In a pre-emptive move ahead of likely House action, President Bush vowed Thursday to veto any measure allowing federal funding for abortions or for any organization that encourages them as a means of family planning:

“I am concerned that this year the Congress may consider legislation that could substantially change federal policies and laws on abortion, and allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life,” Bush said in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). . . .

Bush sent his letter before the House considers a bill to fund the U.S. Agency for International Development. Republicans are concerned Democrats will use the measure to roll back a law prohibiting the agency from giving money to nongovernmental agencies that “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” in other countries.

The spending subcommittee on foreign operations, chaired by Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), will consider changing the current law, signed in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan and referred to by its opponents as the “Global Gag Rule.” Bush extended the prohibition shortly after taking office.

“I will veto any legislation that weakens current federal policies and laws on abortion, or that encourages the destruction of human life,’’ Bush said in his letter.

(Via Deal Hudson).

Peter Sprigg on "Robert Drinan, Infanticide, and the 'Unthinkable'"

Robert Drinan, Infanticide, and the “Unthinkable”, by Peter Sprigg. First Things' "On The Square". April 30, 2007.

Peter Sprigg is vice president for policy at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. He served as economic development assistant to Congressman Robert Drinan (D-MA) in his district office in Waltham, Massachusetts, from 1980 to 1981.

Please Pray for Fr. Rob Johansen

Urgent prayer request for Fr. Rob Johansen, a longtime blogger at Thrown Back, who has suffered a heart attack. (Heard from Mark Shea by way of Domenico Bettinelli.)

False alarm? -- I'm pleased to report that Fr. Rob is alive and well..

To Vote . . . Or Not to Vote?

Abortion Ruling Is All About Alito. Pro Ecclesia Friday, April 20, 2007. Jay makes a good point here:

Andrew Cohen laments at The Washington Post:

This is why presidential elections matter even if and when you don't particularly like one candidate or the other. The re-election of George W. Bush in 2004 begat the nomination to the United States Supreme Court of Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Justice Alito's ascencion to the High Court last year begat today a landmark abortion ruling that anti-abortion advocates have pushed to get for years. You can spin this any other way you want but in the end it comes down to a simple matter of personnel. Justice Alito was willing and able to go in the law where his predecessor, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't. And, as a result, doctors in this country now may be sent to federal prison for performing a type of abortion procedure even if those doctors believe that a woman's health would be jeopardized by not having the procedure. As the late, great Kurt Vonnegut might have said: so it goes.

To which Jay comments:

Let me repeat and emphasize the one thing on which I agree with Cohen: "This is why presidential elections matter even if and when you don't particularly like one candidate or the other."

Back in 2004, the Catholic philosopher Alisdair Macintyre expressed the opinion that The Only Vote Worth Casting in November was . . . no vote at all:

. . . the only vote worth casting in November is a vote that no one will be able to cast, a vote against a system that presents one with a choice between Bush's conservatism and Kerry's liberalism, those two partners in ideological debate, both of whom need the other as a target.

Why should we reject both? Not primarily because they give us wrong answers, but because they answer the wrong questions. What then are the right political questions? One of them is: What do we owe our children? And the answer is that we owe them the best chance that we can give them of protection and fostering from the moment of conception onwards. And we can only achieve that if we give them the best chance that we can both of a flourishing family life, in which the work of their parents is fairly and adequately rewarded, and of an education which will enable them to flourish.

Other Catholics have expressed similar dissatisfaction with the present administration and the GOP in general. Last November, Catholic apologist and fellow blogger Mark Shea wrote dismissively of the choice in the mid-term elections as one between "Tweedledee and Tweedledum", and voted for a third-party candidate, so as to express his dissatisfaction with what he habitually refers to as "the torture party" or "the Stupid Party" (who he presumes operates under the motto: "We Exploit Pro-lifers Every Four Years by Pretending to Care about Human Life").

