Remember Terri Schiavo (December 3, 1963 - March 31, 2005)

Terri Schiavo passed away 3 years ago today. CPS' colleague Jay Anderson reports from Pro Ecclesia.

See also:

• The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation - "The mission of the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation is to develop a national network of resources and support for the medically-dependent, persons with disabilities, and the incapacitated who are in or potentially facing life-threatening situations. Promoting a Culture of Life, 'Terri’s Foundation' embraces the true meaning of compassion by opposing the practice of euthanasia."
  

• Barack Obama vs. Terri Schiavo, by Nat Hentoff. Jewish World Review March 27, 2008. Hentoff revisits the case in responding to a certain presidential candidate from Illinois who confesses that that one vote he'd like to take back in his career in public service was that which allowed Congress to intervene in the murder of Terri Schiavo.
  

Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus on Obama's Philadelphia speech on race

"The Strange Ways of Black Folk" First Things March 28, 2008:

Slavery is, politically speaking, the “original sin” of our national founding, just as Obama says. And he is surely right in forthrightly condemning the “incendiary” words of his pastor. The great offense is not in the Reverend Wright’s “God damn America.” Biblical prophets called down the judgment of God on their people. But they invoked such judgment in order to call the people to repentance. They spoke so harshly because they had such a high and loving estimate of a divine election betrayed. The Reverend Wright—in starkest contrast to, for instance, Martin Luther King Jr., whose death we mark next week—was not calling for America to live up to its high promise. He was pronouncing God’s judgment on a nation whose original and actual sins of racism are beyond compassion, repentance, or forgiveness. He apparently relishes the prospect of America’s damnation.

And he does so for reasons that are, not to put too fine a point on it, simply crazy. For instance, the claim that the government unleashed the HIV virus in order to exterminate people of color. The question inevitably asked is why Senator Obama, for fifteen or more years, attentively listened to, generously supported, and submitted his children to the ministrations of a man who espoused such odious and bizarre views. To ask the question is not to deny that, as the senator emphasized, the Reverend Wright also did and said many good things. That a peddler of hate and vile slanders is not without virtues is quite beside the point.

Perhaps the single most telling statement in the Philadelphia speech is this: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.” The most reasonable interpretation of that statement, maybe the only reasonable interpretation, is that the Reverend Wright represents “the black community.” This ignores the great majority of blacks in America, who are in the working and middle classes and participate fully in the opportunities and responsibilities of the American experience.

The senator lends his prestige to the claim promoted by sundry race hustlers that Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, and Bill Cosby, along with millions of other black Americans, are not black enough to be part of “the black community.” One can understand why a Harvard law-school graduate born in Hawaii with a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas would, for political and perhaps personal reasons, seek the street credential of having “roots” in a militantly black sector of the intensely race-conscious city of Chicago. But complicity in the explicit slander of America and the implicit slander of most blacks in America is a very high price to pay for a ticket of admission to “the black community.”

"Pro-Life" Casey Endorses Obama ...

... and agrees to actively campaign with the candidate who says his first act as President will be to sign the "Freedom of Choice" Act.

The reactions at InsideCatholic:

Mighty Casey has sold out by Todd Aglialoro

Pro-Life Catholics for Obama by Deal Hudson

Will Casey help Obama with the Catholic vote? by Brian Saint-Paul

More on Pro-Life Democrats by Eric Pavlat

And then there's this one:
But apparently he's deaf to irony by Todd Aglialoro

Casey was quoted as saying he favored Obama because the Illinois senator "thinks we shouldn't be deaf to the voices of the next generation."

To which Margaret Cabaniss responds:

That level of obtuseness really makes you wonder if he ever believed his own pro-life platform.

I think many of us already knew the answer to that. I'm not sure I ever took Casey Jr.'s "pro-life" credentials seriously. He's certainly not his father's "pro-life Democrat".


See also:
Pro-Abortion Group Praises Casey For Votes

National Catholic Register: Pro-Lifers Assess Senator Casey’s Voting Record

Priest Blasts "Usual Suspects" For Votes Against Pro-Life Policy

Bob Casey Is Not His Father’s Pro-life Democrat

Senate Democrats (Including Allegedly "Pro Life" Bob Casey) Vote to Rescind Mexico City Policy

National Catholic Register on the Late Bob Casey, Sr.: "Mighty Casey and American Humility"

McCain and Catholic Voters

Robert R. Reilly, a former special assistant to President Reagan who served as his liaison to the Catholic Church, writes at InsideCatholic on what John McCain should do to appeal to Catholic voters:

... So what should Senator McCain do when Benedict XVI visits in April? This is his opportunity to demonstrate that he understands the significance of the pope's thought as it relates to the institution of the family, the sanctity of human life, and the threat of radical Islam. He needs to appear on EWTN with Raymond Arroyo and speak to that significance. He needs to do interviews in the National Catholic Register and other Catholic journals, and on Sirius radio's Catholic channel, which will cover the pope's visit by the hour. He needs to say that what the pope is expressing goes beyond a sectarian Catholic audience, as it addresses the core issues of Western civilization. He needs to say that Benedict was right at Regensburg in assessing moral relativism as the greatest threat to the West and to the integrity of reason, and that he was right also about the nature of the threat from an unreasoning version of Islam...

