Fr. Pavone, Senator Brownback and Rudy Giuliani

A topic that seems to be on many a Catholic mind this week is the potential emergence of Rudy Giuliani as the GOP presidential candidate in 2008. A self-proclaimed "pro-choice, pro-gay rights" Catholic, conservative voters are finding themselves faced with the moral equivalent to Senator Kerry (also a self-proclaimed "pro-choice" Catholic) on their side of the political isle.

Fr. Pavone on the Permissability of "Voting for the Better of Two Bad Candidates"

Last month, Michae Iafrate (Catholic Anarchist) noted his disapproval of Fr. Frank Pavone's response to the question of what to do when the two major parties’ candidates are pro-choice, but a third party candidate is anti-abortion?? (More “Republicatholic” hypocrisy, courtesy of Frank Pavone May 13, 2007) -- In response to which, Fr. Pavone maintains that Catholics must distinguish between "choosing evil" and "limiting evil":

. . . just ask a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?

For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban partial-birth abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to ban late-term abortion, or to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that's the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.

One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.

In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not "choosing the lesser of two evils." We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good. . . . by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it's not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer -- in the case described above -- is yes.

Michael omits from his post the fact that Fr. Pavone was taking a cue from Cardinal John O'Connor (no slouch on the pro-life front, he). Pavone continues, citing from the Cardinal himself:

Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem,

“Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position. If all candidates support "abortion rights" equally, one might vote for the candidate who seems best in regard to other issues” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).

In this context, the question also arises as to whether one is required to vote for a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position. The answer is, no, you are not required to vote for this candidate. The reason is that your vote is not a canonization of a candidate. It is a transfer of power. You have to look concretely at where the power is really going to be transferred, and use your vote not to make a statement but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.

Of course, our conscience may be telling us, “Don’t say it’s impossible to elect the candidate who doesn’t have a strong base of support.” Of course, it is possible to elect almost anyone if the necessary work is done within the necessary time. God doesn’t ask us to base our choices on “the possibility of miracles,” but rather on solid human reason. The point is that if there’s a relatively unknown but excellent candidate, the time to begin building up support for that person’s candidacy is several years before the election, not several months. What you have to ask as Election Day draws near is whether your vote is needed to keep the worse candidate (of the two, less acceptable but more realistic choices) out of office.

Michael Iafrate's reaction to Pavone is to brand him a hypocrite, although he has not actually established this to be the case. In fact, Fr. Pavone has held this same position (with respect to voting when faced with two leading "bad' candidates) back in 2000:

“Because voting is not a canonization,” he continued, “we may morally vote for a less perfect candidate who is actually electable at the present moment, rather than a better candidate who does not have the base of support to actually get into office. Our vote is our way of participating in actually moving our society forward, rather than a forum for ‘making statements.’ Statements can be made in a thousand other ways. But there is only one way to elect people to offices in which they can make a difference.”

I believe Fr. Pavone makes an important observation here about the viability of a given candidate -- a principled vote for the 'better' third party candidate with no political viability will result in the election of one or another candidate (and party) who will set the agenda and policies for the country. Last month I had devoted a post to exploring this very decision ("To Vote or Not to Vote?" Catholics in the Public Square April 21, 2007) and the ramifications of voting for a candidate with no realistic chance of success or even abstaining from voting altogether.

Moving on, Michael Iafrate's assertion that Catholic Answers teaches that "Catholics are obligated to vote for pro-life/anti-abortion candidates (typically Republicans) and may not vote for pro-choice/pro-abortion candidates (typically Democrats)" is not exactly true. A look at Catholic Answers' Voting Guide for Serious Catholics reveals an answer that is very much along the lines of Fr. Pavone's and Cardinal O'Connor's:

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.

A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, "an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality"(EV 73; also CPL 4).

Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.

Senator Brownback - Consistently Pro-Life or Sell-Out?

In the third debate among GOP candidates, Wolf Blitzer posed the question to Senator Sam Brownback of whether he would be able to vote for a pro-choice GOP candidate. Here is the exchange in full:

SEN. BROWNBACK: [...] I am pro-life and I’m whole life. And one of the things I’m the most, the proudest about our party about is that we’ve stood for life. We’ve been a party that has stood for a culture of life, and it was in our platform in 1980 and it continues today.

