George to be a faithful Catholic--or the international-law theses of Harvard's Mary Ann Glendon, or the just-war accounts of George Weigel, or the Christian capitalism of Michael Novak, or the strong claims of religious America in magazines like First Things. Plenty of serious and thoughtful Catholics stand, on ecclesial and theological matters, far to the right of the dominant intellectual form of American Catholicism, and plenty stand far to the left.

---

George W. Bush, as the candidate who opposed Roe v. Wade, may have captured the vote of Catholics as a whole, but John Kerry, the candidate in favor of legalized abortion, won all the cardinals' home towns. (Ouch!)

The current fear about Catholics cannot be drawn from the Church's direct political effect, for that well has gone bone dry. In New York City politics, the rectory of St. Patrick's Cathedral was once called "the Powerhouse," but no one has used the name in a generation. Not a single prominent pro-abortion Catholic politician has been successfully brought to heel by the bishops in decades... (Ouch again!)

Friday, January 13, 2006

Pope Assails Legal Status for Non-marital Unions

VATICAN CITY, JAN. 12, 2006 (Zenit.org) - Benedict XVI says it is a grave error to give legal status to unions other than marriage, because that clouds the functions of the family.

At the same time, the Pope appealed today for concrete assistance to young couples so that they can form families.

The Holy Father delivered his message at his traditional new-year meeting with local civil officials. On hand were Piero Marrazzo, president of the Lazio region; Walter Veltroni, mayor of Rome; and Enrico Gasbarra, president of the Province of Rome.

The papal intervention took place at a time when some political groups have proposed the introduction in Italy of the Civil Pact of Solidarity, or PACs, a type of juridical recognition of de facto couples, including homosexuals.

The Bishop of Rome told the politicians that marriage as an institution "is not an undue interference of society or authority, an imposition from outside; on the contrary, it is an intrinsic exigency of the pact of conjugal love."

"It is not a question of peculiar norms of Catholic morality, but of elementary truths that affect our common humanity," he said. "It is essential to respect them for the good of the individual and of society."

Call for aid

According to Benedict XVI, on one hand, "particularly opportune are all the measures that can serve as support to young couples to form a family and to the family itself in the procreation of children. In this connection, problems come to mind spontaneously such as the cost of homes, kindergartens,
and schools for small children."


On the other hand, "it is a grave error to cloud the value and functions of the legitimate family, founded on marriage, attributing to other forms of union improper juridical recognition, of which there does not exist, in reality, any effective social exigency," the Pope added.

The Holy Father also appealed for aid for "pregnant women who are in conditions of difficulty" and the avoidance of "drugs that conceal, in a certain sense, the seriousness of abortion, as an option against life."

On Dec. 9 the Supreme Health Council of Italy gave its approval to the use of the RU-486 abortion pill, imposing, however, a series of cautionary measures because of its risks to women.

Make no mistake, opposition to SSM and abortion are a priority for the Holy Father and should be for all Catholics.

Samuel Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings - A Roundup

Top blogs worth following for 'blow-by-blow' coverage of the hearings of Judge Samuel Alito: Bench Memos (National Review); Confirm Them; Professor Bainbridge and Michelle Malkin.

A Roundup - (Mostly Humorous) Highlights and coverage . . .

  • Wendy Long (Bench Memos) on Ted Kennedy's Elitist Sexist Club:
    Let me get this straight: Sam Alito, who worked hard in New Jersey public schools, got into Princeton on his own merits, took his meals in the coed dining hall and had nothing to do with the all-male Princeton eating clubs, is getting guff from Ted Kennedy, Boston elitist who got into (and stayed into) Harvard on, um, other people's merits, and who just a few months ago reconfirmed his membership in the Owl Club, which according to the Washington Times has “long been reviled on campus as sexist and elitist, and in 1984, was booted from the university for violating federal anti-discrimination laws.”
  • Senator Kennedy badgers the witness over Vanguard. For more about this case, see "Kennedy vs. Alito by Proxy", Edward Whelan. National Review Online Nov. 15, 2005.

