"The Wilberforce Republican"

That's the tag that the prestigious Economist magazine applies to Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas (see link; unfortunately accessing the entire column requires a subscription, but you can probably find the March 11th issue of The Economist magazine at your local library). I have written about Brownback before in Catholic Analysis. He is my personal favorite for President in 2008. The magazine column's description tells you why: Brownback is "strongly opposed to both gay marriage and abortion." He campaigns on the " 'three Rs'--reduce (the size of government), reform (Congress) and return (to traditional values)."

What is most intriguing is his personal background:

Mr. Brownback's politics is rooted in his religious faith. He was raised an evangelical Protestant . . . . But a few years ago a brush with cancer changed his life, persuading him to put religion at the forefront of his political persona. He was particularly moved by reading a biography of William Wilberforce, a British anti-slavery agitator [of the ninteenth century]. He also became a Roman Catholic. He now attends two services every Sunday--mass and also one with his family, who remain evangelical Protestants.

The Economist, March 11, 2006, p. 30 ("Lexington" column).

Anyone who saw Brownback aggressively question Roe v. Wade during the televised Supreme Court confirmation hearings knows that he is highly intelligent and articulate. He is poised and in command of the facts. In addition, he does not fit the biased stereotype of the Christian right that the mainstream media loves. The magazine column describes the difference. Brownback is quite concerned with human rights abuses and poverty overseas, whether in North Korea or the Sudan, whether involving fighting HIV or fighting sex trafficking. He is concerned with prison reform here at home. He is one of the sponsors of a new African-American history museum to be built in D.C. and "now wants an apology for Native Americans." That's enough to make the liberal media spin in dread because Brownback is more than a match for anyone else on the political scene. Most of all, the American people will like him. Compare all of that with the power-obsessed, pessimism of the stalwarts of the Democratic Party; and it's easy to see which type of politician is more appealing now and in 2008.

William Wilberforce (1759-1833) was a British politician who also had a conversion experience as an adult. He was an evangelical Protestant social reformer whose efforts were crucial in the elimination of slavery in the British Empire one month after his death in 1833 (see Encyclopedia Americana under "Wilberforce"). Like Wilberforce, Brownback is a leading force in dismantling the Culture of Death. For Wilberforce, the Culture of Death was exemplified by the dehumanization of legal slavery. For Brownback, the Culture of Death in its current form is found most blatantly in the dehumanization of legal abortion. One remained an evangelical Protestant, the other became an evangelical Catholic. Both are what history needed at a crucial moment.

National Catholic Prayer Breakfast - April 2006

The National Catholic Prayer Breakfast will be held the first week in April:

This year the Mass will be held Thursday evening, April 6 at 6:30 p.m. at St. Matthew’s Cathedral, followed by an 8:00 p.m. reception at the Army Navy Club. The breakfast will be held the following morning at the Hilton Washington at 7:00 a.m.

The principal celebrant and homilist for the Mass will be His Eminence Theodore Cardinal McCarrick. The keynote speaker at the breakfast will be His Excellency The Most Reverend Robert Morlino, Bishop of Madison. His address is entitled: On the Dictatorship of Relativism in the United States.

According to the schedule, Father Paul McDermott, O.P. and Raymond Arroyo are also scheduled to speak, followed by Dr. Scott Hahn and Father Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R., following the breakfast.

According to their website, The National Catholic Prayer Breakfast was created "in response to the call of Pope John Paul the Great for a "New Evangelization, new in order, methods and expression," -- to "thank Our Lord for his abundant blessings upon this Land, reaffirm our faith in Him and renew our dedication to this great Republic, commit ourselves to providing for our brothers and sisters who are the most vulnerable in society, and to commit our country to the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary."

More responses to the "Statement of Principles"

Father Thomas Williams:

To justify their position, the authors of the statement appeal to the so-called “primacy of conscience.” Yet conscience is not a pass to excuse wrongdoing. Would it make any difference if a serial killer claimed he was following his conscience when he murdered his victims? Even if the politicians are following their conscience, Catholic morality makes an important distinction between good conscience and bad conscience, and a conscience that sees nothing wrong with killing the innocent falls decidedly in the second category. Our first duty concerning conscience is to form it according to the moral law, and especially for a Catholic, no doubt can exist regarding the objective evil of abortion.