There is an element of truth to Mark's criticism of the GOP. After all, Hadley Arkes had his own bone to pick with the Bush Administration shortly after the 2004 election, characterizing the outcome as "Bush's Second Chance" (First Things April 2005). At the same time, I think that a blanket condemnation of the GOP such as made by Shea -- even in jest -- does a disservice to the many Catholic (or Protestant) Republicans who do work tirelessly to pass pro-life legislation. (I see that I'm not the only one noticing the bitterness and cynicism emanating from Catholic & Enjoying It these days).

Honestly, if this post sounds conflicted, it's because I am. There's a lot of discussion lately about a crisis of identity within the GOP -- the candidacy of "pro-choice Catholic" Rudy Giuliani being a present symptom. And I think we would be in something of a predicament were Giuliani to actually be the presidential nominee. Were that to happen, do you make the attempt to save the GOP by working from within? Or do you "opt out" and resign yourself to criticizing from afar?

Which would have the better chance of reforming the party or doing some good in the long term?

Like my colleagues, the prospect of a Giuliani presidential nomination is a fearful one. But I also have strong difficulties with the decision to abstain from voting, or to cast a principled-but-ultimately-ineffective vote for a third-party candidate which no clear chance of electoral victory. I would be greatly concerned were religious conservatives to embark on a "protest vote" en masse, because in either case, the outcome is the same: one hands over the victory to the Democrats, and those who are arguably more likely to do greater damage, rolling back any legislative pro-life gains made by Republicans. Consider:

• According to the Washington Post, crisis pregnancy centers have received 60 million in federal funding since 2001 ("Altogether, local antiabortion and crisis pregnancy centers have received well over $60 million in grants for abstinence education and other programs" "Grants Flow To Bush Allies On Social Issues" March 22, 2006. One knows what would have happened under a Kerry presidency -- and one can reasonably predict what would occur under Hillary Clinton or Obama.
  

• Consider also the heavily contested the Mexico City Policy instituted by President Reagan, requiring "nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of [U.S.] federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations." The policy was repealed by President Clinton on his first day of office, and then reinstated January 22, 2001, by president George W. Bush. Senator Kerry in turn vowed to revoke it, were he elected president. Again, whoever is elected to the presidency, his action would likely adhere to the example set forth by his party.
  

• Consider what might have happened had Christians, despite their concerns about the Bush administration, embraced a position of non-engagement and "opted out" of the election in 2004 . . . and those Supreme Court judges appointed by President Bush were intead appointed by a certain "pro-choice Catholic" senator from Massachusetts? -- Would we have anything to celebrate this past week?
  

Food for thought and discussion.

New Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought

The new Encylopedia of Catholic Social Thought will go on sale on or about July 15, 2007. It is a publication faithful to the magisterium and will be of great interest to all, Catholic or non-Catholic. Among the co-editors, you will find a law professor at Ave Maria Law School in Ann Arbor and a political science professor from Franciscan University in Steubenville. The publication is a project of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists, of which I am a member. I was also fortunate to have the chance to contribute several articles to the encyclopedia. It was a pleasure to work with the co-editors. As a reference work, the price is hefty--so consider asking your local public, college, seminary, or parish libraries to make the purchase. It's a timely publishing date, given the upcoming 2008 presidential election and the recent pro-life victory at the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is the link to the sales site.

Bush Appointees Key to Upholding Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Yesterday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a 5-4 victory for pro-life forces that endangers Roe v. Wade. The victory upholds the ban on partial birth abortion signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2003. Here are the five justices voting to uphold the ban: Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Sam Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Anthony Kennedy. The losers, this time, were these four: Justices Breyer, Souter, Stevens, and Ginsburg. Here is the link to the AP story. There will be a lot of chest-thumping Bush fans today among pro-life Catholics and other pro-life Christians. I, for one, have never flagged in my support of George W. Bush, in spite of the firestorm over the Iraq war. Thanks, President Bush, for keeping your campaign promises to appoint pro-life justices like John Roberts and Sam Alito.

Catholics in Public Life: Judges, Legislators, and Voters

From Fidelis:

Greg Kalscheur, SJ, has wrtten an excellent paper entitled "Catholics in Public Life: Judges, Legislators, and Voters."