  • Wendy Long (Bench Memos) on Dem Disrespect:
    I'm sitting in the hearing room, in back of an impressive and historic panel of federal Circuit Court of Appeals judges who have served with Judge Alito. . . . The only Democrat Senators who bothered to stay on the dais are Leahy and Feinstein. Almost all the Republicans are there. Most notably, Senator Chuck Schumer got up and left right before the judges began to speak. Not only do they not care about the Judges' testimony, apparently, they don't even care about the disrespect for these judges that the bench of empty seats on the Democrat side bespeaks.
    More from Michelle Malkin, on "a woman the Dems don't want to hear": U.S. Appeals Court Judge (and Clinton apointee) Maryanne Trump Barry.

  • "I take umbrage at your telling me what I received. I don't mind your telling me what you mailed. But there's a big difference between what's mailed and what's received. And you know that." -- Sen. Arlen Specter and Sen. Kennedy had a little spat, or clash of the windbags, as Michelle Malkin puts it. Check out the video, it's very amusing.

  • Jonathan Adler Bench Memos) on Administrative Law:
    Senator Kennedy's questioning this morning about the unitary executive and administrative agencies reveals a profound misunderstanding of bedrock principles of administrative law, including the difference between agencies that are a part of the executive (such as the EPA, FWS, APHIS, etc.) and independent agencies (FTC, CPSC, FCC, Federal Reserve). Judge Alito patiently tried to explain this to him, to no avail. As it happens, I'm in the midst of grading my students' administrative law exams. Based upon his comments this morning, Senator Kennedy would easily hold down the bottom of the curve.
  • Reportedly the Senators' bullying attempt to paint Alito as a racist and a sexist provoked his wife to leave the room in tears -- blogger Captain's Quarters responds:
    The smear tactics trotted out to derail the nomination of Judge Alito over the past few weeks had hit their nadir when Ted Kennedy demanded a subpoena for the William Rusher papers to determine whether the National Review publisher may have written something about CAP and Alito. Never mind that this was an entirely off-subject line of questioning from the beginning; Alito's own hiring record proved that he has no animus towards equal opportunity for women or minorities, and the Prospect itself had a woman (Laura Ingraham) and a minority (Dinesh D'Souza) as its editors in chief. Never mind that Alito has had decades of dedicated public service with an impeccable record of excellence, including fifteen years on the appellate court. Never mind that he has not been called before Congress to defend himself on charges but for confirmation to move up to the Supreme Court by invitation of the President.

    When what should be a simple confirmation process reduces family members to tears, it shows that one party has degenerated into a secular Inquisition. And let me remind you that it was this party that, on more than one occasion, elected a former Klansman to the post of Majority Leader -- a man who as recently as three years ago defended the use of the "n-word".

    In fact, most of the Senators from that caucus are responsible for that election of Byrd to his leadership posts.

    I would assume that under their definition, Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, and perhaps Schumer are all racists and genocidists. They're certainly tied much closer to those beliefs than Samuel Alito, and I invite them to explain the difference to the American people.

  • Democrats suspicious of Alito's views on Roe v. Wade? -- Timothy P. Carney is compiling list of Pro-choice Criticisms of Roe.

  • But Enough About You, Judge; Let's Hear What I Have to Say, by Elizabeth Bumiller. New York Times January 11, 2006:
    "I understand, Judge, I am the only one standing between you and lunch, so I'll try to make this painless," he began, with some promise.

    Mr. Biden then dived into a soliloquy on Judge Alito's failure to recuse himself from cases involving the Vanguard mutual fund company, which managed the judge's investments. After 2 minutes 50 seconds - short for the senator - Mr. Biden did appear to veer toward a question, but abandoned it to cite Judge Alito's membership in a conservative Princeton alumni group. Mr. Biden discoursed on that for a moment, then interrupted himself with an aside about his son who "ended up going to that other university, the University of Pennsylvania."

