Proud to be Catholic and American?

Some of our Catholic brethren have an . . . alternate take (to put it charitably) on Memorial Day and other American holidays. Here is Michael J. Iafrate (Catholic Anarchy / Vox Nova) on Memorial Day and the Religious Syncretism of the State:

Two years ago, on the Sunday before Memorial Day, a visiting priest was celebrating Mass at my parish in West Virginia. Near the end of Mass, before he processed out of the church he wanted, in light of the upcoming holiday, to honor the soldiers who "made the ultimate sacrifice for us." All of this he said in front of a giant crucifix which, last time I checked, represents the "ultimate sacrifice" in which Christians believe and which, indeed, we had just celebrated in the Eucharistic action. As a fitting conclusion to the patriotic Mass, the congregation sang, not to Jesus, but to the country itself in the words of "America the Beautiful."

We get into a really dangerous place when we start confusing our myths and our holidays. Memorial Day honors the memory of those who gave their lives serving the United States in its military, many of them making the "ultimate sacrifice" (in the state's view) in service to the nation. That's fine. The state needs holidays like this to support its grand narrative and mythology, just like any community of persons.[2] The Church, however, has its own "sort" of "Memorial Day." In fact, our celebration of the Christian "Memorial Day" spans two days: All Saints Day and All Souls Day, November 1 and 2, respectively. These are the days that Christians celebrate the lives of those who have gone before us giving their lives specifically as followers of Christ, many of them making the ultimate sacrifice as martyrs on the way of the cross. . . .

Should not Christians at least consider resisting American holidays as a way of resisting the American mythology, the metanarrative that, as Catholic theologian William Cavanaugh says, serves as an "alternative soteriology" to the Church's story of salvation history?[3] Should we not look for opportunites to subvert the holidays of the empire in which we find ourselves, reminding ourselves of and drawing attention to the ways in which these holidays, as part of American mythology, try to shape our loyalties and practices according to the ideals of the nation-state?

When I speak or write this way, I am often asked if I am advocating a Catholic type of separatism or sectarianism. The answer is no; I am not suggesting a withdrawal from the world. Such a suggestion would deny the mission of the Church for the world. On the other hand, I don’t think the careless syncretism of patriotic Christianity is the only alternative to sectarianism. I think we need a healthy, Catholic suspicion of alternative metanaratives to our own, an ability to clearly understand the differences between the two, and the courage to let that test our celebrations and our social ethics as Catholic Christians.

Responses:

• "I am Catholic, I love America, and So Should You" a lengthy, substantial response from Michael R. Denton (For the Greater Glory) May 26, 2007. [Follow Up: Reaction to the Memorial Day & Catholicism argument May 28, 2007.].
  

• Shades of (red, white, and) blue), by Patrick O'Hannigan (The Paragraph Farmer). May 27, 2007.
  
  

• Catholic Hatriotism, by Victor Morton (Coalition For Fog).
  

• From Radical Catholic Mom @ Vox Nova: Honoring the Dead May 28, 2007:

  When my two Marine brothers were serving at the same time, one in Iraq the other in Afghanistan, I asked a local deacon at my parish to pray for them. Do you know what he said to me? He said, "What is wrong with your family to produce two killers?" I was absolutely stunned and speechless. My brothers joined the Marines directly because of 9/11. My family has produced one police officer, two teachers, and two soldiers: all service professions.

  I understand how Catholics can despise war. We are called to choose peace and live peace. But what do we do when there is war? How do we serve the families of those affected by it? My mother was in Hell when her only sons were in harm's way. She received many prayers and phone calls from lay Catholics, but none from her priests and deacons.

  One of these soldiers who did not come home is being honored by an Afghan village where he served before he was killed by a sniper's bullet. He tried and succeeded to save the life of a little Afghan girl. The Taliban did not help her. But a United States Petty Officer did. If an Afghan village can honor him, can we not as well? His name is US Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class John Fralish. He served in my brother's unit the 1/3 Alpha Company Marine unit as a medic. He is remembered by the 1/3 family and hopefully by other Americans.

  The callous reaction of the Catholic Deacon in her account (which reveals a blatant disregard for the Church's understanding of legitimate use of force and the profession of a soldier) and the worldview of Michael J. Iafrate are not entirely unrelated.
  

Incentives to Further Thought

• On Being Catholic American, by Joseph A. Varacalli. Ignatius Insight May 2005:

  . . . a brief reflection, from what I take to be an authentic Catholic sensibility, on how Catholics ought to analyze their relationship to American society and culture. Put another way, the following question might be posed: "What does American patriotism mean to the serious and devout Catholic?" Or, perhaps and more precisely, the question is: "How can American patriotism be apprehended in a manner consistent with the tenets of the Catholic faith?"