[Read the whole thing]

A fairly lively discussion is taking place in the comments to Mr. Reilly's piece.

Chicago anti-war protestors disrupt Easter Mass, throw blood on parishioners

Six people were arrested at Holy Name parish's auditorium Sunday after disrupting an Easter mass to protest the Iraq war, throwing fake blood on themselves and the audience. Stacy St. Clair and Erika Slife report for the Chicago Tribune:

The group—whose female and male members identified themselves as Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War—stood up at the beginning of Cardinal Francis George's homily and shouted their opposition to the conflict, which marked its fifth anniversary last week. As security guards and ushers tried to remove them from the service, the demonstrators squirted fake blood on themselves and parishioners dressed in their Easter finery.

The red substance, which one protester later described as "stage blood," initially drew gasps and a few terrified yelps from the 600 worshipers at the mass. The shock, however, quickly transformed into anger as people booed the six while they were escorted from the parish auditorium.

"Even the pope calls for peace," the demonstrators chanted as they left. "Even the pope calls for peace."

The Pope may call for peace, but I think he'd beg to differ on your particular means of expression.

George returned to his Easter homily without further addressing the disruption. A small number of worshipers, however, followed the protesters into the lobby to berate them for disrupting the service and frightening children in attendance.

"Are you happy with yourselves?" Mike Wainscott of Chicago shouted at the demonstrators as they were being handcuffed. "There were kids in there. You scared little kids with your selfish act. Are you happy now?"

In a statement issued Sunday afternoon by Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War, the group said it protested at Holy Name "to reach both Holy Name's large Easter audience—including Chicago's most prominent Catholic citizens, who commonly attend Easter mass at the church—and the many more viewers and readers of the local press, which usually extensively covers their services."

No way to treat the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

What a disgrace.

Obama's followers come to his defense, smear Pope Benedict & Mainstream America

In the process of defending their presidential candidate, Obama's devotees, er, supporters come across as increasingly more -- how shall we call it? -- "unhinged":

• First, the Huffington Post's Chris Kelly resurrects an old Ratzinger smear to counter Bill O'Reilly's criticism of Wright: O'Reilly Attends Easter Services At Church Lead by Ex-Nazi:

  The Huffington Post has learned that Bill O'Reilly -- who claims to love America -- spent Sunday at a "church" run by a former Hitler Youth named Joseph Alois Ratzinger. Ratzinger has gone to elaborate ends to hide this connection, including taking on the absurd pseudonym "Pope Benedict XVI." Which, even if it doesn't prove anything, certainly makes you think.
  

  This shocking revelation comes only a week after Barack Obama admitted he attends a church formerly run by Jeremiah Wright, who talks smack about America, although probably less than Goebbels did. ...

  
  

• Second, via RedState: Barbara Ehrenreich Smells Hebrews and Freemasons Collaborating. Aims at Hillary. Shoots Obama. RedState.com March 24, 2008:

  CBS News is running a hit job on Hillary Clinton this morning that tells us more about Barack Obama than it does Hillary Clinton. The article is an opinion piece by Barbara Ehrenreich. Maybe it is because the Nation is such a far left rag that Ms. Ehrenreich does not even realize she is attacking mainstream America, but we should note that Ms. Ehrenreich is, in fact, attacking very mainstream America in an attempt to take out Hillary and build up Obama. . . .

  
  

Kmiec endorses Obama

• Douglas W. Kmiec endorses Obama.
  
• "The Cranky Conservative" responds.
  

Obama Attributes Support for Reagan by Blue Collar "Reagan Democrats" to "Anger Over Welfare and Affirmative Action"

Barack Obama, in his "A More Perfect Union" speech yesterday, attributed the formation of the Reagan coalition to anger and resentment over welfare and racial preferences:

... In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding...

(emphasis added)

Got that? Blue collar "anger" and "resentment" over race "have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation" - meaning that the conservative ascendency that began with the election of Ronald Reagan was a product of there being a whole lot of angry white male factory workers, whose anger was being misdirected toward black folks and exploited by cynical right-wing operatives "for their own electoral ends".

So, in those 3 paragraphs cited above, Obama regurgitates the tired old leftist meme that the only thing that could possibly explain traditional Democrat voters supporting Ronald Reagan - thereby forging the "Reagan Coalition" - was because Reagan "made us comfortable in our prejudices".

I wonder what self-described "Catholic Reaganite for Obama" Doug Kmiec has to say about that assessment?

