Late-term abortionist George Tiller shot and killed

Late-term abortionist George Tiller was shot and killed at his church in Wichita, Kan.:

Tiller, 67, was one of the few U.S. physicians who still performed late-term abortions. He survived a 1993 shooting outside his Wichita clinic.

He was fatally shot shortly after 10 a.m. Sunday at Reformation Lutheran Church, Wichita police said.

Sunday afternoon, authorities took a man into custody near Kansas City after stopping a car that matched a description of the killer's getaway vehicle, according to sheriff's deputies in Johnson County, Kansas. No charges had been filed.

NRO's Robert P. George:

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller's life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our "weapons" in the fight to defend the lives of abortion's tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.

Responses

• Susan B. Anthony List President's Statement on the Death of George Tiller
  
• National Right to Life Condemns the Teaching of George Tiller
  
• Statement of Fr. Frank Pavone (Priests for Life) on the Killing of George Tiller
  
• Statement of Kansans for Life
  

Robert P. George establishes the 'American Principles Project'

Dr. Robert P. George has founded a new conservative political organization entitled the American Principles Project.

According to a profile of the group by U.S. News' Dan Gilgoff, "the key difference between this group and others cropping up to chart a course forward for the GOP is that the American Principles Projects counts opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage among its top priorities," and will also hold Republicans accountable to follow in practice the principles they affirm in speech:

The message of the 2006 and 2008 elections is not that the American people want to be governed by the ultraliberal and statist ideology of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid; rather it is that Americans will not tolerate Republicans and "conservatives" who refuse to honor in practice the principles they purport to affirm—Republicans and "conservatives" who expand government, spend our tax dollars wantonly, do nothing about out-of-control judges who undermine democracy, and sit idly by as marriage is redefined and further weakened.

Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard also provides details on the founding:

The idea behind George's leap in politics is twofold. First, he would publicize scholarship by academic intellectuals that buttresses the conservative case on issues from family breakdown to the "the sexualizing of children" and bring it to the attention of conservative politicians and activists. He calls this the "mobilization of scholarship." The aim is to change the view of Republican elites that social issues in particular are lowbrow, emotional, and to be avoided.

Second, George wants to elevate issues that reflect conservative popular sentiment--again, notably social issues--and give them a prominent role in
the national political debate. Cannon says Republicans and conservatives have missed numerous opportunities to play up social issues, citing the failure to raise strong objections to President Obama's selection of David Ogden, a lawyer who defended pornographers, as his deputy attorney general.

"The very best scholarship has been underutilized" by conservatives, George says. "There's a lot of excellent scholarship out there. But it's not known. Conservative politicians don't refer to it. They haven't been good, as liberals have been, in using intellectual work."

From the American Principles Project's 'mission statement':

The United States of America does not need new principles. It needs renewed fidelity to the principles set forth in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These are timeless principles: truths that we hold, in Jefferson's immortal words, to be, "self-evident." They are, moreover, universal principles, not the historically contingent beliefs or customs of a particular sect or clan or tribe. They are rooted in the nature of man as a being who, by virtue of his God-given dignity and rationality, owns the right to participate in the great project of self-government as a free and equal citizen. Whatever others may say, we at the American Principles Project and all who join with us reaffirm the truth that each and every member of the human family is, "created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Serving the APP as its Communications Director will be the industrious Thomas Peters (American Papist.

"Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues?" -- A discussion with Robert P. George and Doug Kmiec, moderated by Mary Ann Glendon

(From Catholic University):

A public exchange of views was convened on the topic, “The Obama Administration and the Sanctity of Human Life: Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues? What is the Right Response by ‘Pro-Life” Citizens?” today at Washington, D.C.’s National Press Club, Thursday, May 28, 2009.

Discussing their respective views was Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and the Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, and Douglas Kmiec, Professor of Constitutional Law and Caruso Family Chair in Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University School of Law.

Moderating the exchange was Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and former United States Ambassador to the Holy See. The event explored different perspectives on current governmental policy regarding such issues as abortion and embryonic stem cell research and its impact on societal attitudes regarding the respect for human life.

You can watch the video on CUA's website here; or on C-Span here.

The event was 'Twittered' by Thomas Peters (American Papist) in attendance.

An article adapted from George's opening remarks is available from The Public Discourse.

President Obama names theologian Miguel H. Diaz U.S. ambassador to the Vatican

In the same week of his nomination of a Hispanic Catholic for the Supreme Court of the United States, President Obama has finally named Havana-born 45 year old Miguel H. Diaz, an associate professor of theology at St. John's University and the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican. Eric Gorski (Associated Press) reports:

President Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor

President Barack Obama has nominated federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court; if she is confirmed, the New York native of Puerto Rican descent would become the first Hispanic to serve on the high court (Catholic News Service).

