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."

James Hitchcock - "Abortion and the Catholic Right" Revisited

Earlier this year, I drew attention to an article by Catholic historian James Hitchcock: "Abortion and the Catholic Right" (Human Life Review Spring 2007), which observed how the Catholic (re: "traditionalist") Right -- as represented by Joseph Sobran, Paul Likoudis and contributors to The Wanderer & The Remnant -- have been obsessed with their opposition to democratic-capitalism, "neoconservatives" and the Bush administration, to such an immense degree that they now hold the aformentioned issues as being "more pressing" than abortion.

In the Winter 2008 issue, James Hitchcock responds to his critics -- among them Christopher Ferrara of The Wanderer and John Rao of The Remnant. As he observes, "the most common response to my article was simply to change the subject-from abortion to the war in Iraq, the economy, or whatever else seemed important to a particular individual, without apparently realizing that changing the subject exactly proved my point."

Hitchcock's dealings with the "fringe right" and their attitudes toward the Republicans (and/or "neocons") are reminiscent of some recent skirmishes with a few Catholic blogs on the "progressive left" -- politics makes for strange bedfellows. Consider:

In their repeated denunciations of "neo-conservatives" over the Iraq war, right-wing Catholics ignore the fact that neo-conservatives, especially in the pages of their leading publication, The Weekly Standard, are among the few secular commentators enrolled in the pro-life cause (for example, a strong article [November 5, 2007]-not by any means the first-on the Terri Schiavo case). Christopher Manion, a regular Wanderer columnist, regularly charges (e.g., November 15, 2007) that neo-conservatives' attitude to pro-lifers "seldom rises above thinly disguised contempt," an assertion for which he offers no evidence. Only a week before Manion made this claim, The Wanderer itself provided evidence of strong neo-conservative support of pro-life causes without acknowledging it, when it cited a Standard article that was one of the most thorough and effective exposés of Planned Parenthood ever published.

Manion's "proof that neoconservatives are not pro-life consists entirely of raw assertion, on the assumption that Wanderer readers know nothing about the movement except what he tells them. For example, the ecumenical religious journal First Things has over the years published innumerable articles on the life issues, but Manion (January 31) falsely claimed that in its pages '"national greatness' conservatism . . . crowds out the pro-lifers."

[...]

Until he did so poorly in the primaries, it was right-wing dogma that neoconservatives were planning to impose Giuliani on the nation, an assumption that was used to justify blanket condemnations of the Republicans. In reality, however, neo-conservatives were predictably divided over the various Republican candidates, and one article in the Standard (October 2, 2007) argued that Giuliani was unacceptable precisely because of his position on abortion, a judgment also tendered by National Review (December, 3, 2007), a magazine that right-wingers dismiss as having been captured by neoconservatives. (Manion [December 13, 2007] distorted the Standard's argument against Giuliani by calling it a "lament.")

The assumption by right-wing critics of the Republican Party (and many on the Left as well) that the party's official pro-life stance is hypocritical is a dogma that, like all dogmas, is irrefutable, in that Republican inaction on abortion proves the charge, while any action is dismissed as a political trick.

And so on and so forth. It comes as no suprise that Hitchcock is lumped together with Fr. Neuhaus and George Weigel, renegade Catholics who wish to replace the saints of the liturgical calendar with "John Locke, David Hume, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Ludwig von Mises, and maybe Mickey Mouse."

Hitchcock concludes:

Those who reject electoral politics as a way of combating abortion offer no concrete alternative. Disdaining the work of painstaking, step-by-step political activity, they leave the field to their enemies and direct much of their fire at those ostensible allies who consider the battle still worth fighting.

Contemplating Voting ...

• "A Great Temptation" - Eric Manning (And Sometimes Tea) contemplates the "pox on both your houses" attitude to the elections prominent among some Catholic bloggers:

  I want it to be true, because then I can turn my back on this thing called "voting" for the foreseeable future, and retain the moral purity of never, ever, ever voting for anybody again in either major party (because we know that neither major party will ever, ever run a 100% pro-life candidate who eschews all abortions including in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother; all abortifacient contraception; all aborted-fetal-cell stem lines in government funded vaccines, and all use of ESCR). I could then feel free to rain down bipartisan imprecations on both parties with the equanimity of someone who is beyond such mortal foolishness. ...

• Obama “Catholics” and Paragraph 35 - David (Cosmos, Liturgy, Sex) examines McCain and Obama under the light of the USCCB's Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.
  

News & Commentary of the Day (Roundup)

• Separate But Equal" Redux - Pro-Life Edition, by Jay Anderson (Pro Ecclesia...). September 17, 2008:

  The next time a Catholic tries to argue that they support the Democrat Party's "strategy" for allegedly reducing the so-called "need" and incidence of abortion, but which leaves in place a legal regime that denies protection for the unborn in law (and, in fact, calls for the evisceration of what few legal protections exist via passage of the Freedom of Choice Act), point out that by their reasoning the "separate but equal" reading of the Equal Protection Clause would be just fine.

• Why the Democratic Abortion Strategy is Worse America. In his Wall Street Journal op-ed, David Gibson argued that the Democratic Party's strategy to reduce abortion is more effective than that of the GOP's. Mark Stricherz disagrees.

• The Democrats are blowing the election -- and the Catholic Vote, by Angelo Matera. GodSpy.com. September 17, 2008:

  The best thing about how the Democratic Party is kicking away what should be an easy victory in the November presidential election is that it might force them to finally reassess their support for abortion and gay marriage, positions that are unpopular with working class voters, their natural constituency. A subplot here is how the Dems were actually making inroads among faithful Catholics fed up with George Bush—until Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden opened their mouths in public about Catholic moral theology. ...

In the news

• Fordham University criticized for awarding ethics prize to Justice Stephen Breyer Catholic News Agency. September 16, 2008. A Fordham University legal ethics center’s decision to award an ethics prize to the pro-abortion rights Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer is drawing criticism for apparently ignoring the justice’s participation in a Supreme Court decision that struck down laws restricting the practice of partial-birth abortion.

• Catholic voters must ‘limit evil’ with their vote, Kansas City bishops say:

  The bishops of Kansas City have issued a joint pastoral letter on the voting responsibilities of Catholics, explaining the need to weigh candidates based on their support or opposition to policies that would enable “intrinsic evils.”

  Calling the dissent of Catholics in public life concerning these evils “particularly disturbing,” the bishops exhorted all Catholic voters to form their consciences properly and vote in the upcoming election to “limit evil” when it cannot be eradicated.

• Pro-life groups permitted to purchase advertising on Google:

  Christian and other religious groups opposed to abortion were allowed to advertise on Google for the first time from today, after the search engine capitulated in the face of a legal challenge.

  Google had banned pro-life religious groups from buying adverts against search terms such as “abortion” and “abortion help” but was forced to abandon its policy after it was accused of breaching equalities legislation.

"If Barack Obama had his way I would not be here."

(Via BornAliveTruth.org

What Concerns One Moslem the Most About Palin

Here's the excerpt:

Pentecostalism?

