Tracking Hurricane Gustav

We should keep the residents of the Louisiana coast in our prayers, as hurricane Gustav makes landfall.

We should also pray for Catholic governor Bobby Jindal, who faces his first large-scale preparations for a hurricane since taking office, that he competently oversees the complicated logistics.

Whatta Week!

It's been busy times here at AmP this week, with three major stories: Pelosi-Gate, Joe Biden & Sarah Palin.

Hopefully this weekend will be a breather where I can catch up on the non-urgent email tips I've received.

Photo Caption Call - 8/29/08

Today's Top Story: "McCain chooses pro-life Sarah Palin for veep"

(For all of today's blog topics: click here)

Winning Caption: "Hi, we're here to meet the Chair of Peter!" - Mark G.

[Source: Flickr user "Geert JM Vanderkelen's"]

View the winning caption from the last Photo Caption Call here.

"New Green Bay bishop sings 'Drop Kick Me, Jesus'"

A very "Friday"-feeling story. A bit more content here, then here. Some video here.

Pray for Christian victims of Hindu persecution in India

I would be gravely amiss if I did not mention this developing story.

John Allen has published an extensive, one-stop-read article on the topic:

Islamic radicalism is causing great consternation these days, and rightly so. Christopher Hitchens has said it represents "an intricate cultural and political challenge that will absorb all of our energies for the rest of our lives," and while other assertions from Hitchens may be open to debate, it's tough to take issue here.

One risk, however, is that the scramble to do something about Islam may obscure other important inter-religious challenges. Dramatic events in India this week illustrate just such a conundrum, one that deserves more attention than it seems to be getting: The worrying rise of Hindu extremism.

Allen goes on to detail what has happened, why it is happened, and why it is significant not only for the present and future of Catholics in India, but also for the universal Church.

On Tuesday, the Vatican issued a statement:

"In reference to the tragic news coming from India concerning violence against the faithful and the institutions of the Catholic church, the Holy See, while expressing solidarity with the local churches and religious congregations involved, condemns these acts that injure the dignity and liberty of persons and compromise peaceful civil co-existence. At the same time, it appeals to all parties so that, with a sense of responsibility, all oppression may be ended and a climate of dialogue and mutual respect may be restored."

Bottom line: The Vatican is watching, and isn't happy.

For those desiring more, breaking information there is a blog "Orissa Burning" which is cataloguing the atrocities. This post, in particular, is noteworthy:

"The Catholic Bishops' Conference of India on Thursday released the number of people killed and list of Christian churches and institutions attacked and destroyed in the continuing violence that started on Monday. [Read it here.]" (Ph/t: Amy.)

That should be something to get started. The story seems to be getting scant attention in the mainstream media.

Follow-up: Two good editorials on Pelosi-Gate

Not to be forgotton amidst today's big story, here aretwo good follow-up's to Pelosi-Gate. First, the Family Research Council blog asks a very valid question, regarding her use of Augustine to defend herself:

I'm now curious to know if Pelosi ascribes to all of Augustine's positions, or merely those that appear to be convenient to her. Is it wrong to cry over sad love stories? Must sex always have a reproductive intent? What's the moral status of concubinage? Is slavery always wrong?

Apparently Pelosi would rather base her political opinions on the natural philosophy of ancient Romans than on modern science. What's next, a Medicare Prescription Leach Bill? A Congressional task force ensuring that the American people have their humors in proper balance?

We can thank Pelosi for placing us in such anachronistic conundrums.

Also, Stephen Barr wants to see the correction take the next step:

To all appearances, Pelosi has publicly and pointedly denied a “truth of Catholic doctrine” that is “definitively to be held” (“definitive tenenda”) by “all believers”, and the denial of which renders them “no longer . . . in full communion with the Catholic Church.” Moreover, Pelosi simultaneously proclaims her right to do so because “many Catholics” agree with her. Clearly, this is a scandal in the original sense of the term.

What can the bishops do? There is something very simple they can do that would have an enormously salutary effect.

They can, in a public statement, explain the doctrinal situation and require Pelosi to respond to the following question: “Do you assent to the teaching of the Church that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being at any stage after conception is gravely immoral?”

Her previous public statement makes it presumable that her answer is no. This presumption can only be removed by a clear affirmative answer. In light of the public nature and scandal caused by her earlier statement, she should be required to make a public assent to this Catholic teaching.

This is no longer a question of a politician claiming some kind of rights or leeway as a politician. It is a well-known Catholic very publicly explicitly rejecting a “truth of Catholic doctrine.”

Plenty to discuss here.

update: I really need to stop limiting myself to specific numbers ... Father Thomas Williams:

The most disturbing element of Speaker Pelosi’s comments, however, was not her historical fudging, her disingenuous misrepresentation of Catholic moral teaching or her implicit adoption of cafeteria Catholicism. It was her insouciant dismissal of the moral significance of abortion. She said that in the end, it didn’t matter when life begins anyway. Her exact words were: “The point is, is that it [when life begins] shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.” No matter when human life begins, a mother’s right trumps a baby’s, and that right includes the choice to destroy the child. This is irreconcilable not only with Catholic morality, but with the most basic natural ethics.

Pundits and liberal commentators have predictably accused the bishops of playing politics and using Speaker Pelosi’s comments to further the agenda of the Republican party. Any objective observer knows this is not the case. If Speaker Pelosi didn’t want a response, she should not have forced the bishops’ hands. And if the Democrats’ star running back steps out of bounds, it’s not the referees’ fault for calling it.

Speaker Pelosi can campaign for abortion all she likes, but to do so as an “ardent, practicing Catholic” is to invite a stiff correction. Americans still value truth in advertising, and know that words have meanings. “Catholic” means pro-life.

A little window into pro-abortion scare tactics

And how they are being used by national-level figures in the democratic party:

Attacking presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Sen. Barbara Boxer said that McCain has a rating of zero percent from NARAL and zero from Planned Parenthood.

“Now you have to be pretty radical to have a zero rating,” she claimed.

The California Senator then attacked McCain’s pledge to appoint Supreme Court justices similar to Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who are considered hostile to Roe v. Wade.

“They want to, essentially, make it illegal for us to have a right to choose, and to make us criminals, and to make doctors criminals!” she exclaimed.

Noting Barack Obama’s 100 percent rating from pro-abortion groups NARAL and Planned Parenthood, Boxer emphasized the slogan “He’s a hero, John McCain’s a zero!”

She received a standing ovation for the remark.

Boxer also claimed that McCain had voted against a program to help children who witness domestic violence.

Later in the caucus meeting, New York U.S. Representative Louise Slaughter warned the audience “we are in as much danger today… as we were almost when we first started here. There is so much at stake for women on this one issue, and it’s critical that we elect Barack Obama.” (CNA)

Stop Slaughter.

update: Carl adds his comments.

"Don't take "holy" water onto pope plane" warns Vatican

Duly noted:

The Vatican has warned journalists who will travel with Pope Benedict to Lourdes next month not to put the revered water from the shrine in their hand luggage on the papal plane or it may be confiscated.

... Security measures limiting liquids allowed in carry-on baggage have been in effect since 2006 when a plot to bring down planes with liquid explosives was discovered.

How is this important enough to merit a story? It provides useful information to about 50 people, tops!

"By 2015, deaths will surpass births in the EU, study reveals"

The suicide of the West.

McCain chooses pro-life Sarah Palin for veep

The Associated Press says its a lock (as does everyone):

John McCain tapped little-known Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate, two senior campaign officials told The Associated Press on Friday.

A formal announcement was expected within a few hours at a campaign rally in swing-state Ohio.

Palin, 44, is a self-styled hockey mom and political reformer who has been governor of her state less than two years.

update: Some quick facts:

• She has an 80-90% approval rating in Alaska, the most popular governor in America
• She's been described as a "crackerjack governor, a strong fiscal conservative and a ferocious fighter of corruption, especially in her own party."
• A lifetime member of the NRA, she also has a son in the army
• She appears to be a "non-denominational protestant"
• She aimed "to reduce general fund spending by $150 million" in Alaska
• She belongs to Feminists for Life

And Palin is not just pro-life politically, she is also amazingly and joyfully pro-life personally, and not only because she has five kids (ph/t: SBA):

In April of this year, Sarah Palin give birth to her fifth child, Trig, who was born premature with Down Syndrome. Recent statistics show that in the U.S., approximately 90% of Down Syndrome diagnoses end with the mother choosing abortion. Palin on her family’s reaction to the diagnosis, in her own words:

“We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives. We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed.” (April 18, 2008, Anchorage Daily News)

[Read more from the SBA statement.]

The "Draft Sarah Palin for VP" blog is going crazy. MM has a play-by-play.

update: some helpful links...