A roundup of some reaction, from the Catholic blogging community and elsewhere.

• "Coming soon to a sound-byte near you!" - From Powerline, a list of Sotomayor "talking points" we're likely to hear in the coming days and weeks.
  
• Sotomayor would be sixth Catholic justice a roundup from the Boston Globe's Michael Paulson:

  Judge Sonia Sotomayor has much to distinguish her, but one element of her biography stands out in the world of those interested in religion and the public square: she is Catholic, and, if approved as a Supreme Court justice, she will be the sixth Catholic on the nine-member court. That is a remarkable accomplishment for American Catholics, who make up 23 percent of the nation's population, and will now potentially hold 67 percent of the high court's seats. Two of the justices are Jewish; the resignation of Justice David Souter, who is an Episcopalian, will leave, amazingly given the history of this nation, just one Protestant on the Supreme Court, 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens.
  

  Undoubtedly, Sotomayor's Catholic-ness will be the subject of some debate. Just how Catholic is she? ...

  
  
• Oswald Sobrino (Catholic Analysis) muses Am I engaging in wishful thinking, or do I see some possible hope in this nomination?:

  In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the "Mexico City Policy" which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as the government "is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds".

  
  
• Feddie (Southern Appeal) wonders, Whither Catholic bashing? and thinks she's the "best of the worst":

  My take on the appointment? She’s the best of the worst. Judge Sotomayor will almost certainly be a reliably liberal vote on the hot-button social issues, but she’s not going to play a leading role in shaping the jurisprudence of the Court (like Judge Diane Wood almost certainly would have done). She’s a political pick, plain and simple. I think the GOP would be wise not to waste too much political capital (assuming it has any left) on opposing this appointment. Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed, and strongly opposing her will only further alienate Hispanic voters. This is not to say that I don’t think we should expose her for the penumbra lover and radical that she is. Indeed, I am all for it. But the bottom line for me is that the folks waiting on President Obama’s on-deck circle are far, far worse. Think of it like a professional wrestling match: Let’s get in a few blows, and then let Obama have his pick. There are hills to die on, and this seat isn’t one of them (especially given the dems’ fillibuster-proof advantage in the Senate).

  Jay Anderson agrees, and takes issue with the knee-jerk reaction some elements of the pro-life movement:

  Granted, I am of the opinion that, absent very extreme circumstances, a President is entitled to the Supreme Court nominees of his choice ... especially with his first pick, so I recognize that I'm probably more tolerant of this pick than your average pro-lifer may be.
  

  
  That said, I'm thoroughly disgusted by the reaction of pro-life groups and many other conservatives to this nomination. They've wasted no time before engaging in knee-jerk condemnation of Judge Sotomayor without, I'd wager, spending more than a minimal amount of time reviewing her record. As I noted in an update to my previous post, "I'm beginning to think that certain pro-life organizations already had their anti-nominee press releases ready to go this morning when Obama made his Supreme Court announcement, and that they just filled in the blank once they learned the name."

  
  
• Paul Zummo (CrankyCon) responds:

  I don’t necessarily agree that Republicans and conservatives should quietly let her take her seat. We’re not going to defeat her, and in no way should we attempt a filibuster. But I don’t think we should let her pass unanimously. The Supreme Court has been an issue that has helped more than hurt the GOP, and it would be folly to give up the moral high ground. It would be difficult to make the case three years hence that Obama’s Supreme Court picks were too radical if you happened to have voted for them. There’s a lot of concern about being portrayed as anti-Hispanic by opposing her, but as Annakin said at the end of Return of the Jedi, it’s too late for that.
  

  So be tough dring the confirmation hearings. Ask her difficult questions, and certainly vote against confirmation if you think she should not be on the Supreme Court. Just don’t raise too much of a fuss in doing all that.

  
  
• Michael Goldfarb's advice is similar to that from my legal-minded colleagues -- we could have had much worse, and it would behoove conservatives not to make :

  If there is an upside here for conservatives, Yoo has zeroed in on it: Sotomayor is not going to be a rallying point for the left, and she is not going to persuade anyone on the right. She will, presumably, be a reliable liberal vote -- nothing more, nothing less. Conservatives could have done much worse, but we're getting a liberal Harriet Miers instead of a liberal Alito. The real danger for conservatives is that Sotomayor becomes a Hispanic icon who's seen as being unfairly maligned by Republicans. That could further alienate Hispanics from the party and do lasting damage to the conservative revolution in ways that Sotomayor herself never could.

