Obama to visit the Vatican; the triumphant vindication of Michael Sean Winters?

From America magazine, Michael Sean Winters on the President's prospective audience with the Pope:

Pope Benedict XVI will receive President Barack Obama in audience at the Vatican on July 10. Let the gnashing of teeth begin.

Admit it, wasn’t your first impulse to call Dr. Mary Ann Glendon and ask, "If you were still the ambassador, would you show up or would you boycott?" The Cardinal Newman Society, which spent the better part of the spring telling the world that no Catholic could in good conscience share the stage with President Obama, perhaps now they will start issuing press releases entitled "Pope Creates Scandal" or "Outrage at the Vatican." The Catholic News Agency, which featured the headline "Vatican announces Pope’s vacation without confirmation of Obama visit" just a few weeks ago, has nary a mention of the visit on its website this morning. Cat got your tongue?

Obama’s Catholic critics need to re-calibrate their message and it is difficult to see how they will compete with the pictures of Obama in the frescoed halls of the Vatican, his beautiful wife and children in tow, shaking hands with the Holy Father. Actually, in addition to shaking hands, it is traditional that the Pope will present a gift to the President. Does that count as an "honor" of the kind forbidden by the bishops’ document "Catholics in Political Life"? Notre Dame, of course, has a tradition of conferring an honorary degree upon every new president that pre-dates presidential visits to the Holy See.

Michael Sean Winters -- intemperate snark or astonishingly thick-headed? Either way, America magazine could do a lot better.

The Pope regularly receives heads of state all the time. It is simply one of the many things the Vatican does. To do so, even to exchange personal gifts as a matter of courtesy, does not imply endorsement of any or all of the policies espoused by that particular head of state.

Were the Pope to present Obama with a gift, it would no more indicate his approval of Obama's support for unrestricted abortion or federally-funded embryonic stem cell research than the exchange of gifts with President Bush in 2008 indicated an endorsement of the questionable policies of his own administration.

Mr. Winters might argue the same point with Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama, but this is actually quite different.

The USCCB has stated quite clearly that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."

In the words of Bishop John M. D’Arcy -- to whom the USCCB recently affirmed their collective support -- in Notre Dame's conferral of honors upon the President, "we have here, however, the granting of an honorary degree of law to someone whose activities both as president and previously, have been altogether supportive of laws against the dignity of the human person yet to be born."

If Michael Sean Winters believes as I do, or as Cardinal William Keeler asserted, that Roe v. Wade

invented a constitutional concept that had never been envisioned; in doing so, they contravened two of our nation's most precious values: the recognition of a God-given, inalienable right to life, and the promise of equal protection under law.

Then surely it is not beyond him to grasp just how scandalous it may be to Catholics to witness the conferral of a law degree on a President who boasted his "100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America" and declared his furvent support of the decision.

And no, Michael -- the Catholic Bishops did not speak "only with their absence" at the commencement -- unless you're willing to ignore the statements of 77 Catholic bishops and 367,000 Catholics voicing their protest.

Update!

• Mr. Winters responds to my post ... predictably, with more obfuscation. See my response here.
  

Catholic College Leaders Lobby Bishops to Withdraw 2004 Policy Banning Pro-Abortion Speakers

(Hat tip: Catholic Online)

LifeSiteNews reports:

June 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the wake of the Notre Dame commencement scandal, Catholic college leaders representing some of the worst violators of the U.S. bishops’ 2004 ban on honoring public opponents of fundamental Catholic teachings are lobbying the bishops to withdraw their policy.

Yesterday the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU), which represents more than 200 Catholic institutions, released its summer 2009 newsletter, including a report on the ACCU’s board of directors meeting last week. The ACCU directors concluded “that it would be desirable for the [U.S. bishops] to withdraw” their 2004 policy, according to the newsletter.

The policy in question is found in the U.S. bishops’ 2004 statement “Catholics in Political Life,” which reads in part:

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

The bishops gather today in San Antonio, Texas, for their biannual meeting.

***
“Why is it so hard for Catholic college leaders to understand that a Catholic institution does great harm when it honors or gives speaking platforms to those who work against core Catholic values?” said Patrick J. Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society.

“The more than 367,000 people who signed The Cardinal Newman Society’s online petition and the scores of American bishops who publicly criticized Notre Dame’s honor for pro-abortion President Barack Obama clearly recognize that such actions by Catholic colleges are scandalous.”

The ACCU leadership suggests moreover “that juridical expressions of bishops’ or universities’ responsibilities should be kept to a minimum” in order to maintain a good relationship between the bishops and educators.

Reilly surmised that, in other words, Catholic colleges and universities would prefer that there are no clear rules to govern their conduct. He also pointed out that the statement implies that the educators believe that the bishops, and not college leaders, are responsible for tensions arising from scandalous activities on Catholic campuses.

“Catholic colleges and universities would like all of the privileges of being Catholic, but none of the responsibilities of being high-profile witnesses for the fullness of the Catholic faith,” Reilly said.

Allowing for the possibility that the bishops might not agree to simply eliminate the 2004 ban, but might instead draft a new policy concerning Catholic honors and platforms, the ACCU’s directors proposed that the policy “should acknowledge more clearly the differing roles of campus authorities and bishops.” Reilly said that this phrase appears to be an attempt to get bishops to refrain from commenting on internal decisions at lay-controlled Catholic institutions.

