New "outing" of pro-abortion Catholics in Congress

LifeSiteNews reports:

WASHINGTON, January 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - American Life League, the nation's largest grassroots Catholic pro-life educational organization, will hold a press conference on Monday, Jan. 24 to unveil a two-page ad identifying the 72 pro-abortion Catholics in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate.

The ad, which will span two full pages, is scheduled to run in the Washington Times on Jan. 24.

As Archbishop Burke reminded us back in November, and more recently during a march on a Planned Parenthood abortion mill, the election may have ended, but battle is just beginning.

Is the Curtain Closing on Roemer's Sideshow?

My fellow editor David Schrader reports below on former Indiana Congressman Tim Roemer's bid for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). As David declared here last December, "This is a campaign Catholics in the Public Square will be watching."

CNN anchor Kelly Wallace recently interviewed Roemer. An excerpt from that interview follows:

Wallace: Could the Democratic Party change its position on abortion? Tim Roemer is running for head of the Democratic National Committee. And he is opposed to abortion, anti-abortion rights....He joins us from Washington....

Your critics have taken issue with your position, being anti-abortion rights....Kate Michelman, the former head of NARAL...says, "Tim Roemer's candidacy for chairman of the party threatens the very principles for which the Democratic Party has stood for many years." She says, "His views and record are closer to those of George Bush." How do you respond to that?

Roemer: Well, first of all, Kelly, I don't want to steer this party to the right. And I disagree with those that want to steer it to the left. We need an inclusive party.

Senator Kennedy in remarks this week to the American people said we should not be a party that litmus tests on abortion or any other single issue. I agree with that. I think we need ideas and values. We need to connect to voters in the South and the Midwest that quite frankly don't think we care about some of those values.

So I think in my conversations—and I've had some private conversations with Kate Michelman....We need to make sure that in the future we're not litmus testing on this issue.

And Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Bush, who have different positions on abortion, are in the Republican Party. They can talk. My mother is very much pro-choice. I am pro-life. We should be able to be in the same party.

Wallace persisted:

But your critics might say, with some of your positions again being anti-abortion rights, that perhaps you would in some way swing the party more to the right than to the left. What do you say to that?

As did Roemer:

...I'm tired of losing elections. We lost 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties in the United States. We got beat in all five open Democratic seats in the deep South. We lost ground with Hispanic voters and Catholic voters.....I want to be inclusive as a party. I don't want a litmus test on a single issue.

For my part, as I wrote here earlier:

Given the rabid resistance to the slightest concession to reason and, yes, morality by the Feminazis, any widening of the Democrat Party's tent in terms of pro-life Democrats and their views is apt to be a carnival sideshow: big on promise and short on delivery.

Roemer's candidacy at the request of pro-abortion zealot House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is just another act in that sideshow, one that will be closed down by the Feminazis as Michelman's rant and self-aborted candidacy intimates.

In sum, I concur with Res Publica et Cetera's Publius' forecast on Roemer's chances in his comments here:

I doubt he'll win unless he does a Clinton-Jackson-Gephardt-Gore style about-face, as his giving lip-service to Clinton's "Safe, Legal, and Rare"...won't be nearly good enough to ease the fears of the rabidly pro-abortion faction of that party.

Publius' prognostication is apt to prove true, as the following admittedly incomplete tally from Hotline's DNC poll, as reported by Jim Geraghty on The Kerry Spot suggests:

Howard Dean 31% (58 votes)
Martin Frost 16 (30 votes)
Tim Roemer 4 (8 votes)
Donnie Fowler 4 (7 votes)
Wellington Webb 2 (4 votes)
Simon Rosenberg 2 (4 votes)
David Leland 1 (1 vote)
Undecided/Refused 40 (75 votes)

This becomes even clearer if one considers that when DNC members were asked to indicate their "last choice," Roemer was named by 16 percent (29 votes).

As TKS concludes:

If these 187 members are representative of the entire DNC, then Dean is in good shape, as is Frost. The centrist views of Roemer appear to be a tough pill to swallow for most DNC members.

"Centrist," in this case, of course, is simply a euphemism for "pro-life"—a euphemism in its own right.

Santorum defends role

Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania on bridging his Catholic faith and political decisions.

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum views his job through the lens of his Roman Catholic faith and isn't afraid of the consequences, he told a largely Catholic audience Tuesday night.