• John McCain's official press release
• Palin's Wiki Page
• Jack Kelly on why McCain Should Pick Sarah Palin for VP
• Deacon Keith Fournier on McCain's choice
• Fox News: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP's Newest Star
• Sarah Palin's On the Issues

update 3 (finally managed to get a photo of her family on the blog succesfully - sheesh!):

There's a huge glut of information flooding the net right now on Palin. Here's some of the best:

• Boston Globe Blog: Sarah Palin on faith, life and creation
• CNA: Conservative leaders react to McCain’s VP choice of pro-life Gov. Sarah Palin
• CNS Blog: Sarah Palin’s pro-life credentials
• Jill Stanek: McCain picks Palin!
• NewsBusters: Palin Might Neglect Her Disabled Infant? (rediculous)
• InsideCatholic: A question for the ladies
• Off the Record: Especially troublesome
• (CNN links to welcome outside visitors)

I thought this point especially good: "[Palin as VP] makes me trust McCain's judgment much more than I would have if he had gone for Romney, Ridge, or Lieberman. Brownback or Pawlentey would have signaled "more of the same." But Palin? That's "change." - Eric Pavlat

I'm also thrilled to see, based on the visitor count today, and the increased number of email tips and links I'm receiving (thank you!), as well as the record-high activity level in the comment boxes (awesome!) ... that papists and other readers are beginning to treat AmP as the one-stop newsblog where they can discuss and stay up-to-date on (usually up-to-the-minute) the most important stories in American politics, the Catholic faith, and the intersection of same.

Thank you, let's keep a good thing going, and get it better.

update 5: on the evangelical side...

• AP: McCain's VP Choice Reassures Evangelicals
• John Allen: McCain's choice a nod not only to women, but post-denominationalists

Photo Caption Call - 8/28/08

[For today's blog topics, click here.]

Look closely....

Winning Caption: "I find my lack of faith disturbing." - Colin Franklin

[Source: Flickr user "matildalaender"]

View the winning caption from the last Photo Caption Call here.

Video: Abp. Chaput appears on Fox News

update ... video:

Thanks to the readers who sent me links to the YouTube video.

Fr. Z has the audio, and summarizes:

Neil Cavuto of Fox News just interview[ed] the Archbishop of Denver, His Excellency Most Reverend Charles Chaput. He spoke about Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s serious errors about the beginning of human life made last Sunday on Meet The Press. He also clarified why pro-abortion Catholics are in serious error and should not receive Holy Communion.

Franciscan monks attacked "clockwork orange-style"

Where did this come from?

Italians have been left shocked by a ferocious assault on Franciscan monks by hooded thugs at a monastery in the foothills of the Alps, which has been compared to incidents seen in the film 'A Clockwork Orange'.

Father Sergio Baldin, 48, the guardian of the San Colombano Belmonte monastery near Turin, and three elderly monks from the Franciscan order of Friars Minor, were having their evening meal when they were attacked by three hooded men who gagged and bound them before punching, kicking and beating them with clubs.

... Cardinal Severino Poletto, the Archbishop of Turin, who visited the victims in hospital, said the attack was "beyond comprehension". The only possible explanation was that the assailants had been "either drugged or possessed, or both", he said. (UK Times)

Just evil.

Steve Skojec, who gets the hat tip for this story, adds:

I think it would be good to keep both the intentions of the victims and the conversion of the attackers in our prayers. It might also be worthwhile to enlist the aid of another Franciscan, St. Anthony of Padua, in finding the assailants and bringing them to justice.

Amen.

Photo: Italian museum defies pope over crucified frog exhibit

Reuters:

An Italian museum on Thursday defied Pope Benedict and refused to remove a modern art sculpture portraying a crucified green frog holding a beer mug and an egg that the Vatican had condemned as blasphemous.

The board of the Museion museum in the northern city of Bolzano decided by a majority vote that the frog was a work of art and would stay in place for the remainder of an exhibition.

The wooden sculpture by the late German artist Martin Kippenberger depicts a frog about 1 metre 30 cm (4 feet) high nailed to brown cross and holding a beer mug in one outstretched hand and an egg in another.

Called "Zuerst die Fuesse," (Feet First), it wears a green loin cloth and is nailed through the hands and the feet in the manner of Jesus Christ. Its green tongue hangs out of its mouth.

The claim that Pope Benedict has personally taken an interest in and spoken out about this exhibit raised my eyebrows. This claim originates from Franz Pahl, who has already been hospitalized over the exhibit after he went on a hunger strike to protest it:

Franz Pahl, a regional government official who has led a campaign to remove the work, told the Italian news agency ANSA Aug. 27 that he had received a letter of support from the Vatican Secretariat of State expressing the pope's sentiments.

According to Pahl, the letter said the pope believes the sculpture "has wounded the religious sentiment of the many people who see in the cross the symbol of God's love and our salvation."

A Vatican source confirmed that a letter was sent, but did not confirm the contents. (CNS)

So it's not entirely proven that Pope Benedict himself has spoken against the exhibit, which will eventually visit Los Angeles and New York. Can anyone remember if Pope Benedict has publicly (or has been proven to have spoken privately) about an offensive art exhibit before?

As for the museum/artist's defense:

Museum officials have defended the work, saying it was intended as a self-portrait showing the torment faced by the artist. The sculpture was made in 1990, and the artist, who was said to consider the frog his alter ego, created other variations on the same theme.

What are your thoughts?

Noted: McCain to announce veep pick at noon on Friday

Politico has the story and Todd M. Aglialoro has some useful odds listed for the top contenders.

update: Tim Pawlenty? Early word is that he's the pick, and a good one.

Abp. Chaput continues to steal spotlight from DNC

The Washington Times reports:

In retrospect, maybe the Democrats should have included Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput in their convention activities after all.

The party was accused of deliberately snubbing the outspoken archbishop by failing to invite him to lead prayers or participate on its religion panels. Archbishop Chaput is the leader of Denver´s estimated 385,000 Catholics, the area´s largest religious denomination.

But Archbishop Chaput may have gotten the last laugh. Democrats are doing a slow burn over the archbishop´s headline-grabbing criticism of party bigwigs and his decision to schedule major events this week during the convention´s prime-time speeches.

Gosh, the DNC organizers must be so annoyed.

Here's what Abp. Chaput has been up to ...

• The DNC schedules Clinton and Biden to speak on Wednesday night?

On the same night: "Archbishop Chaput drew hundreds to a signing of his newest book, “Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life,” at a bookstore about 15 miles from the Pepsi Center."

• How about three nights ago, the debut night of the DNC rally?

"Archbishop Chaput led a pro-life rally and prayer march outside a Planned Parenthood office in north Denver that started at 7:30 MST, about the same time as Michelle Obama, wife of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, was speaking to the convention."

Now that's guts, and brains.

Reprogramming, not embryos, is the fast track to cures

An extremely significant medical breakthrough, reported many places, including the New York Times:

Biologists at Harvard have converted cells from a mouse’s pancreas into the insulin-producing cells that are destroyed in diabetes, suggesting that the natural barriers between the body’s cell types may not be as immutable as supposed.

"Money" second paragraph quote:

This and other recent experiments raise the possibility that a patient’s healthy cells might be transformed into the type lost to a disease far more simply and cheaply than in the cumbersome proposals involving stem cells.

Pause. When was the last time you can remember a mainstream article admitting that stem cell proposals are "cumbersome"? I thought they were the be-all & end-all of medical technology? And embryonic stem cell treatments are often even more cumbersome than adult stem cell therapies.

I'm not trying to make an argument against embryonic stem cell research because they are "cumbersome", sometimes cumbersome solutions are the only ones available. No, I'm saying that, pragmatically, it makes more sense to pursue reprogramming techniques like the one described above.

And no embryos have to die.

Noted: California Voters Oppose Ban on Gay 'Marriage'

Things aren't looking good for the upcoming November referendum:

A majority of California voters oppose a ballot initiative to ban gay "marriage," though they are evenly split on the practice itself, according to a poll released Wednesday.

The ballot question essentially will ask voters to prohibit the practice of same-sex "marriage," which was approved this year by the California Supreme Court.

... A majority of likely voters, 54 percent, oppose ending gay "marriage," compared with 40 percent who support it, the poll said. The result is similar to the findings of a Field Poll in July, which found that 51 percent of likely California voters opposed ending gay "marriage," while 42 percent said they supported it. (AP)

It's hard to give people reasons to vote for something they don't think directly effects their lives.

Catholic Nun invited to DNC doubts crucifixion story in talk

Quoted in full because Ryan Sayre Patrico doesn't waste words:

The Democrats didn’t invite Archbishop Charles Chaput to their convention in Denver this year, for understandable reasons. Instead, they invited Sr. Helen Prejean C.S.J. to speak at their interfaith gathering. If they were trying to avoid controversy and shore up support from religious party members, however, they were in for a disappointment:

COLORADO CONVENTION CENTER — Following the hot topic of abortion, Sister Helen Prejean tackled another: calling for abolition of the death penalty to raucous applause at the DNC’s interfaith gathering.

