Newsweek profiles Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

Newsweek profiles Bobby Jindal -- Lousiana governor, rising GOP star (and Catholic convert):

Together, Jindal's adaptive instincts and intellectual drive fueled his conversion to Catholicism. At 12, an evangelical friend named Kent gave him a paperback Bible for Christmas. Raised in a "strong Hindu culture," Jindal considered himself "anti-Christian" and stashed it in a closet. But a crush, Kathy, soon convinced him to read the book "from cover to cover." Jindal gradually warmed to the Scriptures, and while watching a Passion film at Kent's church, he was suddenly "convicted" of his "sinfulness and [his] need for a savior." Most conversion narratives end there. But Jindal's doesn't. Ever the A student, he studied Kent's Bible "by flashlight" and even "learned bits of Latin, Greek and Hebrew." After a long stretch of soul searching, Jindal concluded that Protestantism lacked "scriptural cogency" and decided to become a strict Catholic instead. ("Bobby said he trusted God to put his own house in order," recalls Ahsanuddin.) Although critics have questioned the governor's motives—Hindu activist Ramesh Rao recently wrote that "Jindal knew well that [conversion] was the only way, as an Indian-American Hindu, he could achieve his political ambitions"—his deeply Catholic views, including a "100 percent" opposition to abortion "with no exceptions" for rape, incest or health of the mother, undoubtedly anger more voters than they attract. "If I wanted the aesthetics without the inconvenient morality," he wrote in 1998, "I could become Episcopalian."

Nowhere is Jindal's commitment to Christianity more evident than in the 15 essays, Obama-esque in their self-scrutiny, that he published in the New Oxford Review and other Catholic journals between 1991 and 1998. In the most controversial, he details an amateur exorcism he witnessed at Brown. One day, a friend—called Susan in his 1994 account—confessed that she'd started seeing "visions" and smelling sulfur when doctors discovered a cancerous lump on her scalp; soon after, she fell to the floor at a prayer meeting and started "thrashing about." As Susan screamed "Bobby," the group pinned her down and chanted, "Satan, I command you to leave this woman." But Jindal was too terrified to "confront the demon." Eventually, the struggle subsided; Susan claimed she felt "healed." A short time later, surgeons removed the bump—and, according to Jindal, "found no traces of cancerous cells." The account has already raised eyebrows among skeptics who find it difficult to reconcile the governor's Brown biology degree with a belief in demonic possession—liberal bloggers, for example, now call Jindal "the Exorcist"—but he seems unfazed. "It's important to share your spiritual experiences with people who might benefit," he says. "There are a lot of things in this life that we won't understand, and that's OK. How do you explain the Sacraments? How do you explain the Resurrection? Those are hard concepts. So I didn't try to interpret it or declare what happened, because I don't know."

Meet Rep.-Elect Joseph Cao, LA-02

Anh "Joseph" Cao defeated 9 term Congressman William Jefferson yesterday in Louisana's Second Congressional District 50%/47%.  Rep.-elect Cao was an underdog in the race against Rep. Jefferson in this heavily Democratic district. But given the demographic changes in New Orleans and Louisana since Katrina, Rep. Jefferson's legal troubles, and the election postponed until yesterday (due to Gustav) Cao pulled the upset.

Cao is a former Jesuit who studied for the priesthood.  He studied Philosophy at Loyola Univ. and today is a attorney in New Orleans.  He is also a member of the National Advisory Council to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  His full bio is here. Go read it. This is the kind of Catholic we need in Congress.

Cao is a faithful Catholic who opposes abortion. (“I am very anti-abortion.”) He may have a difficult time holding onto this seat in 2010. I believe he will need a strong constiuent service to win re-election. He will have my prayers and I hope yours as well.

Vatican official: approval of Doug Kmiec to U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican "will never happen"

An official from the Vatican's Secretary of State department has reacted to the recent suggestion that Pepperdine professor Douglas Kmiec should become the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican by saying, "it will never happen.", Catholic News Agency reports:

The official noted that prominent American Catholics at the Vatican -such as Cardinal James Francis Stafford or Archbishop Raymond Burke- look at Kmiec as a "traitor," and "their opinion will certainly count heavily."

But most importantly, the official said, is that the Holy See will not risk alienating vital U.S. Catholic organizations like the Knights of Columbus or the American branch of the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher, "whose role in the life of the universal Church is decisive, and who have already expressed publicly their disappointment with Kmiec's role in the recent elections."

Sean Michael Winters of America Magazine had previously recommended Kmiec as the "perfect candidate" for the position:

He is a lifelong pro-life legal scholar who served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Departments of both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He was Dean of the Catholic University Law School and now teaches law at Pepperdine. His published works evidence a find legal mind and thorough familiarity with the natural law tradition that has been the dominant lens for Catholic social thought. Kmiec would be well known to prominent American churchmen in the Eternal City and a jewel in the crown of the intellectual milieu that surrounds the Holy See.

Winters is recipient of the less-than-coveted Father Richard McBrien Prize in Really Inept Vaticanology, named for the Notre Dame theologian who memorably announced that Joseph Ratzinger couldn’t possibly be elected pope, less than 24 hours before Ratzinger was elected", on account of his prediction that Pope Benedict, during his U.S. visit, would spurn President Bush by "[denouncing] the continuing U.S. occupation of Iraq before the U.N. General Assembly".

Catholic Campaign for Human Development - Tarnished by ACORN or Still Rotten Itself?

A "whack-job" with a sign protesting the second collection for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development sets Vox Nova's Morning's Minion on a tirade against Fr. Neuhaus and evangelicals:

After a moment of confusion, it suddenly dawned on me what this was about. And then I became rather angry. Yes, it was just one “whack-job”, but I was still angry. And then I thought of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’s partially-successful attempt to align Catholics with the emergent right-wing evangelical movement, and realized that it had come to this. Catholics, including Neuhaus, were lambasting an anti-poverty program because it simply did not fit with the the ideological talking points of the hour.

As Fr. Neuhaus points out, "Ten years ago, CHD was exposed as using the Catholic Church as a milk cow to fund organizations that frequently were actively working against the Church’s mission, especially in their support of pro-abortion activities and politicians."

Pointing to the CCHD's stated principles, including that it "will not consider organizations which promote or support abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, or any other affront to human life and dignity,” Morning's Minion dismisses Neuhaus' concerns:

This is important as many of the critics (including Neuhaus) claim it is funding pro-abortion activities. (Yet again, the mis-use of the abortion agenda as a Trojan horse to further a distinctly less noble cause– will this ever end?)

Unfortunately, Neuhaus' claim is true -- CCHD has a disappointing history of, contrary to its stated principles, providing extensive funding for questionable political groups with agendas morally at odds with Catholic teaching.

The Obamas Don't Need School Vouchers

But, if you are living in a terrible public school district, as many Americans are, you may need vouchers so your kids can hope to get out of poverty. Today's N.Y. Times announces that the Obama's have chosen the cream of the elite schools in the D.C. area for their two young daughters at a price tag of over $29,000 per year. Here is the link. It's blatant social injustice to want what's best for your own kids but to refuse school vouchers to other kids. It's also rank hypocrisy: the change that wasn't. The elitism that always is.