True, the statement acknowledges the “undesirability” of abortion, and the signers hasten to assure their constituencies that they do not “celebrate its practice.” That they do not “celebrate” the greatest social ill of our time may prove cold comfort to those who spend much of their free time actively campaigning for its abolition. And as regards its “undesirability,” this poorly chosen term will likely provoke only indignation. Hangnails are undesirable; under-seasoned salads are undesirable; lines at the cash register are undesirable. Abortion is repugnant and evil. Can you imagine a politician stepping forward and (with much hand-wringing) asserting that he finds rape “undesirable” and that he does not “celebrate” its practice, but that he will not stop defending legislation that permits it? Such a politician would rightly be ridden out of town on a rail.

Joseph Bottum:

All the talk in the "Statement of Principles" about individual conscience is intended really as a demand that Catholics legislators not get beaten up anymore for supporting abortion: "We . . . agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion," the statement reads, and that word "undesirability" leaves a peculiar taste in the reader's mouth. Abortion, murder, and thermonuclear war are undesirable, it's true. They are even unfortunate and less than optimal. But somehow one wants a little more oomph in the word chosen to describe them.

---

The whole thing obviously concerns abortion, as the bishops' response suggests. "As the Church carries out its central responsibility to teach clearly and to help form consciences, and as Catholic legislators seek to act in accord with their own consciences, it is essential to remember that conscience must be consistent with fundamental moral principles," the reply notes. "We encourage and will continue to work with those in both parties who seek to act on these essential principles in defense of the poor and vulnerable. At the same time, we also need to reaffirm the Catholic Church's constant teaching that abortion is a grave violation of the most fundamental human right--the right to life that is inherent in all human beings, and that grounds every other right we possess."

George Weigel:

Thirty-three of the 55 signatories of the DeLauro statement (including Rep. DeLauro) voted to support the legality of partial-birth abortion. Forty-one of the signatories (again including Rep. DeLauro) voted to make abortion legal in Defense Department clinics and hospitals abroad. Thirty-seven of the signatories (including --- you guessed it --- Rep. DeLauro) voted against efforts to constrain the courts from compelling hospitals and doctors to perform abortions.

How do any of these votes square with the signatories' statement that they "agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion --- we do not celebrate its practice"?

This is the same old same old --- "I'm personally opposed, but..." --- tarted up in new vesture. One cannot speak credibly about the "undesirability of abortion" and then vote to protect and expand the abortion license. One cannot credibly claim to believe what the Catholic Church believes "about the value of human life" and then ignore the central question posed by Roe v. Wade: is the willful taking of innocent human life compatible with a free and virtuous society?

One cannot appeal to the "primacy of conscience" to defend the unconscionable --- any more than one could make that appeal in denying full legal and political rights to Americans of African descent.

Catholic League press release:

Perhaps the most convincing evidence that this statement is a sham is the fact that Rep. Rosa DeLauro is the point person for this effort. There has never been an abortion she couldn’t justify, including the killing of an innocent child who is 80-percent born. Indeed, she previously served as the executive director of EMILY’s List, the richest pro-abortion organization in the country. So with her at the helm, the ‘Statement of Principle’ is nothing more than a ‘Statement of Politics.’ Thus, the Abortion Albatross remains securely in place.

Dennis Gerard Embo:

And it came to pass that Jesus and some of His disciples were passing through the city, and an influential Catholic legislator, with a great number of her Party colleagues who were also Catholic, approached Jesus and said to Him, “Good Master, we just released a statement proudly expressing our strong support for Catholic social teaching. Tell us again, what must we do to attain eternal life?”

“Why do you call Me good? No one is good but God alone. You’ve heard the Gospel: ‘Feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, promote peace, protect the stranger in your midst, care for the sick.’”

“Oh Master,” said the spokesperson for the contingent, her face beaming with pride, “we have promoted and sponsored much legislation to accomplish all those things. What is there yet remaining for us to do?”

