Archbishop Donald Wuerl: Helping Pelosi Get Away with Murder

LifeSiteNews' carries a disappointing story on the new Archbishop of Washington Donald Wuerl, who has decided to pursue a path of steadfast faithfulness to . . . . imitating the scandalous complacency of his predecessor Cardinal McCarrick towards "pro-choice Catholic" legislators. LifeSiteNews reports:

Perhaps it was a bad omen when at the installation Mass for the new Archbishop of Washington Donald Wuerl last June, pro-abortion Democratic Senator John Kerry was given Holy Communion and caught on camera in the act. During the entrance procession, Archbishop Wuerl shook hands with Kerry and Senator Ted Kennedy. (see coverage)

Now, Archbishop Wuerl, who replaced Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, has said publicly that he would not discipline or direct priests to deny communion to pro-abortion Catholic politician Nancy Pelosi who was just made speaker of the House of Representatives.

When California Catholic Daily reporter Allyson Smith inquired during an interview as to whether Wuerl planned to "discipline her at all for being persistent and obstinate about supporting abortion and same-sex marriage," Wuerl responded, "I will not be using the faculty in that, in the manner you have described."

See also Amy Welborn's extensive coverage of the Pelosi / Wuerl scandal, in which she comments:

I think what Archbishop Wuerl and others fail to understand is the impact of things like this on the lay Catholic who is struggling to be a faithful disciple in the world. The message that is sent by silence is strong, in terms of the lay apostolate in the world, in terms of the unity of faith and life.

Nancy Pelosi is not "struggling" with the Church's teaching on abortion, trying to work for the protection of unborn human beings within the constraints of the current U.S. law. As we noted before, she is unapologetically, strongly supportive of abortion-rights and unborn children don't even enter into her radar (publicly, at least) as human beings. . . .

But resting on Archbishop Wuerl's statements alone, which do not indicate that there's anything problematic about Nancy Pelosi's way of living a Catholic life, and which, I admit, simply might be an expression of a reticent style that only answers the questions posed, I'll just say this again.

If this woman, engaged in a public role, very publicly works against the teachings of the Church to which she professes a very public tie isn't publicly challenged by even one of the primary teachers of the Church - the bishops - the rest of us - lay Catholics, living and working in the world, every day facing decisions on how to be faithful disciples of Jesus in the midst of the complexities of our professions, some of us who really suffer because of the things they refuse to do because of their fidelity to Christ - we get a message.

And the message we get is that - it doesn't matter. Do whatever you want.

* * *

Note to Archbishop Wuerl -- here's an excerpt from a noteworthy memo from then-Cardinal Ratzinger to your predecessor ("Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion — General Principles" L'espresso, June 2004):

. . . Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

Earlier this month, The National Abortion Rights Action League commended self-styled "Catholic grandmother" Nancy Pelosi for championing "pro-choice values" for nearly 20 years -- a pretty consistent -- or obstinant -- record on abortion, wouldn't you agree?

* * *Observing the complacency of the bishops to discipline Michael Liccione wonders What is our problem?:

People being what they are, there must be a measure of "organization"—buildings, offices, procedures, finances, programs, and the like—if the Church is to do her work. But after a certain point, the instinct for institutional self-preservation outweighs the desire for evangelical credibility.

Beneath all the legalistic mumbo-jumbo about bishops' rights to differing "pastoral styles," this is why learned, doctrinally orthodox bishops such as Wuerl allow Catholics in public life who facilitate abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic-stem-cell research to remain in ostensibly "full communion" with the Church. Beneath the facile and fallacious clichés about "conscience," this is why most bishops would discipline a priest under them who started denying the Eucharist to parishioners aware of, but staunchly unwilling to abide by, the Church's teaching on contraception. Some of those bishops are ones who for too long failed to discipline child molesters and remained in denial about that problem; the reasons for each policy are closely related. Beneath the apparently flexibility and sophistication of "the internal forum," this is why many so many priests incorporate, as a matter of course, divorced people who have remarried without annulment into parish life on the same level as other Catholics who have adhered, at great cost to themselves, to Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. For the most part, the hierarchy are terrified that schisms, be they de facto or de jure, would reduce the Church to institutional rubble. And let's be clear: such rubble is exactly what would we'd get if they got serious about challenging people to follow Christ in the pelvic area.