Obama chooses Tom Daschle for Health & Human Services; Described as "Pro-Life Nightmare"

Barack Obama has chosen Tom Daschle as the new Secretary for Health and Human Services. Catholic Online calls him a "Pro-Life Nightmare". Catholic News Agency reports that Daschle's record of supporting anti-life initiatives is extensive enough that his bishop previously asked him to stop calling himself a Catholic.:

Although Bishop Robert Carlson had been in conversation with Daschle for years about his voting record and beliefs about moral issues, including a public argument over partial-birth abortion in 1997, it wasn’t until April of 2003 that things began to escalate. At that point Bishop Carlson sent a letter to Tom Daschle telling him that he should removed all references to being a member of the Catholic Church from his congressional biography and campaign documents, Bottum reports.

Daschle responded to the letter from the floor of the Senate in Washington by accusing Bishop Carlson of acting in a way "more identified with the radical right than with thoughtful religious leadership."

See Tom Daschle's Duty to Be Morally Coherent (Weekly Standard April 17, 2003) for details.

NARAL, however, has mixed feelings about the appointment:

Daschle's record on reproductive and sexual health and rights is a mixed one. NARAL Pro-Choice America rated him 50% for his support for the (non-medically termed) Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a bill that allows a perpetrator to be prosecuted for two crimes in a violent crime against a pregnant woman. Daschle, also, however, opposes the ban on abortion procedures in military hospitals and supports expanding funding embryonic stem cell research.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, believes Daschle will be an effective representative for reproductive health access and rights issues in the White House, telling RH Reality Check, “Sen. Daschle will bring thoughtful progressive leadership to the Department of Health and Human Services. We appreciate his recent efforts to help defeat two abortion bans in South Dakota. We had a good working relationship with him during his tenure as Senate leader and look forward to continuing that relationship as he assumes this pivotal role in the Obama administration."

An Open Letter to President-Elect Barack Obama

President-elect Barack Obama,

As American Catholics, we, the undersigned, would like to reiterate the congratulations given to you by Pope Benedict XVI. We will be praying for you as you undertake the office of President of the United States.

Wishing you much good will, we hope we will be able to work with you, your administration, and our fellow citizens to move beyond the gridlock which has often harmed our great nation in recent years. Too often, partisan politics has hampered our response to disaster and misfortune. As a result of this, many Americans have become resentful, blaming others for what happens instead of realizing our own responsibilities. We face serious problems as a people, and if we hope to overcome the crises we face in today’s world, we should make a serious effort to set aside the bitterness in our hearts, to listen to one another, and to work with one another

One of the praiseworthy elements of your campaign has been the call to end such partisanship. You have stated a desire to engage others in dialogue. With you, we believe that real achievement comes not through the defamation of one’s opponents, nor by amassing power and using it merely as a tool for one’s own individual will. We also believe dialogue is essential. We too wish to appeal to the better nature of the nation. We want to encourage people to work together for the common good. Such action can and will engender trust. It may change the hearts of many, and it might alter the path of our nation, shifting to a road leading to a better America. We hope this theme of your campaign is realized in the years ahead.

One of the critical issues which currently divides our nation is abortion. As you have said, no one is for abortion, and you would agree to limit late-term abortions as long as any bill which comes your way allows for exceptions to those limits, such as when the health of the mother is in jeopardy. You have also said you would like to work on those social issues which cause women to feel as if they have a need for an abortion, so as to reduce the actual number of abortions being performed in the United States.

Indeed, you said in your third presidential debate, “But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, ‘We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.’”

As men and women who oppose abortion and embrace a pro-life ethic, we want to commend your willingness to engage us in dialogue, and we ask that you live up to your promise, and engage us on this issue.

There is much we can do together. There is much that we can do to help women who find themselves in difficult situations so they will not see abortion as their only option. There is much which we can do to help eliminate those unwanted pregnancies which lead to abortion.

One of your campaign promises is of grave concern to many pro-life citizens. On January 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, when speaking of the current right of women in America to have abortions, you said, “And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.”

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) might well undermine your engagement of pro-life Americans on the question of abortion. It might hamper any effort on your part to work with us to limit late-term abortions. We believe FOCA does more than allow for choice. It may force the choice of a woman upon others, and make them morally complicit in such choice. One concern is that it would force doctors and hospitals which would otherwise choose not to perform abortions to do so, even if it went against their sacred beliefs. Such a law would undermine choice, and might begin the process by which abortion is enforced as a preferred option, instead of being one possible choice for a doctor to practice.

It is because of such concern we write. We urge you to engage us, and to dialogue with us, and to do so before you consider signing this legislation. Let us reason together and search out the implications of FOCA. Let us carefully review it and search for contradictions of those positions which we hold in common.

If FOCA can be postponed for the present, and serious dialogue begun with us, as well as with those who disagree with us, you will demonstrate that your administration will indeed be one that rises above partisanship, and will be one of change. This might well be the first step toward resolving an issue which tears at the fabric of our churches, our political process, our families, our very society, and that causes so much hardship and heartache in pregnant women.

Likewise, you have also recently stated you might over-ride some of President G.W. Bush’s executive orders. This is also a concern to us. We believe doing so without having a dialogue with the American people would undermine the political environment you would like to establish. Among those issues which concern us are those which would use taxpayer money to support actions we find to be morally questionable, such as embryonic stem cell research, or to fund international organizations that would counsel women to have an abortion (this would make abortion to be more than a mere choice, but an encouraged activity).

Consider, sir, your general promise to the American people and set aside particular promises to a part of your constituency. This would indicate that you plan to reject politics as usual. This would indeed be a change we need.

Deal W. Hudson Marjorie Campbell Rev. James A. Nowack Susan DeBoisblanc Joshua D. Brumfield Michael J. Iafrate Matthew Talbot Henry C Karlson III Adam P Verslype Michael J. Deem Natalie Mixa Anthony M. Annett Veronica Greenwell Robert C. Koerpel

Christopher Blosser Mark J. Coughlan Craig D. Baker Megan Stout Ashley M. Brumfield Natalie Navarro Paul Mitchell Josiah Neeley Katerina M. Deem Henry Newman Mickey Jackson Thomas Greenwell PhD Nate Wildermuth

Originally posted by Henry Karlson at Vox Nova

(Please visit Vox Nova for new signees to this letter).

Cardinal Sean O'Malley on the irony of an Obama victory

"When I was in high school, I joined the NAACP and did voter registration in black neighborhoods when I wasn't old enough to vote myself, and I was there at Resurrection City after Martin Luther King was murdered, and living in the mud with thousands of people on the lawn of the Lincoln Memorial and having off-duty redneck policemen throwing canisters of tear gas at us and shouting obscenities," O'Malley, now the cardinal-archbishop of Boston, said in an interview yesterday, his eyes welling with tears.

"So, to me, the election of an Afro-American is like the Berlin Wall falling. I mean, for my generation, I suppose young people today can't appreciate that, but to me it is something very big."

"My joy, however, is tempered by the knowledge that this man has a deplorable record when it comes to prolife issues, and is possibly in the pocket of Planned Parenthood, which, in its origins, was a very racist organization to eliminate the blacks, and it's sort of ironic that he's been co-opted by them."

"He is the president, and everyone wishes him well, and we will try to work with him. However, I hope he realizes that his election was not a mandate to rush ahead with a proabortion platform."

Interview with Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley
Michael Paulson / Boston Globe. November 11, 2008. (Read the whole thing).

Cardinal George: "The common good can never be adequately incarnated in any society when those waiting to be born can be legally killed at choice."