America is a largely Christian nation; we have had 42 Protestant presidents and one Catholic, and all four of the main candidates this time around are Christians (McCain and Biden are Catholic [Blogger note: McCain is not Catholic; but, then again, some of us think that the pro-abortion Biden is hardly Catholic] and Obama a Protestant). So, my issue is not that Palin is a Christian; rather it is the particular brand of Christianity she has been affiliated with her whole life.

Pentecostalism is only about a century old but it is the fastest growing branch of Christianity in America and throughout the world. Its hallmark is having a strict interpretation of the Bible and lively worship services in which believers speak in "tongues" after supposedly being anointed by what is known as the holy spirit. Of late, Pentecostals have also become big supporters of "prosperity theology", meaning that believers should be rewarded with riches. They have also championed many conservative causes in America.

It is on the issue of Islam where Pentecostals and Palin worry me though. If one were to look at the biggest haters of Islam in the leadership of American Christianity, the majority of them are Pentecostals. Such as Rev. John Hagee of Christians United for Israel , Rev. Rod Parsley ("The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion (Islam) destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore," Parsley states in his book Silent No More) Pat Robertson, who once claimed the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was "an absolute wild-eyed fanatic … a robber and a brigand" and on other occasions declared Islam to be Satanic is also a Pentecostal. Pentecostal churches across America regularly hold pro-war rallies and are draped with American flags while the pastors and church members deride Muslims in worship services. The Pentecostal run Trinity Broadcast Network routinely holds anti-Muslim programming for the world to see. Pentecostals also make up the most fervent supporters of Christian Zionism.

Source: Islam Online (hat tip to NationalReview.com).

The writer is correct that Pentecostalism is the fastest growing form of Christianity in the world (as to whether that is also true in America itself, I am uncertain but would not be surprised). These are interesting times. Ironically, this line of attack, in my opinion, actually bolsters Palin among many American voters, especially in the conservative base.

McCain Campaign runs questionable advertisement on stem cells, giving pro-lifers reason to doubt their integrity

Via Jeff Cullbreath comes word of a disturbing radio advertisement from the McCain-Palin campaign on stem cell research. The text of the ad runs as follows (click here to listen):

They’re the original mavericks. Leaders. Reformers. Fighting for real change.
John McCain will lead his Congressional allies to improve America’s health.
Stem cell research to unlock the mystery of cancer, diabetes, heart disease.
Stem cell research to help free families from the fear and devastation of illness.
Stem cell research to help doctors repair spinal cord damage, knee injuries, serious burns.
Stem cell research to help stroke victims.

And, John McCain and his Congressional allies will invest millions more in new NIH medical research to prevent disease.

Medical breakthroughs to help you get better, faster.
Change is coming.

McCain-Palin and Congressional allies.

The leadership and experience to really change Washington and improve your health.

Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee.

I don't think, as Jeff does, that this advertisement can be taken as a "campaign promise to aggressively fund ESCR." But the (deliberate) ambiguity is indeed the issue.

The abundance of medical breakthroughs that have occurred have been with adult stem cells -- indeed, adult stem cells, not embryonic, have played a role on successes related to the diseases and ailments mentioned in the advertisement. And given the media's propensity to over-hype what few advances made with ESCR and practically bury from the public eye adult stem cell accomplishments, the McCain campaign could have used this as an opportunity to emphasize this point.

On his campaign website, McCain now states:

will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines.

But with the publication of this advertisement, they've given pro-lifers reason to doubt their integrity on this matter.

Update (Via Jay Anderson)

According to Jeffrey Young @ The Hill, the McCain campaign confirms the reason for the "ambiguity":

The ad does not specifically refer to embryonic research, which is opposed by most politicians and activists who, like McCain, do not support abortion rights.

The omission is not a signal that McCain is backing away from his record in favor of embryonic stem cell research, spokesman Brian Rogers said.

“Clearly, John McCain supports it,” he said, emphasizing that the ad is intended to refer to all forms of stem cell research, including experiments using human embryos and those using cells from adults.

The Obama campaign dismissed the radio spot, charging that McCain should have fought harder when President Bush twice vetoed stem cells legislation and that his choice of Palin signifies weak support for embryonic stem cell research.

Jeff Cullbreath was right and I stand corrected: what an extremely disappointing (and stupid, stupid, stupid) move on McCain's part.

Related Perspectives

• McCain-Palin: “Change is Coming” on Stem Cell Research Policy:

  Indeed, “change is coming” to Washington. It looks like no matter who is president, we can say goodbye to our current stem cell policy as laid out in the White House stem cell report: Advancing Stem Cell Science Without Destroying Human Life.

• Off the [McCain] bandwagon? - Colleague Jay Anderson re-thinks his support.
  
• The ever-provocative ZippyCatholic on why a vote for McCain is a vote for a "Human Cannibal", with a rebuttal by Dr. Michael Liccione (Sacramentum Vitae).
  
• Dale Price: "McCain-Palin: Because the alternative will make you vomit."
  
• Not just abortion - Paul Zummo (Crankycon)
  
• Perfect vs. Good, by Red Cardigan, addressing the question: is it morally acceptable for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports that which is intrinsically evil?
  

Anti-Catholicism by Democrats in Virginia

From Ramesh Ponnuru at National Review Online:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, an arm of the DNC, has been sending mailings to women in the district about Legatus. On the front side of one of them, a woman is pictured next to the words, “Someone’s going to tell me I’ve got to be more submissive to my husband?” The text of the other side:

Keith Fimian is an officer of an organization that promotes a group so extreme they encourage women to be more submissive.

It’s a disturbing fact. Congressional Candidate Keith Fimian is a member of a little known organization that promotes other groups fighting for a radical anti-woman agenda.

One of the groups they promote, e5 men, is so far out of the mainstream that they advocate for women to be more “submissive” to their husbands. What makes it even more disturbing is that Keith Fimian wants to represent you in Congress.

Keith Fimian’s Values Aren’t Our Values.

 

See the whole story here. I use to fast as an e5 man. They are nothing like the mailing above is describing. I have to thank the Democrats though. I had forgotten about e5 men and I think I will start fasting with them again.

 

Fidelis Debuts CatholicVote.com

From Fidelis:

CHICAGO – Fidelis announces the launch of a new website - CatholicVote.com – to educate and inspire Catholic voters this fall and beyond. The site includes a powerful video designed to encourage viewers to prioritize the issues of life, faith, and family. In addition to the video, the site contains resources on how to register to vote, research on candidate positions, documents from the Bishops and an invitation to join in prayer.

The highlight of CatholicVote.com is a powerful 3:30 minute documentary on Catholic contributions to American public life. The video connects the fight for civil rights, human dignity, and the family throughout the history of our country. The dramatic conclusion of the film urges viewers to “Vote Your Conscience.”

“The U.S. Bishops have stated that ‘responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation,’” said Brian Burch, director of CatholicVote.com. “We launched CatholicVote.com to provide Catholics and all people of good will with the tools to both educate and inspire their fellow citizens as they prepare to vote in November.”

