Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protestors

The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.

Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the 7th Circuit had asked a trial judge to determine whether a nationwide injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence absent a connection with robbery or extortion

The 8-0 decision ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 decision by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress did not intend to create "a freestanding physical violence offense" in the federal extortion law known as the Hobbs Act.

Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with anti-abortion groups in arguing that similar lawsuits and injunctions could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions.

Source: Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protesters, by Tony Lacy. Associated Press.

Liberty, Order and Tradition has a good roundup on the ruling, with text of the supreme court's decision, transcript of the oral argument, and some analysis from law professor Stephen Bainbridge.

Bishop Robert Vasa on Heresy and 'Judgementalism'

Christ is reassuring and humble, as well as powerful, mighty The Catholic Sentinel Feb. 17, 2006:

We live in an age which places a very strong emphasis on tolerance, mutuality, and acceptance. I have heard repeatedly over the years that “Jesus never judged, condemned or excluded anyone.” I wonder if Peter would agree as the words of Jesus, “Get behind me you Satan,” rang in his ears. I wonder if the Scribes and the Pharisees would agree as they rankled at being called whitened sepulchers or broods of vipers. I wonder if those who heard Jesus say, “Whoever leads one of these little ones astray, it would be better if he had a millstone tied around his neck and be cast into the sea,” nodded approval and said, “He is so tolerant and accepting.” . . .

In our “compromising age” we are loath to name something too strongly. If we do, we are accused of harshness, judgmentalism, perhaps arrogance, certainly intolerance and possibly pharisaism. While it is always necessary to speak the truth with love, the Church also believes and teaches that it is also necessary to speak the truth with strength. It is necessary to defend truth and not be too quick to rationalize, justify or excuse misleading teachings or teachers. There is a point at which passive “tolerance” allows misleading teachings to be spread and propagated, thus confusing or even misleading the faithful about the truths of the Church. There is a very strong word, which still exists in our Church, which most of us are too “gentle” to use. The word is “heresy.” We perhaps think that heresy is a thing of the past. We think perhaps of the Arian heresy or the Pelagian heresy or the Manichaen heresy. We might even maintain that there are no longer any heretics because that conjures up images of inquisitions and burnings at the stake. I do not, in any way, seek to validate or justify any kind of “vigilante” theology, but we do need strong words to combat erroneous and fallacious teaching. . . .

There is some question, for instance, about whether those who openly profess to be “pro-choice” are, in fact, holding to a heretical position. The teaching of the Church in the area of life is clear and unequivocal. Human life must be respected and protected from conception to natural death. Those who maintain that any and all decisions about the disposition of pre-born human beings are exclusively the right of the mother or the parents, at least implicitly, reject the clear and consistent teaching of the Church.

Fr. Stanley Jaki on Evolution

Recently, Fr. Stanley Jaki, a Catholic priest and philosopher of science, made an appearance at Detroit's Sacred Heart Major Seminary. I missed his lecture due to its early time. After reading his short (32 page) pamphlet on evolution, I could kick myself for missing his lecture! Reading his pamphlet--or rather little book, because it contains far more sense than many a magnum opus by others, I experienced again the thrill of reading someone who can really light up one's mind.

Here is a delightful excerpt as he slices away at the Darwinian ideology and metaphysics that has absolutely nothing to do with the legitimate, non-ideological scientific version of evolution. In this excerpt, Fr. Jaki describes the intellectual intolerance I recently wrote about in Catholic Analysis concerning those evolutionists who seek to crush anyone daring to criticize their ideology. Now, let me be clear that Fr. Jaki has no quarrel with evolution as a duly restrained scientific explanation. He does not seek to replace evolution within the proper boundaries of science. But he does capture the ideological intolerance of those evolutionists who go beyond science into metaphysics and seek to crush any hint of criticism from whatever quarter:

Man sees through a glass darkly, but he sees nevertheless in a sense which is not merely sensory. And, as has already been noted, any evolutionary biologist stands in need of such a vision, even though he may be most unwilling to admit it. Such a reluctance can at times take the form of inquisitorial tyranny. In a great American university, where the biology department has renamed itself a department of "evolutionary biology," students were urged not to touch with a "ten-foot pole" a book on Darwin and Darwinism, though its author, Gertrude Himmelfarb, was not a believer but an agnostic Jew. No wonder. For a major threat to Darwinistic ideology, so different from Darwin's science, must be seen in a book which sets forth at least something of the non-sequiturs which any judicious reader of the Origin of Species finds in it again and again, and finds almost to the saturation in books that sell Darwinism as an ideology. Their authors invariably fail to weigh the fact that man alone of all primates writes books.