We can also be truly grateful that our country’s social conscience has advanced to the point that Barack Obama was not asked to renounce his racial heritage in order to be president, as, effectively, John Kennedy was asked to promise that his Catholic faith would not influence his perspective and decisions as president a generation ago. Echoes of that debate remain in the words of those who reject universal moral propositions that have been espoused by the human race throughout history, with the excuse that they are part of Catholic moral teaching. We are, perhaps, at a moment when, with the grace of God, all races are safely within the American consensus. We are not at the point, however, when Catholics, especially in public life, can be considered full partners in the American experience unless they are willing to put aside some fundamental Catholic teachings on a just moral and political order. The hubris that has isolated our country politically and now economically is heard, but not usually recognized, in moral arguments based simply and solely on individual moral autonomy. This personal and social dilemma is not, of course, a matter of ultimate importance, for America is not the Kingdom of God; but it makes America herself far less than she claims to be in this world.

At our meeting last spring, we heard statisticians tell us that the Catholic Church is a laboratory for our society. What the Church looks like today, in her ethnic composition, her economic situation, her generational cohorts, the entire country will look like in twenty five to thirty years. This gives Catholics a perhaps prophetic perspective on our society’s life and concerns. In Holy Scripture, a true prophet’s life is always marked by suffering. What is of major importance to us, as bishops of the Church, is that the Church remain true to herself and her Lord in the years to come, for only in being authentically herself will the Church serve society and its members, in time and in eternity.

In working for the common good of our society, racial justice is one pillar of our social doctrine. Economic justice, especially for the poor both here and abroad, is another. But the Church comes also and always and everywhere with the memory, the conviction, that the Eternal Word of God became man, took flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary, nine months before Jesus was born in Bethlehem. This truth is celebrated in our liturgy because it is branded into our spirit. The common good can never be adequately incarnated in any society when those waiting to be born can be legally killed at choice. If the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision that African Americans were other people’s property and somehow less than persons were still settled constitutional law, Mr. Obama would not be president of the United States. Today, as was the case a hundred and fifty years ago, common ground cannot be found by destroying the common good.

Excerpt, Plenary Address by Francis Cardinal George, OMI

Obama poised to reverse Bush Administration policies on embryonic stem cell research, Mexico City Policy

The Washington Post reports that transition advisers have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies:

Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson's.

Bush's August 2001 decision pleased religious conservatives who have moral objections to the use of cells from days-old human embryos, which are destroyed in the process.

But Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said that during Obama's final swing through her state in October, she reminded him that because the restrictions were never included in legislation, Obama "can simply reverse them by executive order." Obama, she said, "was very receptive to that." Opponents of the restrictions have already drafted an executive order he could sign.

The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.

"We have been communicating with his transition staff" almost daily, Richards said. "We expect to see a real change."

ObamaCatholics - is this the change you were looking for?

Discussion of Catholics and abortion removed from still on Bishops' general conference agenda

Religion News Service reports that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' plans to discuss abortion and politics next week in Baltimore have been scuttled:

In a September, after high-profile Catholic politicians challenged church teaching on abortion, the bishops announced that they "plan to discuss the practical and pastoral implications of these serious matters at the U.S. bishops' Nov. 10-13, 2008 general meeting in Baltimore." ...

[Sister Mary Anne] Walsh said the bishops' discussion has been removed from the agenda as of late Friday. The agenda will not be finalized until Saturday afternoon, Walsh added.

"I think this is something that has evolved since September," Walsh said. "Many bishops have already addressed the issue (of pro-abortion rights politicians) through pastoral letters, so there's not the same need they saw in September."

The article mentions the likely possibility that the topic will be raised in close-door sessions, but Catholic News Service' Diogenes (Off The Record) is skeptical:

So what has "evolved" to allow the bishops to skip another difficult discussion? Let's see:

• Have prominent Catholic politicians ceased to be advocates of legal abortion? Not at all. This year's two most conspicuous offenders, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, will soon stand 2nd and 3rd in line for the nation's highest office. They continue to advance not only the 'culture of death' political agenda, but also a skewed quasi-Catholic theology to justify it.
  
• Have the bishops reached agreement on how to handle the problem? Nope. Right through Election Day individual bishops were issuing their contrasting statements, drawing out different aspects of their malleable common statement, Faithful Citizenship. The most forthright bishops were acknowledging that an air-clearing discussion was overdue.
  
• Have the media moved away from the issue, now that the campaign is over, so that the bishops can retreat into undisturbed silence, away from the glare of publicity? Bingo.

On the other hand, Amy Welborn advises us to "Chill, and Pray":

There are two days of public meetings and two days of private, executive sessions. The issue has obviously exploded beyond the relatively narrow agenda item originally planned for public discussion. I have no problem (as if it matters) with bishops taking this to private discussions in which they can speak freely to each other without the rest of us watching. As enjoyable as that might be for the rest of us.

As we celebrate the feast of the Dedication of St. John Lateran, the church of the Bishop of Rome, it seems a good idea to pray for our bishops. It’s particularly apropos on this day because St. John Lateran represents a great deal - and part of symbolism it bears after a millenium and a half regards the complicated and perpetually vexing relationship between Catholicism and civic life, the original church being built by Constantine and the palace, as the residence of the popes for almost a millenium being a center of both politics and religion in Rome - for good and for ill, for the benefit of the Body of Christ and sometimes to its great detriment.

Have you prayed for your bishop lately?

* * *

In other news, noting that Catholics voted 52 percent to 45 percent for Senator Barack Obama, Peter Steinfels recommended to the Bishops a change of strategy (Catholics and Choice (in the Voting Booth New York Times 11/07/08):

Anyone constructing a list of the big losers on Tuesday would probably include the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops. Will that fact be candidly addressed when the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops meets next week in Baltimore?" ...

If the bishops sweat a little over these figures next week, the reason won’t be worry about their political prowess but about their pastoral and moral effectiveness. By appearing to tie their moral stance on abortion so closely to a particular political choice, have they in fact undermined their moral persuasiveness on that issue as well as their pastoral effectiveness generally?

Update The Catholic News Agency says the meeting is on:

[A] bishop who requested anonymity, confirmed to CNA that the bishops will not drop the issue of abortion or hold the conversation behind closed doors. On the contrary, they will discuss it on no less than three occasions: “in our regional groups, in executive session, and in the public session.”

The sessions open to the media will take place on Monday, November 10, from 9:00 a.m. to mid-afternoon, and Tuesday, November 11, from 9:00 a.m. until mid-afternoon. The rest of the meeting will be for breakout sessions, executive sessions, and prayer and reflection.

Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland -- a member of the task force on the faith formation and sacramental practice -- confirms as well:

“We plan to set aside time to discuss practical and pastoral implications of political support for abortion, an issue that remains problematic for us and our people,” he confirmed.

Elections 2008 - Perspectives from Rome and the USCCB

Pope Benedict, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and a dean from the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University weigh in on the results of the election.

Election 2008 - Catholic Blogs Roundup

• Mark Shea puts things into perspective:

  I think it's really easy to miss the wood for the trees when contemplating this or any American election. Yeah, I think Obama will be a lousy President. But when I consider the fact that neither he nor any President has come to office by a) poisoning his predecessor, b) marshalling an army to lead a military coup that hails him as Supreme Maximum Leader, c) assuming power by taking his predecessor's concubines and bedding them in public before exiling his enemies from their homes, d) creating an army of child soldiers to terrorize, rape and murder in a genocidal rampage, e) rounding up his enemies and sending them to a gulag or forced labor camp, f) sending teams of assassins to drive ice picks through the brains of his rivals, g) being the deranged heir to the throne who appoints his horse a Senator or murders his scheming mother, h) being some despotic potentate whose rule reflects the inexorable will of Allah--or any of the other myriad crappy ways the human race has organized the state in the past, I have to say that I'm grateful.