  
  
• "Conservative groups know they want to oppose Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor — but exactly how that campaign will be conducted is a major unanswered question that is splitting the Republican right." -- POLITICO
  

Update

• There is a Sotomayor quote floating around:

  “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

  and when I heard it I admit I was troubled at first -- but Rod Dreher (CrunchyCon) places it in proper context.
  

Memorial Day 2009

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, let thy protection be upon all those who are in the service of our country; guard them from all harm and danger of body and soul; sustain and comfort those as home, especially in their hours of loneliness, anxiety, and sorrow; prepare the dying for death and the living for your service; give success to our arms on land and sea and in the air; and grant unto us and all nations a speedy, just and lasting peace. Amen.

-- Prayer in Time of War

What does President Obama mean when he asks us to 'work through" our conflicts?

For consideration: an excerpt from President Barack Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame:

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.

The question, then -- the question then is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

I've been thinking about the President's words.

A soldier and a lawyer may disagree over this or that aspect of U.S. foreign policy. (Measures taken "to protect the country from harm" are presumably acceptable to the extent that they are in conformity with what is typically referred to as the just war tradition or in secular terms the "laws of war.") There is little disputing that both can be motivated by a patriotic love of their country.

Responding to the horrors of HIV / AIDS, the evangelical pastor might counsel abstinence; the gay activist the distribution of condoms. That both are motivated by a desire to curb an epidemic is understandable; howbeit so long as they differ over the sanctity of marriage and the purpose of sexuality, we can expect little chance for "unity."

Lastly, we can emphathize with the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes and their desire to relieve pain and suffering. What is this, but the natural instinct of every parent?

And yet, I really have to wonder what does Obama's "common effort" really amount to?

Is he so naive as to expect that our empathy for the other's situation will compel us to muzzle our moral protest against the evil of utilitarian experimentation upon human embroyos?

The willfull murder of a child in the womb? or smothering the last breath out of the result of a botched abortion?

What does our President mean when from the pulpit of Notre Dame he asks us to "work through" such conflicts?

What does this actually amount to, except "can't we all just get along" -- in spite of, or at the expense of, our principles and convictions?

Our President wants us to be "firm in our principles" -- but it seems to me that he has not seriously grappled with the implications of the Church's teaching that

"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."

Archbishop Chaput on Jenkins, Obama and Notre Dame

"Archbishop Chaput on Notre Dame and the issues that remain" - Statement of Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver. May 18, 2009:

"I have found that even among those who did not go to Notre Dame, even among those who do not share the Catholic faith, there is a special expectation, a special hope, for what Notre Dame can accomplish in the world."

~ Reverend John Jenkins, C.S.C., May 17, 2009

Most graduation speeches are a mix of piety and optimism designed to ease students smoothly into real life. The best have humor. Some genuinely inspire. But only a rare few manage to be pious, optimistic, evasive, sad and damaging all at the same time. Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., Notre Dame’s president, is a man of substantial intellect and ability. This makes his introductory comments to President Obama’s Notre Dame commencement speech on May 17 all the more embarrassing.

Let’s remember that the debate over President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame was never about whether he is a good or bad man. The president is clearly a sincere and able man. By his own words, religion has had a major influence in his life. We owe him the respect Scripture calls us to show all public officials. We have a duty to pray for his wisdom and for the success of his service to the common good -- insofar as it is guided by right moral reasoning.

We also have the duty to oppose him when he’s wrong on foundational issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research and similar matters. And we also have the duty to avoid prostituting our Catholic identity by appeals to phony dialogue that mask an abdication of our moral witness. Notre Dame did not merely invite the president to speak at its commencement. It also conferred an unnecessary and unearned honorary law degree on a man committed to upholding one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in our nation’s history: Roe v. Wade.

In doing so, Notre Dame ignored the U.S. bishops’ guidance in their 2004 statement, Catholics in Political Life. It ignored the concerns of Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Notre Dame’s 2009 Laetare Medal honoree – who, unlike the president, certainly did deserve her award, but finally declined it in frustration with the university’s action. It ignored appeals from the university’s local bishop, the president of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference, more than 70 other bishops, many thousands of Notre Dame alumni and hundreds of thousands of other American Catholics. Even here in Colorado, I’ve heard from too many to count.

There was no excuse – none, except intellectual vanity – for the university to persist in its course. And Father Jenkins compounded a bad original decision with evasive and disingenuous explanations to subsequently justify it.