In May, ACCU President Richard Yanikoski told the South Bend Tribune that he saw a “degree of ambiguity” in the bishops’ 2004 policy. He claimed that the Church’s canon lawyers disagree whether the policy applies to speakers or honorees who are not Catholic, regardless of whether those individuals oppose Catholic teaching. Several bishops strongly rejected that same argument when it was made by Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins, C.S.C., to defend his decision to honor President Obama.

(emphasis added)

Meanwhile, Archbishop Burke is working in the opposite direction to prevent a repeat of the Notre Dame scandal:

VATICAN CITY, June 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Archbishop Raymond Burke, the highest ranking American prelate in the Vatican has given an interview in a Catholic magazine, in which he says that Notre Dame’s decision to honor President Barack Obama was not only “profoundly shocking,” but also underscores a grave situation requiring action to ensure the incident is never repeated.

Burke is the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court of appeal in the Church next to the Pope, and an outspoken advocate for life and family values. He has made headlines repeatedly for his insistence that ministers of communion should deny the sacrament to publicly and obstinantely pro-abortion individuals, especially politicians. He told the Catholic periodical, Inside the Vatican, that a number of lessons must be taken from Notre Dame’s high-profile conferral of an honorary doctorate on Obama, the most aggressive pro-abortion president in American history.

Burke said that the “betrayal of the Catholic identity of Notre Dame University” grew out of the danger of “pursuing a kind of prestige in the secular world, which leads to a betrayal of the sacred aspect of its work, namely the fidelity to Christ and His teaching.”

“So I think everybody now realizes the gravity of the situation. Also I believe that the whole situation has sensitized more people with regard to the gravity of the practice of procured abortion in our nation, that is, they realize even more how far we have gone away from God’s will for human life,” continued Burke.

“That the premiere Catholic university in the United States would give an honorary doctorate of law to one of the most aggressive pro-abortion politicians in our history is profoundly shocking.”

“Now, we cannot forget what has happened at Notre Dame,” said Burke. “We need to take the measures that are necessary so that this is not repeated in other places. If it could happen at Notre Dame, where else could it happen?”

[More]

(emphasis added)

President Obama invited to give commencement address at Notre Dame; Catholics respond to the scandal

President Obama will be giving three commencement speeches this May -- one of which is at the Catholic[?] University of Notre Dame.

The Cardinal Newman Society (justifiably) has launched a website and petition in protest:

This nation has many thousands of accomplished leaders in the Catholic Church, in business, in law, in education, in politics, in medicine, in social services, and in many other fields who would be far more appropriate choices to receive such an honor from the University of Notre Dame.

Instead Notre Dame has chosen prestige over principles, popularity over morality. Whatever may be President Obama’s admirable qualities, this honor comes on the heels of some of the most anti-life actions of any American president, including expanding federal funding for abortions and inviting taxpayer-funded research on stem cells from human embryos.

The honor also comes amid great concern among Catholics nationwide about President Obama’s future impact on American society, the family, and the Catholic Church on issues such as traditional marriage, conscience protections for Catholic doctors and nurses, and expansion of abortion “rights.”

Taking issue with the decision, some students at Notre Dame have issued a challenge to Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., President of the University of Notre Dame:

There has been overreaction on both sides, and it is important to keep the discussion civil - Uninviting Pres. Obama would be a disrespectful move, and having students turn their back on his speech, as some have called for, would be an immature gesture. As the preeminent Catholic university in America, we have an obligation to respect the office of the President of the United States, and his visit to our beloved campus can serve as the impetus for increased discussion about the role of Catholicism in the public square.

But the University should also use Pres. Obama's visit as an opportunity to reiterate its commitment to the teachings of the Church and the sanctity of life. We ask that you consider making a public statement, if not at the Commencement exercises themselves then in a highly visible public forum, distancing yourself and the University from his views, making it clear that the University disagrees in no uncertain terms with his views on the unborn, which stand in contrast to that of the Church's stance of protecting the most defenseless and voiceless among us. Awarding him an honorary degree without making clear that the University disapproves of his stance on issues regarding the sanctity of human life would be a disrespect to those students who, like ourselves, chose to attend this University based not only on its status as one of the country's premier institutions of higher learning, but a school that takes pride in its Catholic foundation and identity.

M.Z., blogging at Vox Nova, sniffs in dismissal:

To the perpetually offended: grow up already. Really.

Personally, I'd like to call to mind the admonition of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' in Catholics in Political Life:

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

Obama overturns Bush administration's limition on embryonic stem stell research; REVOKES funding for ethical research into 'pluripotent' stem cells

Today, President Obama lifted the Bush administration's limits on embryonic stem cell research:

The president on Monday signaled a clear shift in tone from the Bush administration on a broad range of scientific issues.

Obama overturned an order signed by President Bush in 2001 that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.

Bush twice vetoed legislation that would have expanded federally funded embryonic stem cell research. Those siding with Bush say scientific advances allow researchers to conduct groundbreaking research without destroying human embryos.