• Commonweal gets cocky:

  Networks call Ohio for Obama. Game over. I never thought I would see this day. I guess (if certain Bishops are right) hell is going to be a little more crowded, but the company there will be good.

• Paul (Thoughts of a Regular Guy) rescinds his prohibition on linking to Vox Nova.

• Jeff Miller (Curt Jester)'s obligatory post-election rant:

  Now we will also have a culture of death Catholic Vice President who will be putting the vice into Vice President with his support of many forms of abortion. I bet the media can hardly wait to snap a picture of him receiving Communion to gloat. The USCCB meets soon to discuss "practical and pastoral implications of political support for abortion." Will the scandal of Sen. Biden be addressed? Probably not, but I would love to be wrong.
  

  I hear that Sen. Obama will be FedExing 30 pieces of silver to Doug Kmiec. Moloch is quite happy with all of the Catholics that voted for Sen. Obama. According to Catholic Culture "Among Catholic voters who attend Mass weekly, McCain won majority support: 54- 45%. Among those who do not attend weekly Mass, the margin for Obama was an overwhelming 61- 37%. Thus Obama drew his support from inactive Catholics." So 45 percent of Mass going Catholics supported the most extreme supporter of abortion ever in a Presidential race. The unborn chopped up via scalpels will be glad to hear about hope and change.

• Dale Price asks us to respond like Catholics:

  Obama is our next president, like it or not. Our marching orders are clear: Pray for him and our country, work with him where possible to achieve the common good, and fight like a Maccabee when he oversteps his bounds -- all the while remembering that November 2010 and 2012 will be here quicker than we think.

• MoveOn (Amy Welborn):

  the feeling is mitigated by the politics of the man elected as well as the campaign he headed, and I don’t think that wariness and sadness merits an apology. If the man’s policies and promises sadden and give us pause, are we required to bury that now?
  

  On message, yes. Unflappable, yes. But I disagree with most of his policy proposals at one level or another and believe the campaign was anything but noble. No campaign is without fault, and most are full of fault, and the Obama campaign was no different. In other words, it was not an admirable rise, in my opinion. The achievement is marred by dissembling about the candidate’s past, dishonesty and vitriol from surrogates, a viciousness which was never reigned in by the campaign, as well as near-cultishness and sycophancy for a very inexperienced candidate.
  

  And I’m not going to apologize for that qualification. Because I know full well that those who would scold about ruining the moment by consideration of such little things like policy would not - would not - be joyously basking in the historic moment if Sarah Palin were now the vice-president elect. Or president, it goes without saying. Not for a second. In fact, they would be infuriated.
  

  So here we are. ...

  
  

The Catholic Vote

Data on the Catholic Vote below is taken from the National Exit Polls.

 

Catholic Vote (27% of those surveyed)

Obama 54%

McCain 45%

 

White Catholic Vote (19% of those surveyed)

Obama 47%

McCain 52%

 

Catholics who attend Mass weekly (12% of those surveyed)

Obama 49%

McCain 50%

 

Catholics who attend Mass less often (14% of those surveyed)

Obama 58%

McCain 40%

 

My thoughts.

 

First, Catholics as a “bloc” make up less than a third of the electorate, but a shift of 6% of this “bloc” could have sent McCain to the White House. Here is a look at the Catholic Vote in some Battleground States:

 

Ohio

Obama 47%

McCain 52%

 

Florida

Obama 50%

McCain 49%

 

Pennsylvania

Obama 48%

McCain 52%

 

Indiana

Obama 50%

McCain 50%

 

New Mexico

Obama 71%

McCain 28%

 

Second, it is surprising that of those Catholics who attend Mass weekly, they split evenly between both candidates. I wonder how many of those 49% know about Obama’s promise to sign FOCA?

 

I am curious what our editors and readers think.

USCCB investigates $1 million church funding to ACORN

Just to update a prior post -- The Washington Times reports that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has hired forensic accounting specialists to investigate more than $1 million in church funding to voter-registration group ACORN

There isn't anything I can say tonight ...

... other than what Jay Anderson has already said here.

Thank you, Jay.

Knights of Columbus: "Remember FOCA on November 4th"

The Knights of Columbus remind us that among the most important issues at stake Nov. 4 is FOCA ["Freedom of Choice Act"]:

As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops declared recently:

“Abortion rights groups and their allies in Congress are promoting a radical bill called the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). If this extreme measure is enacted, widely-supported and constitutionally-sound abortion regulations will be knocked down nationwide.”

• FOCA would force taxpayers to fund abortions.
  
• FOCA would require all states to allow partial birth and other late term abortions.
  
• FOCA would violate the consciences of health care providers.

As Supreme Knight Car Anderson stated in a letter to all Knights, “All of the progress we’ve made over the past 35 years in trying to limit and reduce abortions in the United States – would be invalidated with the stroke of a pen if the next Congress passes, and the next president signs, the so-called Freedom of Choice Act.”

Before you cast your vote on Tuesday, Nov. 4, please take the time and effort necessary to learn whether candidates for whom you might vote favor or oppose FOCA.

House sponsors of FOCA

Senate sponsors of FOCA

If your local candidates are not sponsors of FOCA, ask their campaigns what their position on the bill is.

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s position on FOCA can be found on this page from his campaign Web site:

U.S. Sen. John McCain’s position on FOCA can be found on this page from his campaign Web site.

White Catholics Moving to Obama

From Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post :

On the 19th, McCain led 54 percent to 41 percent. By Oct. 24, that lead has shrunk to 51 percent to 46 percent. And then, in the tracks released on Monday night and Tuesday night, for the first time Obama actually moved ahead -- taking 48 percent of the white Catholic vote to McCain's 47 percent in each track.

Now, it's important to note that Obama's "lead" is not statistically significant. But, the trend line among white Catholics is clearly moving in the right direction for the Illinois senator. He has erased a double-digit lead among this critical voting bloc in the space of 10 days time.

Will white Catholic voters keep their 32-year streak alive next Tuesday?

"The transcending issue of our day is the intentional destruction of innocent human life"

Our own common sense tells us that not every issue is of the same importance. At various times in history, a people or nation is confronted with an issue that transcends others in importance and that demands a courageous response.The transcending issue of our day is the intentional destruction of innocent human life, as in abortion. We wish with all our hearts that no candidate and no party were advocating this heinous act against the human person. However, since it is a transcending issue, and even supported in its most extreme and horrific forms, we must proclaim time and time again that no intrinsic evil can ever be supported in any way, most especially when it concerns the gravest of all intrinsic evils: the taking of an innocent life.

We bishops of Pennsylvania quoted from the late Pope John Paul II’s Post Synodal Exhortation on the Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful and I quote him again here: “The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds 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” (Christifideles Laici, 38).

At this moment in our country’s history, defense of innocent human life is a moral responsibility for all of us. The same God who thundered from Mount Sinai: “Thou shalt not kill,” thunders still. When life in the womb is destroyed, God thunders: “This is a child!” When by the most barbaric means, unworthy of any civilized people, the brain of a child is sucked out of his or her head by a vacuum, God thunders: “This is a child!” When a baby is left to die of exposure on a shelf because of a failed abortion, and this is considered a “right” by any leader, God, the Source of all law and authority, thunders: “This is a child!” When we are faced with every modern means of education and communication, in addition to the law placed in our hearts at creation, no one, and most especially, no Catholic, can ever say: “I did not know.”

Faithful Citizenship — Respect for Life, by Cardinal Justin Rigali.
The Catholic Standard October 23, 2008.

