Rabbi Gellman: "Why Cafeteria Catholicism Doesn't Work"

Cafeteria Catholicism Doesn't Work, by Rabbi Marc Gellman. Newsday Dec. 19, 2007. The Jewish half of the "God Squad" counsels a straying Catholic:

. . . Here are the reasons why Cafeteria Catholicism has no future and is a bad idea: First, in the cafeteria, you could leave behind the beliefs you most need to move closer to Christ and to the Church. You've actually done that in your selections. Abortion, for example, which you've left off your plate, is wrong not just because it's condemned by Catholic teachings. It's wrong because it is the taking of a human life, and that life is sacred; its claim trumps even the most agonizing sacrifices of the mother in helping bring a child into the world.

Leaving behind this teaching (and others that disturb you) happens when you place your own personal judgments over the inherited wisdom of the Church. Would you say a slave-owner should have the right to construct his orher own personal brand of Catholicism in a way that allowed slavery? Sometimes the best reason to struggle with a moral teaching of one's faith is that it contradicts the conventional wisdom of secular society or of your own personal desires. You need the Church not to pander to you but to challenge you. Cafeteria Catholicism cannot challenge you. . . .

Sadly, I learned today -- via Long Island Catholic -- that Msgr. Hartmann has resigned from his column due to his struggle with Parkinson's (Rabbi Gellman carries on the column on his own, keeping his friend's name on the byline). Please keep him in your prayers and if you can, please support the Thomas Hartmann Foundation for Parkinson's Research.

Robert P. George's "Unrequited Letter to Ann Rice"

On her website, famous author Ann Rice has defended her personal endorsement of Hillary Clinton (to the tune of Ave Maria, no less):

. . . To summarize, I believe in voting, I believe in voting for one of the two major parties, and I believe my vote must reflect my Christian beliefs.

Bearing all this in mind, I want to say quietly that as of this date, I am a Democrat, and that I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels.

Princeton Professor Robert P. George challenges her in "An Unrequited Letter to Ann Rice" (First Things' blog; December 17, 2007):

. . . I once had the honor of representing Mother Teresa of Calcutta as counsel of record on an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court of the United States asking for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. (I would be happy to send you a copy, if you like.) Mother made the point that we cannot fight credibly against other social and moral evils, including poverty and violence, while we tolerate mass killing by abortion. In this, it seems to me, she stated with characteristic simplicity a profound truth.

You have endorsed a candidate and a political party that believes that abortion, far from being an injustice, is a fundamental right. They are pledged to oppose any meaningful legal protections of the life of the child in the womb. They have even sought to protect the grisliest of methods of abortion–the “dilation and intact extraction” procedure. In this, they are promoting the greatest injustice and abuse of human rights to be found in our country today. . . .

Senator Brownback: "A Changed Stem Cell Debate"

A Changed Stem Cell Debate - Sam Brownback (First Things' On The Square. Dec. 12, 2007) -- on the implications of the recent scientific breakthroughs involving "pluripotent" stem cells:

This shifts the debate fundamentally. Those who had moral reservations about research on the youngest of humans but were persuaded of the need to pursue treatments can now support this promising research without compromising their pro-life conviction. At the same time, those who claimed that embryonic research was the only promising way forward can unite around a promising new technique that presents no ethical dilemmas.

What the vast majority of Americans want is now possible: the pursuit of promising research that does not cross ethical lines, honors human dignity, and preserves innocent life.

This does not mark the end of the stem cell debate. In the coming weeks, I will work with my Senate colleagues on possible ways to allocate funding for this approach and for other research that seeks ethical cures we can be proud of. I will continue to push for a ban on all forms of human cloning, a practice that demeans the dignity of the human person.

The irony is that opponents of embryonic stem cell research were considered to be anti-science or behind the times. Advocates of embryonic stem cell research were thought to be in a long line of pioneers fighting the restraints of religious doctrine to push forward with scientific research.

Instead, quite the opposite is the case. The new research shows that science and morality need not be pitted against each another. Still less, the promise of cures for disease need not be pitted against the infinite value of the youngest of human lives.

Rather, what we knew in our hearts all along has turned out to be true. The strong ought to protect the weak and science is not to be feared, nor is it to be worshiped, but rather it should be regulated by sound ethical guidelines. In doing so, science has shown the path forward: ethical research, promising science, and cures everyone can live with.