The Catholic Blogosphere's "Political Jungle"

Eric Scheske's monthly column on blogging and bloggers in the March 23-29 issue of National Catholic Register covers some of St. Blog's political commentators:

... What about Catholic political bloggers? Unfortunately, none of them rank among the cybersphere’s heavy hitters, but they’re numerous. The annual Catholic Blog Awards (catholicblogawards.com) dedicate an entire category to Catholic political and social commentary.

The Anchoress (theanchoressonline.com) won the category in 2006 and 2007. I suspect she’ll win again in 2008, and deservingly so. This anonymous blogger touches on many topics, but hard-hitting political commentary is the blog’s core.

There are lots of good Catholic political bloggers, but if I had to pick my favorites, I’d choose:

• Catholics in the Public Square (thepublicsquare.blogspot.com). All politics all the time, from a Catholic perspective.

• The Dawn Patrol (dawneden.com/blogger). Convert Dawn Eden’s blog. Not dedicated to politics, but it emphasizes pro-life politics and frequently exposes the dishonest political tactics and harmful policies of Planned Parenthood.

• Vox Nova: Catholic Perspectives on Culture, Society, and Politics (vox-nova.com). The subtitle says it all. Numerous contributors make for an active blog.

• Taki’s Top Drawer (takimag.com). Taki Theodoracopulos’ blog. Not explicitly Catholic, but heavily slanted with a Catholic perspective.

• Catholic Analysis (catholicanalysis.blogspot.com). A smart one-man show dedicated almost entirely to politics.

• The Distributist Review (distributism.blogspot.com). A list of Catholic political blogs that didn’t mention ChesterBelloc-inspired thinking would hardly be Catholic. The blog isn’t updated as often as I’d like, but it keeps alive the economic and political thought of a heady bygone Catholic era.

• RomanCatholicBlog (romancatholicblog.typepad.com). Far more political than its name implies.

[More]

Frank Schaeffer dishonors his father (yet again) for Obama

Via Vox Nova's resident Obama-devotee (Gerald Campbell) we hear the latest screed by disgruntled, wayward son Frankie Schaeffer against his father, the late, great Evangelical apologist Francis Schaeffer, entitled Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero (Huffington Post March 16, 2008):

When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr. . . . Dad and I were amongst the founders of the Religious right. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation's sins instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party. (This was while I was my father's sidekick before I dropped out of the evangelical movement altogether.) We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American.

Perhaps, perhaps not -- Frankie brings before the Huffington court "a few passages from my father's immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto":

If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable.

[and]

There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation...

There's a third passage Frankie offers in which his dad considers parallels between public schools in the United States and the Soviet Union where "the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively" and where "all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden" -- but I think Francis' illustration is hardly objectionable and perhaps even true, depending on degree to which one's local public school is ruled by secularism.

So let's focus on those two passages where Frankie suggests his dad advocates the "violent overthrow" of the United States.

It helps to read the passages in context, and this can be done simply by the wonderous power of Google. (Frankie's excerpts will be in red) -- pages 117-118:

There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate. The Christian is not to take the law into his own hands and become a law unto himself. But when all avenues of flight and protest have closed, force in the defensive posture is appropriate. This was the situation of the American Revolution.
[...]
A true Christian in Hitler’s Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state and hidden his Jewish neighbors from SS troops. The government had abrogated its authority, and had no right to make any demands.

This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion. [...] Christians must come to the children's defense, and must come to the defense of human life as such. The defense should be carried out on at least four fronts:

First, we should aggressively support a human life bill or a constitutional amendment protecting unborn children.

Second, we must enter the courts seeking to overturn the Supreme Court's abortion decision.

Third, legal and political action should be taken against hospitals and abortion clinics that perform abortions. [...]

Francis Schaeffer goes on to advocate putting pressure on institutions that provide abortions by introducing legislation cutting off taxpayer funding. He also supports non-violent civil disobedience and picketing of the abortion clinics (I believe this would be the "fourth" front).

Little wonder, that such proposals would appeal to Christian conservatives.

The next sentence is contained in a separate chapter:

It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God’s law it abrogates it’s authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation to such a tyrannical usurping of power. [p. 131]

The appropriate response entails not just the pursuit of political and legal actions and the use of mere words, but the provision of Christian alternatives:

Those who have responsibility as Christians, as they live under Scripture, must not only take the necessarily legal and political stands, but must practice all the possible Christian alternatives simultaneously with taking stands politically and legally. . . . [to] show that there are Christian alternatives. In Whatever Happened to the Human Race we stressed this in regard to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia of the old -- that Christians must not only speak and fight against these things, bu then must provide the Christian alternative. [p. 133]

With respect to abortion, Francis cites as a positive example the establishment of crisis pregnancy centers. He goes on to criticize as utopian those who provide ONLY the alternatives and neglect to take the appropriate legal and political measures -- and likewise believes it wrong and incomplete to pursue political-legal policy without adopting Christian alternatives.

