Cardinal Rigali Urges Support for Pro-Life Amendments to Health Care Reform Bill

Cardinal Rigali Urges House Committee to Support Pro-Life Amendments to Health Care Reform Bill United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. July 30, 2009:

Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, wrote on July 29 to the members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee urging them to amend “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act” (H.R. 3200) to retain longstanding government policies on abortion and conscience rights.

Cardinal Rigali reiterated criteria for “genuine health care reform” set forth by Bishop William Murphy, Chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Policy, in his letter to Congress on July 17. He described health care as “a basic right belonging to all human beings, from conception to natural death” and said that “the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is working to ensure that needed health reform is not undermined by abandoning longstanding and widely supported policies against abortion funding and mandates and in favor of conscience protection.”

The Cardinal enumerated several problems with the bill as introduced: It would be used to mandate abortion coverage in private health plans, expand abortion funding, override state laws that limit or regulate abortion, and endanger existing laws protecting the conscience rights of health care providers.

“Much-needed reform must not become a vehicle for promoting an ‘abortion rights’ agenda or reversing longstanding current policies against federal abortion mandates and funding,” he wrote. “In this sense we urge you to make this legislation ‘abortion neutral’ by preserving longstanding federal policies that prevent government promotion of abortion and respect conscience rights.”

Related

• Why Catholics Will Not Get Abortion Out of the Health Care Bill, by Deal W. Hudson. InsideCatholic.com August 3, 2009.
  

• NY Catholic Nurse Forced To Participate in Abortion Describes Ordeal LifeSiteNews. July 28, 2009. Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, a nurse at Mount Sinai Hospital who was forced to participate in the abortion of a late-term unborn child under the threat of losing her job and nursing license, has given a candid interview to the New York Post.
  

• Bishop: 'yes' to universal health care; 'no' to abortion funding , by Thomas c. Fox. National Catholic Reporter July 17, 2009. Bishop Murphy of Rockville, NY warned against the inclusion of abortion coverage in any reform plan, saying that Americans should not be forced to pay for the destruction of human life through government funding or mandatory coverage.
  

• Catholic Politicians Continue to Advance Abortion Lobby Agenda Pewsitter, July 19, 2009. While pro-life legislators in the House and Senate are working overtime battling attempts to broaden abortion policy in both appropriation bills and the healthcare reform bill, some Catholic politicians are leading efforts to advance the abortion lobby agenda making abortion universally accessible and funded by taxpayer dollars. (See also: Pelosi Accused of Muzzling Opposition to Taxpayer-Funded D.C. Abortions Jay Anderson, Pro Ecclesia July 20, 2009.
  

Recommended Reading

• The Abortion Administration: here comes federal funding for abortion, by Marjorie Dannenfelser. Weekly Standard
  
• The Catholic WFB: Bill Buckley made his faith look resplendently good, by Neal B. Freeman (National Review. Adapted from remarks delivered before a Portsmouth Institute session celebrating the life and faith of William F. Buckley Jr.
  
• Remembering Tony Snow's life, by Dana Perino (Politico). Memories of the former Catholic press secretary for President George W. Bush.
  
• William McGurn wonders Why was Samuel Alito's Catholicism so much more discussed than Sonia Sotomayor's? Wall Street Journal July 14, 2009.
  
• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Eugenicist, by George J. Marlin. The Catholic Thing.
  
• 19 Blue Dog pro-life Democrats have sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi advising her that they will vote against National Health Care if it does not exclude abortion funding (Creative Minority Report).
  
• George Weigel pens An Open Letter to Miguel Diaz, nominated by President Obama as ambassador to the Holy See.
  

Michael Sean Winters: No to Federally Funded Abortion

(Hat tip: The Catholic Key Blog)

Chris and I have both been somewhat critical lately of the writing of America Magazine contributor Michael Sean Winters, so I think we would be remiss if we didn't acknowledge Winters for writing something particularly praiseworthy:

To be clear: I have never voted for a Republican in my life. My mother told me my right hand would wither and fall to the ground if I did. But, if the President or my representatives in Congress support federal funding for abortion in any way, shape or form, I will never vote for them again and I might risk my right hand in the next election by voting for their opponent.

So, call your Senators and Representatives. Call the White House. Many of us pro-life Democrats have given the President the benefit of the doubt on the abortion issue because of his repeated commitment to trying to lower the abortion rate, a commitment he reiterated to Pope Benedict XVI last week. All the good will he has earned among Catholic swing voters, and all the arguments on his behalf progressive Catholics have mounted, all could be swept away if abortion is part of a federal option in health care. Politics is the art of compromise, but on this point, there can be none.