Giuliani Nomination "Would Mark The End of the Republican Party as the Pro-Life Party"

The nomination and election of Rudy Giuliani would mark the end of the Republican party as the pro-life party in our politics. And that would be the case regardless of whether pro-lifers respond to his nomination by refusing to vote for Giuliani, forming a third party, or folding themselves into a coalition that succeeds in electing Giuliani.

- Hadley Arkes, Abortion Politics 2008 First Things December 2007).

I've appreciated Arkes' writing in First Things on life matters for some time (I recommend his book, First Things: An Inquiry into First Principles of Morals and Justice). And when it comes to describing the state of pro-life matters, he doesn't mince any words or pull any punches. Here he dismantles Giuliani's lukewarm assurances to pro-lifers, on judicial appointments and "favoring adoption over abortion," -- and notes the eery similarities between Senator Douglas' professed neutrality on slavery in his memorable debate with Abraham Lincoln in 1858, and Giuliani's own response in a recent interview with Charlie Rose:

Lincoln said that Douglas was trying to “blow out the moral lights” among us by teaching a policy of “indifference”—that slavery just did not matter enough to stir such divisions in the country. In a similar way, Giuliani is teaching us, in the style of Douglas, that we should not care overly much, that we should treat as a matter of indifference a right to take a human life for wholly private reasons that need not rise beyond convenience. Not that people choose abortion for the sake of a trifling convenience. The point, rather, is that even a decision taken for the most flippant reasons may not be judged by anyone else.

According to Arkes, a successful Giuliani campaign would have long-lasting implications for the identity of the Republican Party:

For years now, the pro-life movement has followed a strategy of moving in incremental steps, unfolding a plan of principle with, to borrow a phrase from Lincoln, the object being to put abortion “in the course of ultimate extinction.” But a successful candidacy by Giuliani would subtly put in place a scheme whose tendency and object would be to put the pro-life movement itself on the course of ultimate extinction.

It is conceivable, then, that from the standpoint of the pro-lifers it might be better to lose to Hillary Clinton than to win with Rudy Giuliani.

Where does this leave Arkes at the present moment -- and in the event of Giuliani's nomination?

Now that Brownback has withdrawn from the race, the question is just which of the other candidates, apart from Romney, can actually explain the grounds of his pro-life position. So far, neither McCain nor Thompson has been able to do that. I would back Romney, then, as far as he can go, I would back any of the others as soon as they show that they are speaking more than by rote. If Giuliani became the nominee, and he genuinely wished to preserve the pro-life constituency within his party and his administration, he could select Brownback or Romney as his ­running mate. He could also offer the assurance that their perspective would have standing, would have a claim to bear on the policies of his new Republican administration.

Faced then with the possibility of a Democratic presidency determined to weave the ethic of abortion rights more firmly into our law and to have its judges install same-sex marriage, a Giuliani candidacy could offer some slender grounds of hope. Under those conditions, I might bite my lip, vote for him, and indulge those hopes. But they would be the hopes of the supplicants. And they will be affected at every point by the awareness of just who has the upper hand, and just who, in this party newly reshaped, does not matter all that much.

Curiously, despite his sure critique of Giuliani's position and the implications of a Giuliani nomination for the future of pro-lifers and the GOP, he would to give Giuliani a chance provided certain assurances are met and Giuliani could sufficiently demonstrate "his wish to preserve the pro-life constituency within his party and his administration." He would risk the loss of the Republican Party's identification as "the" pro-life party and take his chances iwth Giuliani, if only to counter what the even more certain consequences of a Democratic victory.

In the National Review, responding to pro-Giuliani David Frum (Contra Frum National Review Dec. 10, 2007), Arkes elaborates on the dangers of a Democratic administration:

I too have been aware of the vast damage that can be done by eight years of a Democratic administration that regards abortion, not merely as a regrettable choice, but as a positive good, to be promoted at every turn by executive orders and through resolutions at the United Nations, meant to feed back into the American law. And, in addition to the aforementioned effects, we would suffer the steady appointment of judges who regard the freedom to order abortions as the new “first freedom.”

and precisely what would it take to merit his grudging support of Giuliani:

No Republican White House, under Reagan or the two Bushes, has had a member of the staff who bears responsibility for devising and overseeing an integrated strategy on abortion. That is, there has been no one who has been assigned the distinct task of orchestrating a scheme of strategic steps, moving with a combination of executive orders and legislative measures, designed to put premises in place and advance, with each step, the cause of protecting life. Each Administration has people who can be in touch with the pro-life movement and go out in public occasionally to “make nice” to the pro-lifers. But Rudy could send a notable signal if he announces his intention to create a post of that kind, and appoint to it one of those notable lawyers who commands the respect of the Federalists and the pro-life movement. Then we could go forth with the sense that his heart and his head are truly in it.