The "great gift of America," he said, is that "we are free to espouse that faith in the public square."

Santorum spoke on faith and political life at St. Paul Seminary in Crafton as part of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh's lecture series, "Faithful Citizenship."

"If we divorce public life from faith, freedom itself will fail," he said.

Santorum talked last night about his anger at what he sees as an unfair presumption of neutrality given to politicians who don't bring faith into the public forum.

"If decisions are influenced by faith, it's somehow illegitimate," he said.

Great to hear how the senator's faith plays a role in his decisions. To some though he does not go far enough and I am not talking about all those Toomey supporters.

Members of the Association of Pittsburgh Priests attended Santorum's speech. They distributed an open letter to the senator that calls for his pro-life stance to encompass more than the abortion issue.

The letter also admonishes the senator for his support of the war in Iraq and the death penalty.

"We shouldn't give someone a free pass because they're good on one or two issues," said the Rev. Jack O'Malley, an association member who is chaplain for the state's AFL-CIO.

I cannot help but wonder who Fr. O'Malley supported for President.

A Welcome Surprise from Governor Jean Granholm

Via Amy Welborn, Family News in Focus reports:

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has signed into law a bill designed to show college students there are alternatives to abortion.

With the Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act becoming law, two pro-life groups -- Right to Life of Michigan and Feminists for Life -- have seen some of the fruits of their labors. For nearly five years a project has been under way to create an on-campus resource center for college women who become pregnant, according to Ed Rivet, spokesman for Right to Life of Michigan.

The Associated Press (via MLive.com) reports:

The new law sets up the Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Fund to pay for grants for universities that set up offices where pregnant women or students with children can get referrals for prenatal care, foster care, adoption and other services.

The offices won't be able to give referrals for abortions.

The new fund will consist of state money, if allocated, and private donations.

Such a deliberately pro-life oriented gesture is surprising as well, given the fact that Granholm has in the past identified herself as a "100% pro-choice" Catholic, adopting the morally incoherent position of Senator Kerry, Kennedy, et al. (see "Granholm's abortion stance is off base", by Mark S. Latkovic, Janet Smith and Richard Myers. Detroit Free Press Oct. 17, 2002).

Granholm had vetoed previous attempts by the Michigan legislature to limit partial birth abortion and was the recipient of Catholic protests of her position during the 2002 gubernatorial race.

In light of Granholm's past and vigorous defense of abortion rights, it is indeed doubtful that the present legislative gesture represents a "change of mind" on her part. Nevertheless I concur with Amy Welborn that "grudging kudos" are in order.

More Information:

• StopGranholm.Com a website "developed by a group of concerned Michigan citizens known as the Church & Truth Project to expose the scandalous '100 percent pro-choice' positions of Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who claims to be a practicing Catholic."
  
• (GranholmGarble.Com, a website by the Michigan Right to Life protesting Granholm's views on partial birth abortion.
  

My Way Or Highway: Stupid Party StripsPro-Life Stalwart of Committee Chair

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

Although House Republicans only picked up three additional seats in the November 2 election, "party leaders have been emboldened by GOP domination of all branches of government and appear determined to squelch dissent in their own ranks," Mike Allen observes in The Washington Post.

"We are looking more and more like the Democrats we replaced," a House committee chairman recently confided to Robert Novak, who writes in his syndicated column:

That comment came before he learned, to his surprise and sorrow, that the House Republican leadership had removed Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey as chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. The extraordinary purge buttressed the growing impression of arrogance as Republicans enter their second decade of power in the House.

The excuses for dumping Smith are rather lame. While Smith is derided as a "liberal" by the GOP brass, the conservative columnist describes the Catholic Congressman's voting record as "moderately conservative."

For 2003 (the most recent year for which evaluation is available), the American Conservative Union rated him 71 percent and his liberal rating from Americans for Democratic Action was 30 percent. Beginning his 13th term in the House, the 51-year-old Smith has been a hero in the pro-life movement and a dogged inquisitor into forced abortion in China.

Smith was not only stripped of his chairmanship but of his membership. As The Record notes in its editorial:

Even though the heads of eight veterans groups, including the VFW and the American Legion, recently wrote to House Speaker Dennis Hastert that it would be a "tragedy" if Mr. Smith were removed, the long-time champion of veterans is now off the committee altogether.