(Via Carl Olson @ Insight Scoop).

Bishop Arthur Serratelli: If Obama fulfills his promise, "the innocent and vulnerable will spill their blood"

A Politician's Promise: No Right to Life! No Freedom!, by Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, NJ:

After committing a murder in Rome, the famous 17th century Italian painter Caravaggio went to Malta to avoid the death penalty. While there, the Great Master of the Order of the Knights of Malta commissioned him to do a painting for the chapel of the Co-Cathedral of St. John in Valletta. Caravaggio chose as his theme the martyrdom of John the Baptist. He produced The Beheading of St. John, his largest work, the only one he ever signed. No doubt the scene touched him personally.

Herod was married to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. Because John the Baptist preached against this sin, he incurred the hatred of Herod’s wife. The day her daughter Salome delighted Herod with her seductive dance, Herodias had her make Herod promise to kill John the Baptist. Within the severe architecture of a 16th century prison, Caravaggio vividly depicts the grisly moment when Herod kept his promise.

Caravaggio’s work, considered his greatest masterpiece, immortalizes the misguided fidelity of a ruler to his gruesome promise. With the stroke of the soldier’s sword, John dies and so does freedom. Freedom is based on the truth of the human person as created by God and protected by his law.
When a ruler can decide against God’s law, true freedom is sentenced to death.

Recently, a politician made a promise. Politicians usually do. If this politician fulfills his promise, not only will many of our freedoms as Americans be taken from us, but the innocent and vulnerable will spill their blood. ...

(Hat tip: LifeSiteNews.com).

The Catholic View of the Public Square

Homily Delivered by Father Chas Canoy, Sunday, Oct. 19, 2008, St. Thomas the Apostle Parish, Ann Arbor, Michigan , Diocese of Lansing [Emphasis added by blogger]

“Render Unto Caesar”

Today’s Gospel that touches on the nature of civic responsibility is a fitting one as our country heads into voting booths in a couple of weeks. To understand the Gospel better we have to know a little bit about the groups involved. It begins with a group of Pharisees teaming up with a group of Herodians. These two groups do not like each other, they have opposite political views. It’s like a group of Democrats and Republicans teaming up to take out a third threat so that they can go back to the business of fighting for power between themselves. I guess the people in power back then didn’t like third parties either.

So, these two groups were trying to trap Jesus. They try to force him to take sides, so as to justify one of the groups taking action against him.. The Herodians favored Roman rule, and the Pharisees wanted independence. So they asked him, “Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?” If Jesus went against the tax, the Herodians would go after him on the basis of treason since the words might instigate a revolt on the tax the Jews were charged. But if Jesus spoke in favor of the tax, then the Pharisees would make him out to be a disloyal son of [Israel], favoring Roman tyranny over national independence. So what should Jesus do? First of all, he calls them out, letting them know that he knows what they are up to; “Why are you testing me, you hypocrites?” But then he actually takes them up on the question and asks for a Roman coin. He asks them whose image in on the coin, and they answer, “Caesar’s.” And so Jesus cleverly responds, “ ‘Then render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God,’ When they heard it they marveled, and they left him and went away.” So Jesus evades their trap.

The Herodians got their tax. Jesus didn’t say not to pay it. It’s Caesar’s image on the coin anyway. But then the Pharisees fail to trap Jesus as well because of the second part of what he said: “Render unto… God what belongs to God.”Out of all creation what uniquely bears the image of God? The human person bears the image of God. This is a foundational truth, as one reads in Genesis that man and woman are made in the image and likeness of God. And so because it is God’s image that each human soul bears, each person then has the obligation to give himself or herself back to God. And this higher obligation is a duty to which even Caesar himself is held, whether he believes so or not. Everything that we do then must be in the context of love and service of God. Even the way that we render to Caesar what is Caesar’s should be in harmony with our love and service of God. In other words, the fulfillment of our civil obligations must be in harmony with the will of God.

So, it’s at this point that I want to hone in on this aspect of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s because, for a nation that is a democracy, this is no small thing. The fulfillment of our civil obligations is no small thing for a democracy because who is the sovereign in a democracy? It’s the people! As we will be doing soon, we as our own Caesar deputize other citizens nationally, state-wide and locally, all of whom act as Caesar on our behalf and benefit. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work out so well, but that’s the idea. The ones in power are not to act selfishly on their own behalf, but govern the country on behalf of the sovereign people, govern for their common good and for the protection of every human being and their inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as we say in our adopted Declaration of Independence. Now those things being “inalienable” means that they cannot be taken away. We have those rights by virtue of the fact that we are human beings. Our right to life, our right to liberty, and our pursuit of happiness never should be taken away by any state. Rather the state exists to preserve and protect those rights for each one of us.When that does not happen, when the state begins to infringe or take away those rights, that is when it begins to become what John Paul the Great described as a tyrant state. In his encyclical, John Paul mentions how this is particularly true when the first of those three rights, the right to life, the right upon which the other two depend, is infringed upon or taken away, which is very fitting to address since we are celebrating Respect Life Month.

John Paul II says this about a democracy that begins to forget that the state exists to protect the right to life of its people, not to take it away: “In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The state is no longer the ‘common home’ where all can live together on the basis of the principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant state, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenseless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of the public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part.” Have we not seen this dynamic throughout the tragedies of human history, the interest of one part asserting itself over that of a less powerful part? I would like to quote Dr. Peter Kreeft, a well-known professor at Boston College , who used a poignant example at a recent talk he gave. “Adolph Hitler gave the people a lot of good things: a sense of self-worth, hope, solidarity, community, optimism, meaningful work, and national pride. He cut unemployment. He was responsible for the autobahns and the Volkswagens. He eliminated starvation, almost all private crime, and most poverty. The people freely elected him and loved him until he started losing military battles. But this egomaniacal tyrant started the world’s worst war and hated, enslaved and murdered six million of God’s Chosen People.”“That was not just an unfortunate excess, a side effect, the one dark spot on a wonderful record. That was the issue because all other goods are means to the end of the good of persons, and Hitler denied millions of persons the very right to life, which is the foundation of all other rights, including liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Even if we hate to think about it, I know I do, we have to ask the question of a tyrant state in our own time and place. Do we ever see the staggering loss of human life due to abortion as just an unfortunate excess or a side-effect or a mere issue among others? If we ever wonder how the people of Germany would just do nothing or how so many could think that a certain people were less worthy of life or why the surrounding countries didn’t act sooner or more forcefully, if we ever ask that of them and think of them judgmentally, we shouldn’t. Our count is not 6 million, but over 40 million. And I know it’s depressing to hear about it and to think about it, but maybe it is because we don’t hear about it enough and that we continue to permit it not just by putting Caesars into power that just see right to life issues as side issues, but electing Caesars that actually work to ensure that people can choose to kill their preborn children without restrictions. This is precisely what will happen with the passage of the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act.” That’s why in Respect Life Month, as much as I wish we didn’t have to, we put the question front and center. “Do all human beings have the right to life or only some of them?” Is the right to life inalienable or is our right to life to be determined by whoever is in power? “Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, but render to God what belongs to God.”

Blogger Note: As I understand it, this particular young priest is a vocation from the nearby charismatic parish in Ann Arbor, which has close links with this particular parish.


Another great pro-life homily can be found at this podcast audio link (scroll down to Oct. 5, 2008, Respect Life Sunday homily by Fr. Ed Fride, pastor of the charismatic parish from which Fr. Canoy came). Fr. Ed Fride (photo at left) makes a clear, simple, incisive argument for the life of the unborn that even an atheist can't honestly and responsibly deny.