And with that respect — and I have respect for my other colleagues — that’s why I don’t think we can nominate somebody that’s not pro-life in this party because it is at our core. We believe that every life is beautiful, is sacred, is a child of a loving God, from natural — from conception to natural death, and that applies not only here and in the womb, it applies to somebody that’s in poverty, it applies to the child in Darfur.

And that philosophy, being pro-life and whole life, is something I think can really help move us forward as a country and as a party.

MR. BLITZER: Senator, if Rudy Giuliani got the Republican presidential nomination, would you be able to support him?

SEN. BROWNBACK: I — that question came up at the first debate, and I stated that this is something that we as a party have struggled with. I have great respect for the mayor. I don’t think we’re going to nominate somebody that’s not pro-life.

MR. BLITZER: Would you be able to support him?

SEN. BROWNBACK: I can support and will support the nominee of our party, but our party has stood on principles. It’s a party of principles, it’s not a party of personalities.

Michael Joseph of Vox Nova / Evangelica-Catholicism expressed his disapproval of Senator Sam Brownback, characterizing the Senator's response as a compromise of his moral principles, at the same time asserting that the "more Catholic and more democratic action" would be to vote for a third-party candidate (Brownback Backpedals Vox Nova June 6, 2007):

. . . All of Fr. Pavone's talk about ending abortion definitively in America by consolidating the pro-life vote ends here. He introduces a manufactured category to the matter: "realistic choice." So as a Catholic, I do not need to vote pro-life as long as that vote goes toward a "realistic" candidate? Is "realistic" an emergency moral category whose glass is broken in the event that a Republican nominee for president is pro-choice? "Realistic" releases me from any moral obligation to vote pro-life? I should not feel compelled to find a pro-life third-party candidate for whom I can vote in good conscience? I should not do the more Catholic and the more democratic action of voting for a third-party? I should allow practical politics to trump pro-life principles? Why, then, can I not just vote for a "realistic" pro-choice candidate anytime, even if there is a "realistic" pro-life candidate in the race?

Fr. Pavone exacerbates his double-talk by suggesting that a pro-choice candidate could be an "acceptable" candidate. If both candidates are pro-choice, one may be more "acceptable" than the other. Really, Fr. Pavone? And how so? Is there another behemoth non-negotiable issue that can overshadow a candidate's public desire to protect right to the murder the unborn? Perhaps socialized medicine? Perhaps tax-cuts? Perhaps immigration reform?

In "Worthiness to Receive Communion, General Principles", Cardinal Ratzinger noted:

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

(Cardinal Ratzinger's position -- not to be distinguished with proportionalism -- is explored and defended by Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin: What Ratzinger Said Sept. 9, 2004). I think that the collective voice of Vox Nova are rather too hasty in their rush to castigate Senator Brownback and Fr. Pavone as hypocrites guilty of "pro-life backpedalling" whose only desire is that Catholics vote Republican. Based on a closer analysis of Brownback and Pavone's own words and stated reasoning, this is simply not the case.

Steve Dillard and Catholics Against Rudy

Responding to an piece on Catholics Against Rudy on Vox Nova this week (Catholics Against Rudy: All the Way?, by Michael Joseph Vox Nova June 12, 2007), Steve Dillard conveys the position of his organization Catholics Against Rudy (formally launching in July 2007):

(1) My comment that, "You cannot, in good conscience as a faithful Catholic, vote for Rudy Giuliani," is limited to the GOP presidential primary. . . . I certainly believe that there would be "proportionate reasons" to vote for Mayor Giuliani in the general election against a pro-abortion democratic candidate (e.g., Clinton).

(2) Yes, if Giuliani "were to earn the Republican nomination," which I agree is "a very likely scenario," Catholics Against Rudy will "continue its campaign beyond the Republican primaries" That having been said, for the reasons noted above, our arguments against his candidacy will have to shift gears a bit. While there clearly are not "proportionate reasons" that would permit a Catholic to vote for Giuliani in the GOP primary, the same cannot be said for the general election, and, as such, our arguments will shift from the theological to the prudential (e.g., that Catholics should not vote for Giuliani because of the long-term harm that would result from having a pro-abortion leader as the head of the only pro-life political party).