Stanley L. Jaki, Evolution for Believers (Pinckney, MI: Real View Books, 2003), p. 31 (ISBN 1-892548-35-6) (emphasis added).

There are other equally pungent and even better lines in the book. Here is the link to Fr. Jaki's homepage which in turn directs you to his series published by Real View Books, now apparently located in Port Huron, Michigan.

The Principle of Secular Rationale

Nathan Nelson comments on Jeff's post below on Catholic pols being above Canon law with the following:

All political leaders, including Catholic political leaders, take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Would it not be sinful for a Catholic political leader to break his or her oath -- as many Republican Catholics have done -- by forcing their faith upon others and violating the First Amendment? I'm pretty sure that oathbreaking is a mortal sin, isn't it?

He is basically invoking what is known as the principle of secular rationale. I have been wanting to post on it and Nathan has given me an opportunity to do so. The idea is that laws, and the legislators proposing them, prohibiting the use of such things as contraceptives, abortion, consensual homosexual acts, and same-sex "marriage" ought to be held unconstitutional, or removed from office, because they cannot be justified in non-religious terms.

Judge Michael McConnell describes it below:

One false view of separation [of Church and State] is the view that religious ideas must not serve as rationales for public policy. This view, called the ‘principle of secular rationale,’ is put forward as a means of protecting the public sphere from divisive, absolutist, intolerant impulses and from arguments that cannot be supported on the basis of accessible public reasons. But in fact, it rests on inaccurate stereotypes and questionable epistemological premises, and it would disenfranchise religious persons as full participating members of the political community. The United States has never adhered to the principle of secular rationale. Indeed, our political history is rife with religious political activists and religious political arguments.... [T]here is no good democratic argument for excluding them. But more than this: to exclude them would be inconsistent with the very ideals of democratic equality that the principle of secular rationale ostensibly seeks to protect. It is time to stop challenging our fellow citizen’s right to be part of democratic dialogue, and time to engage their arguments on the merits. Michael W. McConnell, “Five Reasons to Reject the Claim That Religious Arguments Should be Excluded from Democratic Deliberation,” 1999 UTAH L. REV. 639, 656-657.

As for violating the First Amendment, the Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 120 U.S. 640 (2000) threw out any idea that such an argument as any weight. Richard Meyers describes the Court's ruling:

The Court continually reaffirms the idea that a moral position should not be regarded as religious [and therefore illegitimate] simply because it happens to coincide with the tenets of some religious organizations.... The Court has consistently refused to restrict the types of moral arguments that are considered a legitimate part of public debate....The Court has not insisted that laws be supported by a certain form of secular reasoning....The Court has adopted a wide understanding that permits the inclusion of a range of comprehensive moral views, even if some might regard one or more of these comprehensive moral views as religious in some sense. Richard S. Myers, “Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ and the Public Policy Doctrine,” 32 CREIGHTON L. REV. 45, 63-64 (1998).

There is no "oathbreaking" going on. As Judge McConnel wrote, "It is time to stop challenging our fellow citizen's right to be part of democratic dialogue, and time to engage their arguments on the merits." On the merits. I won't hold my breath waiting for that.

technorati tags: Church and State, Constitution, First Amendment

Above the law?

Here is an excellent in depth article on the hypocrisy of Catholic politicians saying that the President and other Republicans are above the law, while at the same time consider themselves above canon law.

Weigel on Sen Kennedy and Justice Alito

That a man of transparent integrity and competence should be subjected to scurrilous innuendo about his probity and his skill is bad enough, not least when such groundless suggestions come for the senior senator from Massachusetts, who seemingly cannot enunciate a coherent, grammatically correct English sentence without reading from a staff-written cue card. But then Senator Edward Kennedy outdid himself with this charge, the week before the Senate vote: "Judge Alito does not share the values of equality and justice that make this country strong."

That is a lie. To be precise, it's that form of lie known as calumny, which, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is an offense against both justice and charity, because false statements that harm the good name and reputation of others give rise to false judgments about them. Perhaps the good citizens of Massachusetts owe the rest of us an apology for returning to the Senate a blustering bully who is dishonest in a particularly odious way?

Catholic Sen Mel Martinez says he was mistaken on Schiavo debate

From the South Florida Sun-Sentinel:

Nearly a year after calling for federal involvement to keep a brain-damaged woman artificially alive against her husband's wishes, Republican U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez has said it was a mistake to become involved.
Martinez, who has just completed his first year in office, led the Senate charge pushing a bill that would have given federal courts jurisdiction to reinstate Terri Schiavo's feeding tubes.