The essay focuses on how a judge who is a faithful Catholic can function in a a constitutional system where cases before the judge contain issues which the Church addresses through its teachings in the Magisterium.

Click here to access the document and then click on "Download Document" in the upper left hand side of the website you access.

"The Church Will Not Be Hannitized"

Fox News' Sean Hannity displayed his ignorance about his Catholic faith in a television exchange with Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer of Human Life International.

You can watch the video here; for articles and responses, see HLI.org's Hannity vs. Euteneuer, with special attention to "The Church Will Not Be Hannitized" (Human Life International e-Newsletter Volume 01, Number 59).

Is Rick Santorum Backing Giuliani?

Both Pro Ecclesia and Res Publica et Cetera (here and here) link to stories indicating that former Sen. Rick Santorum may be preparing to support Rudy Giuliani's bid for the White House.

It wouldn't be the first time Santorum has placed party and political expediency above principle.

National Catholic Register: "No Deal, Rudy"

The editors of the National Catholic Register have now joined the fray against the headlong rush to annoint Rudy as the 2008 Republican nominee for president:

They are saying that the next GOP presidential candidate might very well be a pro-abortion Republican who promises not to push that issue and is strong on other issues.

They hope that pro-lifers will “be reasonable,” not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and go along quietly.

We won’t.

***
... Rudy Giuliani has become a favorite for president of conservative talk-show hosts, and pro-war and tough-on-crime Republicans. He’s also way ahead in polls like Newsweek’s, though it’s anyone guess what such polls mean so early in the process.

The way the pro-Rudy argument goes is this: For the past three decades, social conservatives have had the luxury of insisting on purity in the Republican Party. Their clout was such that any candidate had to undergo a “forced conversion” before running for national office. But 9/11 changed that. Now, extremist Islam and the war on terror are such all-consuming issues, and we can’t be so caught up with abortion anymore.

Since Giuliani is committed to the war on terror and is a great crisis manager with a track record rooting out the gangs of New York, we shouldn’t demand that he be pro-life, but instead we should be willing to make a deal.

Rudy’s deal: He’ll promise not to push the pro-abortion agenda, and he’ll nominate judges in the mold of Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Pro-lifers in the Republican Party in return would support him, but keep insisting that the party stay pro-life, and fight our fiercest pro-life battles at the state level, where they belong.

That seems like a good deal, at first blush. We’re well aware that “forced conversions” to the pro-life fold are far from the ideal. Think of the candidacy of Bob Dole in 1996. And it is true that the fight against judicial tyranny is an immense front in the battle for the right to life. Transforming the courts is a prerequisite to victory elsewhere.

But what dooms the deal from the start is the fact that it totally misunderstands what pro-lifers care about in the first place.

When they ask us to “be reasonable” and go along with a pro-abortion leader, they assume that there is something unreasonable about the pro-life position to start with.

We’re sorry, but we don’t see what is so unreasonable about the right to life. We’ve seen ultrasounds, we’ve named our babies in the womb, we’ve seen women destroyed by abortion. What looks supremely unreasonable to us is that we should trust a leader who not doesn’t only reject the right to life but even supports partial-birth abortion, which is more infanticide than abortion.

We also see the downside of Rudy’s deal. If pro-lifers went along, we’d soon find out that a pro-abortion Republican president would no longer preside over a pro-life party. The power a president exerts over his party’s character is nearly absolute. The party is changed in his image. He picks those who run it and, both directly and indirectly, those who enter it.

***
The bottom line: Republicans have made inroads into the Catholic vote for years because of the pro-life issue. If they put a pro-abortion politician up for president, the gains they’ve built for decades will vanish overnight.

[More]

*Shut Up and Eat Your Peas

Fr. Martin Fox has a great post "Weekly Standard: throw prolifers under the bus" about all of the Rudy Giuliani support.

Also Jay Anderson posts in response to Fr. Fox's post Weekly Standard to Pro-Lifers: Shut Up and Eat Your Peas.