* * *At least one reader of Deal W. Hudson is contemplating civil disobedience in the event of witnessing another "pro-choice Catholic" profane the Eucharist:

If these "Catholic" politicians keep persisting in walking up the communion aisle, why can't the communicants in their seats stand up and stop them by merely standing in their way much like that young man in Tiannamen Square before the tanks?

Nancy Pelosi and Company have run over innocent life long enough.

* * *

Lastly, Fr. Neuhaus on "ambivalence and resolve about Roe (First Things' "On the Square" - January 19th, 2006):

When the aforementioned Nancy Pelosi orchestrated a four-day gala in Washington celebrating her familial, ethnic, and—very explicitly—Catholic identity, people were alert to what would be said by the new archbishop of Washington, Donald Wuerl. He said nothing. Part of the festivities was a Mass at Trinity College, a Catholic institution in Washington. The celebrant of the Mass was Father Robert Drinan, a Jesuit who, more than any other single figure, has been influential in tutoring Catholic politicians on the acceptability of rejecting the Church’s teaching on the defense of innocent human life. Asked by a reporter, Archbishop Wuerl responded that Fr. Drinan has “faculties” in Washington, meaning he is authorized to celebrate the sacraments. That was it.

Also recently, Edward Cardinal Egan of New York gave a rare television interview in which he was persistently asked whether the pro-abortion position of Catholic politicians, notably Rudolph Giuliani and outgoing governor George Pataki, posed a problem for him. He just as persistently said he refused to be drawn into politics and answered, “They are my friends.” But of course he was making a statement of momentous political consequence, in that he seemed to be saying, as far as he is concerned, that the Church has no problem with pro-abortion politicians. It is understandable that Catholics and others have drawn the conclusion that, for both Wuerl and Egan, bishops of the two most prominent sees in the country, rejecting the Church’s teaching on the human dignity of the unborn child is not a big deal.

Related "Must Read" Posts:

• A father’s responsibility to his children, by Domenico Bettinelli.
  

• Barbara Kralis issus A plea to the Pope for help and encourages a letter-writing campaign on the part of outraged Catholic laity.
  

Anticipating the 2008 Presidential Race . . .

• Hillary's in the race (suprise, suprise). I would comment further, but Thomistic at Roman Catholic Blog has an excellent post.
  

• Fr. Pavone has officially joined Senator Brownback's presidential team. I agree with fellow editor Jay Anderson -- much as I like the idea of Brownback as a Catholic candidate, I'm not at all enthused about a Catholic priest taking such a formal position on his team. I'm more comfortable with members of our clergy providing the laity with a clear articulation of the Catholic principles which should govern our choice of candidates.
  

• On a related note, Closed Cafeteria reports that Father Michael Pfleger is stumping for pro-abort Sen. Obama, calling him "the best thing that has come across the political scene since Bobby Kennedy."
  

It's only the beginning, folks.

"Pro Choice Catholic" Pelosi - A New Challenge to the Church

• Didn't Take Long, by Deal W. Hudson:

  I guess it didn't take long for the dichotomy between Speaker Pelosi's professed Catholicism and her Liberal politics to rear its ugly head. A key legislative initiative she plans to tackle during the Democrats "first 100 hours" is to expand embryonic stem cell research. According to a press release from Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, this vote is scheduled for next Thursday, January 11.

  
  
• Pelosi gets her "celebration tour" Mass, despite pro-life resistance - Thomas Peters (American Papist) relays news from Philadelphia's The Evening Bulletin:

  Despite the appeals from a conservative pro-life group to prevent Speaker of the House-elect Nancy Pelosi from making a political appearance at a Mass at Trinity Washington College, Archbishop

  Donald Wuerl permitted the pro-abortion Democrat to use the Mass as a centerpiece of her "celebration" tour.