[Read the whole thing]

My Comments:
Well done!

President Obama selects rural Catholic doctor, Regina Benjamin, for Surgeon General

Rocco Palmo has the details.

Pope Benedict XVI meets President Barack Obama

• Official press release the the Vatican published today after Benedict XVI received U.S. President Barack Obama in audience:

  his afternoon, Friday 10 July 2009, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI received in Audience the President of the United States of America, His Excellency Mr. Barack H. Obama. Prior to the Audience, the President met His Eminence Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of State, and also His Excellency Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, Secretary for Relations with States.
  

  In the course of their cordial exchanges the conversation turned first of all to questions which are in the interests of all and which constitute a great challenge for the future of every nation and for the true progress of peoples, such as the defence and promotion of life and the right to abide by one’s conscience.
  

  Reference was also made to immigration with particular attention to the matter of reuniting families.
  

  The meeting focused as well upon matters of international politics, especially in light of the outcome of the G8 Summit. The conversation also dealt with the peace process in the Middle East, on which there was general agreement, and with other regional situations. Certain current issues were then considered, such as dialogue between cultures and religions, the global economic crisis and its ethical implications, food security, development aid especially for Africa and Latin America, and the problem of drug trafficking. Finally, the importance of educating young people everywhere in the value of tolerance was highlighted.

Pope Benedict XVI speaks with U.S. President Barack Obama (R) during their meeting in the pontiff's private library at the Vatican July 10, 2009. Source: Reuters

• In addition to giving Obama a copy of his latest encyclical, the pope also presented a copy of the Vatican document on biomedical ethics, "Dignitas Personae" ("The Dignity of a Person") (Catholic News Agency):

  When presenting the gifts after their 35-minute closed-door meeting, the pope gave Obama a signed, white leather-bound copy of the encyclical, "Caritas in Veritate" ("Charity in Truth"), then indicated the light-green soft-cover instruction on bioethics issued last December by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

  "Oh, what we discussed earlier," said Obama, referring to their closed-door discussions. "I will have some reading to do on the plane."

  Obama was given the instruction to help him better understand the church's position on bioethics, Msgr. Georg Ganswein, papal secretary, told journalists in the pool covering the visit.

  Carl Olson notes:"Some observers, I'm betting, will emphasize that since President Obama is not a Catholic, the gift of Dignitas Personae means little or nothing. That argument, however, is implicitly addressed in the opening of the document". Dignitatis Humanae addresses itself "to the Catholic faithful and to ALL who seek the truth,"

  [drawing] upon the light both of reason and of faith and seeks to set forth an integral vision of man and his vocation, capable of incorporating everything that is good in human activity, as well as in various cultural and religious traditions which not infrequently demonstrate a great reverence for life.

  Michael Denton (For the Greater Glory):

  Kmiec, who has stood up a lot for Obama's embryo stuff, has to be exceptionally embarrassed. That the pope felt the need to hand Obama his document on bioethics says a lot about the claim that Obama & the Vatican are close on these moral issues.
  

  I would also say that seems to put an end to the notion that somehow American bishops & Catholics are over-acting to Obama and the Vatican is preserving a sane pro-Obama stance. I think it's clear that Benedict has some serious problems with Obama's positions.

• "Pope presses Obama on pledge to reduce abortions", John Allen Jr. (National Catholic Reporter):

  When President Barack Obama came calling on Pope Benedict XVI today, the two men enjoyed a “truly cordial” encounter, according to a Vatican spokesperson, but at the same time there was no diplomatic silence from the pontiff about their differences over abortion and other “life issues.”
  

  Not only did Benedict press his pro-life case with his words to the president, but he even found a way to make the point with his gift, offering the president a copy of a recent Vatican document on bioethics. According to a Vatican spokesperson, the pope drew a repetition from Obama of his vow to bring down the actual abortion rate.

• According to the Catholic News Agency, "when President Barack Obama stepped into the pope's private library in the Vatican July 10, he became only the 12th U.S. president to do so."
  

Michael Sean Winters still doesn't get it. (Obama, Benedict and Notre Dame, revisited)

From the National Catholic Reporter, Michael Sean Winters replies to my prior post:

[Quoting my prior post]:

"The pope regularly receives heads of state all the time. It is simply one of the many things the Vatican does. To do so, even to exchange personal gifts as a matter of courtesy, does not imply endorsement of any or all of the policies espoused by that particular head of state."