House Republicans have rallied in opposition to the order, including Catholic House Republican Leader John Boehner:

"This decision runs counter to President Obama's promise to be a president for all Americans. For a third time in his young presidency, the President has rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us. I fully support stem cell research, but I draw the line at taxpayer-funded research that requires the destruction of human embryos, and millions of Americans feel similarly. As we move forward, I am hopeful that the President will re-evaluate this and other controversial decisions that put government at odds with the sanctity of human life. Non-embryonic stem cell research is not only showing great promise in the laboratory, but its applications are already being used to treat scores of diseases and medical conditions. Indeed, science and respect for human life can coexist. Politicians in Washington would be well-served to recognize this fact before they ask taxpayers to subsidize the destruction of innocent human life simply to advance a particular agenda. Instead of asking taxpayers to pay for efforts that destroy life, Congress and the Administration should support bipartisan solutions like Rep. Randy Forbes' Patients First Act, which would promote stem cell research that is actually getting results."

and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"The administration's announcement on embryonic stem cell research represents a troubling shift in U.S. policy. With this announcement, the government is, for the first time, incentivizing the creation and destruction of human embryos at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. I support biomedical research and I believe the administration would be far better served by directing taxpayer funds to research on non-embryonic stem cells, which is both effective and ethical."

Joined by "Snowflake families" (children, who were formerly stored embryos and their parents), Representative Chris H. Smith stated that:

President Obama has chosen to turn back the clock, and starting today, will force taxpayers to subsidize the unethical, the unworkable over what works, and hype and hyperbole over hope. ...

Assertions that leftover embroyos are better off dead so that their stem cells can be derived is dehumanizing and cheapens human life. There is no such thing as leftover human life. Ask the snowflake children -- cryogenically frozen embroyos who were adopted -- their lives are precious and priceless.

(Click here to read Rep. Smith's full statement on Obama's stem cell order).

In 2005, Rep. Smith introduced the Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2005 to provide for the collection and maintenance of human [umbelical] cord blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and research.

The Democrats for Life also issued a forceful denunciation of Obama's decision:

DFLA has had a productive relationship both with the campaign and the early stages of the new Administration. To have no opportunity to weigh in on this controversial issue signals a cooling of our relations. DFLA is against President Obama’s decision, period. There are workable and successful options available to private sector research operations that use umbilical cord blood and non embryonic stem cells. To frame this decision as a necessity to cure finding medical research is not accurate. While we have zero confidence that a call for reversal of this Executive Order will prevail, we are hopeful that the President will heed our call for common ground solutions in dealing with pro-life Democrats.

* * *
Update! As First Things' Wesley J. Smith points out, "We all know that President Obama rescinded the Bush funding restrictions for ESCR. But that isn’t all he did today. He also rescinded Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007.":

The Administration didn’t publicize this part of the President’s nasty work, but the now dead 2007 Bush order explicitly required funding for “alternative methods” of stem cell research—such as the new induced pluripotent stem cells (IPSC), a process that changes skin or other cells such as hair follicles into pluripotent stem cells without making or destroying embryos. IPSCs offer so much promise—and all without the ethical contentiousness of human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Indeed, these alternative methods are one of the few areas in which people who are pro-life and pro-choice, conservative and liberal, pro and anti-ESCR can agree upon, the very type of policy that this president said he wanted to pursue.

Relevant Reading

• Only a week ago it was reported by the Washington Post that "Scientists have developed what appears to be a safer way to create a promising alternative to embryonic stem cells, boosting hopes that such cells could sidestep the moral and political quagmire that has hindered the development of a new generation of cures."
  
• Executive Order on Embryonic Stem Cells 'A Sad Victory of Politics over Science and Ethics,' Says Cardinal Rigali United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. March 9, 2009.
  
• Perpetuating a Needless Stem-Cell War: Obama's decision is bad ethics, bad science, and bad politics, by Ryan T. Anderson. Weekly Standard March 9, 2009.
  
• Obama’s False Choice: What the president could stand to learn from his predecessor on science policy, by Yuval Levin. National Review March 9, 2009.
  
• Stem Cells: A Political History, by Joseph Bottum and Ryan T. Anderson. First Things November 2008.
  
• The President Politicizes Stem-Cell Research: Taxpayers have a right to be left out of it, by Robert P. George and Eric Cohen. Wall Street Journal March 10, 2009.
  

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.

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?

Obama, ACORN and the U.S. Bishops' Conference

Deal Hudson (InsideCatholic.com) reports that the U.S. Bishop's Conference Gave ACORN Over $1,000,000 in 2007:

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development gave $1.1 million to ACORN in 2007. You can find this fact on the CCHD website. If you add up all the groups called ACORN or Association Of Community Organization For Reform Now, you get a total of $1,111,000 in 2007.

Now, this wouldn't be the same ACORN repeatedly making the news for its bullying "direct action" tactics and subject of repeated investigations for voter fraud, would it?

The same ACORN currently supporting Barack Obama's campaign and on its payroll? -- :

A specific, month by month account of money paid by the Obama campaign to the ACORN front organization, Citizens Services, Inc. for those fraudulent “advance service”, taken from FEC reports and totaling $832,598.29 since Feb, 2008, can be found here.