I have found all this Giuliani apologetics in recent weeks to be quite sickening. Why is the GOP looking for their own version of President Clinton? Whatever happened to character mattering which was the bugle call during the Clinton years?

We hear that he will give us judges in the mode of Scalia as the constant refrain. That even though he is pro-abortion he will vote the right way on these issues. So I guess now if a candidate is a hypocrite it is okay as long he votes with us. It doesn't matter what he believes, it is how he acts. Now we have come to find this quite common among Democrats in how their personally held opinions won't affect how they vote, and they were rightly mocked for this total lack of personal integrity. Now though we are using open-arms to welcome candidates with the exact same schism between beliefs and actions. Only it is acceptable if the personal schism goes the right way.

Though this idea of Giuliani appointing judges that are strict constructionalist is pretty laughable. He didn't do this in his eight years as mayor where he appointed Democrats over Republicans 8 to 1 with many outright abortion supporters. His pick of judges was praised by NARAL Pro-Choice New York.

Somehow I guess we are suppose to ignore all of his character flaws, affairs, and being the wrong side on so many issues because he will be good concerning the war on terror. That he can be wrong on so many issues of much importance, yet he will be near flawless in his choices in the fight against terrorism. Responding quite well in aftermath of the 9/11 attack does not mean that he will make the right moral choices in fighting terrorism.

Giuliani I mentioned would be our version of Bill Clinton in many ways, and in many others he will be our version of John Kerry. Kerry is a Catholic who is personally opposed, yet would vote for abortion. Giuliani as a Catholic is personally for but will vote against it. They are flip-flop mirror images of each other concerning abortion though they are quite syncopated on many other social issues. Why in the world is so many in the GOP running down the hill to make their first Catholic nominee someone hardly distinguishable from Democratic versions of the same? Exactly where is the clamor for Communion to be denied for Rudy as there was for John Kerry? Though Rudy isn't the nominee yet and I hope the day never comes where he is.

Unjust Choices

From Bishop Vasa's latest column.

Some months ago a prominent Catholic public person, described as faithful to the church, was asked if being pro-choice or pro-abortion was an issue which conflicted with the Catholic Faith.

Here is what was said: "To me it isn't even a question. God has given us a free will. We're all responsible for our actions. If you don't want an abortion, you don't believe in it, then don't have one. But don't tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities." According to a close relative the choice to have an abortion or not to have an abortion had no moral component whatsoever. "They were just choices."

It seems to me that there are just choices and there are unjust choices. Choices would be the preference for chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream or sherbet instead of ice cream. That is just a choice.
A just choice would be to choose to pay a fair and living wage to employees as opposed to simply meeting the mandatory standard of minimum wage laws. An unjust choice would be to choose to terminate the life of another human being. This is not just a choice and it is not a just choice; it is an unjust choice.

Furthermore it is an unjust choice which is diametrically opposed to the clear and consistent teaching of the Catholic Church as well as to the clear and consistent teaching of God Himself in the Ten Commandments. The direct, intentional taking of the life of an innocent human being is inhumane and unjust. It is not just a choice!

It is categorically impossible for the same person to state that he or she believes simultaneously both what the Catholic Church teaches and that abortion is just a choice. What we believe must inform what we do.

Of course that Catholic politician he references is Nancy Pelosi.

Sen. Sam Brownback for President

A lot is at stake. But now is the time to go for broke and vote with our hearts. Here is a link to a good analysis of Sen. Sam Brownback from Kansas, a genuine Catholic on the life issues who is also a genuine Catholic on other issues of social justice. He doesn't fit the unfair stereotype of the conservative Catholic oblivious to the poor. The primaries are the time to vote with your heart. In the general election, we can all unite against Hillary Clinton. By the way, you can vote your preference in the Pajamas Media Presidential Straw Poll in the side margin of my Catholic Analysis blog and, I am sure, at other websites.