But, Obama was also head of state when he went to Notre Dame. Indeed, inviting the sitting president to give the commencement is "one of the things the university does" and Fr. Jenkins made it quite clear that the conferral of the honorary degree upon the President did "not imply endorsement of any or all of the policies espoused by that particular head of state."

Fr. Jenkins stated in his commencement address, Notre Dame honored Obama "for the qualities and accomplishments the American people admired in him when they elected him."

However, as a good number of bishops and 367,000 Catholics wish to point out, the very act of bestowing an honorary law degree conveyed a rather conflicted message. In the words of Stephen Barr:

How can an institution that purports to be Catholic honor as a “doctor of law”—literally a “teacher of law”—a President who has made it very clear by word and deed that he intends to remove from the laws of this nation anything that defends unborn human life?

Michael Sean Winters continues:

If President Obama's views are so radical, perhaps the pope should set aside the tradition of receiving the president. After all, the pope could have simply said he was starting his vacation early. But, conservative Catholics can't really attack the pope for refusing to see Obama, can they? At least they can’t question the pope’s "Catholic identity" the way they did that of Notre Dame.

Sorry, but I don't see why Catholics would have any reason to protest. Fr. Z. reminds us, popes meet with the good and criminals alike. John Paul II met with Fidel Castro and Yassir Arafat. Paul VI met with Idi Amin Dada. What they don't do is bestow a formal honor on them.

Moreover, As Carl Olson points out:

Benedict XVI and President Obama, according to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, will discuss "their shared belief in the dignity of all people." Regardless of the spin (does "all people", for Obama, include the unborn? I think not.), it's fair to say this meeting with involve some sort of actual dialogue -- the sort of dialogue that didn't take place at Notre Dame, despite the spin (see a pattern here?) aggressively and shamelessly put into play by Fr. Jenkins and others.

Obama to visit the Vatican; the triumphant vindication of Michael Sean Winters?

From America magazine, Michael Sean Winters on the President's prospective audience with the Pope:

Pope Benedict XVI will receive President Barack Obama in audience at the Vatican on July 10. Let the gnashing of teeth begin.

Admit it, wasn’t your first impulse to call Dr. Mary Ann Glendon and ask, "If you were still the ambassador, would you show up or would you boycott?" The Cardinal Newman Society, which spent the better part of the spring telling the world that no Catholic could in good conscience share the stage with President Obama, perhaps now they will start issuing press releases entitled "Pope Creates Scandal" or "Outrage at the Vatican." The Catholic News Agency, which featured the headline "Vatican announces Pope’s vacation without confirmation of Obama visit" just a few weeks ago, has nary a mention of the visit on its website this morning. Cat got your tongue?

Obama’s Catholic critics need to re-calibrate their message and it is difficult to see how they will compete with the pictures of Obama in the frescoed halls of the Vatican, his beautiful wife and children in tow, shaking hands with the Holy Father. Actually, in addition to shaking hands, it is traditional that the Pope will present a gift to the President. Does that count as an "honor" of the kind forbidden by the bishops’ document "Catholics in Political Life"? Notre Dame, of course, has a tradition of conferring an honorary degree upon every new president that pre-dates presidential visits to the Holy See.

Michael Sean Winters -- intemperate snark or astonishingly thick-headed? Either way, America magazine could do a lot better.

The Pope regularly receives heads of state all the time. It is simply one of the many things the Vatican does. To do so, even to exchange personal gifts as a matter of courtesy, does not imply endorsement of any or all of the policies espoused by that particular head of state.

Were the Pope to present Obama with a gift, it would no more indicate his approval of Obama's support for unrestricted abortion or federally-funded embryonic stem cell research than the exchange of gifts with President Bush in 2008 indicated an endorsement of the questionable policies of his own administration.

Mr. Winters might argue the same point with Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama, but this is actually quite different.

The USCCB has stated quite clearly that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."

In the words of Bishop John M. D’Arcy -- to whom the USCCB recently affirmed their collective support -- in Notre Dame's conferral of honors upon the President, "we have here, however, the granting of an honorary degree of law to someone whose activities both as president and previously, have been altogether supportive of laws against the dignity of the human person yet to be born."

If Michael Sean Winters believes as I do, or as Cardinal William Keeler asserted, that Roe v. Wade

invented a constitutional concept that had never been envisioned; in doing so, they contravened two of our nation's most precious values: the recognition of a God-given, inalienable right to life, and the promise of equal protection under law.