Salon: "Are You There, God? It's Me, Rudy"

From Salon.com:

Dec. 10, 2007 Late last spring, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence opened his mail to find an invitation to a local fundraising event for Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani. Tobin made national headlines when he responded to the invitation by penning a column for the Rhode Island Catholic about Rudy Giuliani's abortion views, chastising the former New York mayor for saying he believes abortion is morally wrong yet supports reproductive choice for women as a matter of public policy.

"Rudy's public proclamations on abortion are pathetic and confusing," wrote Tobin. "[His] preposterous position is compounded by the fact that he professes to be a Catholic. As Catholics, we are called, indeed required, to be pro-life, to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift of God from the moment of conception until the time of natural death. As a leader, as a public official, Rudy Giuliani has a special obligation in that regard."

Catholics, who cast almost a quarter of all votes nationally, and higher shares in swing states like Ohio, are one of the most important voting blocs in the American electorate. In fact, in every presidential election since 1972 the winner of the Catholic vote has won the overall national popular vote, something no other religious group -- Jews, evangelicals, Protestants -- can boast. If Republicans nominate him, barring a surprising late surge from Democrats Joe Biden, Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson, Giuliani would be the only Catholic in the general election. And part of Giuliani's supposed "electability," a selling point to the party faithful, is that he would draw support from "Reagan Democrats" in crucial, and heavily Catholic, Democratic and swing states in the Northeast and Midwest.

Polls of likely Republican primary voters have long shown that Giuliani is a favorite among Catholic Republicans. But if Giuliani's electability in the general election hinges in any way on his co-religionists, he may be in trouble. Problems with Catholics like Bishop Tobin were not hard to predict. It was inevitable that during Republican primary season, some conservative and observant Catholics would raise questions about Giuliani's checkered marital history and his stands on abortion and gay rights. But if he is the nominee next fall, he will also have to contend with three other Catholic constituencies in the general election -- less-observant Catholics, politically moderate Catholics and Latino Catholics -- all of whom may find fault with him for very different reasons.

[Read more - "It's becoming ever more clear that Rudy Giuliani suffers from John Kerry syndrome"]

Off the Plantation

It is delightful to watch the Clinton steamroller in the Democratic race hit a major unexpected obstacle: African-Americans like Obama and Oprah who do not reflexively defer to the scenarios dictated by white Democrats. As a pro-life Republican, I certainly don't espouse the politics of Obama; but I think we are seeing something very healthy when African-Americans no longer play the subservient, taken-for-granted role they have had for decades in the Democratic Party. My hope is that this new generational boldness will eventually translate into boldly challenging other Democratic shibboleths that are harmful to African-Americans, in particular, the destructive Democratic embrace of abortion that kills many African-American babies and the traditional Democratic hostility to school vouchers. School vouchers offer a promise of real emancipation and liberation to thousands of African-American kids trapped in dysfunctional, union-dominated, and mediocre public school systems in many of our major cities. In the past, a few African-American politicians, especially some mayors, have seen the light and defied the establishment anti-voucher orthodoxy of the "master" class in the Democratic Party--a class which can afford to send their kids to exclusive prep schools. Hopefully, the boldness we are seeing now in the Democratic race will extend to overturning the Democratic dogmas and policies that are directly harmful to many African-Americans. It's good to see people defy their former political masters. That's the American way.

About that Romney Speech . . .

Fr. Neuhaus loved it:

It was a powerful speech powerfully delivered. I don’t do political endorsements but am on record as saying that I think Mitt Romney is in many ways well qualified to be president. There is nothing in the speech that prompts a change of mind on that. . . .

Very notably, Romney did not do a JFK at Houston. He did not distance himself from his faith. “Some believe,” he said, “that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it.” A bold statement–almost Luther-like in its “Here I stand” resonance.

Fr. Sirico didn't:

Mitt Romney is right that religion and morality are core convictions in American society. Our freedom depends on this, I completely agree. Without the ability to manage our lives morally, the state steps into the vacuum, both in response to public demand and to serve the state’s own interests in expanding power.

But soon after spelling this out, in part, he makes this bold claim, which I believe repeats John F. Kennedy’s error: “Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.”