"If I had to take one lesson away, it's perhaps decisions of this nature really belong in state courts, not federal courts,'' Martinez said in a taped interview for Political Connections that aired Sunday on Bay News 9.

"Perhaps this was not in the realm of federal concern. It may have been better left to state courts to deal with it,'' Martinez said.

...

The effort to keep Schiavo alive proved unsuccessful and was vigorously opposed by a large segment of the public.

...

Martinez had previously stood by his role in the Schiavo controversy, but his new position comes two weeks after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist recounted the lessons he learned from the Schiavo controversy: "The American people don't want you involved in these decisions.''

When I read stories like this I agree with Mark Shea's description of the Republican Party as the "Stupid Party", but this is more troubling to me because Sen Martinez is Catholic.

The Catechism instructs us that it is permissible to discontinue medical procedures "that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome" (# 2278). At the same time, even if a patient is expected to die soon, "the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted" (#2279). Would "ordinary care" include food and water? Yes! Catholics must form our consciences on the basis of Church teaching (cf. CCC #408, #1811) not on the basis of an expediency which tells us that life is ours to terminate whenever we find it to be socially or financially convenient. Our lives-and our deaths-are ultimately God's decisions.

Congress and the President merely asked the federal court with jurisdiction to look at this case again. Why was that so wrong? And as a Catholic, given the circumstances of Terri's situation why would you not want this to be looked at again if there was a chance that the courts had missed something in the law? Because polls show that is what folks think? Hence the "stupid" label.

One would hope our Catholic pols would exhibit leadership and work to help their constituents understand why they voted as they did. And one would also hope that they act like the Catholics they purport to be on this issue rather than succumb to polling numbers. Am I overreacting? Maybe, but this just really bugs me.

UPDATE: The Schindler family responds to Sen Martinez:

Bobby Schindler, spokesperson for the Foundation states: “I am hopeful that Senator Martinez is not reacting to mixed news reports over the public’s view of Congress’s actions in protecting my sister’s life. Though some news outlets have reported that poll responses did not favor Congress’s involvement, there are others that greatly support protections of disabled and vulnerable people like Terri.”

According to an April, 2005 poll, 80% of likely voters said that a disabled person who is not terminally ill or in a coma, and not being kept alive by life support should not, in the absence of a written directive to the contrary, be denied food and water (Source: Zogby International).

An additional Zogby poll showed that 74% of those participating believed that it is proper for the federal government to intervene when basic civil rights are being denied.

“It has always been my family’s position that Terri was denied her basic rights,” states Schindler, “Our family and our foundation want to encourage those in Congress to uphold the basic principles of our Constitution and ensure that people with disabilities, our aging communities and the vulnerable are not stripped of their voices or denied fair and just treatment, based on hearsay. A more sensible standard of proof should be compulsory before a life is ended in this way.”

“Senator Martinez has an opportunity to stand up for the vulnerable,” said Schindler, “Our Foundation hopes he will not be swayed from acting as a public servant.”

Recent comments regarding the Schiavo matter from Martinez and Senate Majority leader, Bill Frist, have prompted the Foundation to again call for protections for incapacitated persons.

Do the Headline Experiment

The Associated Press had a long article out last Thursday afternoon detailing how Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid was closely associated with now convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff whom Democrats have been using as a political issue against Republicans in Congress. The lobbyist's firm also raised funds for the Democratic Senate leader. Here is the AP link. The AP article was out by about 4:17 p.m. on Thursday, Feb. 9th. On Friday, I went to the N.Y. Times or Washington Post online, but found no trace of this major story. If any readers later find the Reid story in either paper, please let me know. I certainly didn't see it last Friday in the online frontpages of either paper (I just saw a micro-listing of AP headlines at the Washington Post site that mentioned Reid; Update: the N.Y. Times subsequently listed the A.P. story in its National section, but still has not posted its own news report on Reid and Abramoff). Instead, what I saw in Friday's newspaper headlines was more of the same: beating the Katrina dead horse to somehow find that the White House was responsible for the long-running ineptitude of the state and local governments of Louisiana, talking about Bush meeting with the same lobbyist Reid worked closely with, or a strange analysis of anxious conservatives when in fact we just had the greatest conservative victory in years with the successful confirmation of Justice Alito. Oh, and I almost forgot, more stories on the deadest of dead horses: intelligence data and leaks concerning the invasion of Iraq.