She received nothing but a stony silence, however, when she questioned the basis of the biblical crucifixion story as a “projection of our violent society.”

“Is this a God?” Prejeans asked about the belief that God allowed his son, Jesus, to be sacrificed for the sins of humanity. “Or is this an ogre?”

Just a little bit too left of left, I guess.

AP publishes amazingly objective Pelosi article

Again, an incredible development: the Associated Press has issued a surprisingly objective and balanced take on Pelosi-Gate, and the story has been picked up by the Drudge Report, so everyone will read it:

Pelosi gets unwanted lesson in Catholic theology

Politics can be treacherous. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi walked on even riskier ground in a recent TV interview when she attempted a theological defense of her support for abortion rights.

Roman Catholic bishops consider her arguments on St. Augustine and free will so far out of line with church teaching that they have issued a steady stream of statements to correct her.

Look how the AP author, Rachel Zoll, refuses to let Pelosi contradict the historical record (underlining mine):

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said in a statement defending her remarks that she "fully appreciates the sanctity of family" and based her views on conception on the "views of Saint Augustine, who said, 'The law does not provide that the act (abortion) pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation.'"

But whether or not parishioners choose to accept it, the theology on the procedure is clear. From its earliest days, Christianity has considered abortion evil.

"This teaching has remained unchanged and remains unchangeable," according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. "Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law."

Quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church to prove a point? How radically theologically-competent is that?

On Pelosi's prevaricating about free will, Zoll says:

Regarding individual decision-making, the church teaches that Catholics are obliged to use their conscience in considering moral issues. However, that doesn't mean parishioners can pick and choose what to believe and still be in line with the church.

Lisa Sowle Cahill, a theologian at Boston College, said conscience must be formed by Catholic teaching and philosophical insights. "It's not just a personal opinion that you came up with randomly," she said.

Catholic theologians today overwhelmingly consider debate over the morality of abortion settled. Thinkers and activists who attempt to challenge the theology are often considered on the fringes of church life.

I almost can't beleive I'm reading lines and quotes like this in the AP. What a refreshing denial of relativism. Even Cahill comes through with a solid statement.

But that isn't even the greatest part:

However, there is a rigorous debate over how the teaching should guide voters and public officials. Are Catholics required to choose the candidate who opposes abortion? Or can they back a politician based on his or her policies on reducing, not outlawing, the procedure?

The U.S. bishops addressed this question in their election-year public policy guide, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship."

They said that voting for a candidate specifically because he or she supports "an intrinsic evil" such as abortion amounts to "formal cooperation in grave evil."

In some cases, Catholics may vote for a candidate with a position contrary to church teaching, but only for "truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences," according to the document.

... I can never remember reading anything so clear and objective in a mainstream reporting article. I'm going to try to do some research to figure out how something this good made it out underneath the editorial radar, but in the meantime, I post it now so that it might be widely read and distributed.

Suffice it to say, whoever was advising Zoll sure set her far along the straight and narrow.

Flashback: A democrat explains faith & abortion

In the past few days, AmP readers have been forced to suffer through reading, re-reading, and even trying to make sense of Pelosi's rambling, garbled explanation of the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion.

And although I hate to ask you to do something similar once again - this is very important, I think.

Give this statement a read and see what you think:

[Question: Why do you hold a pro-choice position on abortion?]

Answer: "... Even within our own [Catholic] church, there’s been debates about life, you know, from, from “Summa Theologica,” Aquinas, and 40 days to quickening and right to, you know, you know, Pious IX, animated fetus doctrine and so on. So this—the, the, the decision’s the closest thing politically to what has been the philosophic divisions existent among the major confessional faiths in our country. And that’s why, I think, that’s why I’ve come to the conclusion some long time ago, over 25 years ago, that is the—it is the [pro-choice] template which makes the most sense."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? It sounds very similar to Pelosi's recent comments. Only this isn't Pelosi...

It's Joe Biden, Barack Obama's Vice-President selection.

John-Henry Weston editorializes:

The August 24 Meet the Press interview with Nancy Pelosi which has received condemnation from Catholic leaders around the nation is little more than a repeat of Biden's own comments on Meet the Press last year. The massive reaction from the Catholic hierarchy against Pelosi's theologizing on abortion should also be applied to Biden.

I don't mean to get off-topic: Pelosi is currently in the hot seat. But let's not lose sight of the fact that her untenable position is, sadly, shared - in one form or another - by many currently-active politicians.

AmP serves as hub for Pelosi-Gate

Thanks to the prominent blogs and news websites that have cited AmP's ongoing coverage of Pelosi-Gate:

• Newsbusters: CNN Punts on Pelosi’s Gaffe About Catholic Teaching on Abortion
• LifeSiteNews: Pelosi Spokeswoman About-face: Catholic Church "Clear" on Life Teaching After All - But Catholics Need Not Listen
• Alliance Defense Fund Alert: Pelosi Stands By Abortion Comments
• Conservative Grapevine: Website of the Day
• The Anchoress: Pelosi to Bishops: drill your brains?
• WDTPRS: BLOGGERS UNITE! Keep shaping the conversation on pro-abortion Catholic politicians
• Ace of Spades: Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants, Catholic Theologian: Edict Against Abortion Began "50 Years Ago or Something Like That"
• Hot Air: Pelosi lies about Catholicism and abortion
• ... and many, many more Catholic, pro-life blogs!

And my thanks to the army of papist tipsters who have helped me keep up with this fast-moving story!

A timeline for "Pelosi-gate"

When a story gets big, it tends to get confusing fast, especially to people who have not followed it from the start.

Here's a timeline to get you up to speed:

• 8/24 - Morning: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes numerous uninformed and false claims about the Catholic Church's ancient teaching on abortion in her Meet the Press interview
• 8/24 - Evening: numerous Catholic and conservative blogs criticize Pelosi
• 8/25 - Afternoon: Abp. Chaput is the first U.S. Bishop to publicly correct Pelosi
• 8/25 - Late Afternoon: Ten Catholic members of Congress respond to Pelosi
• 8/25 - Early Evening: The US Bishops respond to Pelosi in a special press release
• 8/25 - Late Evening: Abp. Wuerl of Washington DC also corrects Pelosi
• 8/26 - Early Morning: Associated Press and political blogs note the bishops' statements
• 8/26 - Early Afternoon: Cardinal Egan issues the strongest condemnation yet of Pelosi
• 8/26 - Mid Afternoon: Pelosi's diocese of San Francisco opts to issue a USCCB reprint
• 8/26 - Late Afternoon: Pelosi's spokesman issues a non-apology response
• 8/26 - Evening: Mainstream media sources try to digest the recent developments
• 8/27 - Morning: Reactions continue in the wake of Pelosi's response - Day 4
• 8/27 - Afternoon: The Hill quotes Abp. Wuerl responding to Pelosi's non-apology of 8/26
• 8/27 - Evening: AmP compiles a list of bishops who have issued statement to this point

... and that's where things currently stand. Still no personal response from Pelosi.

Stay tuned here for the latest...

update: Please see Fr. Z's commentary for a definitive debunking of Pelosi's spurious Augustine argument.

Photo Caption Call - 8/27/08

[For today's blog topics, click here.]

Winning Caption: "No longer allowed a ruler for discipline, Sister relies on timely frisbee 'accidents' to keep her students in line." - Brian Walden

[Source: Flickr user "jennsnyc333"]

View the winning caption from the last Photo Caption Call here.

Bishops of Colorado Springs & Pittsburgh respond to Pelosi

First, Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh:

"On Sunday, August 24, on “Meet the Press,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stepped out of her political role and completely misrepresented the teaching of the Catholic Church in regard to abortion. She said that Church teaching condemning procured abortion is somehow new and therefore unsettled. She could not have been more wrong." [More.]

Second, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs:

In light of recent confusing statements by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi suggesting that Catholic teaching allows for procured abortion in certain circumstances, it is important for all Catholics to understand the teaching of the Church regarding abortion. [More as PDF file.]

Add them to the honor roll... (update, by which I mean this complete list of bishops who have spoken out).

update 2: Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo has also released a statement.

Background: Abp. Wuerl responds to Pelosi's non-apology

After a bit of background clarification, it appears that Washington DC Archbishop Donald Wuerl, when asked by Bob Cusack of The Hill, has responded to Pelosi's non-apology which she issued yesterday through her spokesman.

The initial version of the report from The Hill left it unclear whether Abp. Wuerl was responding to Pelosi's first comments aired on Meet the Press (8/24), or her follow-up statement issued through the spokesman (8/26). The current version of the story claims Abp. Wuerl has in fact responded to both Pelosi's 8/24 and 8/26 statements.