Speaking of Kennedy, CNN interviewed Theodore Sorensen, who assisted Kennedy in drafting his speech addressing his Catholic faith and the separation of church and state.

Dissenting Catholics Back Obama

Obama Advisor is Well Known Dissenting Catholic - Deal Hudson InsideCatholic.com. December 7, 2007:

Marshall Ganz, a Harvard sociologist, was a major force behind organizing Voice of the Faithful (VOTF), a dissenting Catholic organization devoted to "structural" change in the Church. VOTF, you may recall, used the occasion of the priest sex scandals to call for changes in Catholic doctrine such as the addition of a married priesthood and popularly-elected bishops.

Ganz is a nationally known expert in political organizing. In 2004 he was an adviser to Howard Dean -- Ganz now advises Democratic presidential candidate, Barak Obama. . . .

So what is Obama's attitude toward Catholics?

In his speech last summer to the Call to Renewal Conference he explained, "The majority of Catholics practice birth control because they, like all Americans, 'intuitively' recognize religious teachings that are 'more culturally specific' and may be modified to accommodate modern life."

Birds of a feather.

The Mockery of the Good: "Purity Dances"

The Sunday Chicago Tribune had a front page article on the national phenomenon of "purity dances" among conservative Christians. These are formal social occasions where fathers take their daughters to formal dances, where daughters pledge themselves to sexual abstinence before marriage, and where fathers embrace the role of protectors of the purity of their daughters. If you're a young man, listen up: there is new hope here for you, for finding a pure woman to marry, even in these United States. If you're a young man, here's a great motivator for you yourself to abstain from premarital sex: be worthy of the pure woman who has saved herself for you.

Of course, the article is full of the mockery, cynicism, sarcasm, and disdain for the truly good that our present-day social customs aim at any idealism in the realm of sexuality. That mockery is, in my view, a reflection of the jaded who no longer believe in any romantic or chivalrous idealism in sexual relations. That mockery is also the terror of the guilty who don't want to see anyone achieve what they so cavalierly threw away forever. The saying is that misery loves company. In many areas of life, it is also very true, deep in the psychology of many, that mediocrity loves company. Mediocrity in sexual matters and in other matters wants to level the playing field so that excellence is flattened. Mediocrity reacts with envy, anger, and sarcasm when someone is going for the brass ring in life because, when someone else shines, they are obviously and emphatically left in the dark. The rational solution is to get out of the dark yourself, not to drag others into it.

Yet, in spite of the mockery in the article, the very fact that the article had to be written, especially in an elite, national newspaper, is very good. Some people even in our debauched United States are waking up to reality. Christians believe that we have a God-given human nature. Sin and the incessant social embrace of sin blind, deaden, and paralyze many of our natural, healthy human instincts. Ironically, in this post-Freud age, the widespread culture of promiscuity represses the truly human instinct for sexual purity. There is a natural human yearning for a pure spouse who has reserved the sexual act for marriage. We have repressed that instinct for so long in the United States that this idealistic yearning seemed all but dead and fictional, a concoction of another age, a caricatured "patriarchal" age of oppression. But nature has a way of making its comebacks because we are hardwired for the good. As an old commercial used to say, "it's not nice to fool mother nature." When we try to fool mother nature, reality bites back--hence so much widespread chaos and turmoil today in relations between men and women.

Part of the mockery of chastity comes in the classic attack that abstinence does not work--that even teenagers who pledge themselves to abstinence end up engaging in premarital sex. These critics also like to make the point that, once the teens break the abstinence pledges, they are more likely to engage in "unsafe" sex because they know nothing--or at least nothing "accurate"--about contraception. Let's take this bromide apart, step by step. First, as noted by one of the conservatives quoted in the article, virtually all teens know about contraception in today's America. Just walk into any drugstore; and you will see the products lined up in open shelves in a bewildering, vibrantly capitalistic array of colors and labels. Second, as also noted by a quoted conservative in the article, why not respect the full freedom of the teen by laying out all the alternatives, which include abstinence? As in the abortion debate, social liberals have a great fear of presenting alternatives, of presenting options other than those celebrated in the media. You have heard of politically correct thinking--well, we have among many social liberals, sexually correct thinking: you should not take seriously the option of abstinence before marriage.