What can we make of this? More red-in-the-face hair-pulling and rage at obvious liberal bias? Let's try something different. Remember in your college days the student-run college newspaper whose sole purpose was to find anything, however trivial, with which to needle the college administration? Well, the same immaturity that confused spleen with news runs political coverage by the major newspapers. My gut instinct is that the major newspapers are chock full of the journalism-by-spleen, or better "journalism-is-spleen," types. Contrary to stereotypes, I think that the mainstream newspapers are more transparently biased than the best bloggers, many of whom have no journalism background.

But even more telling is that we can explain the coverage by the liberal newspapers by this simple theory: the stories are written to make liberals feel better. The stories are not written to portray reality--except when it comes to politically neutral events involving culture or travel--but rather to bolster the liberal world view. Yes, conservatives got Alito in, but the conservative movement is in "crisis." Yes, it's clear that the Democratic officials in Louisiana bungled the pre-hurricane evacuation, but we have to find a way to pin the blame on Bush. Yes, the Democratic Senate leader hypocritically leading the charge against allegedly corrupt Republicans was tight with the same convicted lobbyist, but let's just talk about the Republicans. So next time, you scan the headlines in the major liberal newspapers ask yourself this question: can I explain the mix of headlines by the theory of making liberals feel better? Try it, and see if this simple theory doesn't explain a lot of the political coverage.

Sunday, Feb. 12th Update: The Sunday N.Y. Times (print edition) made no mention of the Reid tie with convicted lobbyist Abramoff. As they say in the law, the fact-- in this case the silence-- speaks for itself. I guess such an article would cause too much dissonance in the liberal mind.

Caught In Between

As Christians and especially as Catholics, we are caught in between two powerful and destructive forces in the world. On the one hand there is the fanatical and radical Islam that is currently fueling riots throughout the world. This extreme and radical Islam justifies the killing of children as a political tactic, punishes those Moslems who convert to another religion, is hostile to the practice of other religions, and responds with violence to the least provocation. On the other hand, we have the corrupt forces of a globalized decadent Western culture of pornography and materialism passing itself off as entertainment and commercial advertising. Between these two destructive forces, the Christian witness stands alone as the sane, viable alternative. The authentic Christian witness joins faith and reason together, has a mature view of the relation between politics and religion, and seeks to protect the dignity of all human life from conception to natural death. The most powerful version of this Christian witness is the Catholic witness which flows from the central teaching authority of the papacy missing from other Christian communities-- a papacy that again and again has gone against the grain of a decadent, morally chaotic West addicted to contraception, lust, death, and materialism. The papacy also reaffirms today in the face of the irrational violence of radical Islam and in the face of the Western desecration of human love and life the ancient Christian truth: Deus Caritas Est, God is Love. God does not want or will suicide bombs or riots or assassinations or blatant violations of freedom of religion. God does not want the deconstruction of marriage, the normalizing of self-destructive lusts, or the exploitation inherent in sex without marital commitment.

In a recent talk, I recall George Weigel talking about the choice the world faces: which of the current world views on offer is the best for mankind? It is becoming increasingly obvious, even in some cases to avowed atheists and agnostics, that the Christian and Catholic way is the world view that offers the most coherent and genuine humanism to the world, a Christian humanism that challenges us to be better and does not appeal to our worst instincts. The other choices are clearly giving a blank check to the evil that lurks in the hearts of mean. Look around for the sane alternative. Sooner or later, you will look to Rome for the combination of reason and faith that a world in turmoil needs.

Lt Governor Steele compares ESCR to Nazi experiments on Jews

Catholic politician, Maryland Lt Governor Mike Steele, recently compared ESCR to Nazi experiments on Jews during World War II. From the Washington Post:

In an appearance Thursday before the Baltimore Jewish Council, Steele responded to a question about stem cell research by saying he was "cautious" about the idea of "tinkering around with life," and added:

"Look, you of all folks know what happens when people decide they want to experiment on human beings, when they want to take your life and use it as a tool," Steele said, according to a recording of the event. "I know that as well from my community and our experience with slavery."

The Lt Governor is getting much heat for these remarks which is unfortunate since this analogy is spot on. He spent most of the day apologizing.

Amy Welborn blogged on it and there are some very good comments from her readers.

Kevin Miller blogged on over at Heart, Mind, & Soul. Also at HMS, Greg Popcak puts in a good word for the Lt Governor as does Rachel Watkins, who is a Maryland resident.

Lt Gov Steele is running for the US Senate seat in Maryland this year.