  
  
  
• Civil Allegiance - a primer from the Catholic Enyclopedia (1917). Worth reading.
  

• Can Catholics be Real Americans?, by Mark Brumley. Ignatius Insight November 2004.
  

• Allegiance to God AND Country, by Dr. James Toner. ". . . too many Catholics today seem to accept the idea, not that our allegiance to the state is supreme, but that we ought to have no allegiance to the state (cf. 1 Peter 2:13-14)."
  

Book Review: "Strangers in a Foreign Land: The Organizing of Catholic Latinos in the United States"

Given the current raging debate over immigration reform legislation, it is appropriate to review at this time a recently published book on Latino immigrants in the U.S. (Lexington Press, 2007). The book is by Fr. George E. Schultze, S.J.--don't let the name fool you: he's Latino himself through his mother. The back cover has an endorsement by Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., of Ave Maria University and Ignatius Press reknown. So you can drop the anti-Jesuit bias in this case. Fr. Schultze is a "labor priest." He is passionate about the need for labor unions to ensure a living wage for workers. He is also, as it should be, a good Catholic priest who stands with the magisterium when it comes to being pro-life and in favor of traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

The thesis of the book is that the current American labor movement has marginalized itself by unnecessarily and obtusely tying itself to the pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda of liberal activists. Schultze points out how this alliance with openly anti-Catholic, anti-life, and anti-marriage forces makes it unlikely that unions will be able to organize Hispanic workers who are, for the most part, socially conservative on these cultural issues. Schultze is, in my view, absolutely correct, as Fr. Fessio agrees, in prophetically warning the labor movement of its grand error. The problem is deep because it cannot be reduced to one of mere tactics or strategies. Many top leaders in the American labor movement are indeed pro-abortion and pro-gay by conviction. As someone who has very little familiarity with union affairs, I was amazed at the extent to which AFL-CIO president John Sweeney is in lockstep with the gay agenda (p. 126). I wonder how many union members realize what are the convictions and the agenda of their top leadership.

As someone who does not come from a union background, I am at a disadvantage in reviewing this book. So my observations and reactions are really those of an outsider to the union movement. Yet, I think my reactions are still worth airing, given that most Americans are also outsiders to the union movement. While agreeing with Fr. Schultze's critique of the left-wing cultural bias of the labor movement today, I also share a different perspective from the good Father when it comes to unionism. Maybe, the Catholic response should not be so much to struggle to wean the unions from their new culturally liberal allies. Maybe, the Catholic response should rather be to recognize that the union model itself is out of date in contemporary American society, especially when it comes to Latino immigrants. My personal view is that Latinos should focus on education and not on unionism as the way to improve their own lot and that of their children. The emphasis on education means that as Catholics we should focus on what I think is the long overdue reform that will revolutionize the lives of all the working poor, whether Latino or non-Hispanic: school vouchers for the poor.

I would prefer to see Catholic activism focused on school vouchers for the poor because education is the key to advancement in today's society. In my personal opinion, unionism may very well be passing into social irrelevance in a society where education is key. Yes, the Church teaches that workers have the right to organize unions. But does that teaching mean that we are always tied to the judgment that unions are always the way for the working poor to advance everywhere at all times in history? I think not. My own prudential judgment is that Catholic activism for the working poor would do better to focus on school vouchers, rather than on trying to reform declining unions whose leadership. in many cases, is so hostile by conviction to the culture of its own workers, whether Latino or not.

Norma McCorvey aka "Jane Roe" Endorses Brownback for President

From the Brownback Campaign blog May 23, 2007:

DES MOINES, Ia –U.S. Senator Sam Brownback announced today that he has enlisted the support of Norma McCorvey, the now pro-life “Jane Roe” of the infamous Roe v Wade decision, for his presidential campaign. . . .

Senator Brownback is deeply honored to have earned Norma McCorvey’s endorsement. “Norma McCorvey knows firsthand the darkness of the abortion industry – its danger to both unborn children and their mothers. Her experience as the poster child for the abortion movement exponentially increases the power of her pro-life testimony. I stand with her in her quest to overturn Roe v Wade,” Brownback said.

Norma McCorvey said, “I know the hurts of countless women who have been lied to and manipulated by the abortion industry in this country. Our nation needs a President of strength, courage, and moral fortitude – one who will lead our society on a path that respects human life and human dignity. Senator Sam Brownback’s love for all Americans at every stage of development is unquestioned, and his leadership of the pro-life movement if unrivaled. Sam Brownback is the right person, in the right place, at the right time for our nation as we seek to embrace a culture of life.”