The quoted second response from Abp. Wuerl, in its immediate context:

The public feud over abortion between the Speaker of the House and the archbishop of Washington intensified Tuesday as Rep. Nancy Pelosi responded to his recent criticism and the archbishop fired another salvo at the California Democrat.

The latest development came Tuesday evening, when Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl issued a statement to The Hill that brushed aside Pelosi’s explanation of her comments about conception on Sunday’s edition of “Meet the Press.”

... Wuerl swiftly denounced Pelosi’s statement, saying, “As the Catechism and early Church documents make clear, abortion is always an evil. That is an unchanging teaching. The question on when the soul enters the body was a philosophical question that grew out of a lack of scientific data at the time of St. Augustine. We have the data today which shows the embryo is human. There no longer is any discussion of whether the unborn is human and so the philosophical discussion of St. Augustine’s time is not relevant today.” (The Hill)

Pelosi-Gate: Decision Day

Today is a critical juncture in the struggle between Nancy Pelosi et al. and the American bishops over what it means to be a Catholic in America today.

Pelosi-Gate has been covered in the last 24 hours by the Associated Press, Reuters, Drudge, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh & Bill O'Reilly. People already know where the debate stands, and are waiting to see what happens next.

This is a unique situation for two reasons: a) Pelosi's comments are absurd enough that they bring several long-simmering issues to a boiling-point and b) so far, Pelosi has received public correction from the American bishops. In other words, the bishops have every reason to continue taking advantage of this unprecedented teaching opportunity. They have the stage, an attentive audience, and a winning position.

Furthermore, in authorizing her spokesman to release a statement defending her position, Pelosi has tossed the ball back into the American bishops' court. She has said, in essence: "No, I was right, and you were therefore wrong to correct me."

The next few days (and honestly, given today's news cycle, the next 24 hours) will determine whether her bluff is called, or if she and her ilk are permitted to continue deceiving Americans about what their Catholic faith actually means in the American public forum.

The bishops have already made the most difficult step: they have started a public conversation with Pelosi on a critically-important topic. They now benefit from a different type of inertia than the one they are perhaps used to - namely, the positive inertia of already being in the debate as opposed to the negative inertia of not having said anything at all.

Their actions, of course, have already drawn fierce criticism from exactly the sort of people who we counted on raising the alarm. But the bold words of the bishops have also drawn vocal, immediate support and praise from sincere ardent, practicing Catholics. Backing down now would be a greater victory for Pelosi's deceits than allowing her comments to go unopposed in the first place.

So please, don't stop while you're ahead. After all, we are so rarely ahead.

update: Phil Lawler brilliantly outlines the ways in which Pelosi has (unintentionally) performed a huge favor for the cause of respecting unborn life in America. There is also at least one possible sign that the American bishops do not intend to let this conversation end with this unsatisfactory conclusion.

Joe Biden claims to be "totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine"

Not to be skipped! Carl Olson at Insight Scoop has an excellent post on Joe Biden and his Catholic Faith.

Since I've got my hands full with Pelosi-Gate right now, I'm very happy to turn this coverage over to Carl.

update: Curt Jester points out that even biased scorecards put Joe Biden at only ~50%!

Neideraurer in 2007: I haven't had a chance to talk to Pelosi yet

Diogenes notes a February 2007 interview where Abp. Niederauer explains why, a year into his new assignment, he still had not spoken with Pelosi about her ardent pro-abortion advocacy:

Archbishop Niederauer: "Well, I have met on one occasion, with Speaker Pelosi, before she was Speaker Pelosi. It was last year. And I -- we've -- exchanged viewpoints on a number of things. At that time, it was last spring, and it was principally about immigration, because that was very much the hot-button topic of the time. We haven't had an opportunity to talk about the life issues. I would very much welcome that opportunity, but I don't believe that I am in a position to say what I understand her stand to be, if I haven't had a chance to talk to her about it."

I sure hope Pelosi's recent comments were made without the help of the Archbishop.

Day 4 of Pelosi-Gate: Reactions

Here is the short n' sweet of what people are saying today about Pelosi-Gate...

Obama's camp is more than annoyed with Pelosi, as The American Spectator has found out:

"It's like 'Thanks, madam speaker, you've done quite enough. Please move along,'" says one Obama adviser. "She got us stuck on three different issues that we wanted no part of. She's no master strategist, no matter what she may believe. You may see more of her, but if her mouth is open, what comes out won't be anything that our campaign wants anything to do with."

Kathleen Parker, writing an editorial for the Chicago Tribune, re-notes the obvious:

In other words, human life begins at conception.That is not a religious posture, but a scientific fact that the lowest paid laborer on the planet can assert without qualm. What we do with that understanding is another matter, but no one should pretend not to know when human life begins. On this matter at least, the church and science are in agreement.

In local DC reporting, surprise that the Church heirarchy has been so vocal:

... the bishops' emphatic response to Pelosi's statements this week shows that they are willing to speak out when the church's teachings are challenged publicly by high-profile Catholics, according to the very Rev. David M. O'Connell, president of Catholic University of America.

For conservative Catholic groups, the fact that Wuerl weighed in on the controversy was welcome news. (WaPo)

Over at American Thinker, C. Edmund Wright applauds Cardinal Egan for changing the abortion debate:

... not a single word of scripture in the statement. No threats about God's retribution. No mention of anything religious really. It was simply a man of God using reason wisely. Much like the Apostle Paul, who used logic and reason to debate the Athenians (Acts 17) about Biblical truth, Cardinal Egan was aware of his audience and his stage and he was indeed "all things to all people, so that by all means (he) might win some" (1 Corinthians 9).

If much of the evangelical pro-life movement would take His Emminence's lead, some real traction can be made on this issue.

Wright raises an interesting point that deserves comment: Cardinal Egan was not necessarily teaching Church Doctrine, rather, he was witnessing to common sense. Pelosi's comments in fact violated both.

Of course, over at the Los Angeles Times, Tim Rutten brings out the old claim that the reaction of the bishops is simply politics. In his words: "All this conservative crosier waving is about a simple set of numbers." He means registered Catholic voter statistics.

But even Rutten has to admit that Pelosi was out to lunch:

"Pelosi, who described herself as an "ardent practicing Catholic," gave a response that was not only incoherent but managed to get wrong virtually every fact that might have buttressed her pro-choice position."

On other points, Rutten clearly hasn't gotten the memo:

If Pelosi had half a wit about her, she might have done what most U.S. Catholics instinctively do, which is to rely on a tradition of moral reasoning that stands athwart Chaput's novel reductionism.

Remember when I predicted that some would try to marginalize Chaput's statement as his personal opinion, and that was why it was so welcome to see so many American bishops issue statements of their own?

Here's why exactly: Rutten now has to claim that "Chaput's novel reductionism" is a fault shared by the majority of the prominent American bishops, not just one lone prelate with a political program to push.

Plus Tim Rutten is just plain wrong: all traditions of moral reasoning are not equal, and certainly the 20th century Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray (whom Rutten cites) is not a magisterium unto himself.

Geez Tim ... way to "pull a Pelosi."

update: Please see Fr. Z's coverage for a definitive debunking of Pelosi's spurious Augustine argument.

"American Papists" are "The Nation's Pulse" right now

... at least, according to Lisa Fabrizio, writing for the American Spectator today.

Of course, around here, we've never stopped being American Papists!

But it's always nice to read that one is part of the national pulse. Let's keep it that way.

Tip: Catholic to the Max T-Shirt Contest

Hey you aspiring Papist designers, here's your chance to land a t-shirt design deal and win some cool prizes!

Pelosi and the Flat Earth Society

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today tried to base her dissent from authoritative Church teaching on an isolated ancient century text of St. Augustine.

On a whim, I decided to look through the various times Pelosi has mentioned her Catholic faith when debating moral issues. I quickly found this instance, where she is arguing for the legalization of RU-486, commonly known as the "abortion pill."

Look how she criticizes Mr. Coburn of Oklahoma who wishes to defend the unborn:

"I certainly respect the gentleman's religious beliefs and understand them, as a Catholic, myself, and mother of five, grandmother of four, and that we do not think abortion is a good thing...

... [but] the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is starting to have this body, this room, this Chamber, look like the Flat Earth Society again, Mr. Chairman.

We have our Flat Earth Society days around here, and this appears to be one of them." (source: house.gov)

The Flat Earth Society, broadly-speaking, is a Christian-related ideological group that refuses to admit the findings of modern science.

... much like Pelosi's position on abortion is a Christian-related ideological position that refuses to admit the findings of modern science, let alone the authority and constant tradition of the Catholic Church.

I guess Pelosi is having one of her Flat Earth Society days.

Graphic: Pelosi's latest book project *revealed*!

Curt Jester hits this one clear out of the park:

The funniest thing about it? His comment: "No doubt it will sell more copies than her last book."