“Our goal with CatholicVote.com was to develop something that could complement the many excellent voter guides, statements, and resources developed by other organizations. Our hope is to not only win over the minds of voters, but also the hearts of American Catholics and Christians,” said Burch.

“There’s no reason Catholics should be silent about the wonderful contribution Catholics have made to American life. Catholics have a rich heritage of fighting injustice and helping the poor and the defenseless. As Archbishop Chaput says so wonderfully in his new book Render Unto Casear, we serve the nation when we live our Catholic beliefs in political life,” said Burch.

Catholics play a major role in American politics. Since 1976, winning the Catholic vote meant winning the White House except in 2000, when Al Gore won both the Catholic vote and the popular vote but lost the election to George Bush.

“At 67 million strong, the Catholic vote is critical to American elections,” said Burch. “Catholics vote in higher numbers than the rest of the population and they live in important swing states like Michigan, Ohio and Florida.”

“We encourage all Catholics to take a look at CatholicVote.com,” said Burch. “At the site, you can register to vote and join other Catholics in prayer. You can also read up on the issues, and most importantly, send the video to your friends. There is plenty of evangelization to be done when it comes to voting.”

CatholicVote.com is a project of the Fidelis Center for Law and Policy. The website does not endorse any candidate for office.

"Better late than never ..."

WASHINGTON—The Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said the full body of U.S. bishops will discuss the practical and pastoral implications of political support for abortion during their annual assembly, November 10-13, in Baltimore.

Michael Gerson on "Trig's Breakthrough"

Trig's Breakthrough, by Michael Gerson. Washington Post September 10, 2008:

The wrenching diagnosis of 47 chromosomes must seem to parents like the end of a dream instead of the beginning of a life. But children born with Down syndrome -- who learn slowly but love deeply -- are generally not experienced by their parents as a curse but as a complex blessing. And when allowed to survive, men and women with an extra chromosome experience themselves as people with abilities, limits and rights. Yet when Down syndrome is detected through testing, many parents report that genetic counselors and physicians emphasize the difficulties of raising a child with a disability and urge abortion.

This is properly called eugenic abortion -- the ending of "imperfect" lives to remove the social, economic and emotional costs of their existence. And this practice cannot be separated from the broader social treatment of people who have disabilities. By eliminating less perfect humans, deformity and disability become more pronounced and less acceptable. Those who escape the net of screening are often viewed as mistakes or burdens. A tragic choice becomes a presumption -- "Didn't you get an amnio?" -- and then a prejudice. And this feeds a social Darwinism in which the stronger are regarded as better, the dependent are viewed as less valuable, and the weak must occasionally be culled.

The protest against these trends has come in interesting forms. Last year pro-choice Sen. Edward Kennedy joined with pro-life Sen. Sam Brownback to propose a bill that would have required medical professionals to tell expectant parents that genetic tests are sometimes inaccurate and to give them up-to-date information on the quality of life that people with Down syndrome can enjoy. The bill did not pass, but it was a principled gesture from Rosemary's brother.

Yet the pro-choice radicalism held by Kennedy and many others -- the absolute elevation of individual autonomy over the rights of the weak -- has enabled the new eugenics. It has also created a moral conflict at the heart of the Democratic Party. If traditional Democratic ideology means anything, it is the assertion that America is a single moral community that includes everyone. How can this vision possibly be reconciled with the elimination of children with Down syndrome from American society? Are pro-choice Democrats really comfortable with this choice?

"Must read" article of the day.

Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops correct Senator Biden's erroneous statements on science and theology

The fallout to comments made by Senator Biden during a September 7, 2008 Meet the Press interview continues:

Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl sent a letter to the priests of his diocese. While noting the respect due to public officials on policy issues, Archbishop Wuerl also highlighted the difference between science, the theories of St. Thomas Aquinas and faith. An excerpt:

When life begins is not a matter of faith, but a matter of science. The scientific research available to us today confirms that the joining of the human egg and sperm begins a new human life. There is overwhelming empirical evidence that once conceived, that life will continue through its many natural stages, from embryo to fetus to infant to child and on until death. Religious belief does not change this scientific fact.

However, faith and the natural moral law guide us in how we treat this human life. The Catholic Church has been unwavering in its teaching, as we are told in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” (paragraphs 2270-2271)

Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William Lori, chairman of the bishops' Committee on Doctrine, also corrected Senator Biden on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The statement is not yet up on the USCCB's website, but Catholic News Service has the full text.

Echoing prior statements, the USCCB begins by distinguishing the biological question ("when does life begin?") followed by the moral question:

Which living members of the human species should be seen as having fundamental human rights, such as a right not to be killed? The Catholic Church’s answer is: Everybody. No human being should be treated as lacking human rights, and we have no business dividing humanity into those who are valuable enough to warrant protection and those who are not. Even this is not solely a Catholic teaching, but a principle of natural law accessible to all people of good will. The framers of the Declaration of Independence pointed to the same basic truth by speaking of inalienable rights, bestowed on all members of the human race not by any human power, but by their Creator. Those who hold a narrower and more exclusionary view have the burden of explaining why we should divide humanity into the moral “haves” and “have-nots,” and why their particular choice of where to draw that line can be sustained in a pluralistic society. Such views pose a serious threat to the dignity and rights of other poor and vulnerable members of the human family who need and deserve our respect and protection.

According to the Associated Press, "a spokesman for Biden did not immediately respond Tuesday to requests for comment."

Pelosi and Niederauer to Meet

Under fire from the nation’s Roman Catholic hierarchy for recent comments they say misstated the church’s anti-abortion teaching, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has accepted the invitation of San Francisco’s archbishop for a face-to-face meeting to discuss whether she should continue to receive communion.

See the rest of the story here.

Archbishop Chaput corrects Senator Biden on abortion

Jeff Miller reports that Bishop Morlino of Madison, WI spoke about Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Biden in a homily on Sunday.

Today, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. and Auxiliary Bishop James D. Conley released a new letter to the Catholics of northern Colorado, titled “Public Servants and Moral Reasoning.” In the letter, they reaffirm the importance of informed moral reasoning when discerning public action, especially in regard to Catholics who serve their country on the national stage. Click here to read the full letter.

The letter concludes:

In his Meet the Press interview, Sen. Biden used a morally exhausted argument that American Catholics have been hearing for 40 years: i.e., that Catholics can't "impose" their religiously based views on the rest of the country. But resistance to abortion is a matter of human rights, not religious opinion. And the senator knows very well as a lawmaker that all law involves the imposition of some people's convictions on everyone else. That is the nature of the law. American Catholics have allowed themselves to be bullied into accepting the destruction of more than a million developing unborn children a year. Other people have imposed their "pro-choice" beliefs on American society without any remorse for decades.

If we claim to be Catholic, then American Catholics, including public officials who describe themselves as Catholic, need to act accordingly. We need to put an end to Roe and the industry of permissive abortion it enables. Otherwise all of us - from senators and members of Congress, to Catholic laypeople in the pews - fail not only as believers and disciples, but also as citizens.