But there is a more fundamental and radical critique that can be made against the argument that teens who break abstinence pledges are more likely to end up pregnant. This radical critique says that there is nothing wrong with preserving the natural link between cause and effect in sexuality: the undeniable (though not exclusive) purpose of sex is to reproduce. If x, then y. That causal connection is a big red flag: if sex leads to kids, it's a great sign that sex should be reserved for that person judged by you worthy to be a parent. When we find that person worthy of parenting our kids, we want to claim them permanently so that they stick around for the arduous task of raising and educating the kids. That arrangement is marriage. We have just reinvented the wheel for a society that thinks itself too clever to need the wheel. An unwanted pregancy is surely a great problem, especially for those in economic hardship; but we can address the problem by social compassion, by alternatives such as adoption, by re-teaching the need for abstinence before marriage, without cutting the natural, healthy link between sex and babies. Once we try to fool mother nature, we are the ones who end up as fools. Many can testify to that result.

Neutered

A recent front page article in the N.Y. Times had this headline that is supposed to elicit great civic concern on our part: "Big Rise in Cost of Birth Control on Campuses." In my experience, the story on which a journalist is focused is often not even close to being the most significant story involved in a particular set of facts. We have the "official" news story, and then we have the "real" news story. The role of analysis is to uncover the "real" news story. The ostensible "official" news story here is that college students [read: female college students] are having to pay more for their monthly contraceptive fix (whether birth control pills or various barrier devices). The "official" story goes on to discuss some arcane government regulations that, apparently, for years had the effect of subsidizing fornication on college campuses. Even I, as a lawyer, found the regulatory discussion foggy and off-putting. But the arcane legal regulations are not the real story.

Yet, even the "official" story found this social welfare program a bit odd: "Not everyone is troubled by the price increases. Some people said they wondered why college students, many of whom manage to afford daily doses of coffee from Starbucks and downloads from iTunes, should have been given such discounted birth control to begin with, and why drug companies should be granted such a captive audience of students" (N.Y. Times, Nov. 22, 2007, at above link).

What struck me as the real story are the prominent photos of two attractive female college students. The photo spreads explicitly identify their full names and their colleges of attendance. My friends, I admit it: I am shocked that these young women are willing to advertise in one of the most prominent newspapers in the world that they are sexually active outside of marriage. And not just episodically ready for sexual activity, but always ready to fornicate based on their regular monthly subscription to birth control pills. That reality is not surprising today, but I thank God that I still am capable of being shocked. One of the students even notes that she discussed with her mother how to get a better deal on contraceptives. They should rather be discussing why her attractive daughter, at a young age full of so many good possibilities, needs to be ready, always and continuously on a month-to-month basis, to have contraceptive sex.

What also struck me is how these young women and millions of others have evacuated sex of any meaning whatsoever. Once we neuter ourselves, we take any meaning out of the sexual act: we have "neutered" the sexual act. It is no longer about finding the special person whom you judge worthy to be a lifelong partner. It is no longer about finding someone you're willing to have as the father of and role model for your child. It's no longer about heroically and courageously giving one's life to another. The sexual act becomes as "neutered" as the females with a monthly subscription to contraceptives: empty of all meaning, ending up as sound and fury signifying nothing. And we wonder why marriage is delayed for so long or even skipped altogether or why marriages don't last like they used to last. Sex becomes a passionless, routine aerobic exercise dispensed at will. They have strangled a great gift to humanity, a great gift that they could have really possessed and really enjoyed for life. Forget about the official news story. That's the real news story.

Henry Hyde "The Father of the Modern Pro-Life Movement"

President Bush on Congressman Henry Hyde (to whom he awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom):

“He used his persuasive powers for noble causes. He stood for a strong and purposeful America — confident in freedom's advance, and firm in freedom's defense. He stood for limited, accountable government, and the equality of every person before the law. He was a gallant champion of the weak and forgotten, and a fearless defender of life in all its seasons. Henry Hyde spoke of controversial matters with intellectual honesty and without rancor.”

See also: A Life for Life: Henry Hyde's Legacy National Review Symposium with Robert P. George, Kate O'Beirne, Tom DeLay, Carl Anderson, Helen Alvare and others.

The National Right to Life has a lengthy tribute - heralding him as "the father of the modern pro-life movement for his introduction and sponsorhip of the amendment which bears his name:

Perhaps Hyde's best-remembered commentary on the issue of abortion is this quote:

When the time comes as it surely will, when we face that awesome moment, the final judgment, I've often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you are there alone standing before God – and a terror will rip through your soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those in the pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there will be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard beautifully and clearly in the next world – and they will plead for everyone who has been in this movement. They will say to God, 'Spare him because he loved us,' – and God will look at you and say not, 'Did you succeed?' but 'Did you try?'