Barack Obama has a long and colorful history of denying his embarrassing, radical leftwing associations, until he can no longer maintain the façade. At which point, he jettisons whatever or whoever has caused the embarrassment and MovesOn.

As he has done throughout his career, Obama has been rewarding those who support his ambitions. The Obama campaign, flush with cash, has been funneling money to ACORN through Citizens Services, Inc. much as he did in Chicago with the Woods Foundation and the Annenberg-Chicago Challenge. While Obama served on the Board Of Directors of the Woods Fund, for example the Chicago ACORN received grants Of $45,000 (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002), And $40,000 (2002) From The Woods Fund, as reported on the Donors Forum Website, ifs.donorsforum.org.

Makes you think twice when they pass that second collection plate.Background reading

• Inside Obama’s Acorn: by their fruits ye shall know them, by Stanley Kurtz. National Review May 29, 2008.
• ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities, by Sol Stern City Journal Spring 2003

Cardinal Rigali condemns the "Freedom of Choice Act"

A proposed "Freedom of Choice Act" is not about freedom at all, says Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities. Zenit News reports:

The act "would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA [the Freedom of Choice Act] would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. And FOCA would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country," the cardinal affirmed.

Cardinal Rigali warned that the act is not a mere codification of the Supreme Court's decision to legalize abortion. Instead, it would affect anti-abortion laws and policies that are in effect because they do not conflict with Roe v. Wade. These include such things as policies to protect women's safety, parental rights and informed consent.

"The operative language of FOCA is twofold," Cardinal Rigali explained. "First it creates a 'fundamental right' to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy, including a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons. No government body at any level would be able to 'deny or interfere with' this newly created federal right.

"Second, it forbids government at all levels to 'discriminate' against the exercise of this right 'in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.' For the first time, abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women."

Rigali included a legal analysis of FOCA's possible consequences with his letter to Congress.

Last year before a Planned Parenthood audience, Barack Obama assured that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

"Better late than never ..."

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

Pelosi's dispute with U.S. Bishops escalates; repudiates Church's teaching authority

Via Amy Welborn, Brendan Daly, Nancy Pelosi’s spokesman issued a statement::

The Speaker is the mother of five children and seven grandchildren and fully appreciates the sanctity of family. She was raised in a devout Catholic family who often disagreed with her pro-choice views.

“After she was elected to Congress, and the choice issue became more public as she would have to vote on it, she studied the matter more closely. Her views on when life begins were informed by the views of Saint Augustine, who said: ‘…the law does not provide that the act [abortion] pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation…’ (Saint Augustine, On Exodus 21.22)

“While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe to that view. The Speaker agrees with the Church that we should reduce the number of abortions. She believes that can be done by making family planning more available, as well as by increasing the number of comprehensive age-appropriate sex education and caring adoption programs.

“The Speaker has a long, proud record of working with the Catholic Church on many issues, including alleviating poverty and promoting social justice and peace.”

In sum:

• Pelosi appreciates the sanctity of the family, but not the unborn;
  
• She's unabashedly pro-choice
  
• She appals (again) to uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology from the Middle Ages, never mind the testimony of modern science and the fact that her Church has consistently taught, from the beginning, the moral evil of every procured abortion
  
• On the contrary, the Bishops should support Pelosi's quest for expanded access to contraception
  
• But really, who gives a damn about the unborn? -- She's for "social justice", so it's ok.
  

As one commentator at Amy's noted,

Perhaps more significant than her endorsement of abortion and contraception, is Ms. Pelosi’s outright rejection of the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church.

Chronological Timeline of Nancy Pelosi's Remarks (Courtesy of American Papist):

• 8/24 - Morning: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes numerous uninformed and false claims about the Catholic Church's 2,000-year teaching on abortion in her Meet the Press interview
  
• 8/24 - Evening: numerous Catholic and conservative blogs criticize Pelosi
  
• 8/25 - Afternoon: Abp. Chaput publishes “On the Separation of Sense and State: A Clarification for the People of the Church of Northern Colorado", becoming the first bishop to publicly correct Nancy Pelosi on authentic Catholic teaching.
  
• 8/25 - Late Afternoon: Ten Catholic members of Congress respond to Pelosi [AmericanPapist Scoop]
  
• 8/25 - Early Evening: The US Bishops respond to Pelosi in a special press release posted to the main page of the USCCB's website
  
• 8/25 - Late Evening: Abp. Wuerl of Washington DC also corrects Pelosi
  
• 8/26 - Early Morning: Associated Press and political blogs note the bishops' statements
  
• 8/27 - Early Afternoon: Cardinal Egan issues the strongest condemnation yet of Pelosi
  
• 8/27 - Mid Afternoon: Pelosi's diocese of San Francisco opts to issue a USCCB reprint (but Rocco Palmo informs us that "Archbishop George Niederauer will publish a 'lengthy commentary' on Pelosi's comments in a column for the next edition of the archdiocesan weekly, Catholic San Francisco."
  

Cardinal Justin F. Rigali & William E. Lori respond to Nancy Pelosi

Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine issued a statement posted to the main page of the website of the U.S. Catholic Bishops:

In the course of a “Meet the Press” interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.

The Church has always taught that human life deserves respect from its very beginning and that procured abortion is a grave moral evil. In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church’s moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.