... laugh!

MSM tries to come to grips with Pelosi story

I'm not terribly impressed with the Washington Times' coverage, but let's move on to the AP, which fairly accurately summarizes the back-and-forth up to this point. I don't like the opening, however:

Under fire from U.S. Catholic bishops, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not backing off contentious comments about abortion she made during a weekend television talk show appearance.

Since when have bishops ever been able to correct someone without "putting them under fire"?It's such a needlessly inflammatory phrase (ha).

But I do like appreciate that the AP underscores the fact that Pelosi has not backed down and is remaining obstinate. She had a chance to find a way out, and she chose to stay in her mistake (and frankly, it seems she is counting on the obscurity of her argument to carry the day or at least confuse the issue enough to make people lose interest).

The story's ending interests me as well:

Daly said that while Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not agree. He said Pelosi "agrees with the Church that we should reduce the number of abortions" by making family planning more available such as increasing the number of comprehensive age-appropriate sex education and adoption programs, Daly said.

The Catholic Church is opposed to artificial contraception.

There's something wonderfully simple about that last line. Here's another simple line: "The Catholic Church has always been opposed to abortion."

Oh wait, I guess that one isn't so understandable to some.

Catholic San Francisco newspaper picks up AmP phraseology

Writer Rick DelVecchio, when talking about the reaction to Pelosi's comments, evidently liked mine:

Thomas Peters' American Papist blog: "Mind-blowingly incompetent."

I stand by my statement.

Response: Pelosi decides to fight it

The text hasn't been published online, but has been leaked numerous places, and I present it here. This email was sent out this afternoon from Pelosi's spokesman, Brenda Daly:

“The Speaker is the mother of five children and seven grandchildren and fully appreciates the sanctity of family. She was raised in a devout Catholic family who often disagreed with her pro-choice views.

Nice but irrelevant. Having children doesn't mean you understand why the Church believes it is wrong to kill them, necessarily.

“After she was elected to Congress, and the choice issue became more public as she would have to vote on it, she studied the matter more closely. Her views on when life begins were informed by the views of Saint Augustine, who said: ‘…the law does not provide that the act [abortion] pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation…’ (Saint Augustine, On Exodus 21.22)

She didn't face the issue of choice until Congress? This cannot be true. She served in CA well after Roe v. Wade was issued. And her sole source of argument is this obscure passage in Augustine? I have actually studied this passage of Augustine. So let's clear it up quick:

1. Augustine did not know from the evidence had available to him at the time whether or not all abortions killed a human being, but if they did, he held that clearly such an act would be murder.

2. Modern science has demonstrated that yes, an embryo is a human being, from the moment of conception, and therefore killing it at any stage of development is an act of murder.

Augustine subsequently discusses accidental abortions in which the old law (as in old testament!) still required the transgressor to undergo a severe punishment. Does Pelosi believe people who procure and conduct abortions should be treated similarly? If not, she isn't following Augustine.

“While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe to that view. The Speaker agrees with the Church that we should reduce the number of abortions. She believes that can be done by making family planning more available, as well as by increasing the number of comprehensive age-appropriate sex education and caring adoption programs.

Her argument is not actually an argument at all. It's a statement of fact, and again, it is irrelevant to what she actually said in Meet the Press. She doesn't even admit she was wrong in everything she claimed. Oh - and her solution? Contraception, which is also not permitted by the Church. How much more dense can you get?

“The Speaker has a long, proud record of working with the Catholic Church on many issues, including alleviating poverty and promoting social justice and peace.”

Also irrelevant. She might have worked for decreased summer working hours among young people. Who cares? That's not what is under debate here.

A couple global observations:

• Pelosi does not even respond to the criticisms herself. She farmed it out to a surrogate. One would thing that an ardent, practicing Catholic would care enough about the public condemnation of her combined bishops enough to personally address the situation.
• This is not an apology. There is a phrase for this: obstinate, public dissent. And that should be treated a certain way.
• Pelosi had her chance to apologize. I believe she is testing the waters by having her spokesman respond first, reserving to herself the later option of disowning the spokesman's words and actually apologizing - but only if the issue is pressed.

Okay, have at it. This isn't over.

Pelosi stressing out? Asks protestors: "Can we drill your brains?"

Reported today in Politico (underlining mine):

House Democratic leaders and protesters waving McCain signs had a war of words Tuesday at a press event outside an old train station. The demonstrators interrupted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with chants of “Drill here! Drill now!”

Pelosi paused and asked the group, “Right here?”

Seeming to enjoy the back and forth, she followed with another question: “Can we drill your brains?”

Why so angry, madame speaker?

(And for someone who supports abortion, which literally can include the drilling of infant heads, that's not the kind of thing you want to be saying in public.)

Breaking: Pelosi's home archdiocese republishes USCCB statement

Over at the news section of the San Francisco Archdiocese (Pelosi's home diocese), instead of a personal statement by Archbishop Niederauer, they've chosen to republish the USCCB press release from yesterday:

"The Catholic Church is a Pro-Life Church."

It's something.

update: Rocco reports:

"San Francisco church spokesman Maurice Healy told Whispers earlier today that Archbishop George Niederauer would publish his response to Pelosi in a Friday column for the archdiocesan weekly, Catholic San Francisco."

Video Interlude: A completely untopical classic movie scene

I can't imagine what relevance this scene from Becket (wiki) might have to contemporary events...

Show-Stopper: Cardinal Egan Speaks Truth to Pelosi

When Archbishop Chaput issued his strong statement against Pelosi, many were quick to hope that he would eventually replace Cardinal Egan as Archbishop of New York.

Reading this statement, however, I think Cardinal Egan is doing just fine when it comes to publicly responding to heresy. Judge for yourself (underlining mine):

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

A simply incredible statement.

I am reminded of the courageous words Cardinal Egan spoke to (republican) Rudolph Guiliani in April. When I covered that story, I commented:

The first public fruits of the pope's visit to America might well be giving the pastors of the Church the courage they needed to call out the wolves who have been attempting to masquerade as sheep in the American fold.

Today I'm happy to have my supposition - and prayer - confirmed again in a new setting.

Someone pinch me.

update: Reader Thomas helpfully opines:

Nancy Pelosi may turn out to be a useful idiot.

Her incredible statements have forced the issue to a point where all her ilk may be forced to at least rise to the level of basic honesty and say they are out of communion with the Church they professed to be members of.

I can't agree more.

update 2: Rush Limbaugh has apparently quoted Egan's statement on his radio show today.

Photo Caption Call - 8/26/08

[For today's blog topics, click here.]

Winning Caption: "Quick girls, before she sees curfew was 6 hours ago!" - St. Peter's Helpers

[Source: Flickr user "e.m.l.i.a.t"]

View the winning caption from the last Photo Caption Call here.

When will Abp. Niederauer add his voice to the Pelosi counters?

It has been fascinating to watch how statements from bishops have followed step-by-step the questions (and outcries) raised by concerned Catholics in the wake of Pelosi's comments.

Basically, the Bishops know, as do the faithful, who should be saying something, and when.

Let me illustrate:

• First, it was "won't any bishop say anything?" Then Abp. Chaput issued his statement.
• Then it was "won't the USCCB say anything?" Then the USCCB issued its statement.
• Then it was "well, but will Wuerl say anything?" Then Abp. Wuerl issued his statement.

But one more shoe needs to drop...

• The last thing I've been hearing is "will Niederauer (Pelosi's home bishop) say anything?"

That remains to be seen... but with each statement being issued, the San Francisco silence grows louder.

update: Pelosi herself has noted her "regional" immunity when asked about receiving communion:

Pelosi, a Roman Catholic whose district includes most of San Francisco, said she has not encountered such difficulties in her church.

“I think some of it is regional,” she said, “It depends on the bishop of a certain region, and, fortunately for me, communion has not been withheld and I’m a regular communicant, so that would be a severe blow to me if that were the case.”

"Severe blow" for you politically or ... spiri-, you know what, - nevermind.

update 2: The Archdiocese of San Francisco has opted to re-print the USCCB statement. More here.

Quickly noted: Abp. Wuerl of Washington responds to Pelosi

The shortest and "fuzziest" of the statements released so far.

The closest it gets to confrontation is in the bridge paragraph:

[after saying her statements were" incorrect"] ..."We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record."

Besides that, the statement simply quotes the Catechism. Which is really all you need to do, I guess.

I would say from experience that this statement does have a distinct Wuerl flavor to it. You can bet he did the final drafting:

"... the current teaching of the Catholic Church on human life and abortion is the same teaching as it was 2,000 years ago."

That's classic Wuerl, even though that might not be obvious to an outside reader.

As for the statement overall - it's hard for me to complain when the Archdiocese did issue something.

update: Bob Cusack over at The Hill notices:

"A Pelosi spokesman did not immediately comment for this article."

update 2: This article mentions that Abp. Wuerl appeared on Fox News today. Can anyone provide a link to video?