(3) For all of the reasons noted above, Catholics Against Rudy "will . . . make good on its campaign and advise Catholics to choose a pro-life third-party candidate," while at the same time respecting those Catholics who, for other prudential reasons (e.g., supreme-court vacancies), elect to choose the lesser of two evils.

Before I go on, I would like to publicly commend Steve Dillard for his patience and Christian charity, having been the recipient of a great deal of verbal abuse and unjust accusations in Vox Nova's combox. The accusation that Catholics Against Rudy would be an organization "utterly beholden to the Republican Party" is unjustifiable and patently ridiculous on its face. Thanks to Michael Joseph for displaying the courtesy of amending his post.

In Conclusion

Like Senator Brownback, I hope and pray it will never come to pass that Giuliani will be the GOP presidential nominee. Unfortunately, I fear that Brownback is far more optimistic about the integrity and conviction of the Republican Party than I at this time. While the Giuliani campaign has been met with increasing opposition among conservative Catholics, the amount of attention bestowed upon him by other Republicans is disconcerting, not to mention what one would describe as fawning adulation from the likes of FoxNews pundit Sean Hannity and Rich Lowry of the National Review (in what Jay Anderson appropriately described as a "Rudygasm").

A conscientious vote for Giuliani against, say, Hillary or Obama is perhaps defensible from a Catholic point of view (or at least not prohibited). I honestly can't predict my decision come November 2008. For the moment, I think it is clear that we as Catholics should collectively put our effort into opposing the nomination of Rudy Giuliani -- not only for the sake of accurately presenting Catholic teaching in the public square, but for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the Republican party in future elections.

The Republican Party has recognized in its platform that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." Would it be worth it to elect a "pro-choice" politician at the cost of sacrificing or making a mockery of that very position? Would it not be a slippery slope, in fact "widening the Republican tent" to allow for the election of more "pro-choice" politicians in the future? -- The Democrats have worn the "pro-choice" mantle for decades. Let's curb this headlong rush to join them.

* * *

This post is written in the attempt to work out my thoughts on the issue and a clarification of the positions of Senator Brownback and Fr. Pavone; I welcome the feedback of my colleagues and readers and their reactions. Let the discussion begin.

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning. -- President Ronald Reagan Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation

General Reading

• Anti-Rudy Catholics Plan Their Assault, by Rebecca Sinderbrand. New York Observer May 27, 2007.
  
• The Failure of Catholic Political Leadership, by Robert P. George and William L. Saunders. Crisis 18 no. 4 (April 2000): 17-22.
  

Responses to This Post

• Fr. Pavone, Senator Brownback and Rudy Giuliani by Jay Anderson (Pro Ecclesia June 13, 2007).
  
• Response from Morning's Minion [see also: "Can Catholics Vote for Pro-Abortion Politicians?", by Morning's Minion. Vox Nova May 23, 2007].
  
• Does Voting for Giuliani Make You a Pro-Life Fraud?, by Michael Denton. For the Greater Glory June 13, 2007.
  

Pope & President Meet in Rome

Here is the link to the N.Y. Times story. The President promised to get more funds to fight AIDS in Africa. They also discussed foreign policy.

(Photo Credit: Jim Watson/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images)

May 29th marked the 90th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's birth -- the first (and so far, only) Catholic president of the United States. By Dr. Gary Scott Smith recalls Kennedy's years in office and his influence on Catholic-Protestant relations; further commentary by Carl Olson @ Insight Scoop.

"Abortion is the civil rights issue of our times,"

Stephen Dillard was on Chris Matthew's Hardball to talk about his group Catholics Against Rudy along with E.J. Dionne.

You can see a video of Part I and Part II.

As you would expect Chris Matthew took the single issue approach asking Stephen Dillard about the war in Iraq, capital punishment, etc in the normal moral equivalence lump that is so often used. Democrats are always talking about nuance except when it comes to abortion, just war theory, and capital punishment and then everything is black and white.

It was also pretty funny when Chris Matthews said that the hierarchy is populated by a lot of Republicans. Yeah I guess that really explains the bishop's tepid voting guide and their taking several years to comment when the Democratic Party turned hard-core abortion rights. Though it is always rather dumb to try to divide up the bishops into Democrats and Republicans and giving that as their primary rationale for the way they act. Though I think historically the Bishops mostly have been quite sympathetic to the Democratic Party since there was such a long alliance between the two groups.

