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.