These are hard words, but they’re deserved precisely because of Father Jenkins’ own remarks on May 17: Until now, American Catholics have indeed had “a special expectation, a special hope for what Notre Dame can accomplish in the world.” For many faithful Catholics – and not just a “small but vocal group” described with such inexcusable disdain and ignorance in journals like Time magazine -- that changed Sunday.

The May 17 events do have some fitting irony, though. Almost exactly 25 years ago, Notre Dame provided the forum for Gov. Mario Cuomo to outline the “Catholic” case for “pro-choice” public service. At the time, Cuomo’s speech was hailed in the media as a masterpiece of American Catholic legal and moral reasoning. In retrospect, it’s clearly adroit. It’s also, just as clearly, an illogical and intellectually shabby exercise in the manufacture of excuses. Father Jenkins’ explanations, and President Obama’s honorary degree, are a fitting national bookend to a quarter century of softening Catholic witness in Catholic higher education. Together, they’ve given the next generation of Catholic leadership all the excuses they need to baptize their personal conveniences and ignore what it really demands to be “Catholic” in the public square.

Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George has suggested that Notre Dame “didn’t understand” what it means to be Catholic before these events began. He's correct, and Notre Dame is hardly alone in its institutional confusion. That's the heart of the matter. Notre Dame’s leadership has done a real disservice to the Church, and now seeks to ride out the criticism by treating it as an expression of fringe anger. But the damage remains, and Notre Dame’s critics are right. The most vital thing faithful Catholics can do now is to insist – by their words, actions and financial support – that institutions claiming to be “Catholic” actually live the faith with courage and consistency. If that happens, Notre Dame’s failure may yet do some unintended good.

President Barack Obama and the Scandal of Notre Dame

This past Sunday, President Barack Obama gave a commencement address at Notre Dame University, and was awarded with an honorary law degree. The United States Catholic Bishops have previously stated, as a matter of policy, that:

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

According to a list compiled by Thomas Peters (American Papist), 76 Catholic Bishops have formally published statements on President Barack Obama's appearance at Notre Dame, and the conferring of an honorary degree.

The consensus among those objecting is that the conferral of honors upon one whose political career is distinguished by a zealous desire to repeal every restriction upon abortion and embryonic stem cell research (the latter at the taxpayer's expense) is in specific violation of this policy, and speaks of rank hypocrisy for an institution that professes to be "Catholic."

Texts

• Fr. Jenkin's introduction to President Barack Obama
  
• Transcript: Obama's Notre Dame Commencement Address
  

A roundup of (pre and post event) reactions

"Pro"

• As reported by John Thavis of the Catholic News Service, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said U.S. President Barack Obama sought common ground on the divisive issue of abortion in his commencement address at the University of Notre Dame.:

  "The search for a common ground: This seems to be the path chosen by the president of the United States, Barack Obama, in facing the delicate question of abortion," the newspaper said.
  

  It said Obama had set aside the "strident tone" of the 2008 political campaign on the abortion issue.
  

  "Yesterday Obama confirmed what he expressed at his 100-day press conference at the White House, when he said that enacting a new law on abortion was not a priority of his administration," it said.
  

  (The author of the editorial is unknown; to echo Thomas Peters: "who is writing this stuff?")
  

• The entirely predictable Thomas Reese, SJ crowes: He Came, He Spoke, He Conquered (Washington Post May 18, 2009:

  President Obama's reception at Notre Dame showed once again that a new generation of Americans, including Catholics, is looking for a different kind of leader, not one who speaks down to his audience, demands strict loyalty and demonizes opponents, but one who addresses complexity with honesty, acknowledges disagreements and tries to bring people together for the common good.

  
  

"Con"

• Duped at Notre Dame: Barack Obama says he wants abortion to be safe, legal, and rare, while doing everything in his power to advance it, by Paul Kengor (Weekly Standard May 18, 2009)
  

• Notre Madame et le President, by Anthony Esolen (Touchstone's "Mere Comments"):

  Well, the long-awaited commencement chez Notre Madame is past, God be thanked, with the father of the college and the father of our country fairly falling into one another's arms in an ecstasy of mutual admiration and relief. I'll leave it to the right people to express their feelings of betrayal -- I mean the Catholics who have spent many years praying in front of abortuaries, passing out literature on abortion to their students in Catholic schools, donating time and goods and money to homes for unwed mothers, and fighting the patient and frustrating political fight one fence-sitting politician at a time.
  

  Instead I'd like to focus on the moral aphasia of our times. ...

