Election 2008 - Catholic Blogs Roundup

• Mark Shea puts things into perspective:

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

• Commonweal gets cocky:

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

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

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

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

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

• Dale Price asks us to respond like Catholics:

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

• MoveOn (Amy Welborn):

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

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

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

  So here we are. ...

  
  

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.

Obama Set to Reignite Communion Controversy by Picking Sebelius as VP Nominee?

Dave Hartline of The Catholic Report links to a couple of stories indicating that Kathleen Sebelius, the pro-abortion Catholic Governor of Kansas, still seems to be on top of Obama's short list for Veep:

"Praise for Sebelius"

"Obama veepstakes: The other woman"

As Dave notes (and as I've noted previously), picking Sebelius is definitely a risky strategy for a campaign that has gone to great lengths to try to win over Catholic voters. Sebelius' bishop, Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City, has made public his instructions to her that she should refrain from receiving Communion over her pro-abortion stance. Picking her would be seen by many Catholics as Obama's sticking it to the Church hierarchy over the issue of abortion.

Such a pick would definitely ignite what some pundits have blasphemously dubbed the "wafer watch", since every Mass at which Sebelius was in attendance would turn into a media circus. Reporters and photographers would love to catch Sebelius receiving Communion in defiance of her bishop.

If you thought the media attention given to John Kerry's Mass attendance in 2004 was distracting, just wait until the media focuses their attention on a Catholic whose actions in receiving Communion would actually be in defiance of her own bishop's admonitions to refrain from doing so (something that was never the case with John Kerry).

Kmiec endorses Obama

• Douglas W. Kmiec endorses Obama.
  
• "The Cranky Conservative" responds.
  

Robert P. George's "Unrequited Letter to Ann Rice"

On her website, famous author Ann Rice has defended her personal endorsement of Hillary Clinton (to the tune of Ave Maria, no less):

. . . To summarize, I believe in voting, I believe in voting for one of the two major parties, and I believe my vote must reflect my Christian beliefs.

Bearing all this in mind, I want to say quietly that as of this date, I am a Democrat, and that I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels.

Princeton Professor Robert P. George challenges her in "An Unrequited Letter to Ann Rice" (First Things' blog; December 17, 2007):

. . . I once had the honor of representing Mother Teresa of Calcutta as counsel of record on an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court of the United States asking for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. (I would be happy to send you a copy, if you like.) Mother made the point that we cannot fight credibly against other social and moral evils, including poverty and violence, while we tolerate mass killing by abortion. In this, it seems to me, she stated with characteristic simplicity a profound truth.

You have endorsed a candidate and a political party that believes that abortion, far from being an injustice, is a fundamental right. They are pledged to oppose any meaningful legal protections of the life of the child in the womb. They have even sought to protect the grisliest of methods of abortion–the “dilation and intact extraction” procedure. In this, they are promoting the greatest injustice and abuse of human rights to be found in our country today. . . .

Bush's Second Term, Abortion and the Road Ahead

President Bush addressed the March for Life attendees today "by telephone from Camp David, sending his support without attending the event, just as Republican presidents have done each year since Ronald Reagan entered office." (New York Times January 25, 2005).

You can read the full transcription of his call on the White House's website. Speaking to rally organizer Nellie Gray, President Bush recalled pro-life legislative advancements made during his first term in office, and acknowledged the great amount of work yet to be done:

The America of our dreams, where every child is welcomed in law -- in life, and protected in law may still be some ways away, but even from the far side of the river, Nellie, we can see its glimmerings. (Applause.) We're making progress in Washington. I've been working with members of the Congress to pass good, solid legislation that protects the vulnerable and promotes the culture of life. I signed into law a ban on partial birth abortion. (Applause.) Infants who are born despite an attempted abortion are now protected by law. (Applause.) So are nurses and doctors who refused to be any part of an abortion. (Applause.) And prosecutors can now charge those who harm or kill a pregnant woman with harming or killing her unborn child. (Applause.)

Some liberal critics of President Bush have interpreted his comment that an end to abortion "may still be some ways away" as a sign of insincerity, alleging that the President was never really genuine in his pro-life campaign promises during the presidential election. (Jcecil3 apparently is of this opinion).