(Cross-posted at Catholics for Steele.)

Rolling Stone Magazine Attacks Senator Brownback, Writer Admits Error

From Culture of Life (Culture & Cosmos):

One of the most egregious errors in the article resulted in Sharlet publicly admitting his mistake. Sharlet wrote, "[Brownback] shakes his head in sorrow, thinking of Sweden, which Christian conservatives believe has been made by 'social engineering' into an outer ring of hell. 'You'll know 'em by their fruits,' Brownback says. He pauses, and an awkward silence fills the room. He was citing scripture -- Matthew 7:16 -- but he just called gay Swedes 'fruits.'" Sharlet later admitted on his blog that this characterization was wrong after the homosexual activist group, the Human Rights Campaign, sent a letter to Brownback demanding an apology. Sharlet explained to an HRC spokesman that Brownback had not used the term fruit to describe homosexuals and they withdrew their demand. On his blog he wrote, "Brownback did not mean to make a joke, nor did he mean to use 'fruits' as a slur. I didn't think he did, nor did I mean to imply that. But I was laughing at the senator."

Kennedy wants to honor Catholic Schools

Not the Kennedy from Massachusetts, rather the one from Minnesota. The Catholic Outsider has the details.

By the way Rep Kennedy is running for the U.S. Senate this year in Minnesota. He has an excellent voting record on issues important to serious Catholics. You can view his record at Catholics in Congress.

Catholic Politicians

OLYMPIA -- Former Washington Gov. Booth Gardner, who has battled Parkinson's disease for more than 14 years, says he will promote an assisted-suicide initiative for Washington in 2008, and predicted state voters would follow the lead of neighboring Oregon in approving it.

Washington voters rejected an assisted-suicide initiative in 1991, but "I think it will pass this time," he told The Associated Press in an interview.

Gardner, 69, told The AP Tuesday that he hasn't yet decided on the scope of the initiative. However, if it follows the outline of the 1991 measure, it would allow a health care provider to prescribe lethal doses of medicine for patients who are within their final months of life with an incurable and irreversible condition.

...She said she had made no decision on how she would vote as an individual.

"I have to search my soul and my Catholic faith," Gregoire said. [Source]

Well you know how that battle usually goes with politicians. Now you can't use Google on your soul, but it isn't too hard to search the Catholic faith to find that euthanasia is an intrinsic evil.

Similarly we also have:

GARDEN CITY, N.Y., Feb. 7 — Nassau County Executive Thomas R. Suozzi announced a plan on Tuesday intended to reduce abortions, calling the proposal a "politically risky" step as he contemplates running for governor this year. Even as he was speaking, an abortion rights group issued a statement criticizing the plan.

Mr. Suozzi's proposal would give nearly $1 million in county grants to groups including Planned Parenthood and Catholic Charities to promote birth control, adoption, housing for unwed mothers and abstinence. He proposes spending similar amounts in each of the next two years.

...Mr. Suozzi, a Roman Catholic, supports legalized abortion, but his plan to reduce the number of abortions helps position him as a moderate. In bringing disparate groups together, he also portrays himself as a conciliator and problem-solver. [Source]

Again why do politicians want to reduce something that they also say is not morally wrong?

Majority Leader Boehner letter on rights of the unborn

Here is a copy of the letter Rep. John Boehner sent to the House Republican Value Action Team -- a family issues caucus in the House last month.

Dear Colleague:

Since launching my campaign for Majority Leader days ago, I've had conversations with our colleagues on a wide range of issues and subjects. One thing that has touched me during this process is the commitment many of our members have to protecting the lives of the unborn and ensuring that our nation's laws reflect a belief in the sanctity of life. I write to you today simply for the purpose of reaffirming, proudly, that I share this commitment - completely, totally, and without equivocation. It is a commitment I have felt deeply throughout my life, and a commitment I will uphold unapologetically if and when I am chosen to be your next Majority Leader.

As a lifelong Roman Catholic and brother to 11 siblings, I believe, and have always believed, that life begins at conception. This is not a political position I've adopted for the sake of expedience or convenience; it is part of who I am and have always been, since long before the thought of running for office had ever entered my mind. It is a belief I feel passionately from deep within my soul.

My respect for the sanctity of life undoubtedly came, in large part, from the example set for me and my siblings by my parents. It certainly wasn't convenient for my mother to give birth to 12 children during her life. Nor was it easy for my father and mother to spend more than a decade of their adult years raising small children, and making the endless sacrifices that parenthood entails. My parents always embraced life in spite of these challenges, setting an example that has defined what I believe. Their sacrifices are etched upon my soul.