These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church has long taught that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life.

More information on the Church's teaching on this issue can be found in our brochure "The Catholic Church is a Pro-Life Church". PDF | Text

• Statement on Responsibilities of Catholics in Public Life
  
• “Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper”: On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist

We'd like to thank Archbishop Chaput for his outstanding letter, and to Cardinal Justin F. Rigali and Bishop William E. Lori for stepping up so quickly. It's our fervent hope that this will establish something of a trend in Bishops' responses to "pro-choice" Catholics who publicly misrepresent and repudiate Catholic teaching.

Update! Not to be outdone, Archbishop Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington issues a statement.

Update! - Cardinal Egan of New York City piles on.

Now, perhaps a little something from Pelosi's home diocese?

USCCB releases "Catholic Study Guide on Torture"

(Via Commonweal) - The Catholic members of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture and the Office of International Justice and Peace of the USCCB have jointly produced a Catholic study guide on torture. [.pdf format]

Jeff Miller (Curt Jester) blogs his review.

What are the "priorities" of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops?

Take it from their head, Cardinal George (speaking to Pope Benedict XVI:

The episcopal conference has recently identified the strengthening of marriage and of family life as one of five priorities for our common attention in the next several years. The other four are protecting the life and dignity of the human person at every stage of life’s journey; handing on the faith in the context of sacramental practice and the observance of Sunday worship; fostering vocations to ordained priesthood and consecrated life; and profiting from the cultural diversity of the church here, especially from the gifts of Hispanic Catholics.

(Hat tip: Bill Cork (Oak Leaves)What? -- No global warming? ;-)

USCCB Responds to Feuerherd

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, director of media relations for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, writes in today's Washington Post:

Joe Feuerherd's screed against the Catholic bishops for their call for political responsibility epitomizes the incivility of this campaign season, where truth has become a casualty and half-truths the norm.

With demeaning and mocking words, Feuerherd scoffs at the bishops' November 2007 statement "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship." It urges Catholics not to be one-issue voters but to look at all the issues and make prudent decisions. When up for a vote, it drew virtually unanimous support of the almost 300 active members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Few decisions get that kind of support.

***
The current campaign shows that politics is too often a contest of powerful interests, partisan attacks, sound bites and media hype. In "Faithful Citizenship," the Church calls for a different kind of political engagement: one shaped by moral convictions of well-formed consciences and focused on the dignity of every human being, the pursuit of the common good, and the protection of the weak and vulnerable. It stresses that Catholics need to be guided more by their moral convictions than by attachment to a political party or interest group. Catholic participation should help transform the party to which they belong; they should not let the party transform them in such a way that they neglect or deny basic moral truths.

Feuerherd's incivility is striking. The crude reference to the Eucharist as "the wafer" should be beneath anyone who respects people's religious sentiments, let alone an acknowledged Catholic. Belief in the Eucharist is sacred to Catholics, yet Feuerherd treats it in a belittling manner.

His final salvo, damning the bishops, is unworthy of both Feuerherd and The Post. It's hard to imagine The Post giving its pages to a writer suggesting the outright damnation of the leaders of any other religious body. Feuerherd's vitriol might be understandable if the bishops were concerned, like a typical special-interest group, only with what benefits them. However, the bishops' defense of the right to life of the unborn is a principled commitment in justice to the good of others who are vulnerable and with no voice of their own.

[Read the whole thing]

Joe Feuerherd vs. The Catholic Bishops

Three inter-related stories addressing the issue of voting and the upcoming U.S. presidential election:

• Not all political issues of equal value, says Bishop DiMarzio Catholic News Service. February 13, 2008:

  A "hierarchy of values" exists, which means not all political issues are of equal value, said Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn.
  

  "Our faith must inform our political decisions," he said, and Catholic voters are obliged to distinguish "between moral evil," such as abortion, "and matters of prudential judgment," such as tuition tax credits.
  

  Bishop DiMarzio made the comments in an address Feb. 7 to a crowd of 500 at the Cathedral Club of Brooklyn's annual dinner. His remarks drew on the U.S. bishops' 2007 document, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility." . . .
  

  In his talk, the bishop referred primarily to issues in New York state. He described as "a most radical abortion bill" legislation proposed by Gov. Eliot Spitzer and known as the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act.
  

  The bishop said it would legalize partial-birth abortion, a procedure which he noted the late U.S. Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan, D-N.Y., described as "near-infanticide."
  

  Bishop DiMarzio said the measure would "disenfranchise parents of their right to play a central role in the most significant decisions of their minor children" because it prohibits parental notification, and it would also expand access to over-the-counter pharmaceuticals "that destroy human life."
  

  "In our own country, despite significant victories that extend protection to the unborn, this modern slaughter of the holy innocents continues because of the policies of unscrupulous politicians," he said.
  

  "Only in circumstances that are extraordinarily hard to contemplate may a Catholic voter support a proponent of so great an intrinsic moral evil," the bishop said.
  

  Bishop DiMarzio also questioned legislative efforts "that would undermine the family by redefining marriage." He said that "pandering to a small but well-funded special interest group, our leadership in Albany would undermine the institution that is the bedrock of our society."
  