How will Pelosi respond?

It's been a harsh 48-hours for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Since she ended her interview with Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press this Sunday, she has been:

• widely criticized on conservative and Catholic blogs (including this one)
• excoriated on public radio by Rush Limbaugh (my point is that her gaffe is well-known)
• publicly corrected by the Archbishop and auxiliary bishop of Denver (where the democrats are currently hosting their national convention, incidentally)
• refuted by 10 Catholic members of Congress in an open letter (and more to follow, I'm told)
• ... and finally, two competent chairmen (cardinal & bishop) have disowned her statements on the front page of the U.S. Bishops website in a press release.

Quite simply - she can't ignore this breadth and authority of backlash. She must respond, and she has put the democrats in the difficult position of having to watch her respond during their national convention.

To make matters (for her) worse, she has already claimed to be competent in her field. So she can't use the defence that she was ignorant. Neither can she use the defense that she came across the wrong way, because who is so incompetant as to be unable to come across on a matter they are supposed to know inside and out?

Where does that leave her? In the position of having lied either about the actual position of the Church, or about her claim that her position is a legitimate one within the teachings of the Catholic church.

Stay tuned, this is one to watch.

update: more pressure building as the AP chimes in. Pelosi's camp is laying low:

"A Pelosi spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment."

Released: Names of the 61 "dissenting" USD faculty & staff

Amidst all the headlines about House Speaker Pelosi, I don't want an important, developing story to get lost in the mix...

Brian McDaniel recently undertook the herculean effort of examining, line-by-line, the 2,158 signers of the pro-Rosemary Radford Reuther petition.

Some of his ensuing observations:

• The petition supporting Dr. Ruether contained about 100 duplicates and 50 anonymous signatures. The vast majority of signatures (75%) were female.
• Even with tenure, the faculty was smart enough to keep their mouths shut and not fill in comments. A few did, but didn’t say anything that others already said.So many members of the Theology and Religious Studies Department signed the petition that we decided that their unofficial motto would be “Where Academic Freedom is God.” Read through the petition comments and you’ll understand.
• There are no priests or Catholic religious in the USD Theology and Religious Studies Department. They have a few adjunct professors, but no faculty.
• We encountered a sad number of religious among the pro-Ruether signatures—Franciscans, Benedictines, Piarists, Dominicans, Jesuits, and other Orders. The number probably is between 75-100.
• Somewhere, there has to be an indulgence for checking 2,158 signatures in one weekend.

I'm sure of it.

Remember, our counter-petition is going strong at almost 1,500 signatures. Let's break 2,000!

Update: "Online Beauty Pageant for Nuns" story faked?

Earlier today I covered a story that was getting wide press: "Priest to hold "online" nun beauty pageant".

AmP reader Gregor responded:

It would seem the BBC is a bit behind. This was widely reported in the German press a few days ago. Today, the [Austrian] newspaper "Der Standard" is reporting that Fr Rungi has called off the "contest", because he has been "deliberately misunderstood". His only aim had been, he says, to show the beatuy of the life of religious sister. Cf. http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=1219581718477

At least one other Internet commenter supports this clarification independently:

Italian priest Antonio Rungi has scrapped his initiative for a beauty contest for nuns. He said his proposal was misunderstood, and that his main intention was to show the beauty of life in a monastic order.

The priest blames the media, which he said focussed exclusively on the beauty aspect of his action. The priest received a number of threats as a result of the media attention for his initiative, including that he would burn in hell. (source - #18)

I'm reserving final judgement, but it wouldn't surprise me if this priest had a more innocent original intention (or had just this foolish idea) and the press ran with it, beyond his control.

You can stow the pitchforks and straw, and go back to your homes. I think this little story is over.

Related: Nuns Have Fun in the Sun

Flash: "Bishops respond to House Speaker Pelosi’s misrepresentation of Church teaching against abortion"

They did it, and the fact that they did anything is welcome. No direct condemnation of Pelosi, simply a succinct outlining of the Church's position. Connecting the dots is up to us, I guess.

From the main page of the U.S. Bishops' website:

Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, have issued the following statement:

In the course of a “Meet the Press” interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.

The Church has always taught that human life deserves respect from its very beginning and that procured abortion is a grave moral evil. In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church’s moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.

These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church has long taught that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life.

• More information on the Church's teaching on this issue can be found in our brochure "The Catholic Church is a Pro-Life Church". PDF Text
• Statement on Responsibilities of Catholics in Public Life
• “Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper”: On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist

I'd give anything to see the looks on countless people's faces as they were busying themselves writing editorials about how Archbishop Chaput overstepped his bounds today (yadda, yadda) ... only to read this statement from the USCCB in the evening.

In other words, criticism of Pelosi's obfuscation is no longer a minority position (and thank God!).

Props to the bishops for quickly responding to this public scandal. There, wasn't that straightforward?

update: as some readers have already noted - that's an interesting third link choice in the statement...

First: Ten Catholic Members of Congress Respond to Pelosi

Their text:

On the Sunday, August 24th, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, you stated "as an ardent, practicing Catholic, [abortion] is an issue that I have studied for a long time." As fellow Catholics and legislators, we wish you would have made a more honest effort to lay out the authentic position of the Church on this core moral issue before attempting to address it with authority.

Your subsequent remarks mangle Catholic Church doctrine regarding the inherent sanctity and dignity of human life; therefore, we are compelled to refute your error.

Read the full document here (2-page PDF).

update: final list of signatories: "McCotter, Chabot, Foxx, Gingrey, King (NY), King (IA), Lungren, Nunes, Sullivan, Tiberi, Boehner, English, Shmidt, Walsh, Fortenberry, McCaul, Ryan, Jones (NC), Ferguson."

Wouldn't be a bad idea to write them to show your support of their action...

Ph/t: AmP Reader Eric.

Flash: Abp. Chaput publishes official response to Pelosi's scandalous comments on abortion

From the Archdiocese of Denver Website:

Denver bishops clarify to local flock the Church’s longstanding teaching against abortion

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M Cap. and his auxiliary bishop, James D. Conley, address an on line letter titled “On the Separation of Sense and State: A Clarification for the People of the Church of Northern Colorado,” regarding the Catholic Church’s constant teaching condemning abortion as always gravely evil. Click here [PDF] to read the letter to Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver.

My comments to follow shortly.

update, my observations:

• by titling his clarification "ON THE SEPARATION OF SENSE AND STATE" (as opposed to Church & State), the Archbishop Chaput makes it clear he is arguing a matter of public, historical record, not ideological or philosophical (let alone religious) preference: Pelosi is wrong not only in these ways, but most fundamentally, historically and objectively, thus displaying that she lacks - simply put - "sense."
• by calling it a "A CLARIFICATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE CHURCH IN NORTHERN COLORADO", Abp. Chaput is fulfilling his role as bishop to safeguard the faith of the Catholics entrusted to the care of his diocese, thus the geographical specification.
• The first paragraph re-states some of main points the Archbishop makes in his recently-released book Render Unto Caesar.
• Abp. Chaput mercifully compliments Pelosi as a "gifted public servent" but has no qualms claiming that she lacks "knowledge of Catholic history and teaching".
• Abp. Chaput uses Pelosi's own words about having studied the issue "for a long time" (and later on, "ardent, practicing") against her, revealing how she really put herself in this compromised position
• Abp. Chaput quotes Connery's definitive work The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective [on abortion] and Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, both of whom definitively contradict Pelosi's lies about the history of the Church's teaching. There's no getting around it.

The last three paragraphs deserve to be quoted in full. I can't say it any better:

Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that - alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.

Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the "separation of Church and state" does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But of course, it's always important to know what our faith actually teaches.

Imagine if other local bishops had the courage to follow suit. Archbishop Chaput has already stepped into the breach - will no one join him? What exactly, in the above, could they validly disagree with?

Related: Abp. Chaput also recently said pro-abortion Catholic Joe Biden should refrain from Communion // Denver archbishop slams Pelosi on Church teachings and abortion // Bishops Correct Speaker Nancy Pelosi: 'On the Separation of Sense and State' (Catholic Online) // update: Archbishop scolds pro-choice Biden (Washington Times)

Priest to hold "online" nun beauty pageant

Someone completely missed the reason why nuns wear habits:

An Italian priest says he is organising the world's first beauty pageant for nuns to erase a stereotype of them as being old and dour.

Antonio Rungi says The Miss Sister Italy online contest will start on his blog in September.

"Nuns are above all women and beauty is a gift from God," he told Italy's Corriere della Sera newspaper.

He is asking nuns to send their photos to him, saying that internet users will then choose the winner.

Father Rungi stressed that nuns were not being invited to parade in bathing suits, saying it will be up to them whether they pose with the traditional veil or with their heads uncovered.