However, the Bush administration and fellow Republicans can hardly be charged as being complacent on abortion during Bush's first term in office. We should also remember that Kerry opposed (and voted against) much of the pro-life legislation Bush cited in his phone-call, and continued federal support of crisis pregnancy centers and abstinence programs probably would not have fared well had Kerry been elected. (Kerry would have also repealed the Mexico City Policy, withholding federal funds to NGO's that promote or provide abortions overseas).

Whatever Bush's shortcomings (and yes, I won't dispute that there have been disappointements), I for one am relieved that we have a President in the White House that pro-lifers can work with, rather than a "pro-choice Catholic" in league with Planned Parenthood and NARAL, persistently at odds with his Church, and utterly opposed to the pro-life movement.

Perhaps something we can all agree on is President Bush's reminder that legislation alone cannot be treated as a panacea, but rather

. . . a true culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws. We need, most of all, to change hearts. And that is what we're doing, seeking common ground where possible, and persuading increasing numbers of our fellow citizens of the rightness of our cause.

The legislative accomplishments that we have seen already -- such as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act -- together with the emergence of public awareness campaigns like BlackGenocide.Org, SilentNoMore, can I believe be taken as an indication that Americans are changing, that they are coming a greater awareness of the humanity of the unborn, and the true horror that is abortion. We can pray that such conversions of American hearts will continue.

• Further discussion at Amy Welborn's Open Book
  
• "Bush backs proposed pro-life bills" Washington Times January 25, 2005.
  

Democratic Party Post-Mortem

While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain right which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.

Find out which famous Catholic politician said this in "Bob Casey's Revenge" (First Things 149 (January 2005): 6-8), in which New York Post writer William McGurn conducts a post-mortem examination of the Democratic Party's sellout to Planned Parenthood and NARAL resulting in the loss of the 2004 presidential election:

In the aftermath of Senator Kerry's defeat the Democrats are wondering how it is that the first Catholic nominee for President since 1960, a man who spoke glowingly of rosary beads and his days as an altar boy, lost the Catholic vote, lost the Mass-going Catholic vote by an even larger margin, and lost it by larger margins still in key swing states such as Florida and Ohio.

They have much to ponder, as do all Americans who truly care about life, for it should be clear that a Democratic Party in its current shape is not healthy for America. We need pro-life Democrats to be able to breathe again. This means that we need a Democratic leadership that doesn't demand that Democrats vote against, among other things, judicial nominees whose only crime is their "deeply held" personal beliefs or a suspected skepticism toward the one dogma in the Democratic Party: that while all other Supreme Court decisions are malleable and must bend to the social and political agenda of the day, RoeCAv. Wade is holy writ.

Via Bettnet.

Dissenters Begin to Howl Over Election Results

Several days ago I wrote about how the defeat of prime time Catholic dissenter John Kerry ensured that there was no presidential validation of Catholic dissenters (see post for 11/11/04). Frank Joseph, M.D., who regularly sends out e-mails following current Catholic issues, sends out today a Catholic News Agency article documenting the liberal howling that confirms the "no validation" insight.

In the article, Frances Kissling, the head of the pro-abortion and anti-Catholic "Catholics for a Free Choice," for once gets it right-- once you get past the name-calling and heterodox jargon. She points out that the re-election of Bush energizes conservative Catholics both within the Church and in the political arena.

Here is an excerpt from her rant:

Kissling said she is concerned about the impact the election results will have on the Catholic Church in the United States. "The most troubling aspect of all this is the extent to which Bush's victory will further empower an incredibly arrogant, intolerant, anti-woman and anti-religious freedom faction in my church," she said.

Source: Catholic News Agency, 11/22/04 (emphasis added).

That "faction" in the Church is the sense of the faithful whose so-called arrogance is really boldness, whose so-called intolerance is really restating Catholic truths, whose so-called anti-woman stance is really a long overdue authentic feminism, and whose so-called anti-religious freedom slant is simply affirming that an informed Catholic conscience is never pro-abortion. Long live the "faction." More importantly, long live the truth motivating the "faction."

A Blue State of Mind

Those who mock the God-ordained laws that lie behind what the media trivializes as "moral values" are obviously disconsolate with the outcome of the 2004 presidential election and even more disheartened by the emergence of Christians in the public square that contributed so significantly to it. CPS has searched Blue Blogdom to bring our readers a half dozen of these liberal lamentations:

Torture Bad—Unless in the Womb?
Feeding Babies Good—Feeding Terri Bad?