  Saying that the business of government is to protect the common good, the bishop asked how the state benefits by extending "the benefits of marriage" to same-sex couples.

  And what of the war in Iraq?

  Turning to the war in Iraq, Bishop DiMarzio said Pope Benedict XVI "has made no secret of his personal opposition" to the conflict, "in which 4,000 servicemen and servicewomen have died, 50,000 have been wounded and the lives of tens of thousands, perhaps even a hundred thousand, Iraqis have been crushed."
  

  Many theologians contend that a pre-emptive war cannot be justified in Catholic teaching, he said.
  

  The current debate over troop surges or withdrawing troops or timetables for withdrawal, however, "is a matter of prudential judgment," he said.
  

  In viewing the range of issues elected officials and candidates might take on the national and local levels, Bishop DiMarzio said that support for anyone who "espouses policies that are gravely immoral" is possible "only under exceptional circumstances that are hard to imagine."

  
  
  

• On a similar note, the bishops who head Kentucky's four Catholic dioceses urged the state's Catholics to take a close look at life issues when voting this year. Catholic News Service reports:

  "All human laws must be measured against the natural law engraved in our hearts by the Creator," said the bishops in a pastoral letter, "Reverence for Life: Conscience and Faithful Citizenship" [.pdf format]
  

  "Our religious beliefs affirm basic human rights and obligations that are essential to the fabric of our social life. In particular, respect for human life is numbered among those basic values that underpin the very foundation of civilization," they said.
  

  "What we profess in defense of the sacredness of unborn human life harmonizes with our historic legal tradition founded on the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," they said. "Abortion on demand does not."
  

  "Reverence for Life" was issued Jan. 22, the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton that legalized abortion virtually on demand.
  

  Signing the pastoral were Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville and Bishops Roger J. Foys of Covington, Ronald W. Gainer of Lexington, and John J. McRaith of Owensboro.

  Without bothering to "name names", the Bishops addressed the common fallacy found among those who are "pro-choice":

  The claim political candidates have made that they are personally opposed to abortion but unwilling to impose their beliefs on others was condemned by the bishops as "an evasion," "a moral contraction" and "self-deception."
  

  "No one can be excepted from the logical step to translate moral opposition into effective strategies," they added. "If there is a lack of public consensus to effect full legal protection (for the unborn), no one can be excused from working toward creating consensus as a first step."
  

  The bishops said, "We do not seek the formation of a religious voting bloc, nor do we desire to instruct Catholics on how to vote either by endorsing or opposing candidates," but "we do uphold our right and duty to provide moral analysis of the major issues confronting society."

  
  
  

• Also this week, National Catholic Reporter journalist Joe Feuerherd boasted of his vote for Obama, decrying the "right wing lurch" of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Cardinal Sins: "I Voted for Obama. Will I Go Straight to. . . ?" Washington Post February 24, 2008):

  Like most Maryland Democrats, I voted for Sen. Barack Obama in the recent Potomac Primary. By doing so, according to the leaders of my church, I put my soul at risk. That's right, says the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops -- tap the touch screen for a pro-abortion-rights candidate, and you're probably punching your ticket to Hell.

  he bishops have raised the stakes: It's not only lawmakers and candidates who risk damnation, 98 percent of the U.S. bishops agreed last November, but the voters who put them in office. "It is important to be clear," the bishops said in a 44-page statement titled "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" [.pdf format] "that the political choices faced by citizens[emphasis added] not only have an impact on general peace and prosperity but also may affect the individual's salvation." Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, chairman of the committee that drafted the statement, put those high-minded sentiments into plain English earlier this month. Support for a candidate who "espouses policies that are gravely immoral" is possible "only under exceptional circumstances that are hard to imagine," he told the Cathedral Club of Brooklyn.
  

  To Catholics like me who oppose liberal abortion laws but also think that other issues -- war or peace, health care, just wages, immigration, affordable housing, torture -- actually matter, the idea that abortion trumps everything, all the time, no matter what, is both bad religion and bad civics.
  

  Feuerherd also took the opportunity to attack the oudated convictions of not only the USCCB but Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor, John Paul II:

  This fire-and-brimstone approach to the ballot box is the long-term bequest of a conservative pope, John Paul II, enacted by a U.S. hierarchy appointed during his 27-year tenure and now by his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. John Paul's key criterion in choosing the men who lead the United States' 194 dioceses was their vocal support for church teachings that have been rejected in whole (birth control) or in part (women's ordination and abortion) by many Catholics in the pews and the broader American culture.

  and closes by proclaiming his moral superiority:

  So what's a pro-life, pro-family, antiwar, pro-immigrant, pro-economic-justice Catholic like me supposed to do in November? That's an easy one. True to my faith, I'll vote for the candidate who offers the best hope of ending an unjust war, who promotes human dignity through universal health care and immigration reform, and whose policies strengthen families and provide alternatives to those in desperate situations. Sounds like I'll be voting for the Democrat -- and the bishops be damned.

Related Discussions

• How the Left will tackle McCain", by Deal Hudson. InsideCatholic.com February 24, 2008 | (As Jay Anderson @ Pro Ecclesia points out, the Right have been tackling McCain along similar lines as well, so the McCain Campaign had better pay attention.
  