And Jesus said, “If you would be perfect, go, co-sponsor legislation defending pre-born human life, then you will have eternal life in heaven.”

But when they heard this many went away indignant at His words, for many among them were very pro-choice.

Catholic News Service provides some background on the statement.

And here is the CatholicBlogs.com search on Catholic blogs referencing the statement.

No Legal or Safe Evils for Catholics

A Michigan reader sent me this link to the web page of a staunch pro-life priest in Detroit. On his web page, the pro-life priest correctly takes strong and vehement issue with another Detroit area priest who embraces the Clintonesque view that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." Needless to say, advocacy of either legal or safe abortion is a direct contradiction of what the Church definitively teaches about the grave evil of direct abortion (see John Paul the Great's encyclical The Gospel of Life, section 62). John Paul the Great goes on: "No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Ibid.; emphasis added). These priests are in the public square--and only one is right.

The USCCB response

Statement on Responsibilities of Catholics in Public Life

A recent public statement by 55 Catholic and Democratic members of the House of representatives offers an opportunity to address several important points about the responsibilities of Catholics in public life.

We welcome this and other efforts that seek to examine how Catholic legislators bring together their faith and their policy choices. As the Catholic bishops of the United States said in our June 2004 statement, “Catholics in Political Life”:

We need to do more to persuade all people that human life is precious and human dignity must be defended. This requires more effective dialogue and engagement with all public officials, especially Catholic public officials. We welcome conversation initiated by political leaders themselves.

Therefore, we welcome the Representatives’ recognition that Catholics in public life must act seriously and responsibly on many important moral issues. Our faith has an integral unity that calls Catholics to defend human life and human dignity whenever they are threatened. A priority for the poor, the protection of family life, the pursuit of justice and the promotion of peace are fundamental priorities of the Catholic moral tradition which cannot be ignored or neglected. We encourage and will continue to work with those in both parties who seek to act on these essential principles in defense of the poor and vulnerable.

At the same time, we also need to reaffirm the Catholic Church’s constant teaching that abortion is a grave violation of the most fundamental human right – the right to life that is inherent in all human beings, and that grounds every other right we possess. Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation on the vocation and mission of the laity, Christifideles Laici, which the Representatives’ statement cites, declares:

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination…. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor (# 38).

While it is always necessary to work to reduce the number of abortions by providing alternatives and help to vulnerable parents and children, Catholic teaching calls all Catholics to work actively to restrain, restrict and bring to an end the destruction of unborn human life.

As the Church carries out its central responsibility to teach clearly and help form consciences, and as Catholic legislators seek to act in accord with their own consciences, it is essential to remember that conscience must be consistent with fundamental moral principles. As members of the Church, all Catholics are obliged to shape our consciences in accord with the moral teaching of the Church.

As bishops, we too are bound by our own consciences to teach faithfully and to recommit ourselves to continued reflection and discussion on how Catholic faith and public service can work together to promote human life and dignity and advance the common good. Through dialogue, especially the irreplaceable dialogue between Catholic political leaders and their own bishops, we hope to promote a better understanding of how the Church’s teaching on human life and dignity challenges us all.

Cardinal William H. Keeler
Chairman, USCCB Committee on Pro Life Activities

Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick
Chairman, USCCB Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio
Chairman, USCCB Committee on Domestic Policy

A true Democrat for Life

The normally praiseworthy Democrats for Life issued a statement in support of the statement of (anything but) principles signed by the 55 Catholic Democrats. Rosa DeLauro who headed up the original statement once served as Executive Director of EMILY's List and is still supported by EMILY's list.

There is a certain irony in Catholic supporting EMILY's list. Jesus in describing the Kingdom of God said "It is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened." The acronym of EMILY means “Early Money Is Like Yeast” This is the same leaven Jesus also referred to"Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod."

Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz prints a letter by Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz who is quite upset with Democrats for Life support of the statement.