Then surely it is not beyond him to grasp just how scandalous it may be to Catholics to witness the conferral of a law degree on a President who boasted his "100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America" and declared his furvent support of the decision.

And no, Michael -- the Catholic Bishops did not speak "only with their absence" at the commencement -- unless you're willing to ignore the statements of 77 Catholic bishops and 367,000 Catholics voicing their protest.

Update!

• Mr. Winters responds to my post ... predictably, with more obfuscation. See my response here.
  

Obama sends President Bush's Council on Bioethics packing; what does the future hold?

After disbanding the [President Bush's] Council on Bioethics, what kind of advisory body will Obama put together? -- Elenor K. Schoen (Catholic World Report):

According to Bush’s executive order, the President’s Council was created to “advise the president on bioethical issues that may emerge as a consequence of advances in biomedical science and technology.” The New York Times reported that White House press officer Reid Cherlin said President Obama will appoint a new bioethics commission, one with a “new mandate” which “offers practical policy options.”

Judging from Obama’s preliminary policies, the future reincarnation of the bioethics council will no doubt be decidedly different. Whether the new bioethics commission will function mainly as a mouthpiece for the president, or as an independent advisory board, will be made more apparent in Obama’s choices in picking a chair and members, and in creating its mandate for serving under him during his first presidential term.

See also Joe Carter's Lament for a Bioethics Council (First Things' "First Thoughts" June 18, 2009).

Catholic College Leaders Lobby Bishops to Withdraw 2004 Policy Banning Pro-Abortion Speakers

(Hat tip: Catholic Online)

LifeSiteNews reports:

June 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the wake of the Notre Dame commencement scandal, Catholic college leaders representing some of the worst violators of the U.S. bishops’ 2004 ban on honoring public opponents of fundamental Catholic teachings are lobbying the bishops to withdraw their policy.

Yesterday the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU), which represents more than 200 Catholic institutions, released its summer 2009 newsletter, including a report on the ACCU’s board of directors meeting last week. The ACCU directors concluded “that it would be desirable for the [U.S. bishops] to withdraw” their 2004 policy, according to the newsletter.

The policy in question is found in the U.S. bishops’ 2004 statement “Catholics in Political Life,” which reads in part:

“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

The bishops gather today in San Antonio, Texas, for their biannual meeting.

***
“Why is it so hard for Catholic college leaders to understand that a Catholic institution does great harm when it honors or gives speaking platforms to those who work against core Catholic values?” said Patrick J. Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society.

“The more than 367,000 people who signed The Cardinal Newman Society’s online petition and the scores of American bishops who publicly criticized Notre Dame’s honor for pro-abortion President Barack Obama clearly recognize that such actions by Catholic colleges are scandalous.”

The ACCU leadership suggests moreover “that juridical expressions of bishops’ or universities’ responsibilities should be kept to a minimum” in order to maintain a good relationship between the bishops and educators.

Reilly surmised that, in other words, Catholic colleges and universities would prefer that there are no clear rules to govern their conduct. He also pointed out that the statement implies that the educators believe that the bishops, and not college leaders, are responsible for tensions arising from scandalous activities on Catholic campuses.

“Catholic colleges and universities would like all of the privileges of being Catholic, but none of the responsibilities of being high-profile witnesses for the fullness of the Catholic faith,” Reilly said.

Allowing for the possibility that the bishops might not agree to simply eliminate the 2004 ban, but might instead draft a new policy concerning Catholic honors and platforms, the ACCU’s directors proposed that the policy “should acknowledge more clearly the differing roles of campus authorities and bishops.” Reilly said that this phrase appears to be an attempt to get bishops to refrain from commenting on internal decisions at lay-controlled Catholic institutions.

In May, ACCU President Richard Yanikoski told the South Bend Tribune that he saw a “degree of ambiguity” in the bishops’ 2004 policy. He claimed that the Church’s canon lawyers disagree whether the policy applies to speakers or honorees who are not Catholic, regardless of whether those individuals oppose Catholic teaching. Several bishops strongly rejected that same argument when it was made by Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins, C.S.C., to defend his decision to honor President Obama.

(emphasis added)

Meanwhile, Archbishop Burke is working in the opposite direction to prevent a repeat of the Notre Dame scandal:

VATICAN CITY, June 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Archbishop Raymond Burke, the highest ranking American prelate in the Vatican has given an interview in a Catholic magazine, in which he says that Notre Dame’s decision to honor President Barack Obama was not only “profoundly shocking,” but also underscores a grave situation requiring action to ensure the incident is never repeated.