Pollster Gives Catholic Snapshot

Here is the excerpt:

Pollster John Zogby: "Clearly, Palin is helping the McCain ticket. She has high favorability numbers, and has unified the Republican Party. The striking thing here in this poll is that McCain has pulled ahead among Catholics by double-digits. On the other hand, Palin is not helping with likely voting women who are not aligned with either political party. The undecided independent women voters decreased this week from 15% to 7%, but those women went to Obama. Palin is also helping among men, conservatives, notably with suburban and rural voters, and with frequent Wal-Mart shoppers, who tend to be "values" voters who like a good value for their money."

Source link (emphasis added).

If this striking popularity among Catholics continues (and I for one think that it will, although maybe not with the same margin estimated by this particular pollster), then McCain has taken a significant step to victory on Nov. 4th. This rising popularity among Catholics further confirms my impression of Palin as a "female Reagan" with her strong personal presence and blunt, conviction-driven rhetoric. It's also interesting in terms of biography in that both Palin and Reagan were raised as evangelical Protestants (with Palin spicing it up with an interesting Pentecostal background), although there was a somewhat distant Catholic family background of sorts for both leaders. Reagan and Palin "feel Catholic" even if they are not Catholic. My guess is that there is a social class dimension here: both candidates appeal to those with blue collar small town or suburban backgrounds, a demographic that includes a lot of Catholics or at least the parents of a lot of Catholics.

The New York Times on Sarah Palin

Fusing Politics and Motherhood in New Way, by Jodi Kantor, Kate Zernike and Catrin Einhorn. New York Times September 8, 2008. Given all the negative media that has transpired over the birth of Sarah Palin's child and the aspersions cast on her abilies as a mother by the Left, I wasn't sure what to expect from the New York Times' front-page article (as announced by the DrudgeReport).

I had to read it twice. Could it be possible that the they could cover the birth of Trig Paxson Van Palin, and the topic of Palin's role as mother, governor and pro-life feminist, in such an explicitly positive manner?

No one has ever tried to combine presidential politics and motherhood in quite the way Ms. Palin is doing, and it is no simple task. In the last week, the criticism she feared in Alaska has exploded into a national debate. On blogs and at PTA meetings, voters alternately cheer and fault her balancing act, and although many are thrilled to see a child with special needs in the spotlight, some accuse her of exploiting Trig for political gain.

But her son has given Ms. Palin, 44, a powerful message. Other candidates kiss strangers' babies; Ms. Palin has one of her own. He is tangible proof of Ms. Palin's anti-abortion convictions, which have rallied social conservatives, and her belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers. And on Wednesday in St. Paul, she proclaimed herself a guardian of the nation's disabled children. ...

on the matter of having a Down Syndrome child -- they opt to simply let Palin's witness speak for itself:

Her hesitation gone, Ms. Palin glowed with maternal pride. 'Sarah was absolutely ecstatic,' said a friend, Marilyn Lane. After months of reflection and prayer, friends say, the Palins, who are Christians, had come to believe God had sent them Trig.

Later that day, Ms. Palin sent an e-mail message to her relatives and close friends about her new son, Ms. Bruce said. She signed it, 'Trig's Creator, Your Heavenly Father.'

'Many people will express sympathy, but you don't want or need that, because Trig will be a joy,' Ms. Palin wrote. She added, 'Children are the most precious and promising ingredient in this mixed-up world you live in down there on Earth. Trig is no different, except he has one extra chromosome.'

and as for doubts about Palin's capacity to be a mother AND carry out an executive position as mayor, and then governor?

Ms. Palin's three-day maternity leave has now become legend among mothers. But aides say she eased back into work, first stopping by her office in Anchorage for a meeting, bringing not only the baby but also her husband to look after him.

Many high-powered parents separate work and children; Ms. Palin takes a wholly different approach. 'She's the mom and the governor, and they're not separate,' Ms. Cole said. Around the governor's offices, it was not uncommon to get on the elevator and discover Piper, smothering her puppy with kisses.

'She'll be with Piper or Trig, then she's got a press conference or negotiations about the natural gas pipeline or a bill to sign, and it's all business,' Ms. Burney, who works across the hall, said. 'She just says, 'Mommy's got to do this press conference.'

Ms. Palin installed a travel crib in her Anchorage office and a baby swing in her Juneau one. For much of the summer, she carried Trig in a sling as she signed bills and sat through hearings, even nursing him unseen during conference calls.

Good article.

Bishop Morlino speaks on Sen. Biden

Bishop Morlino talks about Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Biden in a homily today. The bishop starts out with a disclaimer that he isn't talking about Democrats but about specific Catholics who are Democrats. He first gives his critique about Nancy Pelosi and then goes on to talk about what Senator Biden said today. Hat Tip Rocco Palmo.

Here is a of a section of his homily that I transcribed from the mp3.

"Senator Biden does not understand the difference between articles of faith and natural law. Any human being regardless of his faith, his religious practice or having no faith. Any human being can reason the fact that human life from conception unto natural death is sacred. Biology not faith, not philosophy, not any kind of theology; Biology tells us science that at the moment of conception their exists a unique individual of the human species. It's not a matter of what I might believe. What my faith might teach me. What other people might ... Science the best science says at the moment of conception there is a unique individual of the human species. Senator Biden has an obligation to know that and he doesn't know it. Again I believe that after the Council some theologians, probably some priests, and some bishops allowed him to be confused about this matter. It's not pretty. The reason I bring this up is because Speaker Pelosi and Senator Biden are Catholics and there on television and they're giving out their ideas to Catholic people and they are causing confusion. They're suppose to believe in separation of church and state. They're violating the separation of church and state by confusing people. I have an obligation to teach. They're stepping on the Pope's turf and mine and they're violating the separation of church and state confusing God's good people. But why? Because they themselves were confused after the Council and I don't blame them for that. Bishop's allowed it, theologians did it and some priests did it and in Canada even some bishops did it."

I obviously like that the bishop has made the same point on natural law and religious faith that I made earlier today on my blog. His mentioning the effects of the aftermath of the Council I think are quite good. This is a nicely charitable look at these two Catholic politicians while still being firm on what they should know.

Joe Biden channels Nancy Pelosi on Meet The Press -- another "teaching moment" for the Catholic Bishops?

Catholic Senator Joe Biden appeared on Meet The Press this morning. Revisiting the same topic he discussed with Nancy Pelosi, Tom Brokaw inquired Biden's view on the beginning of human life and the matter of abortion and what he would do if Obama sought his counsel on the subject:

SEN. BIDEN: I'd say, "Look, I know when it begins for me." It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths--Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others--who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life--I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. And I know you get the push back, "Well, what about fascism?" Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism's all right? Fascism isn't a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea.

MR. BROKAW: But if you, you believe that life begins at conception, and you've also voted for abortion rights...