USCCB Responds to House Democrats' Rebuke of the Pope

• May 14, 2007 - House Dems repudiate Pope’s abortion remarks, by Jonathan E. Kaplan. The Hill:

  A group of House Democrats yesterday publicly repudiated the Pope’s recent suggestion that politicians who support abortion rights should be excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.
  

  Eighteen House Democrats, led by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), are responding to Pope Benedict XVI’s statement that indicated he would support Mexican bishops if they were to excommunicate Mexican legislators who voted last month to legalize abortion in Mexico City.
  

  The Pope made his remarks last Wednesday during a news conference aboard a plane before he was to begin a five-day visit to Brazil.
  

  “We are concerned with the Pope’s recent statement warning Catholic elected officials that they risk excommunication and would not receive communion for their pro-choice views,” the lawmakers said in a statement issued yesterday. “Advancing respect for life and for the dignity of every human being is, as our church has taught us, our own life’s mission.”
  

  The Democratic lawmakers said that the suggested penalty “offend[s] the very nature of the American experiment and do[es] a great disservice to the centuries of good work the church has done.”
  

  
  
• May 18, 2007 - Bishops’ Conference Responds To 18 Democrats Critical Of Pope USCCB.org. According to the USCCB, "The 18 Democrats who recently criticized Pope Benedict XVI when he answered questions about Mexico’s legalizing abortion both misrepresented the Pope’s remarks and defied freedom of speech and freedom of religion." The position was noted by Sister Mary Ann Walsh, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Director of Media Relations:

  In an unfortunate May 10 statement, 18 of the 88 Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives criticized Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks concerning Mexican lawmakers legalizing abortion. The Representatives’ statement misrepresents the Holy Father’s remarks and implies that the Church does not have a right to voice its teaching in the public square.
  

  The Holy See has made clear that neither the Mexican bishops nor the Holy Father have excommunicated any legislator. Rather, the Holy See reiterated longstanding Church teaching that anyone who freely and knowingly commits a serious wrong, that is, a mortal sin, should not approach the Eucharist until going to confession.
  

  “The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision of society.” (United States Catechism for Adults, p. 442) Consequently, every Catholic is obliged to respect human life, from conception until natural death.
  

  To suggest that the Church should not clearly voice its teaching and apply it in a pluralistic society is to attack freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The Catholic Church always will and must speak out against the destruction of innocent unborn children. The right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution that all legislators are elected to uphold. Speaking and acting against abortion is not a matter of partisan politics. It is a matter of life and death.

  The bishops urge all Catholics, especially those who hold positions of public responsibility, to educate themselves about the teaching of the Church, and to seek pastoral advice so that they can make informed decisions with consistency and integrity.
  

  
  

Deal Hudson on "Pelosi in the Jesuit Tradition"

Deal Hudson asks:

Last Saturday Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi delivered the commencement address at the University of San Franciso.

Pelosi received the customary honorary doctorate from Fr. Stephen Privett, S.J. who is infamous for having shut down the St. Ignatius Institute, at least in the form it existed under Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.

The Archbishop of San Francisco participated in the ceremonies and lent his praise to the pro-abortion Speaker and resident of his archdiocese. . . .

Whatever happened to the USCCB's own proclamation that Catholic institutions should not honor or provide platforms for Catholic pro-aborts?

Brownback "Pro-Torture"?

Is Sam Brownback pro-torture? May 18, 2007. (Via Jay @ Pro Ecclesia).

Update Jay Anderson and Publius have further noted (and Brownback's campaign blog contends as well), Brownback actually did not specifically endorse the use of torture during the debate, and his remarks (in response to another question) were taken out of context.

In the meantime, Jay has published issued a request for clarification to the Brownback campaign on this issue, and invites others to do so as well.

In the meantime, methinks grandiouse proclamations like "the entire field of GOP Candidates and most of the Allegedly Conservative Punditocracy favors [torture]!" brings more heat than light to the discussion, and Mark Shea (Catholic and Enjoying It) should give Brownback the benefit of the doubt.

On Brownback's (and other Catholic legislators) voting records on any number of issues (including torture), see David Schrader's Catholics in [109th] Congress (Special Report).

"The Good, The Bad, and the Confusing" - Michael Liccione (Sacramentum Vitae) on excommunication latae sententiae, excommunication ferendae sententiae, and "what's good, what's bad, and what's confusing about the state of contemporary Catholicism":

The pope, the bishops, and even some among the lower clergy can say until they're blue in the face that people who formally cooperate in abortion are unworthy to receive the Eucharist; but many bishops and priests will give the Eucharist to such people all the same, citing as justification that they can't be sure, in individual cases, whether the communicant is unworthy at that moment. That is a tiresome, hypocritical, and highly destructive dodge. Most such politicians are utterly unrepentant and make no bones whatsoever about that fact; so until most bishops and priests actually withhold the Eucharist from such people, the Church's claim that such people are unworthy to receive the Eucharist will not be taken seriously, and they will be understood to be "excommunicated" only when decrees of [excommunication ferendae sententiae] are actually issued to that effect. Thus the clash between the good news and the bad news generates a huge amount of confusion, for which the bishops have only themselves to blame.