  More reaction from Judie Brown of the American Life League: Pro-Abortion Pelosi Insults Catholic Faith Human Events Online January 2, 2007. Mrs. Brown was a strong voice in the 2004 presidential elections, calling Cardinal McCarrick and other bishops to task for their lukewarm treatment of "pro-choice Catholic" candidate Senator John Kerry.
  

• Nancy-Palooza - good coverage of Pelosi's self-congratulatory promotional tour @ Amy Welborn's Open Book, in which is provided Nancy Pelosi's Record on Abortion. Amy questions:

  Will the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church let itself be played? Will it allow Nancy Pelosi to "celebrate" her Catholic roots as an act of obvious, frank political manipulation to get ethnic Catholics to start thinking Democrat again? Or will the leadership of this Church swallow its instinctive institutional self-protectiveness and pride, consider the spectacle of a Catholic who has achieved a position of political power, trumpets her Catholic identity, but is viciously indifferent to the plight of the weakest and most helpless in our society and say...Hmmm. Something wrong here. Maybe we should...do something? Maybe?

  Must-read post.
  

• Which leads the Curt Jester to wonder if the new Speaker for the House suffered a concussion as a result of her crashing through the marble ceiling.
  

Like the 2004 presidential campaign of Senator Kerry, the term of Speaker Pelosi provides Catholics with a brand new challenge. In the words of Deal Hudson:

As I read through the postings of the past few days and caught up on recent news after my long winter's nap, I was suddenly struck with a feeling of deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra would say. . . .

What rang familiar to me was like presidential candidate John Kerry, we now have one of the highest ranking U.S. officials -- the third person in succession for the presidency behind the president and vice president -- who claims to be Catholic while ardently supporting a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda. And like the Kerry presidential run, the Church will have a tremendous opportunity to remind her and the nation how dramatically contrary this agenda is to the Catholic's primordial teachings on life and family.

Elizabeth Fox Genovese 1941-2007

Elizabeth Fox Genovese died on January 2nd, at the age of 65. The blog Cosmos Liturgy Sex provides a welcome roundup of memories and tributes - In Memory of Elizabeth Fox-Genovese: Secular, Liberal to Pro-life Feminist:

Elizabeth began her career as an atheist, feminist scholar but her sharp mind and open heart soon led her to the truth about abortion and eventually to her conversion to the Catholic Faith. She was an active member of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, a recognized expert in the history of the American South, and a critic of radical feminism.

Elizabeth offered some reflections on her conversion in a Crisis 2002 magazine article, The Way of Conversion:

What I believe I can say with some confidence, but without pride, is that conversion never stops. Each day, each of us faces fresh challenges to live and act and speak in fidelity to the gospel, and none of them is easy.

But of this we may be sure: If we back away from all of them and retreat into the comfort of the prevailing consensus, we will lose the substance of our conversion. It is common to see the convert as the prodigal son of Jesus' parable and, I suspect, no less common for faithful Catholics, including converts, to identify with the older son, for whom no fatted calf is killed. In slipping into that view of ourselves as having been converted-having attained a status-we lose sight of the parable's deeper meaning: namely, that we always remain the prodigal son and always remain in need of the Father's unqualified welcome.

Catholics in the 110th Congress

Jay links to an article below which points out the large number of Catholic in the 110th Congress. A run down of the numbers:

157 Roman Catholics.

In the House of Representatives: total of 132, 19 freshmen, 43 Republicans and 89 Democrats.

In the Senate: a total of 25, with 2 freshmen, 9 Republicans, 16 Democrats.

5 Eastern Orthodox Catholics

In the House of Representatives: a total of 4, 3 freshmen, 1 Republican and 3 Democrats.

In the Senate: only one, Republican Sen Olympia Snowe of Maine.

A list of all the Catholics in Congress can be found here.

Difficulties Facing "Pro-Life" Democrats

Columnist Robert Novak writes on the difficulties facing "pro-life" Democrats in Congress as the new Democrat majority plans to push such agenda items as embryonic stem-cell research:

Near the top of the new Democratic congressional majority's agenda is passage of federal embryonic stem cell research legislation vetoed last year by President Bush, a measure that will answer a major question. There is no doubt the new bill will pass both houses of Congress. What remains in doubt are the votes to be cast by newly elected Democrats who campaigned as pro-life advocates, particularly Sen. Bob Casey Jr.