    Judge Alito, who had been sitting without expression through Mr. Biden's musings, interrupted the senator midword, got out three sentences, then settled in for nearly 26 minutes more of Mr. Biden, with the senator doing most of the talking. With less than a minute to spare, Mr. Biden concluded, thanked Judge Alito for "being responsive," then said to Mr. Specter that "I want to note that for maybe the first time in history, Biden is 40 seconds under his time."

  • Michael Novak on the Alito Hearings:
    How old and out-of-date and empty of real ideas — not to say connection to reality — Kennedy, Biden, Leahy, Durbin, and, above all, Schumer seemed. They know they have to do what they are doing, but they know their efforts are for nothing, and their words are making hollow echoes. Even their indignation seems forced and falls swiftly flat.

    The pompous rhetorical indignation of Kennedy has become merely pathetic. He was once a heroic figure, but he now seems like the lion of Alice in Wonderland — threadbare, tame, and roaring every so often only out of nostalgic habit. Chuck Schumer drones on like a little spoiled boy who becomes a schoolyard bully just by his superior tone of voice, boring in upon others, coercing them verbally, trying to make them feel as worthless as in his mind they are.

    It is painful to watch the ruin of a great party. A great party has come to this.

    And most of it happened because of commitment to a policy that cannot be maintained without lies and malicious euphemisms. That is, the killing of innocents in what is supposed to be the most welcoming, safest place on earth — a mother's womb.

  • Richard Reeb (blogging for Claremont Review's The Remedy) observed Senator Brownback's taking on two sacred cows: "super (dooper?) precedents" and Roe v. Wade, in his questioning of Alito.

  • Joe Biden, Time Traveler (via Confirm Them).

  • Scorecard: Judge Samuel A. Alito Answered A Higher Percentage (95%) Of Questions On His Opening Day Of Questioning Than Justices John Roberts (89%) Or Ruth Bader Ginsburg (79%) Did During Their Full Confirmation Hearings.

  • Professor Bainbridge comes to an Alito Epiphany:
    After catching up on the first day of the Alito hearings, one conclusion seems inescapable; namely, that Alito is more machine now than man; twisted and evil. He yearns to take liberals, women, minorities, gays, small children, and puppies to the Dune Sea, and cast them into the pit of Carkoon, the nesting place of the all-powerful Sarlaac, in whose belly they will find a new definition of pain and suffering as they are slowly digested over a thousand years. (Or maybe it's the slavering maw of Cthulhu the Great. I zoned out for awhile during Durbin's opening remarks.)

Transcripts

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Alito would give U.S. high court Catholic majority

From Reuters:

Roman Catholics would be the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time if Samuel Alito is confirmed -- a historically remarkable prospect in a country where "papists" were once taught in state schools that their faith was a lie.

But so far the development has passed for little more than a curiosity, reflecting how politics trumps religion when it comes to appointments to America's highest court, experts say.

Alito and the Catholics already on the court -- John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- appear to share many conservative views held by evangelical Protestants, a group historically suspicious of Rome and its hierarchical church.

The prospect of a Catholic court majority "is a credit to the evolution of America," said Julie Fenster, co-author of "Parish Priest," a book recently published by William Morrow about the Catholic priest who founded the Knights of Columbus.

"I don't think Catholics here realise how much their antecedents had to take on the chin in terms of job discrimination, public jeering -- in some towns it was hard to walk down the street without being shouted at," she said.

"And in the (public) schools you had to accept that your children would be taught from textbooks that said Catholicism was wrong," Fenster said.

CONSTITUTION OR POPE?

Historically, many Americans questioned whether Roman Catholics could uphold the U.S. constitution, or whether they were obligated to follow the dictates of the Pope while in office. There has been only one Roman Catholic U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, elected in 1960.

But evangelical Protestants seem so far to be embracing Alito, unlike President George W. Bush's last court nominee, Harriet Miers.

"Look at how the evangelical right responded to one of its own when it came to Harriet Miers," said Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

Bush nominated Miers, a fellow conservative Christian, last year but she withdrew under fierce attack from conservatives who questioned her credentials and commitment to conservative ideology.