SEN. BIDEN: No, what a voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it's a moment of conception. There is a debate in our church, as Cardinal Egan would acknowledge, that's existed. Back in "Summa Theologia," when Thomas Aquinas wrote "Summa Theologia," he said there was no--it didn't occur until quickening, 40 days after conception. How am I going out and tell you, if you or anyone else that you must insist upon my view that is based on a matter of faith? And that's the reason I haven't. But then again, I also don't support a lot of other things. I don't support public, public funding. I don't, because that flips the burden. That's then telling me I have to accept a different view. This is a matter between a person's God, however they believe in God, their doctor and themselves in what is always a--and what we're going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care, the assistance and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children.

Senator Biden can be commended for his opposition to public-funding for abortions (incidentally, a view which his Presidential running mate supports), but to characterize opposition to abortion as the "imposition of a religious judgement on everybone else" is absolutely false. As George Weigel noted in response to Senator Kerry's use of the same "reluctance to impose my religious opinion" defense in the 2004 election:

... suggesting that this is something analogous to the Catholic Church trying to force everyone in the United States to abstain from eating hot dogs on Fridays during Lent is simpy false. ... You don't even have to believe in God to engage [the pro-life position] because it's a position rooted in basic embryology and in basic logic, and anybody can engage that."

Once again, we are greeted with the curious spectacle of a defiant "pro-choice" Catholic politician appealing to 13th century comprehensions of human development (or rather fourth century BC, since Aquinas's views were based on Aristotle) -- in opposition to the Catholic Bishops' appeal to advancements in human embryology by modern science! While it may be a "matter of faith" for Biden, recognizing that human life begins at "conception" is surely no great obstacle for scientists -- nor American citizens in general.

* * *

Curiously, as Princeton professor Robert P. George noted on the role of religious authority in debates on public policy, it is pro-choice advocates who typically want to transform the question into a “metaphysical” or “religious” one:

It was Justice Harry Blackmun who claimed in his opinion for the Court legalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973) that “at this point in man’s knowledge” the scientific evidence was inconclusive and therefore cold not determine the outcome of the case. And twenty years later, the influential pro-choice writer Ronald Dworkin went on record claiming that the question of abortion is inherently “religious.” (See Ronald Dworkin, Life’s Dominion (Alfred A. Knopf, 1993).) It is pro-choice advocates, such as Dworkin, who want to distinguish between when a human being comes into existence “in the biological sense” and when a human being comes into existence “in the moral sense.” It is they who want to distinguish a class of human beings “with rights” from pre-(or post-) conscious human beings who “don’t have rights.” And the reason for this, I submit, is that, short of defending abortion as “justifiable homicide,” the pro-choice position collapses if the issue is to be settled purely on the basis of scientific inquiry into the question of when a new member of homo sapiens comes into existence as a self-integrating organism whose unity, distinctiveness, and identity remain intact as it develops without substantial change from the point of its beginning through the various stages of its development and into adulthood.

As Catholics we believe in the sanctity of human life -- but this is not to say that the pro-life position can be seriously engaged by anybody.

In "Christian Conviction and Democratic Etiquette (First Things March 1994), Weigel explains:

How are we to make our case to those who do not share that prior religious commitment, or to those Christians whose churches do not provide clear moral counsel on this issue? And how do we do this in a political-cultural-legal climate in which individual autonomy has been virtually absolutized?

The answer is, we best make our case by insisting that our defense of the right to life of the unborn is a defense of civil rights and of a generous, hospitable American democracy. We best make our case by insisting that abortion-on-demand gravely damages the American democratic experiment by drastically constricting the community of the commonly protected. We best make our case by arguing that the private use of lethal violence against an innocent is an assault on the moral foundations of any just society. In short, we best make our case for maximum feasible legal protection of the unborn by deploying natural law arguments that translate our Christian moral convictions into a public idiom more powerful than the idiom of autonomy.

And to think that the Democrats were hoping the abortion debate would somehow "fade away" this election? -- Thank you, Senator Biden, for providing a clear illustration of why Catholics cannot be silent.

Related

• "Abortion poisions everything including reason", by Jeff Miller (Curt Jester).
  
• Ongoing coverage by Thomas Peters @ American Papist
  
• "Dumb and Dumber" Creative Minority Report
  

Dorothy Day on a "women's right to choose"

Great story about Dorothy Day, co-founder of the Catholic Worker's Movement (courtesy of Teófilo @ Vivificat):

"On her second day with us...she had been invited a meeting on Rights for Women at South Dakota State ... 45 minutes away. I planned to accompany her and my husband to the meeting. Before we could go I had to find a baby-sitter, prepare a meal for the children, feed the baby, give instructions to the sitter... Dorothy sat in the rocking chair quietly waiting during all this normal hustle and bustle of preparation for leaving.

"The young women sponsoring the event were thrilled that Dorothy Day would come to their meeting and be interested in their cause. When we arrived she was introduced with style and lauded over for her work in the movement to help downtrodden women.

"The young woman in charge of the meeting welcomed the audience and gave a short background on Dorothy Day in preparation for Dorothy's presentation. She announced that Miss Day understood a woman's right to choose, and that abortion was very much at the heart of empowering women. ... READ THE REST

Robert Novak -- on his diagnosis of cancer, and compassion from unexpected sources

Robert Novak talks about the diagnosis of his brain tumor -- and compassion demonstrated by his foes in a political context:

My dear friend, the Democratic political operative Bob Shrum, asked Sen. Kennedy's wife, Vicki, to call me about Dr. Friedman. I barely know Mrs. Kennedy, but I have found her to be a warm and gracious person. I have had few good things to say about Teddy Kennedy since I first met him at the 1960 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, but he and his wife have treated me like a close friend. She was enthusiastic about Dr. Friedman and urged me to opt for surgery at Duke, which I did.

The Kennedys were not concerned by political and ideological differences when someone's life was at stake, recalling at least the myth of milder days in Washington. My long conversation with Vicki Kennedy filled me with hope. . . .

There are mad bloggers who profess to take delight in my distress, but there's no need to pay them attention in the face of such an outpouring of good will for me. I had thought 51 years of rough-and-tumble journalism in Washington made me more enemies than friends, but my recent experience suggests the opposite may be the case.

But Joe and Valerie Wilson, attempting to breathe life into the Valerie Plame "scandal," issued this statement: "We have long argued that responsible adults should take Novak's typewriter away. The time has arrived for them to also take away the keys to his Corvette."

Thanks to my tumor, the Wilsons have achieved half of their desires. I probably never will be able to drive again, and I have sold the Corvette, which I dearly loved. Taking away my typewriter, however, may require modification of the First Amendment.

Support for me and promises of prayers sent for me poured in from all sides, including political figures who had not been happy with my columns. I'm told that President George W. Bush has not liked my criticism, particularly of his Iraq war policy. But the president is a compassionate man, and he telephoned me at 7:24 a.m. on August 15, six minutes before I went into surgery. The conversation lasted only a minute, but his prayerful concern was touching and much appreciated.