***
This is the arithmetic in the Senate, where a vetoed bill will go first. It would take 33 senators to sustain a Bush veto, if ailing Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson (S.D.) is unable to vote. Of the 36 Republicans who voted against the Castle bill, five were defeated for re-election: Santorum, George Allen in Virginia, Conrad Burns in Montana, Mike DeWine in Ohio and James Talent in Missouri. Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) was the only Senate Democrat who voted no last year, and that means one more Democrat would be needed this year. Casey's vote could be central.

The House sustained last year's veto by a 50-vote margin. Thirteen of those members were defeated in November. So, even if there are Republican defections, the burden will not fall on seven avowedly pro-life Democrats newly elected to the House: Heath Shuler (N.C.), Charlie Wilson (Ohio), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Brad Ellsworth (Ind.), Baron Hill (Ind.), Jason Altmire (Pa.) and Chris Carney (Pa.).

With Speaker Nancy Pelosi putting this legislation on her 100-hour list, these pro-life House Democrats, nevertheless, will be under intense pressure, as will Nelson, Sen. Jon Tester, a pro-lifer who defeated Burns in Montana last year, and Bobby Casey.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that "Roman Catholics are the largest single U.S. religious denomination among members of the new U.S. Congress".

Led, of course, by newly elected Speaker of the House and "conservative Catholic", Nancy Pelosi.

Catholic Congressional Scorecard

My apologies for my extended absence from CPS. I am once again a student and find it hard to also be a father, husband, and blogger. I did spend some of the Christmas break creating a Catholic Congressional Scorecard for the 109th Congress. It focuses on eight non-negotiable issues for Catholics—abortion, ESCR, human cloning, marriage, euthanasia, torture, conscience protection, and contraception. Each of these issues was addressed during the 109th Congress, both in the Senate and House of Representatives. There were either votes on specific legislation or amendments and/or sponsorship of proposed legislation for each of the eight issues. These votes and sponsorship status for each individual senator and representative is presented in the scorecard. Unlike other congressional scorecards, there is no ranking of senators and representatives. This was not an effort to determine which members of Congress are more Catholics than others. The data is presented for all citizens, esp. Catholics, to see the actions of their individual senators and representatives on these very important issues and either applaud their actions or petition them to change them. It is my impression that the 110th Congress will see similar pieces of legislation as listed on the scorecard as well as new legislation to undo others.

The scorecard can be accessed here.

Bad Man Executed

Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post obituary:

By the end of his rule, human rights groups estimated, he had presided over the killing of at least 300,000 Iraqis and the torture and imprisonment of tens of thousands more.

"Record of Infamy Ends in Iraq," by William Branigan, 12/29/06, Washington Post, at this link


This end is no surprise: "For all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52b, ESB). What is surprising is that the bad man did not meet this end sooner and that the bad man even had a trial. It is also surprising that he did not meet his end by being torn to pieces by the populace he terrorized for decades. One N.Y. Times writer was amazed at the composure and calm of the bad man at his execution; the journalist viewed this composure as somehow dignified. Those of us who have met stone cold sociopaths in real life are not surprised by such composure, but, in fact, would expect it.

Virginia Catholic Alliance Live Blog: Jeff Caruso of the Virginia Catholic Conference

Shaun Kenney is hosting the first ever Virginia Catholic Alliance live blog at 10:00 am on Tuesday, 19 December. His guest will be Jeff Caruso, Executive Director of the Virginia Catholic Conference, and they are now taking questions. (click here)

The Conference, which represents the mutual public-policy interests of the Diocese of Richmond and the Diocese of Arlington, and engages in advocacy on respect-life, social-justice, and education issues, will be taking up the following items (among others) in the new legislative session:

Prohibiting state funding for embryonic stem cell research

Abortion clinic regulations

Increasing the minimum wage

Providing state assistance to parents whose children attend non-public schools for the purchase of their non-religious textbooks

Preventing minor's access to pornography. (Arlington's Bishop Loverde just wrote an excellent pastoral letter on the subject.)