It is safe to say that Congressman Henry Hyde not only tried to save the most defenseless among us, but that he has succeeded on a level of which most can only dream. His efforts, his victories, his leadership and his friendship are deeply appreciated by the National Right to Life Committee and by pro-life citizens across this nation.

Crisis' Tribute to Rick Santorum

Lightning Rod: The Return of Rick Santorum, by Joan Frawley Desmond. Crisis June 2007:

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) knew he had lost his re-election fight at 5 p.m. on Election Day. After receiving the news, he joined his wife, Karen, and their six children at their hotel suite. The Santorums always planned to “finish well.” Now, that meant taking their children with them when they voted at the Penn Hills polling station. The Santorums capped the evening with the celebration of Mass. They included Rick’s winning opponent, State Treasurer Bob Casey, in their prayers, as they had every day during that long campaign. One attendee remembers “a beautiful Mass, filled with grace.”

At 8 p.m., Rick Santorum officially lost the election and congratulated Casey on his victory. Soon after, television personality Sean Hannity called to express his regrets. Santorum responded, “Why?” He felt at peace. . . .

What an inspiring way to end a political race. Would that all of our candidates had that kind of class! -- This from good article from Crisis (yes, I'm catching up on old issues) on the post-election doings of former Senator Rick Santorum. He is now working for the Ethics and Public Policy Center, heading their Program to Protect America's Freedom "to identify, study, and heighten awareness of the threats to America and the West from a growing array of anti-Western forces and states that increasingly cast a shadow over our future and that violate religious liberty around the world."

The article addresses' Santorum's controversial decision to back Sen. Arlen Specter during the 2004 presidential race:

Santorum’s willingness to make choices that run counter to his own self-interest has even hurt him with his natural allies—the GOP’s conservative base. Back in 2004, his decision to endorse Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), a pro-abortion stalwart poised to command the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rather than Rep. Pat Toomey, his pro-life challenger, angered many conservatives. But those close to him say he believed he had no choice. At the time, he was certain that Bush would have a chance to nominate a justice for the nation’s highest court, but the party lacked the Senate majority it needed to confirm a nominee. The conservative base mistrusted Specter, but he could win in a general election. Toomey could not. When Specter’s victory at the polls was confirmed, recalls one friend, “Rick felt nothing. He turned off the television and went to bed. As a Senate leader, he needed Specter’s vote; he needed to get this done.”

The internecine party fight embittered pro-life Republicans, though most concede that Specter performed well during the recent Supreme Court confirmation battles. The deeper problem is that conservative activists believe that the GOP leadership exploits its political networks during election time but doesn’t work hard enough to secure vital anti-abortion and pro-marriage legislation. The irony, of course, is that no one accomplished more for the pro-life movement during his Senate career than Rick Santorum. He played a critical role in the passage of several key bills: the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Sponsorship of these bills reflected an incremental pro-life strategy to ban abortion by reclaiming the moral high ground—exposing the brutality of abortion procedures and affirming the fundamental dignity of unborn human life. On the Senate floor, Santorum was the undaunted general of the campaign.

The article goes on to cite Santorum's 1999 exchange with Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, which encapsulates the perverse irrationality of the Democratic Party's position on abortion:

Santorum: What we are talking about here with partial birth, as the senator from California knows, is a baby is in the process of being born—

Boxer: “The process of being born.” This is why this conversation makes no sense, because to me it is obvious when a baby is born. To you it isn’t obvious.

Santorum: Maybe you can make it obvious to me. So what you are suggesting is if the baby’s foot is still inside of the mother, that baby can then still be killed.

Boxer: No, I am not suggesting that in any way!

Santorum: I am asking.

Boxer: I am absolutely not suggesting that. You asked me a question, in essence, when the baby is born.

Santorum: I am asking you again. Can you answer that?

Boxer: I will answer the question when the baby is born. The baby is born when the baby is outside the mother’s body. The baby is born.

Santorum: . . . But, again, what you are suggesting is if the baby’s toe is inside the mother, you can, in fact, kill that baby.

Boxer: Absolutely not.

Santorum: OK. So if the baby’s toe is in, you can’t kill the baby. How about if the baby’s foot is in?

Boxer: You are the one who is making these statements.

Santorum: We are trying to draw a line here.

Boxer: I am not answering these questions! I am not answering these questions.