Bishop Joseph Martino: "No social issue has caused the death of 50 million people"

Last week InsideCatholic.com editor Deal Hudson complained about the use of the Bishops' document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" to justify a vote for Senator Barack Obama -- who as Robert P. George persuasively argued, is "not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket". According to Hudson, The most egregious "teaching" of the document occurs along the following lines:

Democrats agree with 90% of the Church's social teaching, Republican's 10%. So the fact that the GOP is pro-life is offset by the weight of the many other issues --minimum wage, national health insurance, etc. -- supported by the Democrats.

Conclusion: Catholics can ignore the pro-life and marriage issues.

Another way the document is being taught is to line up a long list of "intrinsic evils." Yes, the Republicans hold the line on one or two intrinsic evils, but the Democrats care about measures to eliminate a longer list of "intrinsic evils." It won't be mentioned that the latter group of "evils" are not intrinsically evil in the same way as killing unborn life; the former must be opposed in any and all ways, including legislation; the latter opposed by prudential means.

But the conclusion is the same: Catholics can ignore the differences between Republicans and Democrats on the life and marriage issues.

Hudson claims that such a damaging presentation occurs along "middle-management" lines -- conveyed by staff, "both at the conference and the chanceries."

At the same time, a number of bishops have spoken up to "correct the record".:

We now have 40 bishops who have spoken out individually to correct the record during this election. Add to that the other 21 bishops of New York State, in addition to Cardinal Egan, and you have 61 who have spoken aloud on the priority of life issues.

(See Hudson's post for the complete list).

On October 17th, at a dinner sponsored by ENDOW (Educating on the Nature and Dignity of Women), Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, CO criticized the moral reasoning of Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec, author of "Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama,":

"Kmiec argues that there are defensible motives to support Senator Obama," continued Archbishop Chaput. "Speaking for myself, I do not know any proportionate reason that could outweigh more than 40 million unborn children killed by abortion and the many millions of women deeply wounded by the loss and regret abortion creates."

The prelate continued: "To suggest -- as some Catholics do -- that Senator Obama is this year’s 'real' pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse.

Two days later, Bishop Joseph F. Martino (of the Diocese of Scranton, PA -- home of the "scrappy" Democratic VP nominee Joseph Biden), unleashed a blistering salvo at a presidential forum -- aimed not only at pro-choice Catholic candidates and those Catholics making the case of voting for them, but the USCCB's document itself. The Wayne Independent reports:

According to the USCCB’s "Faithful Citizenship" statement, approved by the full body of U.S. bishops in 2007, "a Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. "

Martino, who arrived while the panelists were stating their viewpoints, took issue with the USCCB statement, which was handed out to everyone at the meeting, and also that his letter was not mentioned once at the forum

"No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese," said Martino. "The USCCB doesn’t speak for me."
"The only relevant document ... is my letter," he said. "There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable."

[...]

“No social issue has caused the death of 50 million people,” he said, nothing that he no longer supports the Democratic Party. “This is madness people.”

Martino also said that he wanted to persuade Father Martin Boylan, of St. John’s, to cancel the forum.

After his comments, most of the audience stood and clapped loudly while some were angry that the bishop usurped the forum.

His letter, published Sept. 30 and circulated throughout the diocese, states that a candidate’s abortion stance is a major voting issue that supersedes all other considerations due to its grave moral consequences.

"Health care, education, economic security, immigration, and taxes are very important concerns. Neglect of any one of them has dire consequences as the recent financial crisis demonstrates. However, the solutions to problems in these areas do not usually involve a rejection of the sanctity of human life in the way that abortion does," the letter says. "Another argument goes like this: ‘As wrong as abortion is, I don't think it is the only relevant ‘life’ issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote.’ This reasoning is sound only if other issues carry the same moral weight as abortion does, such as in the case of euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes. ... National Right to Life reports that 48.5 million abortions have been performed since 1973. One would be too many. No war, no natural disaster, no illness or disability has claimed so great a price."

[...] “No social issue has caused the death of 50 million people,” he said, nothing that he no longer supports the Democratic Party. “This is madness people.”

As Rocco Palmo notes, "the Scranton prelate was absent from last November's USCCB meeting in Baltimore which -- in a rare show of (near-)unanimity -- passed the Faithful Citizenship statement with 98% approval from the nation's hierarchy."

As to be expected, Bishop Martino's address has been received with mixed emotions. Deacon Kieth Fournier and Tito, my colleague at American Catholic, both applaud "The Lion of Pennsylvania", while the self-styled "progressive Catholic" members of Commonweal are predictably dismayed ("Ugly for the parish, for the diocese, for civil discourse, and for the hierarchy, which seems increasingly divided.")

Likewise, Vox Nova's Morning's Minion accuses such Bishops as Martino and Chaput of "deliberately distorting ["Faithful Citizenship"] itself (and here I point the finger at the Texas bishops), not only by fudging the theology, but by actually altering the set of relevant intrinsically evil acts."

And Michael ("Catholic Anarchist") Iafrate decries the lack of episcopal and ecclesial communion fostered by such outbursts:

Baffling, isn’t it, that these bishops feel the need to “clarify” the content of FC, a document that is revised and updated every four years in order to be as clear as possible in each election’s political context? If the bishops really intended to say that a Catholic may not vote for a pro-choice candidate if there is a “suitable” “pro-life” candidate available, why wasn’t this said in the document itself? Not only was this not said, it was not even remotely implied.

(Personally I find Michael's criticism of Martino rather curious, given that when a certain Bishop Botean went above and beyond the USCCB's own collective statement on Iraq to declare "direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin", he praised the individual prelate as having "the balls to give pastoral weight to the Holy See's judgment on the war, something that the USCCB was not willing to do." Do I detect a double standard?

American Catholic contributor DarwinCatholic also weighs in:

As for FC versus the various “clarifications” of it — consider how the thing was written in the first place. The bishops discussed and argued and revised and put forth different versions until they reached something that they were all willing to accept. However, it was doubtless pretty far from what some of the individual bishops would have liked. The nature of a compromise is to not be what many of its authors wished.

So since the bishops are individually tasked to be the shepherds of their diocese — they’re certainly not just regional representatives of the national bishops conference — it’s hardly surprising that those bishops who most felt that FC failed to be sufficiently clear on the application of principles to this particular election would issue their own teaching statements making their judgements clear.

As I noted myself, it would be a worthy effort in connection with this incident to undertake a reading of John Paul II's in examining the authoritative weight of collective USCCB statements as "Faithful Citizenship" -- and the prerogative of individual bishops to call into question such statements when they believe they are being wrongly exploited.

I expect there will be further reaction to Martino's address in days to come, in which case I'll update this post.

But for the time being, let's ask our readers: what do you think?

Biden: "I'm Not a Pope John Paul [II] Guy"

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic and Whispers in the Loggia)

Sen. Biden sticks his foot in it again over abortion, this time dissing the late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II:

... Q: This [abortion] was an issue for John Kerry, do you see this as being an issue for you?

A: I think it's going to be an issue for everybody. Anyone who's a Catholic, a practicing Catholic, this is a dilemma for. There's an expression in law school: hard cases make bad law. These are just very, very, very difficult moral, social and societal choices.

And for me, I am prepared as a senator to say that the framework of Roe v. Wade based upon this imperfect trimester notion captures the gravity of how you should approach this most serious of decisions relating to life and death. First trimester, the state should stay out of it completely because it's a matter of faith, basically, there. Second trimester, there are competing interests, but they're both legitimate to look at. Third trimester, there's an overwhelming burden to say, there isn't a good reason to abort unless it relates to the mother's health. I'm as comfortable as I can be on a really difficult moral dilemma.