The Virginia Catholic Conference's 2007 Legislative Agenda (PDF).

Welcome to Jay Anderson (Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate)

Over the course of well, the past year, I couldn't help but notice Jay Anderson of Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate blogging on practically the same topics. Noting our mutual interests on issues involving Catholics in political life (as well as an appreciation for St. Thomas More), it was inevitable that he would receive an invitation to join our little cooperative. So a hearty welcome to Jay Anderson!

(Jimmy Akin on) Ramesh Ponnuru On Pro-Life Issues

[Jimmy Akin] recently participated in a telephone Blogger Briefing put on by the Family Research Council (FRC). The event was organized by Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost, who works at FRC. His idea is to help pro-life/socially conservative bloggers connect with figures in Washington (lawmakers, think tank types, commentators) who thus far haven't been as available to the pro-life part of the blogosphere.

For the initial installment of the briefing, the guest was Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor and commentator for National Review and the author of the book The Party of Death.

The conversation began with Ramesh summarizing the recent history of abortion in American politics and what he thinks is likely to happen with it in the future. . . .READ MORE

See also Jimmy's follow-up post: "Ramesh Dusts Off His Crystal Ball"

Archbishop Chaput on Decline of "Religious Involvement in Democratic Society"

Speaking to a crowd of some 700 people gathered in Garden Grove, California, for the Orange County Catholic Prayer Breakfast, Denver’s Archbishop Charles Chaput OFM Cap. decried the growing exclusion of religion from the public square, and called for a shift in perspective regarding the place of religious believers in a democratic society.

The prayer breakfast, which was modeled on a similar event held in Washington D.C., is an effort to fulfill Pope John Paul II’s call for a “new Evangelization.” The event began with the praying of the Rosary and a Mass, followed by breakfast and Archbishop Chaput’s address.

The archbishop, who is well known for providing a strong Catholic voice on important moral issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage, immigration, and the death penalty, said that in recent years people in both major American political parties have wrongly tried to blame the conflicts in American public life on the active participation of religious believers. [. . .]

However, he pointed out, there are key differences between non-sectarian public institutions and a secularist ideology. No Christian, Chaput said, should want to live under the tyranny of a secularist ideology. “Whenever you hear loud fretting sparked by an irrational fear of an Established Church, somebody’s trying to force religious believers and communities out of the public discussion of issues.”

“Secularism isn’t really morally neutral. It’s actively destructive…It ignores the most basic questions of social purpose and personal meaning by writing them off as private idiosyncrasies,” the archbishop said.

Americans are, “losing the Founders’ perspective on the meaning of our shared public life,” Chaput added. “Certain beliefs have always held Americans together as a people.”

“We have wealth and power and free time and choices and toys -- but we no longer see clearly who we are,” he lamented. . . . READ MORE

Source: Denver Archbishop decries trend of discounting religious believers in political life Catholic News Agency. Dec. 7, 2006.

The full text of Archbishop Chaput's talk -- “Seeing Clearly” -- can be found at the Archdiocese of Denver website.

Sen. Brownback Considers Bid for U.S. Presidency

Sen. Sam Brownback, who is considering a White House bid in 2008, said Monday the Republican field has room for a 'full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative' and pledged to make a final decision next month.

The Kansas senator said he was not discouraged from running by the Democrats' strong gains in this month's midterm elections, including majority control of the House and Senate.

'It does not make it less likely,' he said in an interview. 'I really believe that the basic conservative ideas and ideals were not repudiated. Our execution was.' . . .

'I think there's room for a full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative in the field,' Brownback said. 'I fully agree that other people have much higher name identification than I do. No question about that. But I think what you have to look at is the policy positions they get out once you have an effective campaign.'

Brownback, who was elected in 1996, is a forceful foe of abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. He also has taken a prominent role in the fight against genocide in Sudan's Darfur region.

Source: Kansas Republican Eyes Presidential Bid, by Sam Hananel. Associated Press. (Via RedState.