Again, here is the second quote, in context:

“If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force, and if there is a vigilant precaution against its overreaction in practice, then at a certain point the use of force is justifiable. We should recognize, however, that overreaction can too easily become the ugly horror of sheer violence. [p. 106]

What kind of force is Francis Schaeffer envisioning, then, to counter the forces of secularism and the culture of death?

At this point in history, protest is the most viable alternative. … after all the normal constitutional means of protest have been exhausted, then what could be done? At some point, Christians could refuse to pay some portion of their tax money. Of course, this would mean a trial. Such a move would have to mean the individual’s choice under God. Happily, at the present time the Hyde amendment has removed the use of national tax money for abortions, but that does not change the possibilty that in some cases such a protest would be the only way to be heard. One can think of, for example, tax money going to Planned Parenthood . . .

Francis Schaeffer goes to advocate resisting entanglement and interference with the secular state through home-schooling or private [religious?] schooling.

Guess which party leans on the side of home-schooling and vouchers for private schooling?

* * *

To be sure, Francis meditates on that which compelled our founding fathers to revolt against the British ("the people, if they find their basic rights systematically attacked by the state, have a duty to try and change that government, and if they cannot do so, to abolish it") and what might constitute "the bottom line" for Christians as well:

"If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been put in the place of the Living God, because then you are to obey it even when it tells you in its own way to worship Caesar. And that point is exactly where the early Christians performed their own acts of civil disobedience even where it costs them their own lives. [p. 130]

But I think this is a far cry from the caricature of his father that Frankie provides, cobbled together from a straw man of quotations. I'll leave to the reader to judge whether those criticizing Jeremiah Wright are pursuing a "double standard."

Related

• Regarding Obama's former pastor and James Cone, the racist theologian who influenced Wright, see Rod Dreher's The insanity of "black liberation theology" Beliefnet.com. March 17, 2008). If Pastor Wright cites Cone as an influence, than he is nothing like Francis Schaeffer.
  
• "Fathers and Sons: On Francis Schaeffer, Frank Schaeffer, and Crazy for God" - Os Guinness (Books & Culture, March/April 2008)
  
• Jaded: Frank Schaefer 35 Years Later, by Philip Blosser (Pertinacious Papist) November 3, 2007.
  

Pro-Life Group Launches HumanaeVitaePriests.Org

Catholic News Service reports on the launching of a new website, humanaevitaepriests.org, to help priests, deacons and seminarians teach and evangelize using Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae:

The site producers plan to supply offering reflections, commentaries, homily aids and solid practical resources for priests to preach about and defend Catholic teachings concerning marital love and contraception. The site is located at http://www.humanaevitaepriests.org/

According to John Mallon, director of HumanaeVitaePriests.org, the site will examine the “disastrous aspects of widespread contraception,” including its “medical, sociological, hormonal, psychological, cultural, pastoral, spiritual, even environmental aspects.” It will feature the commentary of special guest experts.

The site includes a special supplement from the magazine Inside the Vatican’s 1998 issue commemorating the 30th anniversary of the encyclical. The free supplement, titled “A Prophecy for Our Time,” includes interviews with Human Life International founder Father Paul Marx, Priests for Life president Father Frank Pavone, Dr. Janet Smith, and Dr. Alice von Hildebrand. It also contains a pastoral letter from Archbishop Charles Chaput and an article from then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before his election to the papacy.

“Our prayer is that this project will be a positive effort to spread the light and truth of God’s plan for love, marriage and sexuality,” said Mallon.

In the wake of Governor Spitzer's Resignation . . .

• Bishops hope to work with new governor for 'common good' of New York Catholic News Service:

  ALBANY, N.Y. (CNS) -- The head of the New York State Catholic Conference in Albany, on behalf of the conference and the state's Catholic bishops, assured New York's new governor of prayers as he "assumes his awesome responsibilities under extraordinarily difficult circumstances."
  

  "I look forward to working closely with Gov. (David) Paterson and the Legislature on behalf of the common good" of the state, said Richard E. Barnes, the conference's executive director, in a March 12 statement.
  

  Paterson, the state's lieutenant governor, was to be sworn in as governor March 17 to succeed Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who announced his resignation March 12 in the wake of a prostitution-ring scandal.
  

  Barnes described Paterson as "highly intelligent, well versed on the issues and extremely affable." He noted that they have not always agreed, but said that Paterson has been respectful of the state's Catholic conference "in our role as advocates for the most vulnerable members of society."
  

  The Catholic conference represents New York state's bishops in matters of public policy.
  

  Barnes also said Paterson has "an appreciation for the role of the Catholic Church, which is the largest nongovernmental provider of health care, human services and education in New York state, and for the perspective we bring to the public policy arena."