  
  
• "A House Divided", by Ralph McInerny (The Catholic Thing):

  There were two commencement ceremonies at Notre Dame on Sunday. One was the media event in which alleged prestige trumped the truth that you cannot honor a man, president or not, whose policies are unabashedly pro-abortion without honoring abortion.
  

  The other took place at the grotto and on the west mall, untelevised, in the shadow of Rockne Memorial, at which the Mass and prayers, principally the rosary, were offered in reparation for the administration’s unconscionable sleeping with the enemy.

  
  
• Take time to read Joseph Bottum's At the Gates of Notre Dame (First Things June / July 2000):

  We all knew this fight was coming. The Catholic Church and the Catholic colleges have been heading toward a crash since at least 1990, when John Paul II issued Ex Corde Ecclesiae, his apostolic constitution for Catholic institutions of higher education. And now, at last, the battle is public—brought to fever pitch by Notre Dame’s bestowing of an honorary law degree on a prominent supporter of legalized abortion.
  

  As it happens, that supporter of abortion is also the president of the United States, which is unfortunate in a number of ways—beginning with the fact that the office of the president, regardless of who holds it, deserves respect and honor from American citizens of every political persuasion. ... [More]

  (An abridged version appears in the Weekly Standard's God and Obama at Notre Dame).
  

• Over 360,000 Catholics have signed a petition to Notre Dame President Fr. Jenkins, dencouncing the bestowal of honors "on President Obama given his clear support for policies and laws that directly contradict fundamental Catholic teachings on life and marriage."
  

• Time Magazine's Amy Sullivan opens her article, The Pope's Stand on the Obama Notre Dame Controversy by laying her journalistic bias on the table:

  "At the rate things are going, Pope Benedict XVI may find his next trip to the U.S. dogged by airplanes overhead trailing banners with images of aborted fetuses."

  The Telegraph's Damien Thompson calls it A shabby piece of journalism:

  This grotesque purple flourish serves as the introduction to a thoroughly biased article by Amy Sullivan which dismisses the unprecedented Catholic opposition to Obama's commencement address as the work of, wouldn't you just know it, "a small but vocal group of conservative Catholics".

  "Small but vocal group" is the the media's code for a protest that offends them. You rarely see small but vocal groups of liberals described thus.

  
  
• George Weigel asks What "Church" does Noter Dame belong to?" (Denver Catholic Register)
  

  
  Weigel also responds to Obama's speech in (National Review May 18, 2009):

  What was surprising, and ought to be disturbing to anyone who cares about religious freedom in these United States, was the president’s decision to insert himself into the ongoing Catholic debate over the boundaries of Catholic identity and the applicability of settled Catholic conviction in the public square. Obama did this by suggesting, not altogether subtly, who the real Catholics in America are. The real Catholics, you see, are those like the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who are “congenial and gentle” in persuasion, men and women who are “always trying to bring people together,” Catholics who are “always trying to find the common ground.” The fact that Cardinal Bernardin’s undoubted geniality and gentility in bringing people together to find the common ground invariably ended with a “consensus” that matched the liberal or progressive position of the moment went unremarked — because, for a good postmodern liberal like President Obama, that progressive “consensus” is so self-evidently true that one can afford to be generous in acknowledging that others, less enlightened but arguably sincere, have different views.

  
  
• Kathryn Jean Lopez (National Review): Notre Dame Says ‘Yes We Can’,
  and adds to the cloud of moral confusion on the human-rights issue of our lifetimes.
  

• Deal Hudson @ Inside Catholic concludes that Notre Dame Becomes a Symbol of Catholic Dissent
  

• New Yorker and Notre Dame law grad Anna Franzonello prayed yesterday rather than attend President Obama's commencement speech because of his pro-abortion stance. (New York Post May 18, 2009)
  

Discussions around St. Blog's Parish:

• , by DarwinCatholic (American Catholic)
  

• "Obama at Notre Dame", Amy Welborn (Via Media)
  

• Obama Calls for "Conscience Clause" Rights While His Administration Destroys Existing Conscience Clause Rights, by Wesley Smith (Secondhand Smoke)
  

• Michael Denton (For the Greater Glory) fisks the speeches at Notre Dame.
  

Much more from Opinionated Catholic.

American Papist on the Notre Dame Scandal

Thomas Peters (aka "American Papist") has his finger on the pulse of the Notre Dame scandal involving their honor of President Barack Obama with a law degree -- to which over 70 bishops of the Catholic Church have voiced their disapproval.

Check his website for continued updates.

How Joe Biden Celebrated Planned Parenthood v. Casey

See "Joe Biden is One Sick Pro-Abort" at Catholics Against Joe Biden.