More Brownback info from Jay Anderson @ Pro Ecclesia

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.

President Bush's Choice for Family Planning Post Criticized

According to the Washington Post, liberals aren't very happy with President Bush's appointment for the head of the family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services:

The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women."

Eric Keroack, medical director for A Woman's Concern, a nonprofit group based in Dorchester, Mass., will become deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the next two weeks, department spokeswoman Christina Pearson said yesterday. . . .

Marilyn Keefe, interim president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents 4,000 family-planning clinics, said Keroack's work "seems to really be geared toward furthering anti-choice, anti-contraception policies." She added that despite the congressional election results, the appointment "goes to show you the importance of controlling the White House and how important federal agencies are in the delivery of health services."

Deal Hudson on "What the Election Means for Religious Conservatives"

Deal Hudson brings another perspective to the elections (What the Election Means for Religious Conservatives Nov. 15, 2006:

In a national conference call with religious conservatives, Sen. Sam Brownback said that President Bush squandered the mandate of the 2004 election by pursuing social security reform when he could have taken action on an important social issue, such as the federal marriage issue.

He also rejected the idea that the election represented a repudiation of social conservatism because the Democrats who were recruited to beat incumbent Republicans were precisely that, social conservatives! Six of the Democrat freshmen are pro-life -- the biggest group since the eighties.

Pro-abortion Republicans, Brownback pointed out, were the biggest losers. A dozen of them are not coming back and that represents about half their total. Congressional Democrats, as a result of who won, are slightly more conservative than before, while Republicans are significantly more conservative.

Patrick Hynes, author of In Defense of the Religious Right, asked Sen. Brownback what religious conservatives can learn from their five losses on ballot questions: Arizona's same-sex marriage amendment, California's parental notification initiative; Oregon's parental notification initiative; Missouri's embryonic stem cell and human cloning initiative; and South Dakota's abortion ban.

Sen. Brownback stated that in Missouri, social conservatives were out-spent 20-to-1 and every major Republican state office holder, including the governor, supported the measure. Nevertheless, the measure only passed with 50.3 percent of the vote.

Regarding South Dakota, Sen. Brownback suggested that going for the full ban with no exceptions for rape and incest may have been a mistake. Nevertheless, he applauded the initiative as a courageous effort to launch an important national debate.

Sen. Brownback agreed that the failure to pass the same-sex marriage amendment in Arizona is of great concern. Arizona, he said, became the first state in the country to reject such a ban by democratic means. Sen. Brownback echoed a previously expressed sentiment that religious conservatives need to work especially hard in the interior west Sunbelt region to counter a vibrant libertarian sentiment. . . .READ THE REST

Republicans Chastened in Typical 6th Year Mid-Term Election

The election results as of this hour follow. Democrats gain 27 seats in the House and so control. Now, the House consists of 229 Democrats to 198 Republicans. Republicans can win the House again with new leadership and with dynamic, forceful, and imaginative opposition to the Democrat lunacy you can expect over the next two years. One key factor last night that the media will likely not focus on: the Democrats won in some places by running candidates with conservative Republican views. That means that in some districts where Democrats gained seats conservatism still is the reigning political philosophy. It will be interesting to see if House Republicans can form a strategic alliance with those conservative "Democrats," as was done during the Reagan years.


Senate control is still undecided. It looks like the results in Montana will decide if we get a Republican Senate to review the next Supreme Court nomination. Pray for Montana. The big shocker last night was the loss in Missouri. The great blessing in the Senate races was the win in Tennessee. So, as of now, the Senate numbers are 49 Republicans and 47 Democrats, with 2 undecided (Virginia and Montana). The other big disappointment last night was the apparent loss of Michael Steele for Maryland Senate. Steele would have been a great addition to the Senate as an African-American Republican. The Republican Party deserves credit for recruiting him as a candidate and for also recruiting African-American candidates for governor in Ohio and Pennsylvania. One day we will break the dysfunctional Democratic stranglehold on the African-American vote.


My observations on the election:


1. It's time, as noted before, for dynamic and forceful opposition based on a consistent, bold conservative philosophy. The Democrats offer nothing constructive for the nation. It will be easy to expose that.