  
  

• Elliot Spitzer and Abortion, by Paul Moses. dotCommonweal:

  New York state’s Catholic bishops had a long-awaited appointment with Gov. Eliot Spitzer at the state Capitol in Albany on Monday at 3 p.m. to protest his pending abortion rights legislation. For some reason, it kept getting put off, and Cardinal Edward Egan and fellow bishops were left to wonder why. They were told at one point that the lieutenant-governor, David Paterson, would meet with them. But that failed to come through. They were finally able to deduce the problem after a New York Times report on the Web indicated that Spitzer was occupied with other worries.
  

  Spitzer’s legislation would declare abortion a “fundamental right.” The New York State Catholic Conference argues that state regulators could use such a “radical” law to coerce Catholic hospitals to provide abortions. . . .

  [See: Spitzer Pushing Bill to Shore Up Abortion Rights New York Times April 26, 2007 for background details].
  

Let's hope New York's Catholic Bishops meet a more receptive and cooperative governor in the person of David Paterson.

As for ex-governor Spitzer -- let's keep the man in our prayers that he may seek true repentence, and particularly for his wife and family that they will weather the media's storm.

Southern Appeal on McCain & Hagee

The recently-resurrected Southern Appeal on McCain & Hagee's anti-Catholic remarks:

To be sure, I would rather McCain completely disassociate himself from Hagee, but his failure to do so (no doubt as a matter of political prudence) is not nearly enough for me to sit out an election that may, among other things, decide who gets to fill as many as three Supreme Court vacancies in the next four years. I mean, seriously, do the dems really believe that faithful Catholics are just going to sit on the sidelines this November because one of McCain’s high-profile supporters is a bigoted twit? Do they honestly think that this sort of thing matters more than Senator Obama’s unwillingness to support legislation designed to provide basic medical care to babies who survive botched abortions?

The bottom line is this: On the non-negotiable teachings of the Catholic Church, Senator McCain is the clear choice for faithful Catholics (even with his deeply troubling support of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research). And no amount of jeering by dems over Hagee’s endorsement of McCain is going to change this fact. Besides, I would think Obama and Clinton supporters have plenty of other things to be concerned about.

Catholics and McCain

Recent stories on McCain and the Catholic "vote".

McCain “categorically rejects” Hagee’s anti-Catholic statements

In an interview with the Associated Press the Republican presidential candidate said, "We've had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics”.

John McCain rallies Catholics as he prepares for general election

Austin Ruse from Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) raised the issue with the Arizona senator by asking him whether he had considered changing his position on embryonic stem cell research given the dramatic scientific advances of the last two months. McCain responded to Ruse’s question by saying that while he is “very encouraged” by the advances, he has yet to see “sufficient scientific evidence” to change his support for the practice. He added that he will continue to examine the issue and receive briefs on any progress being made.

It is my prayer that Senator McCain will see the light on ESCR and change his position.

Catholic Discussion of Barack Obama: A Roundup

A survey of some recent online dicussion of Senator Barack Obama's candidacy among Catholics:

• Deal Hudson @ InsideCatholic.com takes a look at Obama's Catholic Problem.
  

• The Barack-ing Point - Leon Suprenant of Catholics United for the Faith's blog asks: "Are there any “proportionate reasons” that could possibly justify a Catholic supporting Senator Obama in the general election?"
  

• Thomas Peters (American Papist) expresses his dismay at Obama's remarks in the last debate about letting Congress intrude in the death (most of us would think murder) of Terri Schiavo: Obama's biggest regret? Not more energetically letting Terri Schiavo die. In Bill Donohue Is Back, So Let’s Recap… (Vox Nova) - Morning's Minion takes the opposite stance, defending Obama's perspective against the Catholic League.
  

• In Catholics for Obama? (Caelum Et Terra ) there is a vigorous discussion prompted by Douglas W. Kmiec's article ("Reaganites for Obama" February 13, 2008); Maclin Horton has decided No'bama for Me, Thanks.
  

• "Mad World of Barack Obama" Creative Minority Report offers a "video essay about the kind of change Barack Obama really supports."
  

• Former Senator Rick Santorum on The Elephant in the Room: Obama: "A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image" Philadelphia Enquirer February 28, 2008.
  

• The Soul of Senator Obama & "The soul of Senator Obama, Part II - Ignatius Press' Carl Olson points two two damning pieces of evidence . . . from Obama himself.
  

Obama Campaign online banner advertisement for the Houston Chronicle
-- buying into his own cult of personality?)

In addition, I found this recent piece interesting: Barack Obama and Me: It was the year 2000 and I was a young hungry reporter in Chicago covering a young hungry state legislator, by Todd Spivack (Houston Press February 28, 2008), if only because it reveals that, scratch the thin veneer of "change" and "unity", and you get a run-of-the-mill self-seeking manipulative politician like any other. It's only a question of time before the facade crumbles following election day (if and when he's voted into office). We can expect more scrutinizing pieces like this one as the mainstream press gets over its initial infatuation with the Senator from Illinois.