During Mr. Smith's 24 years on the veterans committee—including four as its chairman—he helped pass major legislation for veterans, updating the GI Bill, expanding health care and benefits, and establishing a program for homeless vets.

"Since taking the gavel as chairman of the committee, The Trentonian reports, "Smith has authored 13-major bills aimed at helping veterans that were enacted by the Congress and signed into law by the President." Therein lay his crime, putting the needs of the men who fought our wars above the dictates of the party bosses. Or, as the Asbury Park Press aptly put it:

Rep. Christopher H. Smith, R-N.J., learned this week that voting with the House Republican leadership about 80 percent of the time is not good enough.

"It's almost as if no good deed goes unpunished," Smith told The Trenton Times.

In Baghdad, when somebody's bleeding, they're not Democrat or Republican. This is one committee that should have nothing to do with politics.

"It took Democrats 40 years to get as arrogant as we have become in 10," one Republican leadership aide acknowledged. If the Republican establishment continues down its path of rule-or-ruin, I don't think its rule will last for 40 years.

Roemer for DNC

Looks like it may be official.

The move is certain to spark a heated debate about the abortion issue because former Indiana Congressman Tim Roemer, who's Roman Catholic and opposes abortion, wants to lead a party whose platform supports abortion rights.

Though he voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, voted to ban human cloning, and supported the ban on partial-birth abortions during his last term in Congress I am a bit wary when he says things like this:

"In the Clinton years when I worked with them to reduce the abortion rate by 11 percent through counseling, economic security, all I want to do is have a conversation in my party and broaden that tent,"

The abortion rate decreasing in the 1990s had more to due with pro-life legislation coming out of the states and the availability of ultrasounds in abortion alternative clinics than it did with the "economic security" of the Clinton years. Let's hope and pray that Roemer focuses on the need for the former rather than more of the latter.

Profile: Representative Brian Higgins of New York

Congressman Brian Higgins is the freshman Democratic Congressman from New York's 27th Congressional District. In one of the closest congressional races last year, Higgins beat fellow Catholic, Republican Nancy Naples by only 3700 votes. Naples finally conceded after weeks of recounting the votes. The unfortunate reality for the voters of the 27th district was that these two Catholics both ran as pro-abortion candidates. Naples came out against partial-birth abortion, but many saw this soley as a political decision since she also wanted to be on the Conservative Party line on the ballot. (The Conservative Party of New York required all their candidates to be against partial-birth abortion.)

Higgins' campaign website states he is a parishioner of St Martin of Tours Catholic Church in South Buffalo. Yet from my own research of local Western New York media and from the Internet, Congressman Higgins does not always seem to bridge his faith to his policy views. One of these policy views is abortion. Interestingly enough, it seems that as a New York Assemblyman, Higgins garnered an "anti-choice" voting record from NARAL Pro-Choice NY (2002), expressed NARAL Pro-Choice NY's preferred positions "0" percent of the time (2000), voted to restrict Medicaid abortion funding (1999), and voted to bring a bill to the Assembly floor which would have banned partial-birth abortions (1999). Yet in a New York State Legislative National Political Awareness Test from 1998 Higgins supported the ideas that "abortions should always be legally available" as well as that the "New York government" provide funding to "clinics and medical facilities that provide abortion services." In 2002 he voted to require almost all employeers in New York State that offer prescription drug coverage to pay for contraceptives for women. In 2004 a Higgins vote helped pass a bill which would increase the distribution of "emergency contraception" by allowing pharmacists and nurses to prescribe it. And this past year he evidentally won over the folks at NARAL by winning their endorsement over Naples in the House race.

In addition to abortion, Congressmen Higgins does not seem to follow his faith when it comes to defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In that New York State Legislative National Political Awareness Test from 1998, the congressman answered he believed that the "New York government should recognize same-sex marriages". Also, prior to the election, I phoned his campaign and asked for his views on Embroynic Stem Cell Research (ESCR). The very polite staffer I spoke with relayed that Mr Higgins supports the same kind of research Christopeher Reeves advocated, which included ESCR. I also asked the staffer where Mr Higgins stood on euthanisia and human cloning. He stated he did not know and would get back to me. He never did.