Fargo Bishop: Catholic Politicians Must Act Upon Truth of Inherent Dignity of Human Person to be Faithful Catholics

(Hat tip: Catholic World News)

From the Diocese of Fargo, ND:

Catholic politicians must act upon the truth of the inherent dignity of the human person to be faithful Catholics, Bishop Samuel Aquila writes in newspaper column

In his February diocesan newspaper column, Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fargo, reminds Catholic politicians of their responsibility to ensure that their actions reflect their Catholic faith.

“Every act of violence that attacks an innocent human person from the moment of conception to natural death is against the will of God and rejects the inherent dignity of the human person,” the bishop wrote. “Every Catholic politician must recognize and act upon this truth to be a faithful Catholic.”

The column is an edited version of the homily Bishop Aquila presented at the Jan. 18 Legislative Mass celebrated at the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit in Bismarck. It will appear in New Earth, the newspaper for the Diocese of Fargo, which will be printed Feb. 15.

“We cannot leave God at the door when we walk into the legislature,” the bishop reminds Catholic politicians, “but rather we must allow the truth of God and the truth of the dignity of the human person to guide us in every decision we make. With each law or bill we consider, we must be, first, a people who recognize that there is the inherent dignity of human life that is bestowed by God and that can never be violated.”

He continues, “Once we begin to be the ones who determine what is good or what is evil, once we begin to be the ones who determine which human person has dignity and which one doesn’t, we will see…what happens to a society.” Bishop Aquila refers to the movie “Blood Diamond,” saying, “In that society the lust for power, the lust for money, the lust for control overtakes and guides the human heart, with the result that violence and murder govern the society.”

In addition to the unborn, the column addresses the dignity of illegal aliens and those sentenced to the death penalty. The bishop questions how people who believe in God can express hatred for illegal aliens or “cheer when a capital punishment sentence is given.” He notes what offenses against life are most grave. “As faithful Catholics, we acknowledge that the gravest attacks against the dignity of human life are those that destroy innocent human life, as in abortion, euthanasia and genocide.”

The full column can be found at
http://www.fargodiocese.org/news/FromBishopsOffice.htm.

Terrence Jeffrey at National Review: "Rudy’s a No-Go"

Terence P. Jeffrey, writing at National Review Online, says "Free markets and the rule of law are great, but support for them doesn’t make Rudy Giuliani a conservative":

“Murder and graffiti are two vastly different crimes,” Rudy Giuliani once said. “But they are part of the same continuum, and a climate that tolerates one is more likely to tolerate the other.”

Good point, Rudy.

Now, what about a climate — not to mention a Republican presidential candidate — that not only tolerates, but allows unelected judges to legalize the practice of delivering a child until only its head remains within its mothers womb so the child can be killed by sucking out its brains?

What about a climate where same-sex couples are given the same legal status as married couples, whether the resulting arrangements are candidly called “same-sex marriages,” or are semantically papered-over with terms such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships”?

Apply the Giuliani Continuum to fundamental issues such as marriage and the right to life, and where does it lead?

Not where conservatives want America to be.

***
Giuliani’s positions on abortion and marriage disqualify him as a conservative because they annihilate the link between the natural law and man-made laws. Indeed, they use man-made law to promote and protect acts that violate the natural law.

***
By advocating abortion on demand and same-sex unions, Rudy is doing something far more egregious than, say, defacing a New York subway train. He is defacing the institution that forms the foundation of human civilization.

[More]

Fr. John Malloy writes an "Open Letter to Nancy Pelosi"

Fr. John Malloy, pastor of Saints Peter and Paul Church in San Francisco, penned this “Open letter to Nancy Pelosi,” which was recently published in the parish bulletin. California Catholic Daily reprints the letter with Fr. Malloy's permission.

Brownback on "Fundamental Kindness"

. . . Fundamental kindness and goodness is the thread that runs through any subject on which Brownback is asked to elaborate.

Acknowledging that he is strongly pro-life, Brownback stresses that Americans need to see each other in a more “human” way in all settings.