Last but not least, our colleague Jay Anderson (Pro Ecclesia) has been devoting numerous posts on his own blog to what makes Obama's candicacy (as well as John McCain's, in all fairness) problematic for the discerning Catholic voter. As Jay states:

although I think it is inaccurate to say that a Catholic voter may not vote for a pro-abortion/"pro-choice" candidate under any circumstances, I think it quite legitimate to say that a Catholic voter SHOULD NOT vote for such a candidate, and that one would have a very difficult obstacle to overcome in finding a "proportionate" and/or "morally grave" reason to justify such a vote.

Barack Obama on Abortion and the Question to the Catholic Voter

Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure—that it’s not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong.

Within hours of the decision, an Alabama lawmaker introduced a measure to ban all abortions. With one more vacancy on the Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe versus Wade and that is what is at stake in this election. . . .

I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality. Steve and Pam will tell you that we fought together in the Illinois State Senate against restrictive choice legislation—laws just like the federal abortion laws, the federal abortion bans that are cropping up. I’ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito . . .

There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t find common ground. Because we know that what’s at stake is more than whether or not a woman can choose an abortion.

Choice is about how we lead our lives. It’s about our families and about our communities. It’s about our daughters and whether they’re going to have the same opportunities as our sons. There are those who want us to believe otherwise. They want us to believe that there’s nothing that unites us as Americans—there’s only what divides us. They’ll seek out the narrowest and most divisive ground. That is the strategy—to always argue small instead of looking at the big picture. They will stand in the way of any attempt to find common ground. . . .

[In answer to the question: "What would you do at the federal level not only to ensure access to abortion but to make sure that the judicial nominees that you will inevitably be able to pick are true to the core tenets of Roe v. Wade?]

Well, the first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

-- Excerpted from Senator Barack Obama's address to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007

* * *

It should be clear from his address that Obama's conception of "human freedom" and "equality for all" as seemingly protected by Roe v. Wade includes by necessity unrestricted access to abortion in perpetuity. When he berates those who do not grasp "the big picture" -- I cannot help but be conscious of the fact that Obama has framed his understanding in such a way as to intentionally exclude the weakest among us: those not yet born.

Obama has not brought the light of reason reason to bear upon the inconsistency of his own "pro-choice" position on this matter.

Rather, Senator Obama appears wholly committed to (and devoting his presidency to maintaining, among other things) a legal ruling and a system that the Catholic Bishops have condemned as "fundamentally flawed" at its very root.

It is true that the Bishops have not ruled out the possibility of voting for a "pro-choice" candidate in dire situations -- in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship they grant:

There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would
be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

But at the same time our Bishops also teach that:

Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of the possible.” At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, Pope John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, “limiting the harm done by such a law” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible. Evangelium Vitae, no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death.

The question is whether or not the possible good that may be provided under Obama's presidency (provided he is able to carry out all that that he has promised to bestow) truly outweigh the evils that may very well occur -- his appointment of judges to the Supreme Court? his stated intent to provide "unyielding support" to Democrats in Congress to pass legislation which would roll back any restrictions on abortion?

What kind of "change" will come about, what kind of "unity" can possibly occur under such a president who obstinately repudiates the very clear teachings of the Church on the sanctity of human life?

USCCB Responds to Feuerherd

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, director of media relations for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, writes in today's Washington Post:

Joe Feuerherd's screed against the Catholic bishops for their call for political responsibility epitomizes the incivility of this campaign season, where truth has become a casualty and half-truths the norm.

With demeaning and mocking words, Feuerherd scoffs at the bishops' November 2007 statement "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship." It urges Catholics not to be one-issue voters but to look at all the issues and make prudent decisions. When up for a vote, it drew virtually unanimous support of the almost 300 active members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Few decisions get that kind of support.

***
The current campaign shows that politics is too often a contest of powerful interests, partisan attacks, sound bites and media hype. In "Faithful Citizenship," the Church calls for a different kind of political engagement: one shaped by moral convictions of well-formed consciences and focused on the dignity of every human being, the pursuit of the common good, and the protection of the weak and vulnerable. It stresses that Catholics need to be guided more by their moral convictions than by attachment to a political party or interest group. Catholic participation should help transform the party to which they belong; they should not let the party transform them in such a way that they neglect or deny basic moral truths.

Feuerherd's incivility is striking. The crude reference to the Eucharist as "the wafer" should be beneath anyone who respects people's religious sentiments, let alone an acknowledged Catholic. Belief in the Eucharist is sacred to Catholics, yet Feuerherd treats it in a belittling manner.

His final salvo, damning the bishops, is unworthy of both Feuerherd and The Post. It's hard to imagine The Post giving its pages to a writer suggesting the outright damnation of the leaders of any other religious body. Feuerherd's vitriol might be understandable if the bishops were concerned, like a typical special-interest group, only with what benefits them. However, the bishops' defense of the right to life of the unborn is a principled commitment in justice to the good of others who are vulnerable and with no voice of their own.