Burke is the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court of appeal in the Church next to the Pope, and an outspoken advocate for life and family values. He has made headlines repeatedly for his insistence that ministers of communion should deny the sacrament to publicly and obstinantely pro-abortion individuals, especially politicians. He told the Catholic periodical, Inside the Vatican, that a number of lessons must be taken from Notre Dame’s high-profile conferral of an honorary doctorate on Obama, the most aggressive pro-abortion president in American history.

Burke said that the “betrayal of the Catholic identity of Notre Dame University” grew out of the danger of “pursuing a kind of prestige in the secular world, which leads to a betrayal of the sacred aspect of its work, namely the fidelity to Christ and His teaching.”

“So I think everybody now realizes the gravity of the situation. Also I believe that the whole situation has sensitized more people with regard to the gravity of the practice of procured abortion in our nation, that is, they realize even more how far we have gone away from God’s will for human life,” continued Burke.

“That the premiere Catholic university in the United States would give an honorary doctorate of law to one of the most aggressive pro-abortion politicians in our history is profoundly shocking.”

“Now, we cannot forget what has happened at Notre Dame,” said Burke. “We need to take the measures that are necessary so that this is not repeated in other places. If it could happen at Notre Dame, where else could it happen?”

[More]

(emphasis added)

Michael Liccione on "Patching up the Seamless Garment"

"Patching up the Seamless Garment", by Michael Liccione (Sacramentum Vitae) June 12, 2009:

Since the late 1990s, the US bishops have on the whole been abandoning the seamless-garment approach. With increasing clarity, they have insisted on assigning greater weight to combating certain practices called "intrinsic evils" by the Magisterium, such as abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, and same-sex marriage, than on promoting certain social goods, such as universal health care and humane immigration policy, which reasonable Catholics can differ about how and how much to promote. That shift of emphasis is only logical given the clear content of Church teaching. But President Obama's having won the election with almost 54% of the Catholic vote has re-energized Catholic progressives to patch up a seamless garment that's become rather tattered. If only to vary my intellectual exercise routine, I had been hoping to hear fresh arguments from them. But the patching process exhibits precisely the same shoddy reasoning so long characteristic of the Catholic left. Herein I shall discuss two examples. ... [More]

Alexia Kelley -- A solid Catholic appointee from President Obama?

"Abortion rights activists" are in a tizzy because of President Obama's appointment of an "anti-abortion pro-Obama Catholic" Alexia Kelly to the senior position of Health and Human Services Department's Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

Suspicion was aroused because Kelly is co-founder of the Soros-funded organization Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good -- which according to their FAQ:

... believes in the sanctity of all human life—from conception until natural death. Our Catholic faith and the Catholic social tradition affirm that all life is sacred, and that every person has essential worth and dignity. Therefore, we support a consistent culture of life that includes protections for unborn children; implementation of social, economic and material supports for pregnant women and vulnerable families; and protections for children from abuse, poverty, and neglect.

Francis Kissling, retired founder of the heterodox "Catholics for Free Choice", fears the worst:

[W]hy the post, which includes oversight of the department's faith-based grant-making in family planning, HIV and AIDS and in small-scale research into the effect of religion and spirituality on early sexual behavior, has gone to someone who both believes abortion should be illegal and opposes contraception[?]

In 2004, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good published Voting the Common Good: a Practical Guide for Conscientious Catholics, infamous for enlisting none other than Pope Benedict XVI -- by way of selective and abusive quotation -- to answer affirmatively the question: "Is it okay to vote for a pro-choice candidate?”.

Denver Archbishop Archbishop Charles Chaput (among others) harshly criticized CACG for having

done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.

Indeed, feel free to correct me on this, but Kelly's organization professes to be committed to "a consistent ethic of life" but in reality appears not the least bit interested in supporting any legislation that might place legal restrictions on abortion. Such that, as Rich Leonardi (Ten Reasons) points, out, "they take a position at odds with the landmark USCCB conference document 'Living the Gospel of Life'":

"Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care. ... But being 'right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community" ("Living the Gospel of Life," n. 23)

Kelly herself is chiefly known for serving as director of religious outreach for the Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004 and Senator Obama's campaign in 2008; for adopting a 'seamless garment' approach to abortion, placing it alongside issues which she presumes are of equal weight ("unjust war, the dignity of the human person, the growing gap between rich and poor, and global warming") and most recently, running defense for Obama's selection of Kathleen Sebelius as director of Health and Human Services. (This despite the fact that Archbishop Joseph Naumann, Sebelis' own bishop, has asked her to refrain from communion due to her support of abortion).