Congressman Higgins will likely soon have a chance to let his constiuents know how his faith influences his views on abortion. The Congress will be taking up the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. The bill would require any abortionist to provide specified information to any woman seeking an abortion at 20 weeks or later, regarding the pain that would be inflicted on the baby, and to obtain a signed form accepting or rejecting administration of pain-relieving drugs to the baby. As well, the Child Custody Protection Act, which would make it a federal crime to take a minor across state lines for a secret abortion, in violation of the parents' right to be notified beforehand will likely be voted on. Human cloning will also get much attention in the 109th Congress.

It is early in his career. With prayer and God's grace Congressman Higgins could end up being a Catholic who happens to be a politician. Or he could end up like some many others and become a politician who happens to be Catholic.

St Thomas More pray for him!

-Washington Post Profile

Profile: Lousiana Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco

• Protecting Life

"The two candidates for Louisiana governor agree on a lot of issues, but abortion isn't one of them," the Associated Press reported before the November 2003 election in which Blanco defeated her Republican opponent, Bobby Jindal, becoming only the second woman to serve as governor of a state in the Deep South. (The first, Gov. Lurleen Wallace, D-AL, tragically died of cancer only 16 months after taking office in 1966.)

Republican Bobby Jindal and Democrat Lt. Gov. Kathleen Blanco are Catholic and pro-life. But while Blanco thinks abortions should be allowed in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother, Jindal does not favor abortions under any circumstances. Both favor the ban on late-term or so-called "partial birth" abortions that Congress recently approved and President George W. Bush plans to sign into law. Neither Jindal nor Blanco has [any] plans for abortion legislation.

As John Gizzi observed in Human Events, "Blanco ran dramatically to the right of her party on social issues, opposing gun control, abortion, affirmative action and benefits for gay couples."

In a post-election wrap-up in The Washington Post, Lee Hockstader described the candidates' differences as "primarily stylistic."

By most measures the two candidates were practically ideological soul mates, devout Catholics who oppose affirmative action, abortion, gun control and higher taxes while embracing steps to improve schools, health care and the state's anemic economy. By a narrow margin, Jindal was the more conservative, opposing abortion even in cases of rape and incest and in some instances when a mother's life is in danger.

Of course, the difference between a consistent stand against all abortion and a compromised stand that accepts the killing of some babies involves a matter of principle, whatever your local "pro-life" organization may—or may not—say. According to the Louisiana Right to Life 2003 Voter Guide, both Blanco and Jindal "responded 100% prolife."

In any event, the difference played a key role in Blanco's election campaign, noted the Kaiser Foundation's Daily Reproductive Health Report.

Blanco used "aggressive advertising" that criticized Jindal for his opposition to abortion "without exception" and raised other concerns to turn a "double-digit gap into a close but comfortable victory," the Times-Picayune reports....Both Jindal and Blanco are Roman Catholic and oppose abortion rights; however, Jindal opposes abortion in all cases and Blanco supports abortion rights in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of a pregnant woman. The Louisiana Democratic Party last week mailed a flier that said Jindal is "willing to let Louisiana women die" because of his position on abortion. The flier said, "Jindal's extreme position means the life of an unborn child would always outweigh concerns about the life of the mother and that doctors and their patients would have severely limited options in life-threatening medical emergencies." Jindal said that his position on abortion is "in line" with the Catholic Church and added that he does not oppose medical procedures used to save the life of a pregnant woman that would "indirectly" result in the termination of a fetus.

Blanco, a Cajun, of French descent, "picked up a large percentage of the women's vote, despite being an antiabortion Catholic," the Christian Science Monitor reported. It appears her attack on fellow Catholic Jindal for upholding the teachings of the Church and its divine Founder may have contributed to that tally.

• Defending Marriage and Safeguarding the Family

Last September, by a 4-to-1 margin, Louisiana voters ratified a constitutional amendment banning "same-sex marriage," Ed Anderson reports in The Times-Picayune.

The Louisiana Family Forum, a conservative family-issues group; the Roman Catholic bishops of the state; and hundreds of Protestant ministers had lined up behind the measure, urging their congregants to vote for it. Gov. Kathleen Blanco, a Catholic, said she was going to vote for it but did not participate in any campaign to help pass it.

Blanco's earlier history on the pro-family messure was less heartening, as this excerpt from a May 18, 2004, letter to his parishioners from St. Blog's own Fr. Bryce Sibley indicates.