I'm not at all comfortable with calling the people who exit polled that their political priority is "values" Christians, because (not entering into the quicksand of knowing others' hearts, 'cause that's more their thing) what we think we know about those people is what the evangelical protestant right, political arm, has told us about them and I wouldn't believe the evangelical protestant right, political arm, if they told me to wear my raincoat to a monsoon and my own values (torture bad, feeding babies good, need at least one reason that proves out for killing 100k iraqis) don't allow for quite a lot of rather bad stuff they support, I think hereinafter when discussing them I'm simply going to refer to them as "values" voters. So much for that. -jmhm, Sisyphus Shrugged

No Set Rule for Morality?

To say someone is voting based on morals that would imply that they had a choice between something (or someone) who was moral, and someone (or something) that was immoral. The problem with this is there's no set rule as to what is moral and what is immoral. The people making this claim are holding up the Bible as the end all be all, but even then they only want to pay attention to specific parts of it that back up their stance. Now it's been a few years since I've read the Bible...but I'm pretty damn sure I remember something about "Thou shall not kill", maybe one of the commandments or something. So, according to that, killing people would be immoral. So things like going to war, and the death penalty would fall on the immoral side. But that hasn't been discussed. This is really just a group of people who don't like gays trying to find a way to say they don't like gays without coming right out with it. Bush is against gay marriage so he's more moral. But he's all for killing people. That anyone could look at his record and say he's more "moral" is just insane. -Sean Bonner

God Is Everywhere—and All the Time

Jesusland, so concerned about Values and so often unable to live up to those Values, went to the polls in force to turn those born-again values into Law. They want their God everywhere, all the time. See, if Jesusland Law becomes Civil and Criminal Law, the residents of Jesusland will never have to think about anything ever again. (Many Jesusland people are so terrified of the outside world and its sweet, sweet temptations that they rarely leave their suburban mega-church.) -Ken Layne

Intolerant of Dictionaries—A Bad Spell of Liberalism

dear karl rove...the nation has surely moved towards a direction of greater intolerence. if you want to claim that as a republican direction be my guest. intolerant of people choosing who they wish to marry, intolerant of a woman choosing what she wants to do with her womb, intolerant of americans choosing not to be believers in the easterbunny/santaclaus/godblessamerica Christianity that has more to do with politics than scripture intolerant of facts intolerant of the UN, fiscal responsibility, and the US constitution -Tony Pearce [Caution: Vulgarity on banner.]

Racist Rant Equates Race With Vice

What I'm most depressed by is the passage of all 11 of the anti-gay marriage ammendments. The idea that 11 states of the country of my birth would ammend their Constitutions with this type of bigotry in the year 2004 makes me ill. Does anyone really think that 40 or 50 years from now, we won't be looking back on this era with the same type of disgust and incredulity with which we now view Jim Crow laws? The trend of history is pretty clear on these matters, human rights eventually prevail, and those that stood in the way forever have their good names tarnished by the bigotry and hate they spouted in return for some cheap political capital. -Seth Bokleman, Seth-Tech

No Good Reason at All

One of my conservative friends suggested that if the Democrats kept nominating candidates that were in thrall to "third-rail issues" like abortion, perhaps we should consider moderating our positions to attract more voters—and start winning. I suggested that I would compromise on abortion rights when Republicans loosen up on gay marriage. Not that they have any reason to compromise at all now. -Donna, Live in the Delirious Cool

Supplemental Reading:

• For a litany of abuses suffered by "red" America, see "Blue States Shout Until They Are Red in the Face, The Galvin Opion, November 10, 2004.
• For media bullets on the 2004 race, see "Point Blank (Round 17)," Times Against Humanity, November 15, 2004.

No "Validation" for Dissenting Catholics

A graduate school classmate, whose strong Catholic beliefs I highly respect, captured in one word what was at stake in a potential Kerry election victory: "validation" for Catholic dissidents. Some will say that a Kerry victory has no canonical or theological standing: dissent is still heterodox no matter who becomes President.

But reality is much more complex. Call it what you will--ambience, momentum, the Zeitgeist--but having a dissident Catholic as President of the most powerful nation in the world and in the constant media spotlight worldwide would have culturally validated the dissenting Catholics of Call to Action, FutureChurch, the National Catholic Reporter, Dignity, and Commonweal. Of course, there would have been no theological validation of heterodoxy, but there would have been a big rise in social credibility for the agenda of liberal/dissenting Catholics.