"It just shows you how it's mostly about ideology and not about religion," added Walker, whose Washington-based coalition of 14 Baptist bodies works for religious liberty causes.

"I think it's good that not a lot is being made of it. Generally religion is not a very good predictor of how one will decide cases," he added, noting that former justice William Brennan, also a Catholic, was a liberal.

Of the remaining justices, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Ginsburg are Jewish, David Souter is Episcopalian and John Paul Stevens is Protestant.

"During much of 20th Century there was a Catholic seat and a Jewish seat (on the court). Anything but one Catholic would have created a lot of consternation among Protestants and evangelicals," said Martin Flaherty, a Fordham Law School professor who once clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Byron White.

REPRESENT THE COUNTRY

Alito and the others appear to have far more things in common than differences, he said.

"On some level the court should be very roughly representative of the country. If you have not just a majority but (one) from a certain wing of a denomination you wonder if the court does represent the country," he added.

About one in four Americans say they are Roman Catholic, making the church by far the largest single U.S. denomination. There is no monolithic political philosophy marking the faith, despite the church's strong official opposition to abortion, a position widely shared by conservative evangelical Christians.

About 52 percent of Americans say they are Protestants, although mainline churches are losing members as the evangelical movement grows. Less than 2 percent of the U.S. population is Jewish.

One anomaly is that 20 percent of U.S. Catholics are Hispanic, yet none of the five who would be on the court is, noted Tom Smith, director of the General Social Survey at the National Opinion Research Centre in Chicago.

Religion "has pretty much become passe" as an issue, he suggested, except to the degree that it becomes a hot potato in nearly every U.S. presidential campaign when candidates define their stand on abortion.

Opposition to Alito has come from groups worried that the court would eliminate the right to abortion. Legal Momentum, a woman's legal rights group, said it feared putting Alito on the court would be "adversarial to a woman's right to choose."

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Alito's Opening Statement: You Judge

Below, for your consideration, is the fine opening statement by Judge Alito yesterday as his Senate confirmation hearings began. In my own parish, we have been praying regularly in our Mass petitions for the confirmation of a pro-life Supreme Court justice. I believe Alito is that man. In addition, everything that I have read about him paints the picture of an extremely intelligent but humble and quiet man. That is also quite important. The profession I was trained in, the law, in my opinion, disproportionately attracts what I call "hustlers," that is, mediocre individuals with an inordinate desire for self-aggrandizement. So it is a delight to see someone so different in the spotlight: someone both of dazzling intellect and of even more dazzling, because so much more significant, humility. Here is his statement with my additions in brackets and with bold emphasis added:

SAMUEL ALITO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am deeply honored to appear before you. I’m deeply honored to have been nominated for a position on the Supreme Court and I am humbled to have been nominated for the seat that is now held by Justice O’Connor. Justice O’Connor has been a pioneer and her dedicated service on the Supreme Court will never be forgotten and the people of the country certainly owe her a great debt for the service that she has provided.

I’m very thankful to the president for nominating me and I’m also thankful to the members of this committee and many other senators who took time from their busy schedules to meet with me. That was a great honor for me and I appreciate all of the courtesies that were extended to me during those visits. And I want to thank Senator Lautenberg and Governor Whitman [New Jersey officials because Alito is from New Jersey] for coming here today and for their kind introductions.

During the previous weeks an old story about a lawyer who argued a case before the Supreme Court has come to my mind and I thought I might begin this afternoon by sharing that story. The story goes as follows: This was a lawyer who had never argued a case before the court before and when the argument began one of the justices said, How did you get here, meaning how had his case worked its way up through the court system. But the lawyer was rather nervous and he took the question literally and he said — and this was some years ago — he said, I came here on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. This story has come to my mind in recent weeks because I have often asked myself how in the world did I get here? And I want to try to answer that today and not by saying that I came here on I-95 or on Amtrak.