So: regarding liberal fears that Obama's latest Catholic might actually live up to and reflect her Catholic principles regarding "the sanctity of all human life—from conception until natural death" -- call me skeptical.

But I would so like to be proven wrong.

American Papist Issues Challenge to Left-Leaning Catholics: "No More Claiming US Bishops Are 'Partisan' on Abortion"

Tom Peters has issued a challenge to certain left-leaning Catholics "in the interest of dialogue":

I challenge them to explicitly and totally repudiate the pernicious claim that US Bishops, when they speak about abortion, are engaging in "partisan politics." This same claim is similarly made about American Catholics when they, essentially, mimic the talking points of the US Bishops.

The claim that US Bishops, and those who agree with them, are "partisan" when it comes to abortion is deeply hypocritcal, because such a claim is, itself, a partisan charge made exclusively by liberals.

Tom then goes on to quote L'Osservatore Romano (which the Catholic left has recently taken to treating with magesterial authority) against them:

"Obviously the Holy See and L’Osservatore Romano have been, are and will be fully at the side of the U.S. bishops in their commitment in favor of the inviolability of human life in whatever stage of its existence.

Other interpretations have no foundation, especially those that have wanted to use the newspaper’s articles to make it appear that the teachings of the U.S. episcopate on the inherent evil of abortion were an exercise in partisan politics, supposedly in contrast with a different strategy of the Holy See."

(emphasis added)

So, will the Catholic left now be willing to abandon the claim that the Bishops are acting out of partisan interests or in a partisan manner now that L'OR has put that little calumny to rest?

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

Late-term abortionist George Tiller shot and killed

Late-term abortionist George Tiller was shot and killed at his church in Wichita, Kan.:

Tiller, 67, was one of the few U.S. physicians who still performed late-term abortions. He survived a 1993 shooting outside his Wichita clinic.

He was fatally shot shortly after 10 a.m. Sunday at Reformation Lutheran Church, Wichita police said.

Sunday afternoon, authorities took a man into custody near Kansas City after stopping a car that matched a description of the killer's getaway vehicle, according to sheriff's deputies in Johnson County, Kansas. No charges had been filed.

NRO's Robert P. George:

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller's life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our "weapons" in the fight to defend the lives of abortion's tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.

Responses

• Susan B. Anthony List President's Statement on the Death of George Tiller
  
• National Right to Life Condemns the Teaching of George Tiller
  
• Statement of Fr. Frank Pavone (Priests for Life) on the Killing of George Tiller
  
• Statement of Kansans for Life
  

Robert P. George establishes the 'American Principles Project'

Dr. Robert P. George has founded a new conservative political organization entitled the American Principles Project.

According to a profile of the group by U.S. News' Dan Gilgoff, "the key difference between this group and others cropping up to chart a course forward for the GOP is that the American Principles Projects counts opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage among its top priorities," and will also hold Republicans accountable to follow in practice the principles they affirm in speech:

The message of the 2006 and 2008 elections is not that the American people want to be governed by the ultraliberal and statist ideology of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid; rather it is that Americans will not tolerate Republicans and "conservatives" who refuse to honor in practice the principles they purport to affirm—Republicans and "conservatives" who expand government, spend our tax dollars wantonly, do nothing about out-of-control judges who undermine democracy, and sit idly by as marriage is redefined and further weakened.

Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard also provides details on the founding:

The idea behind George's leap in politics is twofold. First, he would publicize scholarship by academic intellectuals that buttresses the conservative case on issues from family breakdown to the "the sexualizing of children" and bring it to the attention of conservative politicians and activists. He calls this the "mobilization of scholarship." The aim is to change the view of Republican elites that social issues in particular are lowbrow, emotional, and to be avoided.

Second, George wants to elevate issues that reflect conservative popular sentiment--again, notably social issues--and give them a prominent role in
the national political debate. Cannon says Republicans and conservatives have missed numerous opportunities to play up social issues, citing the failure to raise strong objections to President Obama's selection of David Ogden, a lawyer who defended pornographers, as his deputy attorney general.

"The very best scholarship has been underutilized" by conservatives, George says. "There's a lot of excellent scholarship out there. But it's not known. Conservative politicians don't refer to it. They haven't been good, as liberals have been, in using intellectual work."