It is no secret that dissenting Catholics have no problem with gay civil unions or even marriage. It is no secret that dissenting Catholics view the pro-life stance of the Church as expendable. Kerry's election and ensuing prestige would have culturally validated those views for many other Catholics.

Yet, the majority of Catholic voters backed Bush. Some will say that Bush captured the majority of Catholic voters because of the greater trust voters in general have in Bush's ability to fight the war on terror. Surely, there is some truth in that view.

But clearly social issues like abortion and gay marriage played a key role. As noted in a recent Catholic World News story, while John F. Kennedy captured 78% of the Catholic vote in 1960, Kerry captured only 47% of the Catholic vote. Kerry is the first Catholic presidential nominee in American history to lose the Catholic vote (devout Catholic Al Smith got 80% of the Catholic vote in the 1928 presidential election won by Herbert Hoover, according to Catholic World News).

In my view, if terror had been the only reason for Catholics to vote for Bush, Kerry as a Catholic candidate should have at least tied Bush in the Catholic vote, as Gore, a non-Catholic, basically did in 2000. My hunch is that something else pushed the Catholic vote decisively against Kerry: the social issues.

The evidence for this view is the lopsided majority of votes that Bush got among practicing Catholics.

In the end, we can say that this election was good news not only for social issues of special concern to Catholics, but also for keeping the dissident Catholic agenda marginalized within the Church.

The Catholic Vote - A Roundup

Catholics, who have become a closely watched swing vote, favored Bush over Democrat John Kerry by 52 percent to 47 percent, according to national exit polls. That is a turnaround from 2000, when Bush got 47 percent to Democrat Al Gore's 50 percent.

It was a different story in Michigan, which Kerry took. Michigan Catholics favored him over Bush 50 percent to 49 percent, according to an exit poll of state voters.

The national shift translates to 16.1 million Catholic votes for Bush -- an increase of about 3.3 million from four years ago, said John Kenneth White, professor of politics at Catholic University in Washington.

The results come as a repudiation of Kerry, who was the first Catholic nominated for president since 1960. His support of abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research raised the ire of some bishops and Catholic conservatives, and resulted in 56 percent of weekly mass attendees voting for Bush, according to exit polls.

"Churchgoing people saved the election for Bush, as practicing Catholics and evangelicals moved much more strongly for him," said George Marlin, author of "The American Catholic Voter: 200 Years of Political Impact." Catholics represent about a quarter of the electorate, or about 31 million voters this year.

Source: Analysts point to a divide within faith, Nov. 8, 2004.

Blogs, online bulletin boards and the MSM (mainstream media) are abuzz, as both sides of the ideological divide attempt to derive some lessons from the results of the election. Here's a look at what some Catholics are saying:

• In "After the Bush Victory: L'Osservatore Romano Is Silent, but Avvenire Sings", Sandro Magister covers the mixed reactions from Italy, as represented by the almost ambivalent mention in L'Osservatore Romano, the official organ of the Holy See ("L'Osservatore Romano must respect the canons of diplomacy, and neutrality is the paper's own law. But the reticence with which it registered Bush's victory appeared to go beyond its official duty"), and a celebratory and openly favorable editorial in the Avvenire, daily publication of the Italian Bishops' Conference and according to Magister representative of the views of its president, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the pope's vicar for the diocese of Rome.
  

• In an article for the Catholic News Service, Patricia Zapor says that the "2004 elections could signal changes for church in society", pointing to the rift within the American Catholic Church created by Senator Kerry's openly conflicting stances on abortion, same-sex marriage and embryonic stem-cell research.
  

  Jesuit Father David Hollenbach went so far as to claim that the disciplinary approach of certain Bishops "is likely to produce a very strong backlash . . . People don't like to have a group of bishops throwing their weight around, with religious claims attached to a political point. I think those bishops are going to be proven to have made a bad mistake." Prompting Domenico Bettinelli to quip: "someone needs to tell Father David Hollenbach that John Kerry lost the election. He seems to be under the misapprehension that Kerry won and that it was a repudiation of the bishops . . ."
  