I am who I am in the first place because of my parents and because of the things that they taught me. And I know from my own experience as a parent that parents probably teach most powerfully not through their words but through their deeds. And my parents taught me through the stories of their lives, and I don’t take any credit for the things that they did or the things that they experienced, but they made a great impression on me.


My father was brought to this country as an infant. He lost his mother as a teenager. He grew up in poverty. Although he graduated at the top of his high school class, he had no money for college and he was set to work in a factory, but at the last minute a kind person in the Trenton area arranged from him to receive a $50 scholarship, and that was enough in those days for him to pay the tuition at a local college and buy one used suit. And that made the difference between his working in a factory and going to college. After he graduated from college, in 1935 in the midst of the Depression, he found that teaching jobs for Italian-Americans were not easy to come by and he had to find other work for a while. But eventually he became a teacher and he served in the Pacific during World War II and he worked, as has been mentioned, for many years in a nonpartisan position for the New Jersey Legislature, which was an institution that he revered. His story is a story that is typical of a lot of Americans, both back in his day and here, and today. And it is a story, as far as I can see it, about the opportunities that our country offers and also about the need for fairness and about hard work and perseverance and that power of a small good deed.

My mother is a first-generation American. Her father worked in the Roebling Steel Mill in Trenton, N.J. Her mother came from a culture in which women generally didn’t even leave the house alone, and yet my mother became the first person in her family to get a college degree. She worked for more than a decade before marrying. She went to New York City to get a master’s degree. And she continued to work as a teacher and a principal until she was forced to retire. And both she and my father instilled in my sister and me a deep love of learning.

I got here, in part, because of the community in which I grew up. It was a warm but definitely an unpretentious down-to-earth community. Most of the adults in the neighborhood were not college graduates. I attended the public schools. In my spare time I played baseball and other sports with my friends. And I have happy memories and strong memories of those days, and good memories of the good sense and the decency of my friends and my neighbors.

And after I graduated from high school, I went a full 12 miles down the road — but really to a different world — when I entered Princeton University. A generation earlier I think that somebody from my background probably would not have felt fully comfortable at a college like Princeton, but by the time I graduated from high school things had changed. And this was a time of great intellectual excitement for me, both college and law school opened up new worlds of ideas. But this was back in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. It was a time of turmoil at colleges and universities, and I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly and I couldn’t help making a contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community. I’m here, in part, because of my experiences as a lawyer. I had the good fortune to begin my legal career as a law clerk for a judge who really epitomized open-mindedness and fairness. He read the record in detail on every single case that came before me. He insisted on scrupulously following precedents, both the precedents of the Supreme Court and the decisions of his own court, the Third Circuit. He taught all of his law clerks that every case has to be decided on an individual basis, and he really didn’t have much use for any grand theories. After my clerkship finished, I worked for more than a decade as an attorney in the Department of Justice and I can still remember the day, as an assistant U.S. attorney, when I stood up in court for the first time and I proudly said, My name is Samuel Alito and I represent the United States in this court. It was a great honor for me to have the United States as my client during all of those years. I have been shaped by the experiences of the people who are closest to me; by the things I’ve learned from Martha; by my hopes and my concerns for my children, Philip and Laura; by the experiences of members of my family, who are getting older; by my sister’s experiences as a trial lawyer in a profession that has traditionally been dominated by men. And, of course, I’ve been shaped for the last 15 years by my experiences as a judge of the Court of Appeals. During that time, I have sat on thousands of cases. Somebody mentioned the exact figure this morning. I don’t know what the exact figure is but it is way up in the thousands. And I have written hundreds of opinions. And the members of this committee and the members of their staff who have had the job of reviewing all of those opinions really have my sympathy. I think that may have constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

I’ve learned a lot during my years on the Third Circuit, particularly, I think, about the way in which a judge should go about the work of judging. I’ve learned by doing, by sitting on all of these cases, and I think I’ve also learned from the examples of some really remarkable colleagues. When I became a judge, I stopped being a practicing attorney. And that was a big change in role. The role of a practicing attorney is to achieve a desirable result for the client in the particular case at hand. But a judge can’t think that way. A judge can’t have any agenda. A judge can’t have any preferred outcome in any particular case and a judge certainly doesn’t have a client. The judge’s only obligation, and it’s a solemn obligation, is to the rule of law. And what that means is that in every single case the judge has to do what the law requires.