March 7, 2006
Ms. Kristen Day
President
Democrats for Life
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
South Building – Suite 900
Washington, DC 20004
Sent by fax to 202/638-6957

Dear Ms. Day:

As a pro-life Democrat and elected official in one of the most liberal cities in the United States, I was shocked and dismayed to read your recent press release supporting a letter written by Rep. Rosa DeLauro and cosigned by mostly pro-abortion Democrats members of Congress. I found it to be deceptive and something I could never embrace.

Most of the letter’s signers support unrestricted abortion and have a total disregard for the grave moral disorder in our society. And to me it is obvious that no child could enjoy the programs and policies mentioned in this letter if he or she fell victim to abortion.

As a Board Member for Democrats for Life of New York, I cannot comprehend how you can officially share the goals of Representative DeLauro’s letter. Our goal, as pro-lifers, is to promote a culture of life. Their letter has been written to attack the President and promote a pro-abortion, liberal agenda, and its candidates, which includes the most of the signees. It has not been written to promote respect for the dignity of each human person at all stages of development. It has been signed by too many elected officials who choose to disregard some human life.

As a pro-life Democrat, I endure great pain, tribulation and agony by pro-abortion officials and political activists who refuse to promote the sacredness of all human life. Because of my Christian faith and its core beliefs – which include the need to respect all human life – I am the recipient of sharp and constant criticism. However, I am proud of my efforts and ask God to continue to give me the fortitude to continue.

I respectfully ask that you reconsider your support for this Congressional letter and its hidden agenda.

Fighting for a good educational system, good health services, job creation, affordable housing, and other important social services equally available to all human beings, are some of the reasons that I am a public servant, however, as I said before, an aborted baby will never be able to enjoy these services. Therefore, it is the duty and responsibility of every good Christian, good Catholic and any pro-lifer to defend the sanctity of life and not allow the sagacity of these signees to distance us from our goals.

Sincerely,

Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz
32nd Senatorial District
1750 Westchester Avenue
The Bronx, New York 10472
Phone: 718/892-7513

Three cheers for Mr. Diaz who hasn't fallen to the relativism so often exposed. If only some Republicans were half as pro-life as Mr. Diaz surely is.

School Vouchers Succeed!

Yesterday's N.Y. Times (article limited to paid subscribers) had an editorial column favoring school vouchers from one of its more conservative writers, John Tierney. The column focused on the success of the voucher program in Milwaukee. The column comes in the wake of other stories reporting that some local Democratic politicians--and even the local newspaper as noted in this column--are breaking ranks with the Democratic governor and the teachers' unions to embrace school vouchers. The issue was brought to a head because the popularity and success of school vouchers in Milwaukee have sparked an increased demand for the vouchers which means that the state legislature has to face the delicate political question of providing more money for more vouchers.

Even more interesting than the political and media realignment being precipitated by the success of vouchers is a study cited in the column showing that the old, tired argument that vouchers will somehow "hurt" public schools is baseless. The results of the Milwaukee study show that in fact the presence of vouchers forces-- as any free market economist, or common sense person for that matter, would have quickly told you--public schools to compete by providing better teachers and more personal attention to students. The column quotes the head of the local school board as admitting that before the competitive pressures of vouchers the public schools simply reshuffled terrible teachers from school to school. In a memorable phrase, the head of the school board called it "the dance of the lemons." Now, because of healthy competition, the public schools are not as tolerant of these bad teachers.

Teachers' unions, dominated by self-seeking, are interested in preserving monopoly power that is unchecked by competition. Truly professional individual teachers, on the other hand, are interested in what works for students. Again, unions are the source of the problem by stifling competition in an outdated guild system that penalizes the students. Here is a revolutionary thought: the primary purpose of a teachers' union should be to fight for the best outcome for each student, not to focus on securing unwithdrawable privileges for themselves. The Gospel says seek first the kingdom of God and all else will be given to you. I say to unionized teachers: seek first the best outcome for each of your students, and you will enthusiastically get all the appreciation and financial security you will ever need from extremely grateful parents, graduating students, and happy taxpayers. Your communities will also attract more investment to provide more job opportunities for your students and your own children or even for yourself if you are one of the "lemons." And I have not even touched on the fact that all of this costs much less money per student than the current public school system. Maybe, the liberals so ostensibly concerned with "social justice" might figure out that the money saved by vouchers can be invested in other ways to improve the community--such as more police to provide the public safety in which urban neighborhoods can thrive and flourish.