• In Ignatius Insight, the online magazine of Ignatius Press, Valerie Schmalz asks "Did the Catholic Vote Really Count?", again, with reactions from Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, Father Richard J Neuhaus, Catholic Answers founder Karl Keating, Catholic activist Bill May, Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of National Review Online, and Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life. Most of the respondents were pleased and positive, with the exception of Mr. Keating who had some cautionary observations, recognizing the vast amount of work yet to be done:
  "I don't think it's good to talk about a Catholic vote. I don't think there is one. I think there are voters who are Catholic. …There seem to be a slightly larger proportion of Catholics who paid some attention to the Church's moral instruction this time around than in previous years but there is still a very large number of Catholics, approaching half, who seem to pay no attention to the Church's teaching at all." Keating thinks it is possible the margin of Catholic votes affected some races but says there is no hard proof.

  Catholics did make a difference in this election by speaking out more vocally on Catholic teachings, Keating says. "I think we've only just begun to flex Catholic muscles in the political arena." Keating says that since self-identified Catholics comprise 25% of the electorate, if just one-in-five Catholics voted consistently on Catholic moral teachings, it would be enough to sway most elections. "We're nowhere near close to that," he observes.

  In the second part of the article Ms. Schmalz interviews Catholic Answers' apologist and fellow blogger James Akin, Supreme Court historian James Hitchcock, Louise Zwick (of the Houston Catholic Worker) and Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of prolife activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, on "Catholic Voters and the Work Ahead".

• As a fan of Fr. Neuhaus' monthly column "The Public Square" I early await his assessment of the elections in the next issue of First Things. In the meantime, for a review of the Catholic Bishops' response to the scandal created by Senator Kerry and pro-choice Catholics in this election with a special focus on the USCCB's meeting in Denver, I could think of no better than Neuhaus' "Bishops At a Turning Point" (First Things 146 October 2004). Neuhaus praises what he sees as a "generational change" underway in the Bishops' Conference, led by Cardinal Francis George of Chicago and what he dubs the "John Paul II Bishops",
  [Those bishops who] have internalized the dramatic teaching initiatives of this pontificate and have demonstrated a zeal in communicating them. They share the Pope's discernment of the third millennium as a potential "springtime" of evangelization and authentic Catholic reform.

  According to Neuhaus, the "new generation" of Bishops are "men who do not hesitate to speak up and speak well in the company of their fellow bishops," and who recently demonstrated their leadership "in the way the bishops addressed the question of Catholic politicians who defiantly reject the Church's teaching, notably on abortion." If we should be concerned about the 47% of Catholics who supported Senator Kerry in spite of his conflicting stances on the "non-negotiable" moral issues, we can at the very least be appreciative of the increasing number of Bishops who are fulfilling their obligations as successors of the Apostles:

  "At Denver there was real discussion and deliberation, and a readiness to engage rather than deny disagreements. Not that the meeting was confrontational, although there were tense moments; but the bishops spoke out as bishops, as shepherds and teachers of the Church, and not as managers of local franchises of Catholicism U.S.A."

Democrats: Second-Thoughts about Party's Defense of Abortion?

In "Confessions of a 'moral issues' voter" (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Nov. 6, 2004), Democrat Eric Miller explains why he was compelled to cast his reluctant vote for Bush:

Herein lies the heart of my quarrel with the Democratic Party. In the vast arena symbolized by the single word "abortion," your party is not only permitting a category of choice that humans must not sanction, it is intent on enlarging that sphere to permit a kind of experimentation that will only further diminish our experience of being human. To be complicit in such conduct is not just to despise the gifts of the creator. It is to despise him.

"Abortion" and its accompanying cluster of concerns, to put it differently, are not "issues" to me. They are practices, practices whose effects are far from "private." As public and social acts that have to do with the treatment and definition of human life in its most elemental, unprotected forms, they demand the most careful evaluation and judgment of the body politic in whose midst they are taking place.

Such moral and philosophic deliberation lies at the heart of democracy, and of democratic freedom itself, as I understand it. But the Democratic Party has committed itself to stifling any form of deliberation on these matters. We Pennsylvanians know this better than some. When the party rigidly denied our pro-life Democratic governor Robert Casey the opportunity to address these concerns at its 1992 convention, it shut down the very conversation that might have retained many old friends and brought new ones into your midst, including people like me.