My voting record is consistent with what I believe. If you check the National Right to Life Committee website, I have a 100% voting record on pro-life issues dating back as far as the website goes. If I am elected as your Majority Leader, my voting record will not change.

On other issues, I have occasionally voted for bills that I have viewed as imperfect products, because I've tried to maintain the perspective that, while not perfect, the result will be an improvement over the status quo. When Congress considers any legislation that condones the destruction of innocent human life, however, I refuse to compromise. I have always voted to protect the rights of unborn children, and as long as I am an elected official, I will continue to do so.

The late Pope John Paul II famously said "the cemetery of the victims of human cruelty in our century is extended to include yet another vast cemetery, that of the unborn." As a Catholic, pro-life legislator, I believe I have a moral responsibility to fight for that which the late Pope fought, and to oppose any legislation that would result in new graves being added to the "cemetery" of which John Paul II so eloquently spoke.

I would be humbled by the opportunity to serve as your Majority Leader, and to work with you in that capacity to safeguard the lives of unborn children in our nation and across the world.

Sincerely,

John Boehner

Radio Interview: State of the Union & Papal Encyclical

Last week, I again had the privilege of being interviewed by radio host Paul Clemens out of Louisville, Kentucky, for his radio show after the State of the Union addresss. Paul is a former student of Dr. Janet Smith who currently teaches at Detroit's Sacred Heart Major Seminary. We discussed the State of the Union speech and the Pope's new encyclical on love.

As to the State of the Union speech, these are the impressions I came to last week in listening to the speech and in my radio discussion:

1. Bush, according to those who saw the speech on TV, was at his visual best: confident and relaxed. In my view, that demeanor comes from a life of personal prayer. In the stress of our daily lives, we know that prayer keeps us going and even enables us to do things we could not do otherwise. How much more true must that be for someone in the presidency whose first order of daily business is to hear intelligence briefings outlining the latest terrorist threats on our country.

2. I will go on the record now in the midst of the great tidal waves of Bush hatred that lap back and forth in the mainstream media and in liberal circles, including liberal Catholic circles, and say that I bet Bush ends up as one of our great presidents. Why? Character, character, character. Like Churchill, Bush has the confidence and steely determination to win against our enemies. We are very lucky he was elected in 2000.

3. On a related theme, I have to say that it is conclusive and definitive, at least for me but I think for many others also, that the Democratic Party is the party of defeatism, if not treason. We see a party so full of hatred for Bush that it roots for disaster at home and abroad. When voters walk into the voting booth, how can they pull the lever for a Democratic Party that just cannot be trusted to be realistic and hard-nosed enough to take the enemy seriously? The best ally our enemies have today is the Democratic Party. There is no way I will ever entrust my future to a Democratic president. Today's Democratic Party is the party of defeat and defensiveness. Bush, in contrast, believes in staying on offense to keep our enemies off-balance. I think the inner circles of our enemies would agree with my assessment. And, by the way, I say all of this as a former Democrat who grew up with heroes such as FDR and Harry Truman. I am now happy to call the party of Lincoln my political home.

4. Check out the Powerlineblog.com for John Hinderaker's astute assessment of the State of the Union speech. If you have time, compare what John says with the distorted coverage of the mouthpiece of defeatism and Bush hatred: the New York Times.

5. As to the Pope's encyclical, no commentary can do it full justice. The Pope opens up inexhaustible vistas for thought and prayer. God is both Eros and Agape. Eros is not using the body as a commodity alienated from our minds, souls, and spirits. The human being is a unity of both body and soul, a person. Eros is an essential part of that unity that points us to God who is both eros and agape. Eros does not point us to perversion or exploitation or the ennui of immorality. Eros points us to the ecstasy of God, the perfection of the true, the good, and the beautiful. Combine the Pope's encyclical with the Theology of the Body of John Paul the Great and you get the Catholic and Christian nuclear explosion that is the real sexual revolution. What passes for the secular sexual revolution is merely sound and fury signifying nothing and ending in nothing but lassitude, malaise, disillusionment, boredom, and compulsiveness.

Those are my thoughts after last week's radio interview at WLCR AM 1040 from Louisville, Kentucky. Here is the link to learn more about this Catholic station. The Paul Clemens show airs on Wednesday afternoons from 5 to 6 p.m. for those in the Louisville area.