I have always thought that the two keys to a vibrant community are, in this order, public safety and good education. Vouchers will give us better education, especially in the dismal inner city public school systems, that will likely also reduce the crime rate. Only greed stands in the way. Since the web article is by subscription only, go to your local public library and get a copy of the March 7, 2006, edition of the N.Y. Times, go to the Op-Ed section and read about the "dance of the lemons" that has ended in Milwaukee because of vouchers. Make a copy, show it to others, and let them know that, when all is said and done, school vouchers are the real affirmative action.

When Experts Shed No Light

My favorite commentator, Michael Barone, writes today about the obsession of Democrats and others with covering up the very possibility that Saddam Hussein was dealing with Al Qaeda before the Iraq invasion. Here is the link. For Democratic politicians, it's clear why they are obsessed: they need to destroy Bush by destroying any support for the Iraq war. But there is another group (also likely Democrat and liberal in politics) for whom there is another motive closer to their resume: so-called Middle East experts. As Barone puts it, the "subtleties" of their supposed expertise in the Middle East, honed with years of training and living as experts, just can't accept the possibility that the radical anti-American religious terrorists of Al Qaeda would have ever cooperated with the anti-American secularist terrorist regime of Saddam Hussein. It just seems to be an unquestioned axiom of Middle East experts.

Most of us have seen the dangers of pompous and overly self-assured experts before in many other areas of life. As Catholics, we know that many psychological experts advised bishops that sexual molesters could be returned to parishes. You can find experts who will tell you that sexual promiscuity is good, that sexual cohabitation before marriage is not harmful, that abortion can be good for the "health" of the mother even when there is no danger of death, and that homosexuality is not an objective disorder. You can also find experts in academia who will make absurd assertions with no backing whatsoever. In the field of biblical studies, you can find experts concocting out of thin air the genealogy of texts with aplomb and certainty. Even worse, you can find them concocting new biographies of Jesus based on their own imaginations and agendas. The Da Vinci Code is just the popular expression of what has gone on in certain sectors of biblical studies for years. In medicine and psychology, the history of misguided theories and diagnoses, often announced with an air of absolute certainty, is another dismal history of expert failure combined with arrogance and great human cost.

Expertise is good; but, given our fallen nature, our tendencies to see what we want to see, a lot of expert advice has to be taken with healthy skepticism and a grain of salt. Much of what passes as expertise is an expression more of arrogance than of reliable knowledge. So it is not shocking that in the field of Middle East studies--a quintessentially "soft" field where highly subjective impressions and hypotheses can be easily maintained unchecked by reality--that we have political agendas driving experts to assert things with an air of certainty and finality that does not fit the evidence. The old saying from Vergil's Aeneid was "Beware of [literally, "I fear"] Greeks even bearing gifts" (Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis). Beware of experts bearing gifts for the anti-Bush agenda and for the purpose of covering up the failure of their expertise to keep up with realities in the Middle East.

Governor Michael Rounds

My wife was just wondering if South Dakota Gov Mike Rounds, who recently signed legislation banning abortion in his state, was Catholic. Sure enough he is.

Catholic House Democrats' "Statement of Principles"

Fifty-five (of the seventy-one) Catholic House Democrats issued the following statement last week. (I would have posted sooner, but I gave up blogging during Lent. As is tradition in my family, Sundays are a day off from our Lenten obligations, so I am posting this today.)

As Catholic Democrats in Congress, we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose.

We are committed to making real the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social teaching: helping the poor and disadvantaged, protecting the most vulnerable among us, and ensuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country. That commitment is fulfilled in different ways by legislators but includes: reducing the rising rates of poverty; increasing access to education for all; pressing for increased access to health care; and taking seriously the decision to go to war. Each of these issues challenges our obligations as Catholics to community and helping those in need.

We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion; we do not celebrate its practice. Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term. We believe this includes promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children's healthcare and child care, as well as policies that encourage paternal and maternal responsibility.