In dealing with the amendment to our state constitution that would define marriage as a union between man and woman which would hopefully stop and "judicial activists" or other deleterious forces from approving gay marriages in our state, you may be distressed to know that our Governor Kathleen Blanco, a baptized Catholic, is against the amendment. According to The Daily Advocate, as debate on the amendment began on the Senate several days ago, all of the senators had on their desks a flier entitled "Blanco on Gay Marriage Amendment." The single-sheet contained Blanco quotes from two newspapers, in which she questions the need for the constitutional amendment as well as the damage it might do to the state's economy. Senate President Don Hines said he authorized the distribution with Blanco's knowledge.

"On another social issue," AP commented on the Blanco-Jindal race, "both [candidates] also question the need for a law to ban discrimination in the workplace against homosexuals. Blanco and Jindal say they oppose discrimination against anyone but don't think a new law is needed."

Gov. Blanco, however, recently signed an executive order banning discrimination in state government on the basis of "sexual orientation" that lead Rep. Jindal to request written clarification on whether the order will endanger state-financed services run by religious groups, Jan Moller writes in The Time-Picayune.

A three-page letter from Jindal to Blanco, his rival in the 2003 governor's race, says the executive order "may have the effect of overturning a hard-fought bipartisan precedent that has been established and reaffirmed over the course of nearly half a century."

Is Polarization Really So Undesirable?

One of the oft-repeated wails that you will here from "high-minded" commentators is the mournful proclamation that we are a "polarized" nation. It is regularly assumed that polarization is a great evil and must be eliminated. But the problem with this negative view of polarization is that our current polarization is indeed based on genuine disagreement about what is true and real. On one side, some think, for example, that legal abortion and gay marriage are obvious goods. They cannot understand the madness of those who oppose such inevitable progressive principles. On the other side, are those like most readers of this site who view legal abortion and gay marriage as true madness because these practices contradict reality.

The test of sanity is whether your reason, as one professor of mine put it, is measured to, proportioned to, and reflects reality. For traditional Christianity, abortion is insane because it kills what we should cherish. Gay marriage is insane because it defies the obvious procreative design of male and female. Extramarital sex is insane because it is a mutual lie that individuals tell each other: we will pretend that we are committed when in fact we are not. In a fundamental way, true madness is the social pretense that shelters so many obvious wrongs.

It is true madness when we pretend that something is good when it isn't. The examples are legion. Looking at our own community, it was madness for some cardinals and bishops to think that child molesters could somehow be placed back in parish ministry. The negligent authorities were not practicing mercy or forgiveness. They were being irrational. It was madness for the Supreme Court to ever overturn the laws of the states that forbade the killing of unborn children. Roe v. Wade was an irrational court decision that is still tearing the country apart.

An interesting thing about some of these true practitioners of madness is that they are likely to be the first to call their opponents mad. Such name-calling is a substitute for engaging the uncomfortable truth proclaimed by their opposition. The opponents who are falsely called "mad" are those who have the temerity to state the truth plainly, however upsetting to conventional wisdom and its secular pieties. And so Planned Parenthood and other abortion activists view the pro-life activists as insane. So those who congratulate themselves as being compassionate and enlightened view any opposition to gay marriage as irrational hatred of homosexuals.

The pattern of mislabeling the opponent is already there in the Gospel when the Truth came in the person of Jesus Christ. He too was called mad and insane, even by his own relatives. In Mark 3:20-21, Jesus' own "relations . . . set out to take charge of him; they said, 'He is out of his mind' " (NJB). In John 10:20, "[m]any of them said, 'He has a demon, and he is mad; why listen to him?' " (RSV). As we know all too well, the disciples are not above their Master (see Matt. 10:24-25). We too will be called mad or insane or irrational. But we have been told to be happy and rejoice: "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, . . . for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matt. 5:11-12; RSV).

So, from the Christian perspective, polarization is not as bad as it seems. Polarization can be a sign that we are indeed proclaiming the truth as we ought to do so and that we refuse to be cowed into hiding the truth that we have been given. Even George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) saw the truth that "all progress depends on the unreasonable man"--unreasonable in the eyes of the reigning etiquette of false conventions and fads.

Mississippi Becomes Case Study for Reducing Abortions Through Legislation

Evidence that the "supply-side" approach to ending abortion can and is working. Still waiting on the evidence that the "demand-side" approach works better.

