Catholic News Agency: Catholics in Alliance "Abortion Reduction" Study Found to be Faulty - Social Welfare Policies Have Little Effect on Abortion

Surprise, surprise:

Washington DC, Feb 11, 2009 / 04:09 am (CNA).- Until recently, a Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good study of abortion data claimed that increased spending on welfare programs results in substantial reductions in state abortion rates but many pro-life laws do not. However, the study’s results have been revised following the discovery that incorrect abortion data was used and after criticism from a professor that the group’s conclusions did not follow from the data.

In August 2008, the group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good announced the release of a study on the effects of public policy on abortion rates over a 20-year period. The group had commissioned Joseph Wright, who is a political science professor at Penn State University, and Michael Bailey, who is a professor of American government at Georgetown University, to conduct the study.

“The study of all U.S. states from 1982-2000 finds that benefits for pregnant women and mothers, employment, economic assistance to low-income families, quality child care for working mothers and removal of state caps on the number of children eligible for economic assistance in low-income families has reduced abortions,” the group reported in an August 28 press release. “In contrast, permitting Medicaid payments for abortions increased the abortion rate.”

The old version of the report was removed from the site in November 2008 after critics pointed out problems with the study.

***
The feedback of Michael J. New, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama, was acknowledged in the new version of the report. Writing at the web site MoralAccountability.com, New said that the authors of the study discovered that they had used incorrect abortion data for the years following 1997.

***
“The new version provides evidence that welfare policy has no more than a marginal effect on the incidence of abortion,” he argued. “In fact, the new regression results indicate that none of the three welfare policies which the authors previously argued were effective tools for reducing the incidence of abortion have a substantial abortion reducing effect.”

***
He also criticized the report’s finding that parental involvement laws and other state laws restricting abortion have little impact on overall abortion rates.

“Since parental involvement laws only directly affect minors, Wright should have mentioned that analyzing their effects on the overall abortion rate is not a methodologically sound way to gauge their actual impact,” New wrote.

The argument that informed consent laws are ineffective, New claimed, fails to acknowledge the “substantial differences” in the effects of informed consent laws that have been enacted and those that have been nullified. By the report’s criteria, New argued, the results provide evidence that informed consent laws are effective.

***
However, Professor New also pointed out that events in the political arena were impacted by the first study.

In an essay at MoralAccountability.com, New accused Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good of misleading the public and referred to “plenty of peer reviewed studies” which find that public funding restrictions and parental involvement laws reduce the incident of abortion.

He claimed the study had a “substantial impact” on the pro-life debate in the 2008 Presidential election and gave “intellectual legitimacy” to those such as Doug Kmiec and Nicholas Cafardi who argued that pro-life voters should vote for Democrats to advance the pro-life cause.

In a Tuesday e-mail to CNA, Prof. New said that the research produced by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good seems unwilling to acknowledge the “positive effect of pro-life laws such as parental involvement and informed consent laws.”

CNA asked New to speculate why welfare spending generally does not decrease the abortion rate.

He suggested that welfare “undermines societal mores against premarital sex” by enabling women to have more children out of wedlock. Welfare may result in more unplanned pregnancies and possibly more abortions, New said.

“Regardless of how generous welfare benefits are, women facing crisis pregnancies can find financial and medical resources at one of the thousands of crisis pregnancy centers across the country,” he added.

New noted the finding in both the current and previous versions of the group’s report that shows higher female employment is correlated with higher abortion rates.

***
New also mentioned a 2002 study which showed that Medicaid recipients have a higher incidence of abortion in states where Medicaid funds the procedure.

“In states that provide Medicaid funding for abortions, women with Medicaid coverage had an abortion rate more than four times as high as women without such coverage (89 vs. 21 per 1,000),” New summarized. “In contrast, in states that do not cover abortion services for women on Medicaid, the abortion rate among Medicaid recipients was only twice that of women without Medicaid coverage (35 vs. 16 per 1,000).”

While the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good study reports an increase in abortion rates in states where abortions are funded by Medicaid, New charged: “they do not give this finding much attention in the write-up.”

“Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good continues to miss opportunities with their abortion research,” New told CNA.

“I think that they would be more effective if they would be more willing to publicly acknowledge the positive impact of pro-life legislation and try to constructively work with pro-life groups to promote social policies that will further reduce abortion rates. Instead Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good seems primarily interested in providing moral, political, and theological cover for supporters of Barack Obama and other Democrats who support ‘abortion rights.’”

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)


UPDATED (12 February 2009)
Regular Guy Paul has something to say about the lies and those who chose to believe them:

It was a lie. The left told a convenient lie, and the Catholic left opted to accept it. As I said at the time, they knew it was a lie.

***
They would rather claim to believe lies than vote against abortion. And, having won, they offer nary a keystroke to argue against abortion. They claimed to believe this study. They claimed that Obama's pro-abortion promises were just pandering. They claim to be pro-life. They, like "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good," are liars. They don't oppose abortion. They've made a negotiated peace on a non-negotiable issue. As I've called them before, they are turncoats in the culture war.

See also:
Prof. Robert George: Notion that Obama's Policies Will Reduce Abortion is "Delusional"

National Catholic Register: "Pro-Life Candidates Save Lives"

Archbishop Chaput: Kmiec Doing a "Disservice to the Church"

USCCB Sets Record Straight Re: Catholic Stance on Overturning Roe

Mark Stricherz: "Why the Democratic Abortion Strategy is Worse"

U.S. Catholic Bishops: "You Can't Reduce Abortions by Promoting Abortions"

Blackadder: "Would Overturning Roe Reduce the Abortion Rate?"

"Poverty and Abortion: A New Analysis"

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

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

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

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

Excerpt, Plenary Address by Francis Cardinal George, OMI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you prayed for your bishop lately?

* * *

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

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

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

Update The Catholic News Agency says the meeting is on:

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

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

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

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

Elections 2008 - Perspectives from Rome and the USCCB

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

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

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

Thank you, Jay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

House sponsors of FOCA

Senate sponsors of FOCA

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Contemplating Voting ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McCain-Palin and Congressional allies.

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

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

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

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

On his campaign website, McCain now states:

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

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

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

Update (Via Jay Anderson)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Perspectives

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

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

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

Fidelis Debuts CatholicVote.com

From Fidelis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pollster Gives Catholic Snapshot

Here is the excerpt:

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

Source link (emphasis added).

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

Brownback on Palin

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

What do you think of the Palin pick?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some specific items that struck me:

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

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

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

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

Michael Barone on Palin

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