From the American Principles Project's 'mission statement':

The United States of America does not need new principles. It needs renewed fidelity to the principles set forth in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These are timeless principles: truths that we hold, in Jefferson's immortal words, to be, "self-evident." They are, moreover, universal principles, not the historically contingent beliefs or customs of a particular sect or clan or tribe. They are rooted in the nature of man as a being who, by virtue of his God-given dignity and rationality, owns the right to participate in the great project of self-government as a free and equal citizen. Whatever others may say, we at the American Principles Project and all who join with us reaffirm the truth that each and every member of the human family is, "created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Serving the APP as its Communications Director will be the industrious Thomas Peters (American Papist.

"Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues?" -- A discussion with Robert P. George and Doug Kmiec, moderated by Mary Ann Glendon

(From Catholic University):

A public exchange of views was convened on the topic, “The Obama Administration and the Sanctity of Human Life: Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues? What is the Right Response by ‘Pro-Life” Citizens?” today at Washington, D.C.’s National Press Club, Thursday, May 28, 2009.

Discussing their respective views was Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and the Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, and Douglas Kmiec, Professor of Constitutional Law and Caruso Family Chair in Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University School of Law.

Moderating the exchange was Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and former United States Ambassador to the Holy See. The event explored different perspectives on current governmental policy regarding such issues as abortion and embryonic stem cell research and its impact on societal attitudes regarding the respect for human life.

You can watch the video on CUA's website here; or on C-Span here.

The event was 'Twittered' by Thomas Peters (American Papist) in attendance.

An article adapted from George's opening remarks is available from The Public Discourse.

President Obama names theologian Miguel H. Diaz U.S. ambassador to the Vatican

In the same week of his nomination of a Hispanic Catholic for the Supreme Court of the United States, President Obama has finally named Havana-born 45 year old Miguel H. Diaz, an associate professor of theology at St. John's University and the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican. Eric Gorski (Associated Press) reports:

President Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor

President Barack Obama has nominated federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court; if she is confirmed, the New York native of Puerto Rican descent would become the first Hispanic to serve on the high court (Catholic News Service).

A roundup of some reaction, from the Catholic blogging community and elsewhere.

• "Coming soon to a sound-byte near you!" - From Powerline, a list of Sotomayor "talking points" we're likely to hear in the coming days and weeks.
  
• Sotomayor would be sixth Catholic justice a roundup from the Boston Globe's Michael Paulson:

  Judge Sonia Sotomayor has much to distinguish her, but one element of her biography stands out in the world of those interested in religion and the public square: she is Catholic, and, if approved as a Supreme Court justice, she will be the sixth Catholic on the nine-member court. That is a remarkable accomplishment for American Catholics, who make up 23 percent of the nation's population, and will now potentially hold 67 percent of the high court's seats. Two of the justices are Jewish; the resignation of Justice David Souter, who is an Episcopalian, will leave, amazingly given the history of this nation, just one Protestant on the Supreme Court, 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens.
  

  Undoubtedly, Sotomayor's Catholic-ness will be the subject of some debate. Just how Catholic is she? ...

  
  
• Oswald Sobrino (Catholic Analysis) muses Am I engaging in wishful thinking, or do I see some possible hope in this nomination?:

  In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the "Mexico City Policy" which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as the government "is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds".

  
  
• Feddie (Southern Appeal) wonders, Whither Catholic bashing? and thinks she's the "best of the worst":

  My take on the appointment? She’s the best of the worst. Judge Sotomayor will almost certainly be a reliably liberal vote on the hot-button social issues, but she’s not going to play a leading role in shaping the jurisprudence of the Court (like Judge Diane Wood almost certainly would have done). She’s a political pick, plain and simple. I think the GOP would be wise not to waste too much political capital (assuming it has any left) on opposing this appointment. Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed, and strongly opposing her will only further alienate Hispanic voters. This is not to say that I don’t think we should expose her for the penumbra lover and radical that she is. Indeed, I am all for it. But the bottom line for me is that the folks waiting on President Obama’s on-deck circle are far, far worse. Think of it like a professional wrestling match: Let’s get in a few blows, and then let Obama have his pick. There are hills to die on, and this seat isn’t one of them (especially given the dems’ fillibuster-proof advantage in the Senate).