In all these issues, we seek the Church's guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience. In recognizing the Church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas. Yet we believe we can speak to the fundamental issues that unite us as Catholics and lend our voices to changing the political debate -- a debate that often fails to reflect and encompass the depth and complexity of these issues.

As legislators, we are charged with preserving the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Catholics, but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths. We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties.

As Catholic Democrats who embrace the vocation and mission of the laity as expressed by Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici, we believe that the Church is the "people of God," called to be a moral force in the broadest sense. We believe the Church as a community is called to be in the vanguard of creating a more just America and world. And as such, we have a claim on the Church's hearing as it does on ours.

The members who signed the statement and how they voted on some of non-negotiable issues for Catholics follow:

Rosa L. DeLauro (Against Partial-birth abortion-NO ; Funding foo ESCR-YES; Direction to reconsider Terri Schiavo case-Not Voting)
David R. Obey (PBA-Yes ; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV )
Wm. Lacy Clay (PBA- NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NO)
Hilda L. Solis (PBA- NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
James R. Langevin (PBA-Yes ; ESCR- YES ; Schiavo-Yes)
Bart Stupak (PBA-Yes; ESCR-No; Schiavo-Yes)
Anna Eshoo (PBA-NO; ESCR-NO; Schiavo-NV)
Bill Pascrell (PBA-Yes; ESCR-NO; Schiavo-NO)
Betty McCollum (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Gene Taylor (PBA-Yes; ESCR-No; Schiavo-Yes)
Raul M. Grijalva (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Carolyn McCarthy(PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
John B. Larson (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NO)
Ed Pastor (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Joe Baca (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES ; Schiavo-Yes)
William Delahunt (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Tim Ryan (PBA-Yes; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Silvestre Reyes (PBA-Yes; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Mike Thompson (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Linda T. Sanchez (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Charles A. Gonzalez (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Xavier Becerra (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Diane Watson (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Michael H. Michaud (PBA-Yes; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-Yes)
Nydia Velazquez (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Jim Marshall (PBA-Yes; ESCR-No; Schiavo-Yes)
Frank Pallone (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NO)
John T. Salazar (ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
James P. McGovern (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
George Miller (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Tim Holden (PBA-Yes; ESCR-No; Schiavo-Yes)
James L. Oberstar (PBA-Yes; ESCR-No; Schiavo-Yes)
Dale E. Kildee (PBA-Yes; ESCR-No; Schiavo-Yes)
Patrick J. Kennedy (PBA-Yes; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NO)
Cynthia McKinney (ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NO)
James P. Moran (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NO)
Michael Capuano (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NO)
Richard E. Neal (PBA-Yes; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Mike Doyle (PBA-Yes; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NO)
Peter A. DeFazio (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Maurice Hinchey (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Dennis A. Cardoza (PBA-NO; ESCR- YES; Schiavo-NV)
Joseph Crowley (PBA-Yes; ESCR-YES ; Schiavo-NV)
Jim Costa (ESCR-YES; Schiavo-NV)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (PBA-NO; ESCR-YES; Schiavo-NV)
Loretta Sanchez (PBA-NO; ESCR-YES; Schiavo-NV)
Robert Brady (PBA-NO; ESCR-YES; Schiavo-Yes)
Marty Meehan (PBA-NO; ESCR-YES; Schiavo-NV)
Grace Napolitano (PBA-NO; ESCR-YES; Schiavo-NV)
Luis V. Gutierrez (PBA-NO; ESCR-YES; Schiavo-NO)
Jose Serrano (PBA-NO; ESCR-YES; Schiavo-NV)
Stephen Lynch (PBA-Yes; ESCR-YES; Schiavo-Yes)
Edward J. Markey (PBA-NO; ESCR-YES; Schiavo-NV)
Nancy Pelosi (PBA-NO; ESCR-YES; Schiavo-NV)
Lane Evans (PBA-NO; ESCR-YES; Schiavo-NO)

The Catholics in Congress report can be found here. You can examine all Catholic House and Senate members' votes on the issues of abortion, ESCR, marriage, euthanisia, human cloning, and torture.