Henry Hyde - Tireless Defender of the Unborn, RIP

Rep. Henry Hyde, a Catholic from Illinois who recently received the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his tireless work in Congress to protect the unborn, has passed away.

Requiscat in pace.

(Hat tip: Alexham at Vox Nova)


UPDATE
National Review's editorial on Rep. Hyde's passing: "The Honorable Mr. Hyde":

... He will be most remembered for the Hyde Amendment. First passed in 1976, when Hyde was new to Washington, it bans the public funding of abortions though Medicaid. The year before it passed, the federal government had financed 300,000 abortions for low-income women. Afterward, this number dropped essentially to zero — the women either found another way to pay for their abortions or chose life for their unborn children. The National Right to Life Committee has estimated, conservatively, that the Hyde Amendment has prevented at least one million abortions. That’s one million Americans who are alive today because of Henry Hyde.

The Hyde Amendment has proven remarkably durable, undergoing only one important revision. In 1993, Congress added rape and incest exceptions to the life-of-the-mother clause that had been in place from the start. It is without question the most important piece of pro-life legislation ever to pass Congress...

UPDATE # 2
More from National Review on Rep. Hyde's passing, this time from David Freddoso writing at The Corner:

Hyde at Notre Dame
Everyone remembers the famous [ED.: rather, infamous] Mario Cuomo speech at Notre Dame, in which he urged Catholics to keep right and wrong to themselves when it comes to abortion. But how many people remember that shortly after his speech, conservatives at Notre Dame invited Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) to speak on the topic of religion in public life?

The Associated Press covered his speech on September 24, 1984, as true today as it ever was ...

[More]

Boston Globe: Cardinal O'Malley's Criticism "Met With Silence"

The Boston Globe examines Massachusetts' Democrats reaction -- or lack thereof -- to Cardinal O'Malley's criticism of their pro-abortion platform:

In 1935, Governor James Michael Curley was pushing hard for a bill to create a state lottery. The bill looked like it would sail through the Legislature. But on the eve of the vote, the afternoon papers carried stories of Cardinal William Henry O'Connell denouncing it.

"The next morning, it went down to crashing defeat," said James O'Toole, a history professor at Boston College.

It is the "mirror image," he observed, of the dynamic now. Last week, after Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley said the support of church members for Democrats "borders on scandal" because of the party's support for keeping abortion legal, most of the state's leading Catholic Democrats responded with silence.

John Walsh, chairman of the Democratic Party, declined to comment, as did Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, and nearly all of the state's Democratic Catholic congressmen, on both sides of the abortion issue. The few who did have something to say - House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, who spoke to reporters on a separate issue Thursday, and US Representative Michael E. Capu ano, whose office provided a statement when asked for comment - respectfully disagreed with the church.

As they have for years, most Catholic Democrats in Massachusetts are likely to continue to disagree with the church on abortion without worrying much about the consequences for them or their party. If Catholic voters punished their politicians for opposing church views on abortion - or gay marriage, or any other subject - the response might be quite different, political experts said last week. But they haven't. . . .

Rich Leonardi examines "The Pro Lifer's Dilemma" next Fall and the suggestions of Russel Shaw, George Weigel and Archbishop Chaput:

What say you? Could you explain pulling the lever for a "President Guiliani (or Romney)" to Christ and abortion's 47 million victims?

USCCB: "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship"

Here is the document in question:

• Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States [.pdf format]
  
• The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship summary statement Bulletin Insert. November 14, 2007.
  

It asks four essential questions:

1. (1) Why does the Church teach about issues affecting public policy? -
   
2. Who in the Church should participate in political life?
   
3. How does the Church help the Catholic faithful to speak about political and social questions?
   
4. What does the Church say about Catholic social teaching in the public square?
   

What did you think? -- Read and discuss.

Why the Democrats are Blue

How did the Democratic Party lose the support of the working-class and Catholic voters who were once its stronghold?

In his book Why the Democrats Are Blue: How Secular Liberals Hijacked the People's Party, Mark Stricherz argues that the change from the "people's party" to a party of secular-elite values can be traced to a particular political moment -- and one that few people would think. Deal W. Hudson sat down with Stricherz to talk about what he calls "the greatest untold story in American politics."

Cardinal O'Malley: Catholics Backing Pro-Abortion Democrats "Borders on Scandal"

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

The Boston Globe reports:

BALTIMORE - Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, saying the Democratic Party has been persistently hostile to opponents of abortion rights, asserted yesterday that the support of many Catholics for Democratic candidates "borders on scandal."