In the rough and tumble world of politics (and political polemics), compassion comes from the least expected sources. Let's pray for Robert Novak's continued recovery -- and for Senator Ted Kennedy as well.

Brownback on Palin

Christiannity Today runs a Q&A with Catholic Senator Sam Brownback, including his thoughts on McCain's selection of Sarah Palin for VP:

What do you think of the Palin pick?

It’s excellent. I think it was a game change. You know, the American public wanted to vote for history, and that was some of the appeal of Barack Obama to show yes, we can do something like this. Well, now you can vote for history by voting for the Republican ticket, by placing the first female vice president of the U.S.

What challenges do John McCain and Sarah Palin face, particularly among evangelicals?

You know, I don’t think they face much challenge among evangelicals now, other than getting them out to vote and pushing their neighbors to get out to vote. It’s probably more of an organizational challenge at this point. And that can take some time but it’s doable.

Do you think people will be as excited about McCain on November 4 as they were for Bush in 2004?

That’d be hard to do. You know, because Bush was one of them, really spoke the language and knew it in his heart, and John loves the country but is a different candidate. I think he’s going to get their votes and now with the pick of Palin who may become one of the future leaders of the overall movement, I think he’s really endeared himself to the faith base of the party even if they don’t see it in him as much as they’d like to.

Barack Obama speaks more openly about his faith and has an intense religious outreach. Do you think that will work?

I don’t think so, because he’s just off on the core subjects. That came through so clear at Saddleback, that he’s not there on life, he’s not there on marriage. It came through at the Democratic convention in his big speech – he talks about supporting abortion and same-sex marriage. And I just think those for a lot of people are the portal issue. You’ve got to get the basics right before I can look at you on other issues. And if you can’t get the basics right, how can I trust you on a broader set of issues? ... READ MORE

Sister Samuelle and Mother Assumpta of the Dominican Order in Ann Arbor, Michigan attend a campaign event by Republican presidential candidate John McCain and running mate Alaska Governor Sarah Palin at the Freedom Hill Ampitheatre in Sterling Heights, Michigan on September 5, 2008.

Photo from Getty Images.

My Reaction to McCain Acceptance Speech: Reform vs. Going Back

For years, we have heard all sorts of promises for change in Washington at the conventions of both parties. But how many of them were really believable? In the end, you have to look at the person standing behind the speech--not the words, but the person who stands behind the words. Reagan fit the bill of someone who would push hard for change in D.C. You could sense it in the passion with which he declared his conviction for less government intervention. In my view, McCain also fits the bill. McCain's passion is honor and the common good. He is an impatient man. The impatient man with a marvelously impatient woman as his running mate is the kind that will defiantly give all the promises a fighting chance on the ground.

Here are some specific items that struck me:

1. McCain went all out for school vouchers. Then, this morning I heard a right-wing commentator warning that McCain had just unnecessarily challenged every teacher's union leader in the nation. Boy, you really can't please everyone: on the one hand, a candidate is criticized for not being bold enough, then, when the candidate is indeed blatantly bold, the boldness is said to be imprudent. Solution: take the pundits with a very large grain of salt, along with a temperate dash of disdain. McCain rightly labeled school choice the unfinished civil rights issue of our time. (Stopping abortion is the human rights issue of our time.)

2. McCain and Palin have both promised to be leading advocates for special needs kids. There are a lot of families in our nation facing that challenge. This advocacy for special needs kids is part of the defense of life because all human life is worthy of life in a seamless continuum from conception to natural death.

3. The choice is not between more of the past with McCain and change with Obama. The choice is between reform with McCain/Palin and a change back to failed liberal policies with Obama/Biden. Reform vs. Going Back. What kind of change do you want? The Obama campaign comes down to a plea to come back to the failed liberal past. That's like telling a struggling alcoholic to change by going back exuberantly to the bottle. The desirable type of change is reform.

Update: Here is a link with good commentary on the speech as Jacksonian. Thanks for the stylistic comment below which has been incorporated in the main body of the post. By the way, on another matter, readers may come across misleading media coverage of an ethics inquiry in Alaska involving Gov. Palin. The inquiry concerns a state trooper who allegedly threatened to harm her family. Here is a McCain campaign statement setting forth the facts at this PDF link. I am glad the Governor and her family now have Secret Service protection since her nomination to national office.

Archbishop Niederauer responds to Nancy Pelosi's misrepresentation of Catholic teaching; invites her to "converse"

San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer addressed recent comments made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the September 5th letter of Catholic San Francisco, the official paper of the Diocese of San Francisco. [Click here for the full text of Archbishop Niederauer's letter to Nancy Pelosi].

After expounding upon the fundamentals of Catholic teaching on abortion, Niederauer moved on to address the issue of reception of the Eucharist by a Catholic politician who supports abortion on demand. He concludes his letter to Pelosi thus:

Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and my predecessor as Archbishop here in San Francisco, wrote in 2004: "No bishop is eager to forbid members of his flock from receiving the precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who invites us into communion with Himself and his Body, the Church, as grace and salvation." In that same year, the U.S. bishops acknowledged that pastoral sensitivity, and they endorsed the following approach to this question of denying Holy Communion: "Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action. Nevertheless, we all share an unequivocal commitment to protect human life and dignity and to preach the Gospel in difficult times." From that statement I conclude that it is my responsibility as Archbishop to discern and decide, prayerfully, how best to approach this question as it may arise in the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

I regret the necessity of addressing these issues in so public a forum, but the widespread consternation among Catholics made it unavoidable. Speaker Pelosi has often said how highly she values her Catholic faith, and how much it is a source of joy for her. Accordingly, as her pastor, I am writing to invite her into a conversation with me about these matters. It is my obligation to teach forthrightly and to shepherd caringly, and that is my intent. Let us pray together that the Holy Spirit will guide us all toward a more profound understanding and appreciation for human life, and toward a resolution of these differences in truth and charity and peace.

Thomas Peters (American Papist) has been covering this story in depth and provides some background details to the confrontation, as well as his analysis of Niederauer's letter.

Count me a bit disappointed -- Steven D. Greydanus commmented:

Archbishop Niederauer demurred in February 2007 that Pelosi's stance on abortion was something he hadn't "had a chance to talk to her about" yet.

Eighteen months later, it took a direct misrepresentation of Catholic tradition on global TV, a spokesman's flip-off to the USCCB and half the American bishops coming down on Pelosi to jump-start that long-delayed conversation, or at least to spark an invitation.

But hey, better now than never, right?

Michael Barone on Palin

Michael Barone writes for U.S. News & World Report and also appears often on the Fox News election night coverage. In my experience, he always writes intelligently, carefully, and reliably. Here is the link.

Sarah Palin as ex-Catholic!

I find it rather interesting that it is progressive Catholics and the liberal news media that are bringing up that Sarah Palin was baptized as a Catholic.

The America Magazine blog has two posts on this today with one asking is "Is Palin an Apostate?" Though that is rather silly claim since apostasy is the total rejection by a baptized person of the Christian faith he once professed. Maybe he meant that she was in schism.