To sum it up, as a Catholic, I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy.

(emphasis added)

Well, isn't that special? On the bright side, at least he didn't refer to Pope John XXIII as "Pius the XXIII".


[cross-posted at Catholics Against Joe Biden]

Political Asides

As a passionate observer of the political scene, especially during a presidential election year, I sometimes feel compelled to give political analysis that does not fit the parameters for discussion at Catholics in the Public Square. So, I have set up another personal blog called Political Asides for that particular purpose at this link. I will continue to post items in Catholics in the Public Square that respect its particular focus. But now I can have an outlet for everything I want to say during these crucial times of heady decision-making, crisis, and opportunity. Again, let us continue to pray daily and boldly during the next three weeks.

Obama, ACORN and the U.S. Bishops' Conference

Deal Hudson (InsideCatholic.com) reports that the U.S. Bishop's Conference Gave ACORN Over $1,000,000 in 2007:

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development gave $1.1 million to ACORN in 2007. You can find this fact on the CCHD website. If you add up all the groups called ACORN or Association Of Community Organization For Reform Now, you get a total of $1,111,000 in 2007.

Now, this wouldn't be the same ACORN repeatedly making the news for its bullying "direct action" tactics and subject of repeated investigations for voter fraud, would it?

The same ACORN currently supporting Barack Obama's campaign and on its payroll? -- :

A specific, month by month account of money paid by the Obama campaign to the ACORN front organization, Citizens Services, Inc. for those fraudulent “advance service”, taken from FEC reports and totaling $832,598.29 since Feb, 2008, can be found here.

Barack Obama has a long and colorful history of denying his embarrassing, radical leftwing associations, until he can no longer maintain the façade. At which point, he jettisons whatever or whoever has caused the embarrassment and MovesOn.

As he has done throughout his career, Obama has been rewarding those who support his ambitions. The Obama campaign, flush with cash, has been funneling money to ACORN through Citizens Services, Inc. much as he did in Chicago with the Woods Foundation and the Annenberg-Chicago Challenge. While Obama served on the Board Of Directors of the Woods Fund, for example the Chicago ACORN received grants Of $45,000 (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002), And $40,000 (2002) From The Woods Fund, as reported on the Donors Forum Website, ifs.donorsforum.org.

Makes you think twice when they pass that second collection plate.Background reading

• Inside Obama’s Acorn: by their fruits ye shall know them, by Stanley Kurtz. National Review May 29, 2008.
• ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities, by Sol Stern City Journal Spring 2003

Spines busting out

PRINCETON, NJ, October 7, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Princeton's Stuart Country Day School, a Catholic school, has disinvited former New Jersey Governor Christine Whitman as the keynote speaker for a women's leadership forum at the request of Bishop John Smith, who warned against the scandal that would be caused by inviting the famously pro-abortion political figure.

Bishop Smith of the Trenton diocese cited the section in the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" that condemns abortion and euthanasia as intrinsically evil and insupportable.

"Governor Whitman has made it her position over the years that she is pro-choice, and so supports a position totally contrary to official Catholic teaching," Bishop Smith wrote in a letter addressed to the school's headmistress, Sister Frances de la Chapelle of the Society of the Sacred Heart.

Bishop Smith urged the school to reverse the invitation, which "may well mislead your students, parents and faculty to falsely conclude that the Church tolerates the pro-choice position."

The school subsequently cancelled the woman's leadership forum altogether. In a statement concerning the cancellation, Sister de la Chapelle said, "We are saddened that our students, and the wider community, will not be enriched by the lively discussion and critical thinking that surely would have resulted from Governor Whitman's lecture on leadership, values, and the environment."

"I ask that we pray for our Church, Governor Whitman, and ourselves at this time," said the headmistress. [article]

And I might add for the headmistress also that apparently had no problem with a governor who vetoed a partial birth abortion ban. Thank you Bishop John Smith!

In other news Bishop Steinbeck talks about Fr. Farrow who recently came out against the Proposition 8 in California during Mass.

Farrow's comments contradict statements made by the head of the U.S. federal government's genome project, Dr. Francis S. Collins, who points out that studies of identical twins prove that "sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations." Identical twins, who share the same DNA, share a homosexual orientation in only 20 percent of cases, according to Collins.

Fresno's Bishop John T. Steinbock responded to Farrow's statements in a press release stating, "Proposition 8 is not about gay or lesbian orientation, or their legal rights. Proposition 8 is a reaffirmation of the nature of marriage. Proposition 8 reaffirms the dignity of the special covenant between one man and one woman which has been the building block of the church and of society since time immemorial."

Bishop Steinbock also defended the Church's right to speak out on political issues. "Some say that the Church has no place in American politics. That is absolutely untrue. The Church never involves itself in telling people to vote for a political candidate or party. But it does have the moral responsibility to speak out strongly on moral issues when these relate to propositions on our ballot," he said.

He added, "The Church has a right and obligation to speak out on issues of faith and morals. This means speaking out on important issues affecting family life and the common good."

In an interview before the mass at which he intended to announce his dissent, Farrow was directly asked by Fresno's ABC affiliate if he was "gay," to which he responded "It's a secondary issue. But yes, I am."

Farrow had apparently cleared out his office in anticipation of the event, and disappeared following the mass. As of Monday, Bishop Steinbeck still had not spoken to Farrow, but asked for prayers for him and all of the diocese's priests, as well as for priestly vocations. [article]

New Political Blog: American Catholic

Today is the first day of operation for a new political blog that you should definitely check out: American Catholic.

Here is the description of the blog that I received from the blog's founder, Tito Edwards:

I have assembled twelve bright, engaging, thoughtful, and faithful Catholics to blog on American politics from a Catholic perspective. This new blog is called American Catholic.

We hope to share our Catholic faith in the public square of politics and culture for the betterment of the common good.

... We hope (I want) to make a major impact in the public discussion of politics not only in the Catholic blogosphere, but in the Political blogosphere as well. We have answered the call from the Second Vatican Council to positively engage the world with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Catholics in the Public Square's own Christopher Blosser is one of the contributors to American Catholic, and I'm looking forward to their having a big impact on the discussion of politics, public policy, and the common good in the Catholic blogosphere.

Archbishop John G. Vlazny of Portland, OR rebukes Catholic Democrat Governor for hosting NARAL event

The Archbishop of Portland, Oregon John G. Vlazny is lamenting the fact that Democratic Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski has become “a source of embarrassment for our church and a scandal for the Catholic community” by hosting of a “political gala” for NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon. Catholic News Agency reports:

Labeling the Catholic governor’s appearance a seeming “deliberate dissent” from the teachings of the Church, Archbishop Vlazny is calling upon Catholics to contact the governor and extending them an invitation to an upcoming Respect Life Mass.

In a Tuesday statement from the Archdiocese of Portland, the archbishop rebuked the governor, who with his wife is scheduled to be an “honorary host” for the fundraising dinner at a Portland hotel.

Archbishop Vlazny wrote:

“It has come to my attention that Governor Ted Kulongoski will be hosting a NARAL Pro-Choice political gala two days before our Respect Life Mass at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception.

“This is a source of embarrassment for our church and a scandal for the Catholic community. For a Catholic governor to host an event of this sort seems a deliberate dissent from the teachings of the Church.