In his sharpest comments about the political landscape since he was installed as archbishop of Boston four years ago, O'Malley made clear that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.

"I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church's position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues," O'Malley said.

Acknowledging that Catholic voters in Massachusetts generally support Democratic candidates who are in favor of abortion rights, O'Malley said, "I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I'm concerned."

"However, when I challenge people about this, they say, 'Well, bishop, we're not supporting [abortion rights],' " he said. "I think there's a need for people to very actively dissociate themselves from those unacceptable positions, and I think if they did that, then the party would have to change."

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

Los Angeles Times: "During his visit to the U.S. in April, Benedict XVI could learn the value of separation of church and state."

The Los Angeles Times' editorial begins at the height of condescension:

Pope Benedict XVI will be preaching on his visit to Washington and New York next April, his first trip to the United States as pope. That's part of a pope's job description. But many American Catholics hope that the papal visit will double as what politicians in this country call a "listening tour." They know that, erudite as this former theology professor may be, he still might be able to learn something from their experience in a pluralistic country where the Catholic faith has flourished despite -- or because of -- the separation of church and state. . . .

Earlier this year, Benedict seemed to endorse the hard-line view, answering "yes" when asked if he agreed with the idea that Mexican legislators who voted to legalize abortion should be excommunicated. But a spokesman later issued a clarification that, while reasserting church teaching against abortion, left unclear whether the pope would deny Communion to pro-choice politicians.

When Benedict comes to the United States, he is likely to be importuned by conservative Catholics to side with the hard-liners. He would be wiser to listen to other Catholics, laypeople as well as clergy, who know what mischief would be caused by a decree that would seem to force some Catholic officials to choose between their responsibility to their constituents or the Constitution and their standing in the church. These American Catholics believe, as President Kennedy said in 1960, in "an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the president -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote."

Give me a break. After all, we are talking about the same Pope Benedict XVI who once remarked:

The modern idea of freedom is thus a legitimate product of the Christian environment; it could not have developed anywhere else. Indeed, one must add that it cannot be separated from this Christian environment and transplanted into any other system, as is shown very clearly today in the renaissance of Islam; the attempt to graft on to Islamic societies what are termed western standards cut loose from their Christian foundations misunderstands the internal logic of Islam as well as the historical logic to which these western standards belong, and hence this attempt was condemned to fail in this form. The construction of society in Islam is theocratic, and therefore monist and not dualist; dualism, which is the precondition for freedom, presupposes for its part the logic of the Christian thing. In practice this means that it is only where the duality of Church and state, of the sacral and the political authority, remains maintained in some form or another that the fundamental pre-condition exists for freedom.

Where the Church itself becomes the state freedom becomes lost. But also when the Church is done away with as a public and publicly relevant authority, then too freedom is extinguished, because there the state once again claims completely for itself the justification of morality; in the profane post-Christian world it does not admittedly do this in the form of a sacral authority but as an ideological authority – that means that the state becomes the party, and since there can no longer be any other authority of the same rank it once again becomes total itself. The ideological state is totalitarian; it must become ideological if it is not balanced by a free but publicly recognized authority of conscience. When this kind of duality does not exist the totalitarian system is unavoidable.

(Excerpted from "Theology and the Church’s Political Stance" in Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: Church, Ecumenism and Politics: New Essays in Ecclesiology (NY: Crossroad, 1988).

Perhaps the Los Angeles Times should consider whether the Church should remain "a public and publicly relevant authority" to those who profess the Catholic faith and yet obstinately and publicly repudiate her very teaching by their legislative actions?

Here's an introductory primer on what the Pope thinks about issues of Church and State.

Deal Hudson says I'm still searching for the words to express my disappointment in Fred Thompson's "Meet the Press" interview from last Sunday. (You and me both):

For Thompson to repudiate the pro-life plank of the Republican Party is, well, it has to be said, political suicide.

He entered the race with the advantage of a 100 % pro-life record.

Thompson was supposed to be the one candidate who could unite social and religious conservatives because he didn't have the "complications" of the other candidates.

Thompson just created a major complication for himself by doing exactly what he should not have done: Give pro-lifers a reason to support another candidate.

Unbelievable.

See Also: National Right to Life Endorsement of Fred Thompson Has Some Concerned: Questions about his opposition to Human Life Amendment and poor response to Schiavo case, by John Connolly. LifeSiteNews. November 14, 2007.