[Read the whole thing]

Dr. Ed Peters: Bishops should respond canonically to Feuerherd's curse

Dr. Ed Peters (In The Light of the Law) blogs on the proper canonical response to National Catholic Reporter's Joe Feuerherd's curse upon the Catholic Bishops:

To wish damnation on an individual or a group is to wish on them the absolutely worst fate conceivable: separation from God forever. CCC 1035. Catholics possessed of even a rudimentary catechesis know that one cannot invoke upon a human being any greater calamity than damnation, and that it is never licit, for any reason, to wish that another person be damned. . . .

Now, Canon 1369 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that "a person who . . . in published writing . . . expresses insults or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty." Canon 1373 states that "a person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry . . . is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties."

I believe Feuerherd has gravely violated both of these canons.

Joe Feuerherd vs. The Catholic Bishops

Three inter-related stories addressing the issue of voting and the upcoming U.S. presidential election:

• Not all political issues of equal value, says Bishop DiMarzio Catholic News Service. February 13, 2008:

  A "hierarchy of values" exists, which means not all political issues are of equal value, said Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn.
  

  "Our faith must inform our political decisions," he said, and Catholic voters are obliged to distinguish "between moral evil," such as abortion, "and matters of prudential judgment," such as tuition tax credits.
  

  Bishop DiMarzio made the comments in an address Feb. 7 to a crowd of 500 at the Cathedral Club of Brooklyn's annual dinner. His remarks drew on the U.S. bishops' 2007 document, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility." . . .
  

  In his talk, the bishop referred primarily to issues in New York state. He described as "a most radical abortion bill" legislation proposed by Gov. Eliot Spitzer and known as the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act.
  

  The bishop said it would legalize partial-birth abortion, a procedure which he noted the late U.S. Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan, D-N.Y., described as "near-infanticide."
  

  Bishop DiMarzio said the measure would "disenfranchise parents of their right to play a central role in the most significant decisions of their minor children" because it prohibits parental notification, and it would also expand access to over-the-counter pharmaceuticals "that destroy human life."
  

  "In our own country, despite significant victories that extend protection to the unborn, this modern slaughter of the holy innocents continues because of the policies of unscrupulous politicians," he said.
  

  "Only in circumstances that are extraordinarily hard to contemplate may a Catholic voter support a proponent of so great an intrinsic moral evil," the bishop said.
  

  Bishop DiMarzio also questioned legislative efforts "that would undermine the family by redefining marriage." He said that "pandering to a small but well-funded special interest group, our leadership in Albany would undermine the institution that is the bedrock of our society."
  

  Saying that the business of government is to protect the common good, the bishop asked how the state benefits by extending "the benefits of marriage" to same-sex couples.

  And what of the war in Iraq?

  Turning to the war in Iraq, Bishop DiMarzio said Pope Benedict XVI "has made no secret of his personal opposition" to the conflict, "in which 4,000 servicemen and servicewomen have died, 50,000 have been wounded and the lives of tens of thousands, perhaps even a hundred thousand, Iraqis have been crushed."
  

  Many theologians contend that a pre-emptive war cannot be justified in Catholic teaching, he said.
  

  The current debate over troop surges or withdrawing troops or timetables for withdrawal, however, "is a matter of prudential judgment," he said.
  

  In viewing the range of issues elected officials and candidates might take on the national and local levels, Bishop DiMarzio said that support for anyone who "espouses policies that are gravely immoral" is possible "only under exceptional circumstances that are hard to imagine."

  
  
  

• On a similar note, the bishops who head Kentucky's four Catholic dioceses urged the state's Catholics to take a close look at life issues when voting this year. Catholic News Service reports:

  "All human laws must be measured against the natural law engraved in our hearts by the Creator," said the bishops in a pastoral letter, "Reverence for Life: Conscience and Faithful Citizenship" [.pdf format]
  

  "Our religious beliefs affirm basic human rights and obligations that are essential to the fabric of our social life. In particular, respect for human life is numbered among those basic values that underpin the very foundation of civilization," they said.
  

  "What we profess in defense of the sacredness of unborn human life harmonizes with our historic legal tradition founded on the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," they said. "Abortion on demand does not."
  

  "Reverence for Life" was issued Jan. 22, the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton that legalized abortion virtually on demand.
  

  Signing the pastoral were Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville and Bishops Roger J. Foys of Covington, Ronald W. Gainer of Lexington, and John J. McRaith of Owensboro.

  Without bothering to "name names", the Bishops addressed the common fallacy found among those who are "pro-choice":

  The claim political candidates have made that they are personally opposed to abortion but unwilling to impose their beliefs on others was condemned by the bishops as "an evasion," "a moral contraction" and "self-deception."
  