• Morally Justifying Immoral Voting Behavior The Cranky Conservative February 25, 2008.
  
• Conscientious Voting: Doing injustice, by Ramesh Ponnuru. National Review February 25, 2008.
  
• National "Catholic" Reporter reporter: "bishops be damned" by Carl Olson (Insight Scoop): "Is it really 'bad religion' and 'bad civics'? Not according to Pope John Paul II, . . ."

Catholic Discussion of USCCB's "Forming Consciences in Faithful Citizenship"

Back in November I had posted the link to the USCCB's "Forming Consciences in Faithful Citizenship" with a request for your thoughts -- it didn't seem to provoke many comments, which may speak to either to a lack of interest, a lack of readership. Such is the reception of most USCCB documents.

At any rate, following is a brief compilation of responses to said document culled from the web:

• Reaction from Fr. Neuhaus:

  “Faithful Citizenship” is a carefully considered reflection on political responsibility, the difference between “intrinsic evils” and prudential judgments, and the ways in which conscience is rightly formed. Several news stories have highlighted that the bishops left “loopholes” or created “leeway” for Catholics to vote for pro-abortion candidates. That is not true. The document repeatedly and emphatically gives top priority to the protection of innocent human life in instances such as abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research.
  

  But, of course and of necessity, it also says: “In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.”
  

  The “conscience clause” is not a loophole but speaks to a solemn obligation. It is clear Catholic teaching that one must act in accord with conscience, even if one’s conscience is misguided. At the same time, one is obliged to form one’s conscience according to moral truth. It is also the Church’s teaching, reiterated in this document, that acting according to a rightly formed conscience is a matter that impinges upon one’s eternal salvation.
  

  It is obvious that some Catholics are, if not pro-abortion, at least of the view that opposition to abortion is trumped by other matters they consider more important, such as an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, their preferred health plan, or a Democratic victory in the presidential election. If knowingly and with full intent they collaborate in the intrinsic evil of abortion, they may say that the conscience clause provides them with a loophole. In such an instance, as “Faithful Citizenship” rightly underscores, they are provided only with the choice to surrender their soul’s salvation.

  
  
• Praise and Criticism for Lengthy US Bishops Statement on Catholics and Political Responsibility, by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman and Steve Jalsevac. LifeSiteNews. Nov. 16, 2007.
  

• Deal Hudson:

  Given that this document was written by a committee, I think that outcome is encouraging. It's too bad that a long list of prudential issues, commonly supported by the Democratic Party, are included, but that is to be expected until there are serious changes at the USCCB. . . .

  But the document has some serious theological muscle, which should be appreciated in the pro-life community.

  
  
• "Does it matter anyway?" Curt Jester November 14, 2007:

  This document does handle moral issues that are intrinsically evil much better and it is also much clearer what they are compared to other issues. The pro-life focus is quite evident throughout. It was of course mentioned in previous years, but there was much more confusion in regards to lesser moral issues. Last time around they even mentioned supporting Affirmative Action which I don't see is consistent in Catholic teaching by correcting one evil by using the same evil to racially discriminate against others. The first section of the document is fairly decent, but it demonstrates why documents written by committee are seldom very good. The last third though made me think that someone I had accidentally clicked onto a link and landed on a Democratic Party talking points page. All problems seemed to have a government solution (and Federal at that) and while subsidiarity is mentioned at the front of the document it is noticeably missing in essence in the rest of it. While many of the responses to these issues are prudential ones they are consistently ones championed by Democrats except perhaps on school choice.
  

  The real question though is does the document really matter? What was the last time to saw any Bishop's document at your parish and how likely will it be that many if they saw this semi-large document would read through it in the first place.

  
  
• Impressions of "Faithful Citizenship", by M.Z. Forrest. Vox Nova November 16, 2007:

  The highest praise folks seem to give it is that it doesn’t get anything wrong. It purports itself to be voting guide, but it is pretty much a restatement of the USCCB’s domestic policy agenda. I don’t have a problem with that policy agenda, but I also don’t see any particular party’s candidates opining to bring back racism or remove the last vestiges of it. (This doesn’t mean someone can’t make a second or third order argument over the matter. That kind of reasoning has its own problems that I won’t go into here.) One thing the guide doesn’t do is provide manifest conclusions over which candidates, as in putative ones informed by watching American elections over the past two dozen years, one should seek to elect.

  
  
• "Voting and Salvation: Thanks, but No Thanks" - Michael ("Catholic Anarchist" Iafrate) responds to what he reads as an inordinate emphasis placed on the act of voting.
  

• Archbishop Chaput Not Satisfied With Proposed New USCCB Document on Voting, by Jay Anderson. Pro Ecclesia October 31, 2007:

  . . . if the Holy Father, in the context of addressing the responsibilities of the Catholic faithful in the public square, has chosen to describe certain public policy issues as being "not negotiable", surely a new USCCB document addressing the responsibilities of the Catholic faithful in the public square should at least make note of the fact, right?

  
  

USCCB: "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship"

Here is the document in question:

• Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States [.pdf format]
  
• The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship summary statement Bulletin Insert. November 14, 2007.
  