As canonist Ed Peters notes:

Sarah Palin's probable Roman Catholic baptism and her life spent outside the Church is of little import in assessing her character. Unlike the case of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who seems to have left the Church as an adult, Palin's parents apparently took her out of the practice of the Faith while she was yet a child, so Palin cannot be said to have decided against her Catholic identity, nor can anything be concluded about her remaining outside of full communion. Her "re-baptism" at age 12 or so, if that's what it was, would not however be recognized by the Church (1983 CIC 845.1)

On the question as to whether she can be considered as making a formal act of defection he goes on to say.So this makes for a very interesting canonical questions, but certainly not one that would affect the votes of Catholics as liberals intend it should. It is also rather ironic that they bring this up and yet not to have any problem with Sen. Joe Biden as a culture of death Catholic politician whose voting record at times supports intrinsic evils.

Ironically, the only thing that Palin's Catholic baptism and her life-time spent in good faith outside the Church does, I must say, is underscore again how unsustainable is the interpretation of "formal act of defection" that was handed down in April 2006. How so? Well, if "formal defection" per 1983 CIC 1117 can only be accomplished in writing (a completely new requirement, and one unattested, as far as I can tell, in canonical history!), then Palin never formally defected, which means that she is still bound by canonical form per 1983 CIC 1108, and that therefore her marriage cannot recognized by the Church!

Don't get me wrong: I think that Palin's marriage (based on what is publically known about it at this time, of course) is valid (and sacramental if Todd is baptized), and that it is this novel interpretation of "formal defection" that needs urgently to be corrected, not Palin's matrimonial status. It's just that I don't like it when law and life seem to be out of step with each other and, for a change, it looks like the law's fault.

But even beyond the question of "formal defection", the continued requirement of canonical form for the validity of marriage needs reexamination. There's nothing new in my saying that: many canonists of the first order have been suggesting for 50 years now.

So this makes for a very interesting canonical questions, but certainly not one that would affect the votes of Catholics as liberals intend it should. It is also rather ironic that they bring this up and yet not to have any problem with Sen. Joe Biden as a culture of death Catholic politician whose voting record at times supports intrinsic evils.

Coming out swinging!

Read the Speech
Watch the Speech

Beside Themselves

The political and cultural left is beside itself in fury because Gov. Sarah Palin's life story is a living rebuke of every myth that they have spun about women in the last four decades. She is wildly successful in her field, but is also a mother of five children. Planned Parenthood is not essential for the successful career woman. She keeps her Down syndrome baby because a disability does not disqualify you from being loved. The Planned Parenthood solution is not necessary. She and her husband support her seventeen-year-old's decision to carry her child to term and marry. Again, the Planned Parenthood solution is not essential.

The political left is also beside itself because Gov. Palin shows that optimistic, forward-looking populism is conservative. She's got a down home, small town blue collar family that is not tied to the mentality of entitlement. The elitist left specializes in the populism of resentment, envy, rage, ethnic competition, and self-pity, which is a personal and social dead end. Conservative populism, on the other hand, seeks to reform the system so that the individual can control his own destiny, flourish, and fulfill his dreams--so that the individual is set free to move up in the world. That's why the crown jewel of conservative populism is school vouchers, which empower parents as decision-makers over the public school monopoly which keeps so many inner city kids locked into a self-perpetuating cycle of self-pity, rage, and resentment.

Yes, the left is furious because John McCain has given us the gift of a conservative reform ticket. Even Washington Post writer David Broder, dean of mainstream media political punditry, noted that Obama's convention speech was a stale repetition of a platitudinous laundry list of tired liberal promises dragged out every four years (see link). The reform ticket is conservative. That's what has turned this election upside down. For further perspective in the midst of all the garbage in the media over Palin, see Catholic Bob Novak's latest at this link.

Political Smorgasbord

• Politico reports that Barack Obama has launched a broadside against John McCain’s opposition to abortion rights ... for the first time in this presidential campaign:

  “Let me tell you: If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, the lives and health of women will be put at risk. That's why this election is so important,” says the nurse-practitioner who narrates Obama’s ad. “John McCain's out of touch with women today. McCain wants to take away our right to choose. That's what women need to understand. That's how high the stakes are.”

  Goodbye, Evangelical courtship. Or, as somebody put it:

  So The OBAMA radio ad says essentially: Women of America, just because Sarah Palin and her daughter chose not to kill their babies- don't let JOHN McCAIN stop you from killing yours?

  
  
• "Kmiec Agonistes", by Hadley Arkes. The Catholic Thing September 2, 2008:

  No supporter of Barack Obama has been clearer on the intrinsic evil of abortion than Douglas Kmiec, former dean of the law school at Catholic University, former official of high rank in the Department of Justice under President Reagan. And no one has gone further, then, in seeking to persuade Catholics that something so deeply wrong in principle should be regarded now, in the scale of things, as not all that important. Not when it can be overridden by the promise of doing something faintly liberal, touched with a friendly view of the human creature. For his friends and former allies, the turnabout has been unaccountable: We strain to understand the rationales he offers, much as he seems to be straining to form them.

• If you wish to virtually thank Archbishop Chaput for his "courage and witness to the moral truths of our faith and our country," click here.
  

• Obama refers to himself as a Senator in the past tense, "President" in the present tense -- Don't get cocky, buddy. November's two months away.

• Clarence Thomas’ “High-Tech Lynching” and the case of Gov. Sarah Palin, by Francis Beckwith.

• Daily Kos commentator:

  "If health insurance for all, an end to the Iraq War, an end to torture and illegal wiretapping, and a sane energy policy can be obtained at the price of destroying one teenage girl, her family, and the surrendering our self-respect I see that as a cheap trade."

  (Via Jody Bottum "The Politics of Blood" First Things' "On The Square")

• Can Sarah Handle the media's feeding frenzy?? Bill Kristol thinks so:

  McCain aides whose judgment I trust are impressed by Sarah Palin. One was particularly amused by this exchange: A nervous young McCain staffer took it upon himself to explain to Palin the facts of life in a national campaign, the intense scrutiny she'd be under from the media, the viciousness of the assault that she'd be facing, etc.:
  

  Palin: "Thanks for the warning. By the way, do you know what they say the difference is between a hockey mom and a Pit Bull?"

  McCain aide: "No, Governor."

  Palin: "A hockey mom wears lipstick."

• Why won't Barack Obama acknowledge Palin's job as governor? - Responding to the question of who possesses more executive experience, Senator Obama responded:

  "My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,” Obama responded.

  Our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the past couple of years and certainly in terms of the legislation I’ve passed in the past couple of years, post-Katrina.”

  If that "but I've run a CAMPAIGN!" response wasn't amusing enough, Leon H. Wolf observes:

  Interesting that you should claim that the total annual budget of your campaign is approximately $432 million a year, Mr. Former Harvard Law Student. The Alaska State Budget is roughly ten times that amount. Interesting that you should mention that your campaign employs 2500 individuals. The government of the State of Alaska (which Sarah Palin is Governor of - I hate to keep mentioning this, but you and your supporters keep forgetting it) has approximately six times that many. And, just in case you're forgetting, she's been doing it for longer than you've been running your campaign.