2. Build a working alliance with new and old conservative Democrats in the House, as in the Reagan era.


3. Put pressure on the Iraqis to stop the sectarian fighting soon, or seriously consider partition once and for all. With partition, the U.S. can support its real allies in Iraq and take specific aim at its enemies (those who harbor terrorists), instead of continuing to wait on dysfunctional Iraqi politicians to get their act together. Partition may be the key to separating the sheep from the goats and thus bring clarity to the conflict. Partition may also deny terrorists the chance to take over an intact nation-state with great oil wealth.


4. Note that a two bans on "gay marriage" passed-- in Tennessee and in Virginia. Also, note that a conservative Christian Republican Sarah Palin won the Senate seat in Alaska against a veteran Democratic politician. She is a great fresh face for true conservatives. And, speaking of true conservatives, it is a good thing that a Republican liberal like Chafee lost in Rhode Island. It's a welcome purging of a pro-abortion Republican. Also, note that in Michigan, a proposal to ban traditional affirmative action approaches passed. That means that public institutions will be forced to find creative ways to help the economically disadvantaged of all races without creating racial conflict. The fact that Michigan, a state that tilts Democratic, passed the ban is a sign that we need to leave racial preferences behind in the quest for social justice. School vouchers are the best way to attain the just goals of genuine affirmative action. So Republican losses don't necessarily mean a defeat for conservatism.


5. Now is a great opportunity for the President to come out swinging and take bold, challenging initiatives. He will hold a news conference today at 1 p.m. The losses for the Republicans in the sixth year of a Republican White House are historically typical for the incumbent party. It's the typical price you pay for winning the presidency twice in a row. The presidency is worth that price. Here is the historical perspective from a Washington Post article from earlier this year (January 29, 2006):


History appears to favor the Democrats. Midterm elections in the sixth year of a two-term presidency have proved particularly difficult for the party in the White House. Republicans suffered significant losses in the midterm elections of 1958, 1974 and 1986, the sixth year of presidency for Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon and Ronald Reagan, respectively. Democrats took a bath in 1966, the sixth year of the combined administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.


But there was a notable anomaly. In 1998, aided by public backlash against Republican calls for impeachment, Democrats gained seats in the House and held even in the Senate in Bill Clinton's sixth year in office.

Whether that was an aberration or the disintegration of the pattern of the "six-year itch" will not be clear until November. Nor will it be clear, even if the Democrats gain nominal ground in November, whether that signals a broader shift away from the Republicans that could carry over to 2008 or was merely an outcome typical of midterm elections.


"Bush's Midterm Challenge," Washington Post, Jan. 29, 2006, by Dan Balz, at this link.


Adversity breeds character, initiative, boldness, dynamism, and clarity. Take the gift and run with it.

Elections 2006

Just a brief roundup of posts, perhaps updated as the evening progresses. Oswald Sobrino has a post as well. And of course ongoing election night chatter from the National Review.

• Voting with Michael Steele, by Sonny Bunch. Weekly Standard Nov. 7, 2006, on the woes of being a Black Conservative Republican:

  Standing in line to vote with his wife, the pair wearing matching blue Under Armour windbreakers, Steele was surrounded by folks who clearly had no desire to vote for him. They made snide comments behind his back. "They're just trying to trick us, but we know better," exclaimed one elderly woman. She went on to explain that Steele's great "trick" was not cutting to the front, but instead choosing to stand in line like everyone else. . . .

• For Orson Scott Card, there is only one issue this election day RealClear Politics Nov. 6, 2006:

  [A]s a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

  But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

  (Response & discussion over at Jimmmy Akin's)

• Paul Zummo ("The Cranky Conservative") mirrors my thoughts -- "Ideologically this election is a clear choice.":

  Steele is a true blue, Catholic conservative. I was impressed by him the first time I saw him speak at a Knight of Columbus gathering last winter. He's an engaging speaker who has full command of the political scene, and he's on the same page as me on the issues that truly matter. So, there was never any doubt as to whether or not I would vote for him.