"This contest will be a way to show there isn't just the beauty we see on television but also a more discreet charm," the priest, who lives near the southern city of Naples, told the Corriere della Sera.

"You really think all nuns are old, stunted and sad? This isn't the case anymore," he said, pointing out that many young nuns had arrived to Italy from around the world.
He added that the idea of staging such a contest had been suggested by nuns themselves. (BBC News)

I'm all about addressing false stereotypes of nuns, but a beauty pageant isn't the best way to do it.

"Democrats open faith-filled convention with prayer"

Cafeteria-style religion at the DNC:

At the first official event Sunday of the Democratic National Convention, a choir belted out a gospel song and was followed by a rabbi reciting a Torah reading about forgiveness and the future.

Helen Prejean, the Catholic nun who wrote "Dead Man Walking," assailed the death penalty and the use of torture.

Young Muslim women in headscarves sat near older African-American women in their finest Sunday hats.

Four years ago, such a scene would have been unthinkable at a Democratic National Convention. In 2004, there was one interfaith lunch at the Democratic gala in Boston.
But that same year, "values voters" helped re-elect President Bush, giving Democrats of faith the opening they needed to make party leaders listen to them.

AP on the "Catholic vote":

Laser helped broker compromise language in the Democrats' abortion platform that acknowledges the need to help women who want to keep their pregnancies. Hunter and liberal evangelical leader Jim Wallis were involved, as were new groups such as Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

Despite all the effort, there is little evidence religious votes are shifting. A Pew poll released last week showed the political preferences of religious voters, including highly sought Catholics and white evangelicals, have scarcely budged since 2004.

Catholics are up for grabs, but white evangelicals have become so solidly Republican, Obama has little chance of carving too deeply into the Republican lead, said Allen Hertzke, a University of Oklahoma political scientist.

Consider with the obligatory mound of salt. Maybe even a pillar.

Was Lugo the first laicized bishop in history, or not?

Ed Peters weighs in on the debate which is taking place - amazingly - in the pages of The Economist!

Picture: Awesome Vocations Poster

From the Catholic Diocese of Raleigh (click for full-size version):

update: More information at the Roman Catholic Vocations blog.

Ph/t: WDTPRS.

Link: Catholics Against Joe Biden

A solid crew of guys have put this blog together in a short time frame, but already have it stocked full of relevant content (remind me again how Joe Biden's selection was supposed to attract Catholics?).

Go visit, bookmark and please consider promoting. See my first post on Joe Biden here.

Pelosi's mind-blowingly incompetant discussion about abortion

I don't use the phrases like "mind-blowingly" and words like "incompetent" lightly.

(update: the latest coverage of this story - here.)

But this time Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi really managed to surprise me, and this after I didn't think her stock could fall much lower with me, having forced myself through the first chapter of her horrid little book Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters. I didn't realize reading could bring about motion sickness.

Anyway, this episode transpired in today's Meet the Press interview of Mrs. Pelosi by Tom Brokaw. The initial question asked was "When does life begin?"

Sometimes in my coverage I have to tease out fine logical points or show how an interlocutor is skilfully twisting his words to evade the truth.

.... this is more like shooting fish in a barrel.

(you can scroll down to the bottom of this post and watch an embedded video of the exchange.)

The first question:

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.

Oh dear, don't set the bar so high for yourself. After all, I doubt at this point you know what you're actually going to say. At least I hope not.

And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know.

They have not been able to define when life begins? They all gave up? Nice slip on Senator/Saint - yes, they are different. I'm glad you can name one Church Father. Shall we try for two? No? Didn't think so. So by Augustine's own definition, abortions after three months would be killing a human life - whoops! - let's get off talking about Augustine in that case. "We Don't Know"? Yeah, that's safer.

The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions.

Oh I see, the entire proceeding historical survey is irrelevant. No reasons given? Good - those just make the issue confusing. It's amazing how modern legislation can create very clear distinctions where centuries of philosophers and theologians couldn't. Thank heaven for our clear-headed legislators.

This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.

Now we've expanded the sphere of ignorance to ... all humanity. But what about the people that claim to be able to tell you when life begins? Actually, even legally, the definition is birth. So even the law claims to be able to know somehow, or at least to provide some forms of human life with the right to life.

[Now things get interesting as Brokaw tries to get the conversation back on track:]

[REP. PELOSI] As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided...

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it...

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: ...begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that.

"50 years or something like that." Gee, you're probably really regretting beginning this conversation with the words "this is an issue that I have studied for a long time", considering these sorts of generalizations, with narry a single specified noun to be found.

The rest quickly becomes mush as she tries to hit her "panic button" talking points...

So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions.

Panic Button #1: No matter what the truth is, God wants us to do whatever we want.

And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions.

Panic Button #2: Hey, I hate abortions, too. You didn't think I liked abortion did you? *shocked face*

That's why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must--it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case.

Panic Button #3: Oh, and hey, people who hate abortion actually don't want to fix the problem because they actually want problem pregnancies - why else wouldn't they support contraception?

So we have to take--you know, we have to handle this as respectfully--this is sacred ground.

Panic Button #4: Quick, use religiony-type words like "sacred" so people feel they have to agree with me.

We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been--and I'm not saying Rick Warren did, because I don't think he did, but others will try to.

Panic Button #5 (the ultimate one): Ya know, this is really just politics, and let's just both be honest that abortion has nothing to do with faith, reason or reality. I'm a politician - I know these things.

Mr. Brokaw mercifully ends it:

MR. BROKAW: Madame Speaker, thanks very much for being with us.

REP. PELOSI: It's my pleasure. Thank you.

Now, if you've made it this far. I commend you. Here's a couple related links:

• Fr. Z is equally astonished as I am with Pelosi's flailing
• Amy believes this is a serious teaching opportunity, and calls on the bishops to embrace it

I think the only thing I could be more dissapointed by other than this passing for an accurate explanation of the Church's teaching on a subject, would be letting her claim to be an informed Catholic while giving it.

(And, as promised, the video...)

Photo Caption Call - 8/24/08

[For today's blog topics, click here.]

Actual Vatican sign...

Winning Caption: "No legs, no shoulders, no service." - Domini Sumus

[Source: Flickr user "dietmar.engelke"]

View the winning caption from the last Photo Caption Call here.

I refuse to join Catholics United

Today, upon the occasion of Joe Biden's selection as Barack Obama's vice-presidential candidate, I received a press release from the executive director of Catholics United, which claims to be a ...

"non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting the message of justice and the common good found at the heart of the Catholic Social Tradition."

I wish I could agree this is in reality the case. First, let's take a look at their press release, briefly:

"Catholics United believes Senator Biden’s selection as vice presidential candidate is a positive development for Americans who respect leaders who have strong religious, family, and personal values. Senator Biden’s well-known commitment to his Catholic faith has inspired his advocacy on issues such as genocide, universal health care, education, workers’ rights, and violence against women. His faith has helped him to find solace during times of tragedy and crisis.”

Notably absent: defense of the unborn. I'm sorry, but nothing is closer to the "heart of the Catholic Social Tradition" than the dignity and right of all human beings to life. Next:

“We are optimistic that Senator Biden’s history of seeking practical means of addressing abortion will help move our nation beyond the divisive, acrimonious, and unproductive debate that has come to surround the issue. Senator Biden accepts his church’s teachings on human life and can work to advance these teachings in ways that Americans of all political persuasions can support.”

Biden's "practical means of addressing abortion" have been, historically, to allow and never restrict it. His choices continue the debate on abortion because he has not actually helped "address" the problem at all.

Now here's my favorite paragraph:

“Catholics United is especially hopeful that operatives on the far right will refrain from using Senator Biden’s faith and the teachings of the Catholic Church as political weapons in the coming campaign. Faith and values should be used to unite Americans behind solutions to the key challenges of this age – war, poverty, lack of health care, and a looming climate crisis – and not as partisan wedges to divide voters.”

You've got to be kidding me. Clearly this organization defines the "heart of the Catholic Social Tradition" to be silencing the actual "teachings of the Catholic Church," ignoring the need to live one's faith even in the public forum, and excluding the defense of human life from the "key challenges of this age."

For an organization that claims to be non-partisan, why exactly does everything in these three paragraphs seem like it is lifted directly from this year's democrat playbook on faith and religion?

Not convinced? The author of this press release, Chris Korzen...