Good judges develop certain habits of mind. One of those habits of mind is the habit of delaying reaching conclusions until everything has been considered. Good judges are always open to the possibility of changing their minds, based on the next brief that they read or the next argument that’s made by an attorney, who’s appearing before them, or a comment that is made by a colleague during the conference on the case when the judges privately discuss the case.

It’s been a great honor for me to spend my career in public service. It has been a particular honor for me to serve on the Court of Appeals for these past 15 years because it has given me the opportunity to use whatever talent I have to serve my country by upholding the rule of law. And there is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law and no person in this country is beneath the law.

Fifteen years ago, when I was sworn in as a judge of the Court of Appeals, I took an oath. I put my hand on the Bible and I swore that I would administer justice without respect to persons, that I would do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I would carry out my duties under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. And that is what I have tried to do, to the very best of my ability, for the past 15 years. And if I am confirmed, I pledge to you that that is what I would do on the Supreme Court. Thank you.

Monday, January 09, 2006

What's the Catholic[?] governor of Wisconsin been up to?

Wisconsin Governor Vetoes Bill to Inform Women of Baby's Abortion Pain

Madison, WI (LifeNews.com) -- Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle vetoed legislation on Friday that would inform women about the pain their baby would feel during an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Pro-life groups were disappointed by the veto because the information would be something women wouldn't ordinarily receive from an abortion business. Despite testimony from leading experts in the field, Doyle claimed no proof exists that unborn children feel pain. He said the state legislature should not be allowed to make scientific decisions. Bob Delaporte, a spokesman for Republican Assembly Speaker John Gard told the Associated Press Doyle was guilty of 'ignoring the science on this one.'' Several experts in embryology testified in the state legislature that unborn children have the capacity to feel pain and several told lawmakers that's the case. They include Steven Calvin, perinatologist at the University of Minnesota; Robert J. White, professor of neurosurgery at Case Western University; and Paul Ranalli, neurologist at the University of Toronto. TAKE ACTION: Use the following web site to contact Governor Doyle and tell him he made a wrong decision to veto this bill to protect unborn children and provide women with information they need to make better pregnancy choices: http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us. Read the complete story. "

A law clerk's view of Alito

A law clerk's view of Alito, by Conor Dugan. The Grand Rapids Press. *Those who read Amy Welborn's blog might recognize Conor's name from her comments box).

. . . One of the primary lessons I learned from Judge Alito was about what a judge is and is not in our constitutional system. Much popular thinking about the judicial function holds that the judiciary is just another extension of politics. In this view, a judge ought to attempt to sort out political disputes and to bring to bear his or her personal policy preferences on the law.

. . . Judge Alito taught me that the starting point in any case must be what the law requires. Judge Alito showed me and my fellow clerks that a judge is to put personal ideology aside and ascertain the meaning of the law -- not the meaning he or she wants. A judge has a quite limited role and a solemn responsibility to live up to that role.

As Judge Alito once said, "Most of the labels people use to talk about judges, and the way judges decide (cases), aren't too descriptive. Judges should be judges. They shouldn't be legislators, they shouldn't be administrators."

Daily, I saw Judge Alito working to be a judge -- not a legislator or an administrator. To do this, he worked to understand what the relevant precedents, statutory law, and/or constitutional text required in a given case.

JudgeAlito.Com

Saturday, January 07, 2006

Catholics & Homosexuals

In the current atmosphere, the social liberals view Catholics as homophobic as confirmed by the recent decision to bar homosexuals from the ordained priesthood. On the one hand, the pro-gay liberals will never be satisfied until the Catholic Church accepts homosexual acts as legitimate expressions of love. On the other hand, we as Catholics should not let pro-gay liberals set the template for the homosexual issue.