Unemployment Rate Falls to 4.7%

Yes, the unemployment rate is now below 5%. And, yes, Bush is still president and has been president since Jan. 20, 2001. This is the lowest unemployment rate since July 2001 (see N.Y. Times link). Imagine if the unemployment rate had, instead, risen to 6 or 7 %. I can hear now the hue and cry from the left about the cruelty of the Hoover Republicans. But, now, all you can expect is to hear silence on the unemployment rate. Fanatical left-wing minds will just not recognize and process this great piece of economic news. It just does not fit in nicely and neatly into their worldview of doom and gloom.

I recall a columnist noting recently that there is no where near as much poverty in the United States as the left likes to tout. It's just not there in the dimensions that liberals describe in their rhetoric. The columnist speculated that maybe that's why more people have been comfortable voting Republican. He also noted that for many Americans cultural issues are just as important and even identical to economic issues. If you live in a neighborhood that is being invaded by drug dealers, then that's both a social/cultural issue and a big economic issue because our homes are the biggest single financial investment most Americans ever make. If teens are immersed in drugs and promiscuity, that's a big economic issue: the futures of your sons and daughters will be derailed permanently if they become entangled in those quagmires. If the sexual revolution means that more people feel, for a variety of different reasons, less emotionally invested in their marriages, that's an economic issue because marital stability is synonymous with economic stability. And the conservatives are the ones that the public trusts more to address those cultural-economic issues.

We have seen a political evolution from the tired old stereotype of the conservative who cared for the rich only. The best of today's conservatism is genuinely compassionate and opportunity driven, seeking to draw everyone into upward mobility. And, yes, President Bush is one of those compassionate conservatives. So is, very much so, my favorite for 2008: Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, a Catholic convert. Recently, a new Wal Mart opened near where I live after the usual griping from liberal-leaning individuals alleging mistreatment of employees. Well, the data shows that when a Wal Mart opens, the ones who benefit the most are poorer people in rural areas. Why? When prices goes down, everyone becomes wealthier overnight. Where I live, everyone--and I mean everyone--became financially "richer" when the doors of Wal Mart opened.

But I am keeping the best for last. I asked one cashier at WalMart--who happened to be African-American--how business was doing at the new store. She said it was booming. She also volunteered that Wal Mart's stock price was rising, and that she was glad to have bought Wal Mart stock! I responded, "Good for you." Good for her, good for me, good for all: the ownership and opportunity society brought to you by the new conservatism.

Alito, more Catholic than we thought?

Alito parts with conservatives on execution and votes for a stay of execution.

Promising.

Democrats striving to regain the “Catholic Vote.”

Via the Catholic News Agency.

A good way to start would be to drop this language from the Democratic Party Platform:

"We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

The new House Majority Leader is...

Catholic Congressman John Boehner (R-Ohio). As reported by The Hill, he pulled off a second-ballot victory this afternoon to become the next House majority leader.

Boehner bested Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who was serving as the acting majority leader, 122 to 109, with one member absent. On the first ballot, Blunt attracted 110 votes, 7 shy of the necessary 117 to win. Boehner had secured 79 votes, while Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) got 40 votes and Rep. Jim Ryun (R-Kan.) collected 2 votes as a write-in candidate. Ryun was not a declared candidate in the race.

Rep Boehner's voting record on issues important to serious Catholics is very good. You can view it here. Let us pray for Rep Boehner, that he may well lead the Republican majority.

UPDATE: Link above fixed.

A Catholic...

...gave the Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union Address last night. He is the recently elected governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine.

Judge Pryor on a Judge's Faith

The Mobile Register editorialized on Judge William Pryor's talk at Notre Dame last month:

The overarching message of the speech was that the whole idea of a tension between faith and judicial duty is not only overblown, but mistaken. Judge Pryor said that the truth is just the opposite: that a Catholic's faith requires a particularly strong fidelity to the nation's Constitution and laws.

Not only does a Catholic judge not need to choose between faith and his judicial duty, but a violation of the latter would be a violation of the former as well.

Why? Because his oath of office, sworn with his hand on the Bible while saying "so help me God," requires that he perform his duties defined "under the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Also, Judge Pryor said, his duty as a professed Christian is to follow the biblical injunction to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

If a judge lets his (or her) personal beliefs interfere with his sworn duties to faithfully execute even the laws he disagrees with, he betrays his faith itself by trying to illegally impose that faith in realms where it is not his responsibility to impose it.

Indeed, Judge Pryor cited the official Catholic catechism to the effect that there are different, formal levels of "cooperation with evil." In the judge's words, "Ordinarily, the immoral act of a party does not make the judge assigned to his case responsible for that immoral act."