  But as the campaign has progressed, it's become much more important to me to see him win. This morning I saw a picture of Ben Cardin, and I think it was the first time I had seen his face during the campaign. That should give you an indication of the absolutely atrocious campaign that the invisible man has run. On the other hand, Steele has run one of the most magnificent campaigns I have ever observed. Sure, the puppy add might have been a bit of fluff, but it was also a smart ad that showed that Steele was a little different from the rest. His campaign has accentuated the positive, a stark contrast to Cardin, and especially the pathetic Webb-Allen fiasco (more on that in a second).

  Cardin's basic line of attack is basically to accuse Steele of actually liking George Bush. While that sort of campaign makes copious amounts of sense in a heavily Democratic state, and I can't really blame Cardin for taking advantage of Bush's unpopularity, the lack of substance truly aggravates me. On every level I want Steele to pull this out.

• Domenico Bettinelli, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have much of a choice (Whither the Catholic Voter?" ):

  There’s the dark warning that if you don’t go to the polls and vote for your Republican candidate, then the evil Democrats will win. On the other hand, what if there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two on issues that matter to me? In Massachusetts, both the Republican and Democrat candidates are pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research, and effectively pro-gay marriage. (The Republican supports civil unions which are gay marriage in all but name.) So what’s left? Taxes?

The Wall Street Journal is providing An hour-by-hour guide to tonight's Election results. Stay tuned. . . .

Seven principles to use in the public square

What we claim to believe as Christians must inform all aspects of our lives.

by Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

In his comments to the 2006 Gospel of Life conference on Oct. 28, Archbishop Chaput outlined seven simple principles that Catholics should use to inform their actions in the public square — this year and every year, whether elections loom or not.

1. Relationships have consequences. If we claim to love someone or believe something, we should act accordingly. A married man should be faithful to his wife all the time, every day, in every way. In like manner, a baptized person should seek to be faithful to Jesus Christ all the time, every day, in every way.

2. Jesus gave us the Church as our mother and teacher. She speaks for Jesus Christ and teaches in His name. Therefore, we owe the same fidelity to the Church that we owe to Christ.

3. Jesus told us to “make disciples of all nations” and to be “leaven in the world.” The Epistle of James tells us to be “doers of [God’s] word, and not hearers only,” and that “faith without works is dead.” What we claim to believe as Christians, we need to then prove by our actions — in every aspect of our lives; our families, our friendships, our work and business dealings, and also in our political choices. Otherwise we’re just lying to ourselves and others.

4. Catholic teaching has two basic principles we should use in judging every public issue: First, does this issue advance the dignity of the individual human person; and second, does this issue promote the common good? We can never choose one of these principles to the exclusion of the other. We need to follow both. A public policy can’t truly serve the common good if it violates, or allows to be violated, the sanctity of someone’s fundamental human rights, from conception to natural death.

5. We should bring our faith to bear on all public issues. But not all public issues are equal. Many are important. But some, like the right to life itself, are foundational.

6. As Catholics, we need to think and vote according to our consciences. But a human “conscience” doesn’t suddenly happen out of thin air. It needs to be cultivated, grow and be formed in the light of truth, so that we can understand the difference between good and evil in a genuinely Christian way. Conscience is never simply a matter of personal opinion or preference. It’s not what we want to do, but what we know we should do because of God’s truth in our hearts. We discover that truth by thinking and praying seriously over what Christ’s Church teaches, and trying to conform our actions to her moral guidance.

7. Jesus tells us to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” That means we have a serious duty to respect and appropriately serve public authority. But Jesus doesn’t tell us how much actually belongs to Caesar — and in fact, all of the important things about our lives belong not to Caesar, but to God. God should always come first. When we seek first to be “faithful citizens” of our real and ultimate home — heaven — then we naturally become better citizens of this world, because we become sources of virtue and character and justice for the people around us, even when our message is unpopular. The more truly and faithfully we live as Catholics, the more truly and faithfully we serve our nation’s best ideals and deepest needs.

Pope Benedict Outraged by Actions of Pro-Life Catholic Laity.

Perked your curiousity? -- Check out Fumare.