“Not just for the child in the womb ... but for the person in prison ... for the child in Darfur. I just don’t think we’re looking at each other as precious enough,” he said in an interview. “I know this may seem to be an abstract concept (but extends to) the way you look at the guy in the coffee shop, or in McDonald’s.

“Do you look through him just to get your cup of coffee, or do you look at him and see him?” he asked. “I think it’s a real problem for us.”

-- Presidential candidate Brownback visits Naples, by I.M. Stackel. NaplesNews.com. February 3, 2007. (Hat tip: Jay Anderson).

Rev. Robert Drinan - Dead at 86

Rev. Robert Drinan, Ex-Congressman, Dies at 86 New York Times January 9, 2007.

In 1980 Pope John Paul II ordered Drinan to vacate his seat in Congress. In 1996 Drinan spoke out in favor of Bill Clinton's veto of the partial birth abortion ban. He also was an advisor on religious affairs to John Kerry during his 2004 presidential campaign. And in 2007 he was celebrant to a mass honoring Nancy Pelosi.

To quote Fr. Neuhaus, "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."

Bill Cork remarks:

Imagine what he could have done in politics in the 1970s if he had opposed abortion with the same vigor with which he opposed Republicans.

He now faces a more harsh tribunal than either the halls of Congress or the blogosphere.

God have mercy on his soul.

• The Strange Political Career of Father Drinan, by James Hitchcock. Catholic World News. January 9, 2002.
  

Cardinal Egan: Hillary, Pataki, Giuliani "friends of mine"

"Pro-Abort Politicians 'Friends of Mine' says New York Cardinal Egan", by Hilary White. LifeSiteNews.com January 26, 2006:

The NBC interviewer, David Ushery, asked for the Cardinal's response to the pro-abortion stance of three of the most prominent politicians in New York, presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani, and ex-governor of New York George Pataki.

Cardinal Egan responded, "They're all friends of mine."

"Governor Pataki's a friend of mine, Mayor Giuliani's a friend of mine, Senator Clinton is a friend of mine and whomever else you want to name."

The Cardinal added, "I think I'm a good friend of all three of these people, whom you've mentioned or whom I've mentioned. And I wish them all the best, and they've been very good to us. And I will vote, I assure you, right here in the New York, and that will be one vote. I won't ask you to vote the way I think you ought to vote."

Read The full transcript of the NBC interview, in which Cardinal Egan makes his case for abstaining from comment:

Cardinal EGAN: And Governor Pataki's a friend of mine, Mayor Giuliani's a friend of mine, Senator Clinton is a friend of mine and whomever else you want to name. And I've been very, very careful, I hope you notice. Never have I got into partisan politics of any kind at all. You know, I told you that we're going to be 200 years old.

USHERY: Right. And you're going to be preaching about that later today at the cathedral, and on Sunday.

Cardinal EGAN: Exactly. But if you go back to the first bishop we had, Bishop Carroll...

USHERY: Mm-hmm.

Cardinal EGAN: ...was the only bishop we had back in the 1800s, the early 1800s. He made it very clear that once he got himself into a political situation and years later he said how he regretted doing that, that his job was to preach the gospel, to celebrate the liturgy and to do the works of charity and justice. And I belive that John Carroll got it right. And so, no, don't ever expect me to be involved in partisan politics. I think I'm a good friend of all three of these people, whom you've mentioned or whom I've mentioned. And I wish them all the best, and they've been very good to us. And I will vote, I assure you, right here in the New York, and that will be one vote. I won't ask you to vote the way I think you ought to vote.

Giulian's record on abortion is pretty clear:

“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded. [Source: CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999].

He has been out of the public eye for a while, but it is doubtful as to whether he has reconsidered his position. Pataki's record is, well, mixed, and I think Senator Hillary Clinton's deplorable record on abortion and related issues needs no introduction.

Telling Catholics whom to vote for is one thing. I agree, for example, with CPS colleague Jay Anderson's reservations about Fr. Pavone formally joining Brownback's team. On the other hand, I think there are a good many faithful Catholic citizens of New York who would hope that Cardinal Egan, if given the opportunity to comment on the voting records of prospective presidential candidates, especially Catholic ones, would do something more than assert his personal friendship. Hence like Fr. Neuhaus' remark:

But of course [Egan] 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.