In other words, a Catholic judge's sworn duty to uphold the laws of the land overrides, in almost all cases, whatever religious objections he might have to those particular laws -- because the judge is not himself cooperating with the "evil" act, but only serving as a neutral umpire while carrying out his oath to abide by the laws concerning or requiring that act.

It is worth noting, however, that somehow, some way, there might arise a case in which the law itself could become so evil that a judge enforcing it would "materially cooperate" in evil by enforcing it.

Said Judge Pryor: "There is a simple remedy when that rare problem arises. The judge should recuse himself. If the judge cannot perform his legal duty, without violating his moral duty, then the judge must honor both duties by recusal. The judge honors the law by refusing to disobey it, as that would violate his oath, and the judge honors his faith by avoiding cooperation with evil, as that would violate his conscience."

The mere theoretical potential for such a rare and unforeseen recusal should no more disqualify a deeply religious person from a judgeship than would any of the financial conflicts of interest that occasionally crop up and because of which judges already recuse themselves from time to time anyway.

Judge Pryor's appropriate conclusion was this: "Catholic judges are friends of the Constitution. We are loyal to its promises and protections. It is our privilege to fulfill our oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

UPDATE: More on the judge's ND speech:

In his speech, Pryor compared the work of mail carriers to that of federal judges. If your job is to deliver mail, he said, Catholic faith holds that you should respect the rules of privacy and prompt delivery, regardless of whether the mail consists of get-well cards, Bibles, medicine or legal pornography.

"A judge similarly applies the law impartially in a variety of cases in which the law protects the poor, victims of wrongdoing, the integrity of the family and religious freedom," he said. "And the judge respects the law when it does not empower him to prevent a third party from committing an immoral act."

He also mentioned capital cases. While the Catholic Church may oppose the death penalty, Pryor said, affirming a sentence would not be a sin. According to him, Catholic scholars have taken the position that when a judge affirms such a sentence, he or she is not approving of the practice but concluding that the trial court did its job.

"As a judge, I am not a moral philosopher who is given the authority to use a personal moral perspective to update or alter the text of our Constitution and laws," Pryor said in his speech, which is expected to be printed in the Spring 2006 issue of the Yale Law & Policy Review.

"The business of using moral judgment to change the law is reserved to the political branches, which is why the officers of those branches are regularly elected by the people," he continued. "A judge’s task is limited to serving as an umpire so that controversies between citizens and officers of their government may be resolved based on the law."

NCR on "95-10" Initiative

The National Catholic Reporter has the lastest on the "95-10" Initiative proposed by Democrats for Life:

Legislation on the “95-10 Initiative” will likely be introduced next month in both the House, where [Catholic] Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan is taking the lead, and in the Senate, where Nebraska’s Ben Nelson is a likely chief sponsor. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is among those who have been briefed on the initiative, said Day.

The broad outlines of the legislation are in place. They include:

-Expansion of the Medicaid program to provide health coverage to more low-income pregnant women.
-Full funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which currently provides nutrition assistance and counseling to low-income pregnant women and their children.
-Increased outreach to pregnant women through establishment of a “National Public Awareness Campaign” that provides information on alternatives to abortion and on resources in the community. A similar program in Michigan, said Day, resulted in an 11 percent drop in that state’s abortion rate.
-Grants to school districts in areas with high teenage pregnancy rates to provide “age appropriate pregnancy prevention education” with information on sexual abstinence and “other methods of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.”
-Federal funding to establish pregnancy counseling centers and daycare facilities on college campuses.
-An increase in the federal adoption tax credit from $10,000 to $15,000.

The legislation will also likely include funds for counseling prospective parents who receive disturbing findings from genetic tests, such as the alpha-fetoprotein test which detects Down syndrome; additional funds for domestic violence centers; and an “informed consent” provision that requires health facilities receiving federal funds to offer counseling and information on the abortion procedure to women considering termination of their pregnancy.

A provision that would have required insurance companies to provide coverage for contraceptives will likely be dropped from the bill, said Day, because “some Catholic members [of Congress] who feel strongly about contraception” wanted it removed.

Good to see that the contraceptive coverage is likely to be dropped. Still, the '“age appropriate pregnancy prevention education” with information on sexual abstinence and “other methods of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases”' is not going to reduce abortion. Contraception enables abortion. The SCOTUS said so in Casey even. And more importantly Jesus Christ through His Church continues to teach this.

Let us hope and pray that the funding of "comprehensive" sex ed portion of this legislation will be dropped as well.