  Jay Anderson agrees, and takes issue with the knee-jerk reaction some elements of the pro-life movement:

  Granted, I am of the opinion that, absent very extreme circumstances, a President is entitled to the Supreme Court nominees of his choice ... especially with his first pick, so I recognize that I'm probably more tolerant of this pick than your average pro-lifer may be.
  

  
  That said, I'm thoroughly disgusted by the reaction of pro-life groups and many other conservatives to this nomination. They've wasted no time before engaging in knee-jerk condemnation of Judge Sotomayor without, I'd wager, spending more than a minimal amount of time reviewing her record. As I noted in an update to my previous post, "I'm beginning to think that certain pro-life organizations already had their anti-nominee press releases ready to go this morning when Obama made his Supreme Court announcement, and that they just filled in the blank once they learned the name."

  
  
• Paul Zummo (CrankyCon) responds:

  I don’t necessarily agree that Republicans and conservatives should quietly let her take her seat. We’re not going to defeat her, and in no way should we attempt a filibuster. But I don’t think we should let her pass unanimously. The Supreme Court has been an issue that has helped more than hurt the GOP, and it would be folly to give up the moral high ground. It would be difficult to make the case three years hence that Obama’s Supreme Court picks were too radical if you happened to have voted for them. There’s a lot of concern about being portrayed as anti-Hispanic by opposing her, but as Annakin said at the end of Return of the Jedi, it’s too late for that.
  

  So be tough dring the confirmation hearings. Ask her difficult questions, and certainly vote against confirmation if you think she should not be on the Supreme Court. Just don’t raise too much of a fuss in doing all that.

  
  
• Michael Goldfarb's advice is similar to that from my legal-minded colleagues -- we could have had much worse, and it would behoove conservatives not to make :

  If there is an upside here for conservatives, Yoo has zeroed in on it: Sotomayor is not going to be a rallying point for the left, and she is not going to persuade anyone on the right. She will, presumably, be a reliable liberal vote -- nothing more, nothing less. Conservatives could have done much worse, but we're getting a liberal Harriet Miers instead of a liberal Alito. The real danger for conservatives is that Sotomayor becomes a Hispanic icon who's seen as being unfairly maligned by Republicans. That could further alienate Hispanics from the party and do lasting damage to the conservative revolution in ways that Sotomayor herself never could.

  
  
• "Conservative groups know they want to oppose Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor — but exactly how that campaign will be conducted is a major unanswered question that is splitting the Republican right." -- POLITICO
  

Update

• There is a Sotomayor quote floating around:

  “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

  and when I heard it I admit I was troubled at first -- but Rod Dreher (CrunchyCon) places it in proper context.
  

Memorial Day 2009

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, let thy protection be upon all those who are in the service of our country; guard them from all harm and danger of body and soul; sustain and comfort those as home, especially in their hours of loneliness, anxiety, and sorrow; prepare the dying for death and the living for your service; give success to our arms on land and sea and in the air; and grant unto us and all nations a speedy, just and lasting peace. Amen.

-- Prayer in Time of War

What does President Obama mean when he asks us to 'work through" our conflicts?

For consideration: an excerpt from President Barack Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame:

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.

The question, then -- the question then is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

I've been thinking about the President's words.

A soldier and a lawyer may disagree over this or that aspect of U.S. foreign policy. (Measures taken "to protect the country from harm" are presumably acceptable to the extent that they are in conformity with what is typically referred to as the just war tradition or in secular terms the "laws of war.") There is little disputing that both can be motivated by a patriotic love of their country.

Responding to the horrors of HIV / AIDS, the evangelical pastor might counsel abstinence; the gay activist the distribution of condoms. That both are motivated by a desire to curb an epidemic is understandable; howbeit so long as they differ over the sanctity of marriage and the purpose of sexuality, we can expect little chance for "unity."

Lastly, we can emphathize with the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes and their desire to relieve pain and suffering. What is this, but the natural instinct of every parent?

And yet, I really have to wonder what does Obama's "common effort" really amount to?

Is he so naive as to expect that our empathy for the other's situation will compel us to muzzle our moral protest against the evil of utilitarian experimentation upon human embroyos?

The willfull murder of a child in the womb? or smothering the last breath out of the result of a botched abortion?

What does our President mean when from the pulpit of Notre Dame he asks us to "work through" such conflicts?

What does this actually amount to, except "can't we all just get along" -- in spite of, or at the expense of, our principles and convictions?

Our President wants us to be "firm in our principles" -- but it seems to me that he has not seriously grappled with the implications of the Church's teaching that

"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."