Jackson, MS (LifeNews.com) -- Doing what was thought impossible, the state of Mississippi has found a way to significantly reduce the number of abortions despite the fact that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision allowing abortions still stands. Thanks in part to a plethora of pro-life legislation, that has helped lead to the closing of all but one abortion business in the state, abortions in Mississippi have decreased by half in the last decade. After peaking at 8,814 in 1991, the number of abortions in 2002 fell to just 3,605. Even one abortion is too many for pro-life groups that have been working in the state, but the sharp decline is cause for celebration. 'We don't need to wait for the Supreme Court to outlaw abortion,' says Pat Cartrette, executive director of Pro-Life Mississippi. Mississippi has a sweeping conscience clause allowing any medical professional to opt out of participating in an abortion, it is one of two states that requires both parents to give consent before an abortion, and it requires abortion practitioners to tell women about abortion's risks and alternatives. The state also passed an unborn victims law that targets criminals such as Scott Peterson who kill or injure an unborn child as a result of attacking a pregnant woman. Those laws have contributed to the abortion decline, according to an attorney with Americans United for Life. 'The dramatic decrease in abortions shows that life-affirming laws and public policy can save lives,' said Nikolas T. Nikas, general counsel for Americans United for Life, explained. Other states such as South Carolina and Kentucky have seen a similar decrease in the number of abortions performed following the passage of numerous pro-life laws. Read the complete story.

"Bless Me, Bishop, For I Back Sinning."

As Domenico Bettinelli reports on the always informative Bettnet, Albany County, NY, District Attorney David Soares defeated the pro-life incumbent, DA Paul Clyne, in the Democrat Party primary with the enthusiastic endorsement of the radical feminists of the National Organization of Women (NOW) and the pro-abortion advocates of NARAL. [Watch the video.]

Soares also gained the backing of other degenerate elements, including organized drug abusers and homosexual activists. [Caution: Link is to homosexual newspaper Web site.]

Michele E. Morgan Bolton describes the inauguration in yesterday's Albany Times Union:

David Soares took on his new job during an unusual, ecumenical ceremony at Albany's Wilborn Temple. A steady drone of police pipes and drums led the former Albany County assistant district attorney down a center aisle as he and clerics of many denominations moved through the cavernous church packed with well-wishers.

To his credit, Clyne did not attend the honors for his anti-life successor. So, as Bettnet asks—and Bolton answers—guess who participated in Soares' swearing-in "by giving him a blessing?"

Bishop Howard Hubbard, of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, joined Protestant, Jewish and Muslim leaders in bestowing blessings on the new district attorney.

"You are a man who offers to us a new vision and fresh alternatives," Hubbard said.

"A new vision"—precisely what is needed in the Albany episcopacy. Or rather, an old and even ancient one.

P.S.—By the way, that's David and Tina Soare's 4 year-old-son, Jack, in the top picture. Fortunately, for him, Mom didn't practice what Dad preaches!

2004 in Review: A Catholic List of Significant Events

You will see many reviews of events in 2004 and even predictions of events for 2005. I won't make any predictions, but here is my own view of the most significant events of the year that is rapidly coming to an end. I list them in what seems to me to be their order of significance.

1. Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ: I put this event above the presidential election--which is a close second--only because cultural trends are always more important that election results. In my opinion, the movie marked a new assertiveness by traditional Christianity that is not inhibited or ashamed of its "old-time religion." Gibson put the core of Christianity out there without bowing to the irate policemen of cultural correctness. He took the heat; and the public, both Catholic and Protestant evangelical, responded enthusiastically. We are not hiding our beliefs anymore.

2. The Reelection of George W. Bush: As said before on this site, the election of quintessential Cafeteria Catholic John Kerry would have been disastrous for the New Evangelization in the United States. A dissident Kerry would have made a mockery of the call to renewed orthodoxy in American Catholicism. On the positive side, George W. Bush is, like Gibson, a man who is not afraid to be who he is in spite of the astounding hatred focused on him by the media and others. It was and is a hatred and contempt that is reminiscent of that suffered by Lincoln during his presidency.

3. The Pope's Challenge to Bishops: Late in the year, I finally got the chance to read the Pope's latest book published in 2004, Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way. I was surprised to find in the book a very strong challenge to bishops urging them to stop being silent in the face of evil. During the year, I do not remember reading any headlines in or out of the Catholic media taking note of the Pope's strong language challenging, even, in a way, reprimanding, bishops for being too silent. I follow the media closely, and saw no mention of this noteworthy development anywhere. But whether covered or not, for those of us who manage to discover the Pope's comments in his book, the comments are highly significant.