  "No one can be excepted from the logical step to translate moral opposition into effective strategies," they added. "If there is a lack of public consensus to effect full legal protection (for the unborn), no one can be excused from working toward creating consensus as a first step."
  

  The bishops said, "We do not seek the formation of a religious voting bloc, nor do we desire to instruct Catholics on how to vote either by endorsing or opposing candidates," but "we do uphold our right and duty to provide moral analysis of the major issues confronting society."

  
  
  

• Also this week, National Catholic Reporter journalist Joe Feuerherd boasted of his vote for Obama, decrying the "right wing lurch" of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Cardinal Sins: "I Voted for Obama. Will I Go Straight to. . . ?" Washington Post February 24, 2008):

  Like most Maryland Democrats, I voted for Sen. Barack Obama in the recent Potomac Primary. By doing so, according to the leaders of my church, I put my soul at risk. That's right, says the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops -- tap the touch screen for a pro-abortion-rights candidate, and you're probably punching your ticket to Hell.

  he bishops have raised the stakes: It's not only lawmakers and candidates who risk damnation, 98 percent of the U.S. bishops agreed last November, but the voters who put them in office. "It is important to be clear," the bishops said in a 44-page statement titled "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" [.pdf format] "that the political choices faced by citizens[emphasis added] not only have an impact on general peace and prosperity but also may affect the individual's salvation." Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, chairman of the committee that drafted the statement, put those high-minded sentiments into plain English earlier this month. Support for a candidate who "espouses policies that are gravely immoral" is possible "only under exceptional circumstances that are hard to imagine," he told the Cathedral Club of Brooklyn.
  

  To Catholics like me who oppose liberal abortion laws but also think that other issues -- war or peace, health care, just wages, immigration, affordable housing, torture -- actually matter, the idea that abortion trumps everything, all the time, no matter what, is both bad religion and bad civics.
  

  Feuerherd also took the opportunity to attack the oudated convictions of not only the USCCB but Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor, John Paul II:

  This fire-and-brimstone approach to the ballot box is the long-term bequest of a conservative pope, John Paul II, enacted by a U.S. hierarchy appointed during his 27-year tenure and now by his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. John Paul's key criterion in choosing the men who lead the United States' 194 dioceses was their vocal support for church teachings that have been rejected in whole (birth control) or in part (women's ordination and abortion) by many Catholics in the pews and the broader American culture.

  and closes by proclaiming his moral superiority:

  So what's a pro-life, pro-family, antiwar, pro-immigrant, pro-economic-justice Catholic like me supposed to do in November? That's an easy one. True to my faith, I'll vote for the candidate who offers the best hope of ending an unjust war, who promotes human dignity through universal health care and immigration reform, and whose policies strengthen families and provide alternatives to those in desperate situations. Sounds like I'll be voting for the Democrat -- and the bishops be damned.

Related Discussions

• How the Left will tackle McCain", by Deal Hudson. InsideCatholic.com February 24, 2008 | (As Jay Anderson @ Pro Ecclesia points out, the Right have been tackling McCain along similar lines as well, so the McCain Campaign had better pay attention.
  
• Morally Justifying Immoral Voting Behavior The Cranky Conservative February 25, 2008.
  
• Conscientious Voting: Doing injustice, by Ramesh Ponnuru. National Review February 25, 2008.
  
• National "Catholic" Reporter reporter: "bishops be damned" by Carl Olson (Insight Scoop): "Is it really 'bad religion' and 'bad civics'? Not according to Pope John Paul II, . . ."

Why Barack Obama Opposed the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act

Leon Wolf minces no words at RedState.com Barack Obama: Morally Depraved:

when I examine what Presidential candidates say on the campaign trail, and how they have voted or governed in the past, I am not so much looking for a checklist of positions, or someone who makes me feel warm and fuzzy when they speak, but rather I am looking behind all of that to see what those speeches/votes/actions say about the judgment of the candidate. I do this because I know that when new and important questions approach the Presidential desk, President X will not go back and consult what he said as Candidate X in stump speeches; he will go where all leaders and decision-makers go: to his character and gut. And if a President's character and gut are rotten, it is a safe bet that bad decisions will flow from it.

This brings us to Amanda Carpenter's excellent story about Barack Obama and the Born Alive Infants' Protection Act ("BAIPA"). . .

One note - somebody objects from the comments: "And, you'll note that the BAIPA is not an "abortion position," which is why NARAL did not oppose it. It's a "being a decent human being" position."

On the contrary, it was precisely because this raised an intellectual challenge to the legitimization of abortion that Obama opposed it -- or as Obama noted:

... I just want to suggest... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - child, a nine-month-old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. [Barack Obama - IL Senate floor on March 30, 2001]

Obama is sharp enough to perceive the implications (and perhaps what was actually intended by) this legislation -- and, true to form, staunchly opposed it.

Which only goes to affirm Leon Wolf's charge.