“As I wrote in the Catholic Sentinel in August ‘the very core of all Catholic moral and social teaching is respect for the dignity of everyone. Ours is a rich heritage of social teaching which forms the basis of what it means to be a faithful citizen as a Catholic.’”

Saying the “grave evil of abortion continues to be promoted as a legitimate moral choice by Governor Kulongoski and NARAL,” Archbishop Vlazny invited Catholics to attend evening Mass at St. Mary’s Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception on Friday, the day of the NARAL gala.

Should Catholics Work for Legal Restrictions on Abortion?

Amy Welborn offers a provocative resolution for discussion:

The discussion of the post below is veering, quite naturally, to the subject of Roe and the place of legal restrictions on abortion in the pro-life movement.

So, we might as well go ahead and go there. I have company drifting in over the next few hours, so I really am not in the proper frame of mind to compose a post, so I’ll be lazy and just throw this out there:

Resolved:

The anti-abortion movement should abandon any attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade or even work for legal restrictions on abortion. That battle has been lost. Further, it is not required, from the standpoint of Catholic teaching, to work towards criminalization of or restrictions on abortion.

Discuss.

My own thoughts on the subject can be read here and here. Be sure to check in over at Amy's every so often to follow the discussion.

Archbishop Burke: Democrats risk becoming a "Party of Death"

In an interview with Avvenire, voice of the Italian Bishops' conference, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke (prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature) weighed in on the present state of the Democratic Party - Catholic News Service reports:

Archbishop Burke was asked if he knew that the August Democratic National Convention in Denver featured a guest appearance by Sheryl Crow, a musician whose performance at a 2007 benefit for a Catholic children's hospital the archbishop had opposed because of her support for abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.

"That does not surprise me much," the archbishop said. "At this point the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a 'party of death' because of its choices on bioethical questions as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book, The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life."

Archbishop Burke said the Democratic Party once was "the party that helped our immigrant parents and grandparents better integrate and prosper in American society. But it is not the same anymore."

Pro-life Democrats are "rare, unfortunately," he said.

The Archbishop went on to defend his policy of prohibiting Communion to those Catholics who publicly embrace positions contrary to the teaching of the Catholic church, noting that while the USCCB believes each Bishop should decide how best to address the matter in their own diocese, "other bishops are coming to [his own] position."

Senate passes Kennedy-Brownback Down Syndrome Bill

Legislation which has the potential to encourage parents to give life to babies with Down Syndrome and discourage abortions has passed the Senate:

WASHINGTON — Doctors would have to give more comprehensive information to expectant mothers who receive a diagnosis of Down syndrome or other medical conditions under a measure approved by the Senate.

The bill, passed late Tuesday on a voice vote, is the product of an unusual partnership between Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, an anti-abortion Republican, and Sen. Edward Kennedy, an abortion-rights advocate from Massachusetts.

Brownback hopes the measure discourages women from terminating pregnancies if they test positive for Down syndrome or certain other conditions, such as spina bifida or cystic fibrosis. Between 80 percent and 90 percent of women who learn they are carrying a fetus with Down syndrome opt for an abortion.

The bill would require doctors to provide parents with the latest information about caring for children with disabilities as well as available support services and networks that can help parents unfamiliar with Down syndrome. Similar legislation is pending in the House. ... (Read the rest)

Congratulations to Senator Brownback and Ted Kennedy for coming together in support of this legislation.

Related

• See The Catholic Down Syndrome Society for regular updates on this topic.
  
• Unlikely to Survive: Few Down Syndrome Babies Making It to Birth, by Father John Flynn, LC. "One of the consequences of the nomination of Governor Sarah Palin as the Republican party's vice-presidential candidate is renewed attention to Down syndrome."
  
• UPDATE Early Help: Special needs call for a special attention, by Sam Brownback. National Review September 30, 2008.
  

Another Adult Stem Cell Advance: The Ethically Dangerous Alternative is Becoming Increasingly Moot

Here is the Washington Post link from today. In the real world, Obama just lost an issue. Yet, I heard today an Obama radio ad in Michigan attacking McCain/Palin on stem cell research, and the Obama campaign will likely not revise its ads to match the new scientific reality. It is up to the rest of us to let others know that, increasingly, when they hear the phrase "stem cell research," they should think first, primarily, and preferentially of adult stem cell research as the most promising alternative that can deliver both scientifically and ethically. It seems to me that the days of embryonic stem cell research being the first thing we think of when we hear the phrase "stem cell research" may very well be coming to an end. Here is an excerpt from the story linked to above:

"This is the latest in a line of studies showing that the practical problems associated with using 'reprogrammed' adult cells are rapidly being solved," Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in an e-mail.

Interview Series with Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

Archbishop Charles Chaput is participating in an extended chapter-by-chapter interview with Peter Robinson (Uncommon Knowledge), on his new book, Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life and related topics in U.S. politics and the Church.

1. Politics & Catholics with Charles Chaput: Chapter 1 of 5
   Archbishop Charles Chaput corrects House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has said the Catholic Church’s teachings on abortion aren’t clear. On the contrary, Chaput says the Church has long held that abortion is always and in all circumstances wrong. He also says Sen. Joe Biden’s position on abortion — that people should not impose their beliefs on the subject on others — is highly flawed.

2. Politics & Catholics with Charles Chaput: Chapter 2 of 5
   Archbishop Chaput describes Vatican II as the “primary grace of God to the Catholic Church in the 20th century.” And yet, since Vatican II, the Catholic Church in America has suffered greatly. In particular, the numbers of Catholic seminarians, priests, and nuns have plummeted. Chaput explains why this is, and is not, a dilemma.

3. Politics & Catholics with Charles Chaput: Chapter 3 of 5
   Archbishop Chaput describes the relationship between Jesus and Caesar, or between Catholics and the state: First, Jesus acknowledged his responsibilities to Caesar. Second, Jesus demoted Caesar, making clear that “God is God and Caesar is not.” Third, Jesus remained silent about what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, allowing for individual determinations on the duties of citizens.

4. Politics & Catholics with Charles Chaput: Chapter 4 of 5
   Archbishop Chaput has written that “The logic behind abortion makes all human rights politically contingent.” For example, Chaput explains that if our leaders can decide when life begins, they also can make determinations about when life should end. Overall, Chaput describes what is a coarsening of the value of life in the Western world.

5. Politics & Catholics with Charles Chaput: Chapter 5 of 5
   Archbishop Chaput says Catholic Democrats have an obligation to change their party’s platform on abortion, just as Catholic Republicans are responsible for keeping their party pro-life. Moreover, he says the Catholic position on abortion need not be just a Catholic position, but an American position.

Cardinal Rigali condemns the "Freedom of Choice Act"

A proposed "Freedom of Choice Act" is not about freedom at all, says Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities. Zenit News reports:

The act "would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA [the Freedom of Choice Act] would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. And FOCA would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country," the cardinal affirmed.

Cardinal Rigali warned that the act is not a mere codification of the Supreme Court's decision to legalize abortion. Instead, it would affect anti-abortion laws and policies that are in effect because they do not conflict with Roe v. Wade. These include such things as policies to protect women's safety, parental rights and informed consent.

"The operative language of FOCA is twofold," Cardinal Rigali explained. "First it creates a 'fundamental right' to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy, including a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons. No government body at any level would be able to 'deny or interfere with' this newly created federal right.

"Second, it forbids government at all levels to 'discriminate' against the exercise of this right 'in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.' For the first time, abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women."

Rigali included a legal analysis of FOCA's possible consequences with his letter to Congress.

Last year before a Planned Parenthood audience, Barack Obama assured that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."