Roe v. Wade Must Be Destroyed

Cato would end every speech to his fellow Roman senators with the plea that "Carthage must be destroyed" ("Carthago delenda est"). Those many of us who find Roe v. Wade to be an evil and oppressive tyranny will also never tire of saying: Roe must be wiped out. By embracing the genocidal evil of abortion, the United States imported into the heart of its legal system the policies of Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein. The abortion tyranny imposed by a now discredited legal system was a unilateral surrender to all the ideologies of mass murder that marked the twentieth century, with the special twist that now the mass murder was justified as part of the "right" to casual sex.

One biblical commentator I read recently noted that we cannot view all distress that we suffer as punishment for sin (the Gospel story of Jesus and the man blind from birth and Jesus' commentary on those killed by a falling tower show that). But, on the other hand, the same commentator noted that we cannot automatically rule tragedy out as a punishment for sin. Catholics know or should know that sin, even if forgiven, carries temporal consequences. If sin is what is self-destructive to our humanity, then we should not be surprised if real and concrete destructive consequences follow when we mutilate our humanity. What the commentator sensibly called for was an examination of conscience in the face of tragedy and distress. The examination of conscience leaves open the question whether tragedy is a punishment for sin--but the question is there to be faced and answered one way or another.

If, as a nation, we do an examination of conscience today on the anniversary of the birth of the oppressive tyranny of Roe v. Wade, we can consider a distressing history that followed the infamous decision. In 1973, when the tyranny was born, the U.S. also lost its first war, ever, in Vietnam. The 1973 Vietnam Paris Peace Accords sealed the defeat. Shortly, thereafter, in 1974, the first U.S. President resigned from office to avoid impeachment. In the seventies, we went through our worst economic period since the Great Depression (remember "stagflation," that combination of high inflation and high unemployment?). We ended the seventies with the disastrous leadership of Jimmy Carter, who is still off-key and lost in his signature misguided way--most recently in his portrayal of Israel as a racist South Africa. We then entered the eighties with the renewed leadership of Ronald Reagan. But the social rot was in, even if there was finally a man of decisive character in the White House trying to bail us out: sexual shacking up became ever-present, bridal virginity rare, divorce almost inevitable, drug and other substance use continued to explode, all topped off with a giddy and tasteless consumerism and materialism fueled by obsessive status-seeking.

Then came the nineties with that persistent caricature of the confused baby boomer generation, Bill Clinton, who excelled in moral and political mediocrity, topped off with the Lewinsky fiasco (so graphically emblematic of the idolatry practiced by the devotees of casual sex); while Osama Bin Laden made his preliminary attacks in anticipation of 9/11. Yes, Nero fiddled; while Rome burned. We know what the Neronian Clinton did, while Osama planned and prepared. Clinton became only the second President impeached in American history (the only other was Andrew Johnson in the aftermath of the Civil War). Even Nixon had enough of a sense of honor to avoid that fate by resigning first. But, for many of the baby boomers, personal honor is an archaic leftover for the attic.

Finally, we have faced the attacks of Islamic fanatics under President George W. Bush, a president who is a baby boomer aberration: a committed Christian who is straightforward in taking the battle straight to the source of the evil threatening us. As to be expected, many of the rest of the baby boomer generation turned with venom and vitriol against this traitor to the moral confusion so openly pioneered by that generation. They have tried everything to bring him down, even seeking to promote an American defeat in the War on Islamic Terror.

A society that has enshrined mass murder in the heart of its legal system has made a mockery of the sacrifice made by so many in the wars against Nazism, Communism, and now Islamic imperialism. That consumption-addicted nation, bereft of honor in the most intimate relations of men and women, is burdened by the culture of selfish, mindless, and savage hedonism that gave us Roe v. Wade. That burden must be removed for us to flourish again. To update Cato, Roe v. Wade must be destroyed.