It asks four essential questions:

1. (1) Why does the Church teach about issues affecting public policy? -
   
2. Who in the Church should participate in political life?
   
3. How does the Church help the Catholic faithful to speak about political and social questions?
   
4. What does the Church say about Catholic social teaching in the public square?
   

What did you think? -- Read and discuss.

U.S. Bishops Agree to Collaborate on Anti-War Strategy With Same Catholic Dems Who Slammed Pope on Abortion

A couple of weeks ago, Catholic Congressional Democrats wrote to the USCCB asking for a meeting to discuss anti-war strategy. The Bishops have now replied with an acceptance of the offer to meet and strategize with the Catholic Democrats. From the USCCB Office of Media Relations:

WASHINGTON (July 18, 2007) — The U.S. bishops have agreed to meet with a group of Catholic House Democrats to discuss a “responsible transition” to end the war in Iraq. The bishops also reiterated their call for members of Congress and the Administration to break the political stalemate in Washington and to pursue a bipartisan policy to end the war as soon as possible.

The call was noted in a letter from Bishop Thomas G. Wenski of Orlando, Florida, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on International Policy, in response to a June 28 request for a meeting on Iraq from Rep. Tim Ryan (D/Ohio) and 13 other House Democrats.

“Our Conference hopes to work with the Congress and the Administration to forge bipartisan policies on ways to bring about a responsible transition and an end to the war,” Bishop Wenski said in a July 17 letter. He pointed to numerous church statements that the bishops have made about the Iraqi situation.

“Too many Iraqi and American lives have been lost. Too many Iraqi communities have been shattered. Too many civilians have been driven from their homes. The human and financial costs of the war are staggering. Representatives of our Conference welcome the opportunity to meet with you and other policy makers to discuss ways to pursue the goal of a ‘responsible transition’ to bring an end to the war in Iraq,” Bishop Wenski said.

“The current situation in Iraq is unacceptable and unsustainable, as is the policy and political stalemate among decision makers in Washington,” Bishop Wenski said.

“Our shared moral tradition can guide this effort and inform our dialogue with other leaders as we seek a way to bring about a morally responsible end to the war in Iraq,” he added.

The letter follows.

[More]

My Comments:
This raises a couple of issues regarding consistency. In short, I'm waiting for 2 unlikely things to occur:

(1) For howls of outrage from the usual (liberal) suspects regarding the Church involving itself in the political process, and regarding one of the major political parties trying to "co-opt" the Church for its own ends; and

(2) For the Bishops to similarly meet with pro-life Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration to strategize on anti-abortion policy.

Diogenes also notices the same incongruency, and offers his take:

"Our shared moral tradition..."

Leaders of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have agreed to meet with a group of 14 Democratic lawmakers to discuss how they might work together to end US military involvement in Iraq. In fact the USCCB has already done its little bit by issuing a press release to call attention to the Democratic legislators' cause.

Who are these Democratic politicians, who find such a ready audience at the USCCB? They're Catholic members of the House of Representatives. And half of them-- including Rep. Tim Ryan, who is leading the charge on Iraq-- also signed a May public statement scolding Pope Benedict XVI for daring to say that Catholic politicians should oppose the legalized killing of unborn children.

The Pope's comments on the political responsibilities of Catholic legislators, these Catholic legislators said in May, "offend the very nature of the American experiment." But now they're soliciting the political involvement of the American bishops.

A practical politician might have told these 14 Democrats that if they don't want to hear from the Catholic Church about abortion, they shouldn't look to hear from the Church about the war in Iraq. A concerned pastor might have told them that if they disregard the Church's teaching on a clear issue of moral teaching, they should not be so hypocritical as to invoke Church teaching on an issue that is not nearly so clear-- an issue on which loyal Catholics can and do differ. But the USCCB leaders didn't choose those options. Instead the USCCB implicitly accepted the lawmakers' claim that they are the moral champions of Catholic teaching.

No, wait; it wasn't an implicit acceptance; it was quite explicit. Bishop Thomas Wenski concluded his letter to Congressman Ryan by saying: "Our shared moral tradition can guide this effort and inform our dialogue with other leaders as we seek a way to bring about a morally responsible end to the war in Iraq."

Back in May, 7 of these same politicians argued, in their highly public rebuke to the Pope: "Advancing respect for life and for the dignity of every human being is, as our Church has taught us, our own life's mission." Thus they claimed that their political views-- including their support for legal abortion-- are formed by their Catholic faith. When Bishop Wenski writes to them about "Our shared moral tradition," he reinforces that claim.

There are plenty of reasons to work for peace in Iraq; that's not the issue here. But responsible public leaders of the Catholic Church should not claim to share a moral tradition with politicians who support the slaughter of the unborn.

(emphasis added)

Exactly.

I support the U.S. Catholic Bishops on Iraq

The nation's Catholic bishops on Monday (Nov. 13) called for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq "at the earliest opportunity":

"Our nation's military forces should remain in Iraq only so long as their presence contributes to a responsible transition," the statement reads. "Our nation should look for effective ways to end their deployment at the earliest opportunity consistent with this goal."

Got to hand it to the Bishops -- they've managed to come up with a position that President Bush, Congressman Murtha, and Noam Chomsky could agree on.

Hat tip: Domenico Bettinelli.