Amen, Eric -- and thank you for your post. God willing more and more Democrats will have the courage to speak up on this matter: to the press, to their friends, to their representatives. As I said, let this be a wake-up call for Democrats across the nation.

Other signs of Democratic renewal (or at least promptings to renewal):

• Democrats Should Soften Abortion Stance, Louisiana Governor Says. LifeNews.com Nov. 7, 2004. Democratic Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco said that the Democratic party needs to moderate its pro-abortion views to appeal to Southern, Midwestern and rural voters. According to Lifenews.com, "Kerry lost the presidential race in large part because of the 22 percent of voters who said moral issues such as abortion were most important."
  
• Democrats for Life: "Party Should Moderate Abortion Stance After Election Loss" LifeNews.com. Nov. 4, 2004. Democrats for Life Kristin Day pointed to election victories for pro-life Democrats as a motivation for the Party to re-think their position. “The good news is pro-life Democrats are winning campaigns," Day said. "Pro-life Democrats win because they withstand the pressure of the national party and represent the values of their local communities."
  
• Democrats For Life have released their updated list of "Democrats for Life All Stars". Says Pete Vere (Catholic Light"): "Democrats-for-Life has just posted the following score-card. If current trends continue, it appears that we may be the only Democrats left as voters continue to abort the political aspirations of Abortion Democrats."
  

  According to LifeNews.com, "while a January 2003 Zogby poll revealed 43 percent of Democrats oppose all or most abortions, a CBS News poll indicated that delegates to the Democratic convention in Boston that nominated Kerry were twice as likely as Democratic voters to support abortion in all cases." Pro-abortion Democrats are reaping the consequences of that nomination.
  

Democrats don't need to talk about "moral values."

In the wake of the election and the revelation that those Americans who gave Bush his second term were motivated to do so not for reasons of economics, national security, but moral values, Crooked Timber is discussing the need for Democrats to "shed their inhibitions about talking about faith" and "reconnect with the American heartland."

Problem is, Kerry actually did spend a lot of time talking about his faith. How many times did he remind us that he was an altar boy, or that he carried a rosary in Vietnam? How many times did we hear him quote that verse from James (as if he knew nothing else from the bible)?

But if this election established anything, it's the fact that many Americans had simply heard enough about faith from John Kerry, and no amount of pandering to the pews could conceal the moral incoherence of a "pro-choice" politician with a 100% pro-abortion legislative record proclaiming himself a "good Catholic" in open defiance of the nation's bishops and the moral teachings of his Church. Spin all you want, but that is an ugly fact that played a greater role in this election, and in the minds of Catholic voters, then Democrats would care to admit.

* * *

Looking back at the presidential race, I can think of no more perfect an illustration of Democratic alienation from America's religious voters than the moment during the third debate, when a young woman by the name of Sarah Degenhart asked Senator Kerry whether he could provide her with assurance that he wouldn't use her tax dollars to support abortion.

Kerry responded by professing his "respect" for her question, and the moral convictions that her concern implied. . . . and then he proceeded to defend abortion as a constitutional right, and the necessity to preserve that right with taxpayer dollars. He went on to denounce religious criticism of abortion as a product of "rigid ideological restriction," a phrase he had often used on the campaign trail. And then, to top it off, he informed Ms. Degenhart that she would "do do a better job, I think, of passing on moral responsibility" by abandoning her opposition to taxpayer-funded abortion and embracing his pro-choice stance.

Senator Kerry's complete failure to understand her basic point, and his utter lack of respect for her religious convictions, spoke volumes.

* * *

If Kerry -- and his fellow Democrats -- want to connect to the American heartland, it will not be by talking the talk, but walking the walk.

To do so, they must reconsider their allegiance to -- indeed, completely severe their ties with -- the abortion industry; repudiate those who would sacrifice the unborn in utilitarian pursuit of "scientific progress"; forsake their support of legislative policies in blatant opposition to Judeo-Christian values; recognize what it means to believe in the sanctity of life from conception until death -- and why, with that conviction, many Christians find themselves unable to adopt a corrupt and morally-incoherent stance of "personally opposed, but . . ." when it comes to the deliberate murder of the unborn.

Democrats don't need to talk about "moral values." They must truly understand what it means to embodythem.

Until then, I see no way for Democrats to "heal the divide" or "reconnect with the heartland."

Let this election be a wake-up call.