The Catholic template for the homosexual issue is quite different from the caricature fostered by the pro-gay lobby. The Church teaches that the inclination arising from deep-seated homosexual tendences is an objective disorder (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], section 2358). Some will immediately object that what is natural for many individuals cannot be a disorder. But the Church does not base its teaching on the premise that homosexuality is something voluntarily chosen. In fact, the Church admits that the causes of homosexuality remain "largely unexplained" (CCC, 2357). So, if tomorrow, some scientist discovers a genetic basis for homosexuality, the basis of what the Church teaches is unaffected. Homosexuality would then be one among many other genetic disorders in a world shot through with imperfection.

But why is this inclination disordered? The inclination tends toward acts that are gravely evil because they "close the sexual act to the gift of life" (CCC, 2357). This teaching is not unfairly discriminatory because the Catholic Church teaches that even heterosexual acts closed to the gift of life are gravely evil. That is why Christian communities that have abandoned the traditional Christian teaching against contraception find themselves either embracing the gay agenda or vulnerable to logical attack.

The other reason for the grave depravity of homosexual acts is that they "do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity" (CCC, 2357). God made male and female for the fullest intimacy possible (which includes sexual intimacy), not to dwell in parallel universes. Again, this teaching is not discriminatory. The full intimacy, including sexual intimacy, intended by God for male and female requires the complete mutual self-gift found in marriage. That is why fornication among heterosexuals is also gravely evil. Again, those who no longer view fornication as gravely evil will have a hard time logically resisting the gay agenda.

And so to present the Catholic Church as unjustly discriminatory or as homophobic misses the point. The Church has a coherent and logical theology of the body that proposes to all persons that sexual intimacy is for the full mutual and complementary self-gift of marriage open to new life. That teaching is a challenge to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

But someone can then say that at least chaste heterosexuals have the ability to express their sexual drive in a marriage open to life, while homosexuals do not in the Catholic scheme of things. Here, the celibacy that has been traditional in the Catholic Church shows that there is no unjust discrimination involved. The Church has pointed to the celibate lifestyle as both doable and healthy. Unlike current society, the Church does not view abstaining from sexual acts as necessarily harmful in any way as part of a celibate lifestyle. In fact, the Church views celibacy as an eschatological sign of the full freedom to be available fully to all that will be part of a new earth and a new heaven where there will be no marriage.

At this point, some will then question why bar homosexuals from the ordained celibate priesthood. I have dealt in detail with this particular question in a prior post (11/26/05). What I will say here, solely on a practical level, is that events have conclusively shown that deep-seated homosexual tendencies among ordained priests have created scandal and harm of an immense magnitude and have fostered an image of the ordained priesthood as a "gay profession." So, without addressing here the theological reasons for the ban, the prohibition is a matter of urgent prudence based on undeniable facts. Again, this Catholic stance is not a matter of unjust discrimination.

But what happens to the homosexual struggling to be chaste with no approved sexual outlet? What happens to the heterosexual who is unmarried with no approved sexual outlet? What happens to the married couple that cannot use convenient contraceptives? Now, here comes what I believe is the real scandal that the Church presents to today's culture. Here comes what is really the great offense that sparks Catholic bashing by both heterosexuals and homosexuals: take our difficulties and unite them "to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross" (CCC, 2358). Yes, we all pull back from the Cross, even though Jesus promises that his yoke is easy and his burden light (Mt 11:30). In the end, we do not want to hear that conversion in the power of the Holy Spirit is the answer. But that is the scandalous answer for all of us regardless of our tendencies or inclinations. That's where the Church is coming from: the Good News that we are promised the power to bear any cross, not just the cross but the power with the cross. It is a challenge to our common tendency to control and organize our lives our way. But there it is. It is a challenge far different from the caricature of the Church that you will find in the media which cannot comprehend that anyone takes that promise of real power seriously.