• What are Catholics saying about Sarah Palin? -- speak your piece!
  

• Barack Obama says he's "tired of listening to folks who talk tough and act dumb," then proceeds to talk tough and act dumb:

  On May 16, Barack Obama bravely declared that he would debate John McCain "anywhere, anytime."
  

  "If John McCain wants to meet me anywhere, anytime, to have a debate about our respective policies in Iraq, in Iran, in the Middle East or around the world, that is a conversation I am happy to have," said Obama to an adoring audience of "objective reporters" in Waterstown, South Dakota. "I believe that there is no separation between John McCain and George Bush...and I think their policy has failed."

  Of course, the McCain campaign responded to this with an immediate call for ten town hall-style "debates" -- a style and quantity unheard of in recent presidential campaigns, when most candidates want to be able to limit the damage that can occur as a result of going off-script at any time.

  Needless to say, we're still waiting for those "town hall" debates.
  

• L'Affaire(s) Palin - Dale Price (Dyspeptic Mutterings) tackles the Palin selection and the media's thirst for blood. ("Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright--non-issue we're forced to talk about. Trig Palin's parentage rumors--DEPLOY! GO! GO! GO!"), along with a myriad of other aspects to McCain's selection. "Must read" post of the day.
  

Character Counts for Catholics

Tonight at the Republican National Convention, former Sen. Fred Thompson plans to say this in his speech:

On John McCain's qualifications to be president:

"This is the kind of character that civilizations from the beginning of history have sought in their leaders. Strength. Courage. Humility. Wisdom. Duty. Honor. It's pretty clear there are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, 'Who is this man?' and 'Can we trust this man with the presidency?'"

Source link (emphasis added).

I could not have said it better. It's a very Catholic (although certainly not exclusively Catholic) checklist for virtuous character: courage (fortitude), humility, wisdom, devotion to duty, honor.

Stephen Dillard interviewed on "The Heart of the Matter"

Catholic Radio International's Jeff Gardner (host of "The Heart of the Matter") sat down with Catholics Against Joe Biden's own co-director Stephen Dillard, to discuss the 2008 elections and the responsibilities of the Catholic voter. The second half of the show features a talk with Chris Korzen, head of the "nonpartisan" Catholics United who recently defended Biden's record as "consistant with human life." Both interviews were prerecorded.

Click here to listen to the show online.

New smear from Obama campaign: Palin tied to 'Nazi sympathizer'

As if scurrilous rumors among liberal bloggers about Palin faking a pregnancy weren't bad enough, today a spokesman for the Obama campaign accused the governor of being a Nazi sympathizer:

The first attack came from Obama surrogate Rep. Robert Wexler, the co-chair of Obama's campaign in Florida. Wexler, badly mangling his facts, accused Governor Palin of supporting Pat Buchanan in the 2000 Alaska primary. Based on this he asserted that Governor Palin had "aligned herself with a leading anti-Israel voice in American politics," while finding space to invoke the name of Adolph Hitler and the phrase "Nazi sympathizer." Only it wasn't true--Palin was an official on the Forbes campaign in 2000. Wexler never apologized or retracted his statement.

Then an official Obama spokesman picked up the charge in a statement to the Miami Herald:

"Palin was a supporter of [MSNBC analyst] Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or as many Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer,'' Obama spokesman Mark Bubriski wrote in an email.

The charge that Palin "supported Buchanan in 2000 is apparently predicated on the fact that she wore a Buchanan campaign button when he visited their hometown -- as Palin put it in a statement to the newspaper the following day:

As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless of their party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I'll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect.

Though no reporter interviewed me for the Associated Press article on the recent visit by a presidential candidate (Metro, July 17), the article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla. As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla.

See David Bernstein's Palin and Buchanan, II ("Timeline") of The Volokh Conspiracy.

The Democrats appear to be seriously upset by McCain's selection and in full attack mode.

Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant, chooses life

The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday -- the announcement made to repel mud-slinging and lies by liberal bloggers that "Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child."

Bristol Palin, one of Alaska Gov. Palin's five children with her husband, Todd, is about five months pregnant and is going to keep the child and marry the father, the Palins said in a statement released by the campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said.

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us," the Palins' statement said.

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support," the Palins said.

The Palins asked the news media to respect the young couple's privacy.

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates," the statement concluded.

It is admittedly a sad situation -- howbeit not uncommon, even among Christian families. Nonetheless, admirable in the sense that the Palin daughter will not erase by abortion the consequence of her bad judgement and the Palins will stand beside her. Ben Domenech @ RedState.com on "Bristol Palin's Brave Choice":

Have no doubts about this: Bristol Palin is brave. Braver than any of the hideous bloggers, hiding in their anonymity, who throw muck at her mother and who will doubtlessly revile her decision. Braver than the foes of the right to life who would offer her a knife and a vacuum to end this minor inconvenience. Brave enough to know that it's not enough to talk about doing the right thing - it's doing that right thing when the moment calls for it the most.

We thank her for making this choice now - her child will thank her forever.

The revelation of Bristol Palin's pregnancy might come as a political liability -- or it might not. Two prominent leaders of Evangelical Christians have responded to the news:

• Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family:

  "In the 32-year history of Focus on the Family, we have offered prayer, counseling and resource assistance to tens of thousands of parents and children in the same situation the Palins are now facing. We have always encouraged the parents to love and support their children and always advised the girls to see their pregnancies through, even though there will of course be challenges along the way. That is what the Palins are doing, and they should be commended once again for not just talking about their pro-life and pro-family values, but living them out even in the midst of trying circumstances....

• The Southern Baptist Convention has conveyed a similar statement of support: "This is the pro-life choice. The fact that people will criticize her for this shows the astounding extent to which the secular critics of the pro-life movement just don't get it."

My hunch is that -- despite the unfortunate circumstances -- most conservative voters will respond along these lines, conveying their support and solidarity with the Palins and their daughter for witnessing to the sanctity of life in the most trying of circumstances.

To his credit, Senator Obama attempted to put a leash on liberal rumor-mongerers:

"Let me be a clear as possible: I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits," Obama said, "and people's children are especially off limits.

"This shouldn't be part of our politics," he continued, "It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor, or her potential performance as a vice president.

Finally, Southern Appeal's Francis Beckwith notes There is a certain irony in all this:

Ann Dunham (b. Nov. 29, 1942) was 18 when she gave birth to Barack Obama II on August 4, 1961. Thus, it is likely that Ann was pregnant at 17 with a child sired by a 24 year-old Kenyan exchange student.

Life presents us with certain hardships, some of which are the consequences of our actions. These are the times at which the exercise of virtue becomes the most difficult as well as the most rewarding. Thankfully, there are still many Ann Dunhams and Bristol Palins residing in our communities. We have much to learn from them.