4. The Leadership of Archbishop Burke of St. Louis: Among several other outspoken bishops, Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis (formerly bishop of the Diocese of LaCrosse, Wisconsin) stands out for the courage with which he said the obvious: no Holy Communion for pro-abortion politicians. He acted out of love for the truth, not out of any desire for notoriety. What more can be said but that we were privileged to see an Apostle in action. For my part, his courage shames me into speaking out more boldly and not pulling back in the face of personal attacks.

5. The Longevity of John Paul II: We do not know what will happen in 2005, but not many would have expected that JPII would still be writing books, planning trips, and celebrating Mass at the end of 2004. He is still there. He is still leading. This fact is a significant event in itself. May he be with us throughout 2005, because we still need him. The orthodox renewal in the Church that he began in October of 1978 is not over.

Those are the five significant events from my humble perspective. Compare them with other lists and make up your own list. Any readers who wish to share their own list of noteworthy events of 2004 are invited to post a Comment below.

As to 2005, I don't have a clue, and can say only that it is all in God's hands and that He will draw good out of everything, even evil.

Democratic Party Post-Mortem

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

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

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

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

Via Bettnet.

"You Will Know the Truth and the Truth Will Set You Free"

I highly recommend, this pastoral letter from the Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, Bishop of Fargo.

In it he notes that many Catholics "are more influenced by the secular culture in which we live than by the teachings of Jesus Christ," and stated that many Catholics have "an inadequate understanding of the Catholic faith."

He suggests that though there are exceptions, catechetical formation for the last 30 years has failed to hand on the faith. He says it was clear during the media discussion of Catholic teachings and voting during the elections that "many of the faithful have not read the Catechism, the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II, or the documents of Vatican II."

What a wonderful shepherd!

Catholic Senator appointed to Judiciary Committee

Senator Sam Brownback has been appointed to Judiciary Committee.

Brownback, from Kansas, is a leading pro-life lawmaker known for sponsoring the total ban on human cloning.

He also is proposing legislation next session, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, that would require abortion practitioners to inform women considering late-term abortions that unborn children feel intense pain during the procedure. The mother would be asked if she wants to allow the babies to receive anesthesia before the abortion.

Ratzinger: "The Child Knocks" -- but will we listen?

The Word became flesh. Alongside this Johannine truth there has to be put also the Marian truth as rendered by Luke. God has become flesh. This is not only an immensely great and remote happening, it is something very close and human. God became a child who needed a mother. He became a child, someone born with tears on his cheeks, whose first utterance is a cry for help, whose first gesture consists in outstretched hands searching for protection. God became a child.

Nowadays we also hear it being said, in contrast, that this, after all, would be nothing but a sentimentality better put aside. Yet the New Testament thinks differently. For the faith of the Bible and the Church, it is important that God desired to be such a creature who has to depend on a mother, on the sheltering love of humans. He wished to be dependent in order to awaken in us love that purifies and redeems. God became a child, and every child is dependent. To be a child thus contains already the theme of the search for shelter, the elementary motif of Christmas. And how many variations has this motif seen in our history!

In our days we experience this anew and in disturbing ways: the child knocks on the doors of our world. The child is knocking. The search for shelter is profound. There is indeed an atmosphere of hostility toward children, but is this not preceded by an attitude that altogether bars any child from entering this world because there would be no more room for him? The child knocks. If we would receive him we are to rethink thoroughly our own attitude toward human life. Here we are dealing with fundamentals, with the very concept of what it means to be human: to live in grandiose selfishness or in confident freedom that knows its vocation to be united in love, to accept one another.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

p. 404, Co-Workers of the Truth: Meditations for Every Day of the Year

The Joy of Innocence Regained

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

There is no Christmas without Angels. On this day we feel as if one with them, participating in the eternal joy which fills them. Our canticles seek to imitate theirs. We see Heaven open before us, and grace raising us even now to a supernatural order where joy surpasses the expectations of the human heart.

We know that with Christmas begins the defeat of sin and death. We know that Christmas is the first step on a path that will lead us to the Resurrection and to Heaven.

On Christmas we sing of the joy of innocence regained, the joy of the resurrection of the body, the joys of joys which is the eternal contemplation of God. That is why there is a holy joy on earth every time the Christmas bells ring.