The solution is simple: withhold the Eucharist from those who, by their public actions and statements, formally cooperate in abortion. A scattering of bishops, both in the U.S. and abroad, do just that. But spreading that solution is not easy because it requires a courage that is in relatively short supply. We witnessed the lack of such courage during the coverup of the sex-abuse scandal. When will they learn that, in matters spiritual, clarity requires integrity and credibility requires both?

Pope Benedict votes for US president - Domenico Bettinelli on the Mainstream Media's hysterics over Pope Benedict XVI.

Fidelis Calls Giuliani a "John Kerry Catholic on Abortion"

Fidelis condemns Giuliani embrace of abortion rights:

CHELSEA, MI – Fidelis President Joseph Cella today condemned the unapologetic embrace of “abortion rights” by Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.

Cella stated: “This is the third position Rudy Giuliani has had on abortion in two weeks, and his credibility with faithful Catholics and other pro-life voters is beginning to evaporate.”

Following a series of contradictory positions on the abortion issue and according to this morning’s edition of The New York Times, Giuliani has decided to strongly assert his support for abortion, shifting his target of support from states with strong pro-life constituencies among the primary electorate – such as Iowa and South Carolina – to more liberal-leaning states such as New York, California and New Jersey.

“Rudy Giuliani supports abortion on demand in all nine months of pregnancy, he has supported partial birth abortion, he supports forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions, and he has financially supported Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. He is as far outside the mainstream on the abortion issue as one could possibly be and yet still considers himself a viable candidate for the Republican nomination,” Cella said.

At a press conference yesterday in Huntsville, Alabama, Giuliani shrugged off concerns his position on abortion would have on his candidacy saying: "I guess we'll find out. Is it an acceptable position? I'm at peace with it," he said. Cella called his statement: “A disturbingly callous abandonment of the most vulnerable in our society.”

Cella added: “Giuliani shares the exact same position on abortion as fellow Catholic John Kerry. As more people of faith who are pro-life begin to realize this, they will reject Giuliani’s candidacy.”

National Catholic Reporter Profiles Sen. Brownback

National Catholic Reporter: Conscience, ambition of candidate – Convert Brownback tries to convince electorate Catholic ethos a winner, By Joe Feuerherd. National Catholic Reporter:

Sam Brownback, the two-term conservative Kansas senator and recent Catholic convert who wants to be president, is unconventional enough to be interesting, senior enough to be considered seriously, and substantive enough to have a message that could resonate in the Iowa presidential caucuses.

But beyond the challenges of name recognition, fundraising and organization – no small hurdles even for the so-called top-tier candidates in the Republican field – Brownback’s got a bigger problem, one that he readily pinpoints: he is trying to convince the electorate that a social conservative, shaped and tempered by a decidedly Catholic ethos, can be a political winner. . . .

Catholic Colleges with Pro-Abortion Commencement Speakers

Naming Names - 12 Catholic Colleges have Pro-Abortion Commencement Speakers for 2007" LifeSiteNews. May 7, 2007:

The number of scandalous commencement speakers and honorees on Catholic campuses this spring appears to have declined dramatically compared to previous years, the Cardinal Newman Society (CNS) announced today.

For the past nine years CNS research has identified invited commencement speakers or honorees at Catholic colleges who have taken public positions contrary to Catholic values or teaching.

In 2006, CNS research uncovered problems at 24 colleges with speakers or honorees who publicly advocated for abortion rights, embryonic stem-cell research, physician-assisted suicide, homosexual marriage, women's ordination or other issues contrary to Catholic values.

By contrast, this year CNS has so far only had to alert the presidents of 11 Catholic colleges to problems with 12 commencement speakers or honorees. CNS also commended 14 colleges for honoring Vatican leaders, bishops and leading Catholic thinkers including University of Notre Dame philosopher Ralph McInerny and Rev. Richard John Neuhaus of First Things.

Hillary at Catholic fundraiser, by Domenico Bettinelli. May 4, 2007:

I thought the US bishops conference created a policy a couple of years ago that Catholic institutions should not give honors or platforms to pro-abortion politicians. So why are we continuing to see stories like “Hillary Clinton to headline fundraiser for Catholic institution”?

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.