E.J. Dionne was fairly good and even mentioned Ramesh Ponnuru's excellent column on Rudolf Giuliani made available today. Though he did wonder if the the Bishops would "intervene" the same way they did with John Kerry. Well I don't remember much intervening, but no doubt the same Bishops who did say they would not allow Kerry to receive Communion would be the same ones who would act the same towards Rudy.

After Stephen's appearance I got a lot of searches to my site looking for Catholics Against Rudy (the website won't appear till July 4th) and a bunch of comments on a previous post. I did have to go through and delete a bunch of them since their were rather vulgar and mostly anti-Catholic. Considering Chris Matthew's audience I am not exactly surprised.

A Singular Issue - Why Abortion Should Doom Giuliani’s Campaign

(Hat tip: Darwin Catholic)

National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru on Rudy and Abortion:

In April, a reporter overheard Rudy Giuliani explaining his theory of the campaign: “that the other candidates would divide up the ‘right-wing’ voters, as he called them, leaving him to consolidate the moderates and the economic and military conservatives who aren’t fixated on social issues.” It was a perfectly reasonable analysis. People for whom prohibiting abortion is a top priority are not going to favor the presidential campaign of a man who wants to keep abortion legal and, indeed, to subsidize it. It would be irrational if they did favor it, and it would be irrational for Giuliani to court them.

Since Giuliani’s campaign began, however, vast quantities of political commentary have been devoted to obscuring these simple truths. Generally this commentary has come from writers who do not themselves care about protecting unborn life but feel qualified to lecture people who do about how they should advance their agenda. While the emphases of the commentators vary, their basic argument is that presidents cannot do much to affect abortion policy except to appoint judges, and that Giuliani is just as conservative as the other candidates on that question.

***
In a way, Giuliani’s nomination would cause more trouble for the pro-life cause than his election would. The pro-life cause can survive without a pro-life president: It emerged from the Clinton years stronger than it had been at their beginning. But it will find it harder to survive without a pro-life party. And that would be the meaning of his nomination, even if most Republican congressmen and governors remained pro-life, and even if the party platform, left unread and unheeded, continued to offer solidarity to the unborn. America has been a presidential nation, politically, for almost a century now. The parties are, in the public mind, their leaders; and those leaders are their presidential nominees.

The most specific polls on abortion policy ask respondents whether they think abortion should be banned altogether, banned with exceptions when the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life or resulted from rape, or allowed. Such polls consistently find that the people who want to ban abortion altogether and the people who want to ban it with rare exceptions add up to a majority of Americans. If Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, that majority will have no representation at the level of presidential politics. We will instead have a contest between a candidate who believes that taxpayers should fund abortion through the federal government and one who believes they should do it through state governments.

In 1973, the Supreme Court tried to declare an end to the state-by-state debate on abortion by setting abortion policy nationally. The New York Times, the next day, reported on the decision as a “historic resolution” of the abortion controversy. Before that day, supporters of legal abortion had claimed that their policy was necessary for women’s equality, or population control, or the promotion of liberty. On that day, however, they acquired the most powerful arrow in their quiver: the assertion that abortion policy was a settled matter, an assertion that had the strong support of the country’s journalistic, financial, and legal elites. The principal reason that the question has not been closed is that over the last 30 years the Republican party has stood — shakily at times, it is true, but always officially — against this elite consensus.

The abortion lobby would not be alone in declaring the Republican party to have capitulated to this consensus with Giuliani’s nomination. So would neutral observers; and even some pro-lifers would give up the fight.

***
The pro-life position has carried real costs for the Republican party, in terms of lost votes. But those costs have been more than offset by the gains the party has made. For more than two decades, exit polls have shown that people who vote on the basis of abortion are far more likely to be pro-lifers than pro-choicers. (Using that measure, the issue netted George W. Bush 2.4 million votes in 2000.) Without the realignment of American politics based on social issues — a realignment caused by abortion more than any other issue — the Republicans would never have attained the near-parity they have today.

Now would be a strange moment in our politics for Republicans to abandon the pro-life cause, or even to weaken their commitment to it. The party is in serious trouble these days, for all kinds of reasons — but its pro-life position is not one of them. The public has been moving in a pro-life direction. In this season of Republican discontent, for the first time ever, a few polls show more Americans identifying themselves as pro-life than pro-choice...

[More]

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.