Prof. Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Catolicismo, 1951

Wishing you and your loved ones a Blessed Christmas Season and a Holy New Year!
—Earl E. Appleby, Jr. and Family

Pro-Life Democrat Seriously Considering Party Chair Bid

Looks like former Congressman Tim Roemer, a Catholic pro-life politician is running for the DNC chair being vacated by Terry McAuliffe. Though party leaders, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have urged him to run, I wonder if they truly will support him or if their vocal support now is just a disingenous way to "show" that Democrats too can be pro-life or at least accepting of pro-lifers in the party. This is a campaign Catholics in the Public Square will be watching.

Additional reading: The Dem's Pro-Life Gambit, The American Spectator.

UPDATE: Though some party leaders "seem" to be supportive of Roemer, abortion advocates are not. Read here for more.

The Tipping Point: Hispanic Males Voted 46% for Bush

Today's N.Y. Times has a tiny news brief with data from the National Annenberg Election Survey showing that 46% of Hispanic men voted for Bush in 2004. The figure for all Hispanics is 41% for Bush in 2004--compared to 35% in 2000. The lesson: culture is thicker than past party loyalties.

Not surprisingly, the conservative Washington Times ("Hispanic Men Moved to Bush," 12/22/04) thought this data worth a full news article in contrast to the N.Y. Times "footnote" coverage of the same data.

Arnold's Base Idea Will Not Build G.O.P. Base

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

In an interview with the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) declared that he believes the Republican Party should move "a little further left" to attract new voters and build the G.O.P. base. "Schwarzenegger said he sees a clear line of demarcation between the Republican and Democratic Party," Jimmy Moore reports for Talon News.

"The Republican Party currently covers only the spectrum from the right wing to the middle, and the Democratic Party covers the spectrum from the left to the middle," Schwarzenegger explained in the newspaper interview. "I would like the Republican Party to cross this line, move a little further left and place more weight on the center."

"This would immediately give the [Republican] party 5 percent more votes without its losing anything elsewhere," Schwarzenegger claimed, displaying the liberal tunnel vision that typifies his Hollywood co-stars or, as Karen England, head of California's Capitol Research Institute put it, "his 'extreme arrogance and total ignorance' about the core constituents of the Republican Party."

"Schwarzenegger has spent too much time in Hollywood," England remarked in a statement. "He needs to start mingling more with mainstream Californians."

To be sure, this is scarcely "man-bites-dog" news. Since his election in 2003, Moore writes, the California governor "has openly shown his support for liberal social issues such as gay marriage and abortion, among others." No wonder pro-life, pro-family Republicans like England are upset.

We are outraged that Schwarzenegger has the audacity to misspeak for the millions of Republicans in this country who believe that abortion is murder and that the life of a child should come before the mere convenience of a woman. We are outraged that Schwarzenegger would turn his back on two-thirds of Californians, many Democrats included, who voted just four short years ago to protect traditional marriage in this state.

Writing to supporters, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said that he is "surprised when elected officials seem to forget what voters want, even when it has only been just a few weeks since an election."

Every time voters are given a chance to speak out, they vote to uphold marriage and traditional moral values. . . . Unfortunately, too many political leaders appear to be morally deaf.

Schwarzenegger is not only morally deaf; he is tone deaf politically. The United States is not Hollywood -- or even California -- and following Arnie's half-baked idea of pandering to his fellow pro-abort, pro-perversion liberals will not build the G.O.P. base. It would, however, show the door to Catholic and evangelical voters who re-elected President Bush on the basis of such moral issues as the defense of life and marriage.

"If Schwarzenegger thinks that the majority of the G.O.P. base will stick with the Republican Party on fiscal issues alone, then he has a lot to learn about the makeup of his own party," England exclaimed.

After all, even a liberal columnist like the Racine, WI, Journal Times' Rachel Campbell concedes:

Now simply isn't the time. If proud conservatives are going to go bananas every time you say "Happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," you can imagine their reaction to easing restrictions on gay marriage.

Let's pray that Conan the Liberal's moldy idea stays in the fetid imagination of the Culture of Death and that the Stupid Party does not have to learn its lesson the hard way.

Supplemental Reading:

• See also "My Governator Offers Some Bad Advice," Jimmy Akin, Defensor Fidei.