Father Pavone of Priests for Life responded to the statement:

“This statement tries to soften the contradiction between creating a just society and tolerating legal abortion. The voting records of these legislators are available to anyone who wants to look them up. To fail to protect the unborn, and then to say that you are ‘committed to…protecting the most vulnerable among us’ is a blatant contradiction. Moreover, the statement invokes Pope John Paul II’s document Christifideles Laici. Yet that very document states, ‘Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.’”

Priests for Life will release a statement of its own this month, addressing these concerns in more detail and bringing them to the attention of each of the signers of the “Statement of Principles.”

Here is Domenico Bettenelli's take on the statement.

And Gerald Augustinus'.

And Carl Olson's over at Insight Scoop. He comments on the E.J. Dionne article on the statement and the misguide concept of "primacy of conscience".

Homeland Insecurity

HOLYOKE - The St. Patrick's Parade Committee will suspend its long-standing tradition of having the Roman Catholic bishop present its highest award after learning that the honoree supports abortion rights.

Thomas J. Ridge, who served from 2001 to 2005 as the nation's first chief of homeland security, still is slated to receive this year's John F. Kennedy Award, which honors someone of Irish heritage for distinguished achievement.

But, when Bishop Timothy A. McDonnell of the Springfield Diocese voiced his objections to Ridge, the parade committee agreed that its president, David J. O'Connor, will make the presentation.

Committee members said that despite any problems, they are still excited to have the country's first chief of homeland security visit Holyoke.

Thank you Bishop McDonnell for your stand against a pro-abortion Catholic politician. Unfortunately for Ridge he did not care that the terror alert level for children in the womb was always maxed out. That everyday we murder as many children through abortion as killed on 9-11.

Orthodox Look to Rome

In a recent N.Y. Times article, a Russian Orthodox bishop attending a meeting of the World Council of Churches spoke out plainly and bluntly that liberal Protestantism had fallen off the edge of Christianity. He noted that the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church were on the same side of the divide: the divide between liberal, believe-what-you-want Christianity and traditional Christianity. In other words, a divide between heresy and the real thing. Here are his comments:

"The gap between the traditional wing, represented mainly by Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church, and the liberal wing, represented by many Protestant churches, is only growing day by day," he said. "We," referring to the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, "are on the same side of the divide."

He added: "Traditional Christianity's very survival is in jeopardy. We have no right to delay this strategic alliance, because in 20 to 40 years it will be too late."

N.Y. Times, "Orthodox Ties to Catholics Seen as Vital," Feb. 21, 2006 (emphasis added).

In my view, the Orthodox churches should reconsider being full members of the so-called World Council of Churches or even the National Council of Churches here in the United States. In strict theological terms, to have a genuine "church" you must have an authentic Eucharist. No Protestant denomination, including the all-over-the-map Anglicans/Episcopalians, have an authentic Eucharist based on apostolic succession. Thus, the strictly correct term for referring to a Protestant denomination, as a whole, is not "church" but the more cumbersome "ecclesial community."

In my personal opinion, as a matter of custom and courtesy, it is certainly fine to refer to Protestant houses of worship as "churches" in daily life. I personally consider such customary courtesy a living sign of the links arising from common history (all Protestant traditions were preceded by a common Catholic Church) and from a common Trinitarian Baptism. (In some cases, as in, say the British isles, the actual physical buildings called "churches" are actually medieval Catholic churches taken over during the Protestant Reformation.) But this daily usage in everyday life is not intended to make an exact theological statement but in effect is just shorthand for referring to a house of Christian prayer. In this daily usage, the term "church" is simply being used to mean the same thing as "meetinghouse." But, when speaking of denominations as a whole, in strictly theological terms, the better usage is to say "ecclesial community" rather than "church" because of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox belief in the Eucharist.

Language matters because precision in thinking and analysis can help us avoid entanglements that are just too compromising and confusing. To witness to the truth means that we wish to be as clear as possible. I hope the outspoken comments of the Russian Orthodox bishop are a harbinger of much greater clarity in the future.