• recently took part in a Democratic conference call (along side promininant pro-Obama Catholic Douglas Kmiec) to prepare for the upcoming national convention. [source]
• is the guy behind the defunct "Catholic Voting Projet", which Karl Keating accurately pointed out claimed to be run by "nonpartisan," [indeed - 'committed' Catholics] but their web site has a clear bias in favor of John Kerry." Karl Keating systematically destroys Korzen's claims to be non-partisan and "Catholic".
• frequently tries to marginalize conservative Catholics, claiming them to be GOP shills.
• writes for ultra-liberal Huffington Post claiming that McCain is getting a free ride for flirting with pro-abortion politicians, and this somehow shows that he isn't truly pro-life.
• again, writes for ultra-liberal Huffington Post, this time claiming "Extremists Pressure Catholic Bishops to Use Communion as Political Weapon"

Okay, enough links. My point: Chris Korzen is yet another liberal democrat masquerading as a "non-partisan/big-tent" Catholic.

Honestly, just look through the Catholics United recent posts and try to find a single post that isn't critical of republicans and supportive of democrats.

(All of this is bad enough, but I really start scratching my head when Catholics United and Chris Korzen are uncritically included, for instance, in CNS blog coverage ... did they do no research?)

I don't get angered by liberals disagreeing with the social teachings of the Church. I don't get especially angered at Catholics dissenting from the teachings of the Church, as long as they admit they are dissenting. But I do get angry, and cannot tolerate, when liberal Catholics falsely claim their opinions to be in harmony with the Church's social teaching when in fact they are not.

That's really the only reason Catholics United deserves any of my time. And I refuse to join them.

The Biden Rundown

Obama has announced his running mate:

"Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama introduced Sen. Joe Biden to the nation as his running mate Saturday, telling supporters that he is "a leader who is ready to step in and be president." (CNN)

I'll admit to getting the text message this morning. I was interested. Now I can unsubscribe.

In another report, the radioactive phrase about Biden appears:

"[Biden is] a Roman Catholic..."

Biden, according to the public record, is also:

• pro-abortion (36-75% rating by NARAL, 0% by National Right to Life Committee)
• supports the nomination of pro-Roe v. Wade supreme court justices
• pro-allowing minors to cross state lines for abortions, and against telling their parents
• pro-embryonic stem cell research
• pro-contraceptives (but supports some abstinence education)
• against making harming an unborn fetus a criminal penalty
• against-partial birth abortion (unlike Obama)

Except for being less extreme than Obama regarding partial birth abortion, Biden holds basically the same positions, but as a Catholic. He also accepts "on faith" that life begins at conception, while still remaining pro-abortion.

Now, let's quickly sweep through the reactions to Biden's selection, from good-to-bad.

The best analysis I've read thus far is from Canon Lawyer Edward Peters (relation):

Barack Obama’s selection of Joseph Biden as his running mate is sure to provoke questions about Biden’s eligibility for holy Communion under canon law. Hoping to get out ahead of things, I’m suggesting that we start by asking the right questions, well.

One need not be a Catholic in good standing to be President or Vice President of the United States, but one must be a Catholic in good standing to receive holy Communion from the Catholic Church.

[Read on.]

For a Catholic perspective, that's your one-stop read.

I can't say I'm pleased with the Catholic News Service's introduction of Biden and discussion about his Catholic faith. On the one hand, they do admit in the first paragraph that Biden supports abortion, but immediatly add that Biden "has been an ally for the church’s public policy interests." Such a claim, however, cannot be logically true when you've already noted Biden is pro-abortion. Unless somehow protecting unborn human life is not part of the church's public policy interests. I'll leave you to read the rest of their treatment, but I have other reservations as well.

Chris Korzen of "Catholics" United has issued a press release supporting Biden's selection. I have serious questions about Korzen's sincerity when he says that his organization "refuse[s] to water down our [Catholic] faith in service of partisan politics." That's simply unbelievable coming from someone with such a partisan background. I'll talk more about this in a future post. (update: I talk about it here.)

CNN's "expert" analysis, meanwhile, plays things safe, claiming that "Biden gives Obama old-school cred", and also:

So how does Biden help Obama politically? Biden is Roman Catholic. There are nearly 70 million Roman Catholics in the United States, about 20 percent of the electorate, and they can tip the balance in a close contest.

Now what a naive, narrow observation to make.

Moving farther to left (prettymuch to the brink, in matter of fact), the feminists:

Biden has a not-so-hot record on choice. He says he supports Roe v. Wade, but is not really interested in expanding access to low-income women.

It continually frightens me to see what some people aren't satisfied with regarding abortion access.

So there's the lay of the land, as I see it now.

What are your thoughts? Open thread time...

update, day 2 reactions:

• Whispers: Hail, Columbia... Hello, Controversy
• InsideCatholic: Why Biden Will Not Help Obama Attract Catholic Voters
• Deacon Keith Fournier: Obama Chooses Senator Biden for VP and the Battle for Life is Engaged
• CNA: Despite losing among Catholics, Obama chooses pro-abortion vice president
• AP: Obama Faces New Criticism on Abortion

AmP mentioned in Aussie newspaper

To whit, Christopher Pearson of The Australian:

... On Monday [Barack Obama] added insult to injury by repeatedly accusing the National Right to Life movement of lying about his voting record. It had referred to his stand as an Illinois state senator on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act - banning the infanticide of babies that survived abortion procedures - which he opposed. For all his confident assurances to the contrary, within 24 hours the Obama campaign was obliged to concede that he had misrepresented his previous position.

Again the blogosphere was up in arms, posing the question: how could he have expected to get away with false claims about matters of public record? As one much-read blogger and lay theologian, Thomas Peters, put it: "Only laziness or intentional story-burying in the media can kill this embarrassing (and revealing) story."

Reader Aaron tells me:

Christopher Pearson is a mainstream Australian journalist and also a Catholic. He is well-known for his views and often writes about liturgy even in The Australian Newspaper. Today was on Obama and abortion and you got a mention. Your quote was also the highlighted quote in the article.

The author is quoting this blog post of mine: "Video: Obama lies by calling pro-lifers ... liars" (Aug 18)

Cool, that makes three recent citations.

Report: Women leaving christianity for ... Wicca

And what's promoting this trend? The teen-TV show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"!

Now, Religion News Blog can tend to be a bit alarmist, but it's still noteworthy:

The old-fashioned attitudes and hierarchies of churches are causing a steep decline in the number of female worshippers, according to an academic study.

The report claims more than 50,000 women a year have deserted their congregations over the past two decades because they feel the church is not relevant to their lives.

It says that instead young women are becoming attracted to the pagan religion Wicca, where females play a central role, which has grown in popularity after being featured positively in films, TV shows and books.

.. Over the past decade, it claims, women have been leaving churches at twice the rate of men.

In addition, the census is said to show that teenage boys now outnumber girls in the pews for the first time.

It's only a hunch of mine, but I'd imagine this is a greater problem for Protestant denominations.

Weekend project: Sign the USD Petition

If you haven't yet signed the petition to support USD's correct decision, please consider doing so. If you have, tell a friend. It only takes a few seconds and requires an email address (no spam I promise).

I promote this not only because it's a good cause in itself, but also because I'd like to see the online Catholic community become better organized when it comes to petitions like these. They do make a difference.

Today, LifeSiteNews joined the news organizations which have mentioned our efforts:

Although the Catholic University of San Diego (USD) came under fire for reversing their decision to appoint a radical feminist to an honorary chair in Theology, it has stood firm, and now two opposing petitions either supporting or attacking the decision are gathering support.

Thomas Peters of American Papist, with fellow blogger Brian McDaniel of the Ora et Labora blog, has organized a petition to support the University in its decision.

Previous AmP coverage of this story here.

Update: Obama and the Born Alive Protection Act

It's easy to get "link fatigue" with this story, so if you can only read one post about it, read this one:

update, corrected link: "Stick to the Obama/Born Alive talking points" - Jill Stanek

...

Dawn Eden has also been covering the story intensely.

(Okay, so I cheated - that's two links. I couldn't help myself.)

Picture: "And only the dead can be canonized."

I love the site "Indexed." Yesterday's entry was right up my alley...

And as usual - indexed pretty much sums it up. :)

Theology ... on a stick?!

... has almost no appeal to me. Especially when you read lines like this:

And the food for the soul will likely be more nourishing than the deep-fried Twinkies and Oreos that have been all the rage in fair food in recent years.

Hey - some of us haven't participated in this new food rage yet. Give us a chance!

Catholic newspaper's investigative reporting puts to shame local press

From a tip:

I can't think of many diocesan Catholic papers that do significant investigation and reporting but our own Catholic Key, under new leadership for the past year (Jack Smith, editor) is making some waves. Blasting the Star all the way for its silence, he's turning up all sorts of questions on the "Bodies Revealed" exhibit at Union station in an ongoing blog.

The CNS blog, to it's credit, has picked up on the above-linked reporting.

It's a wonderful but often-neglected truth that Catholic journalism can fill in the gap left by ideologically-driven secular reporting, and this appears to be a good example of that fact. Keep it up.

Bishop urges immigration officers to decline to participate in raids

A local tells me this story is "getting alot of play" in Rhode Island.

Here is the diocesan news release:

“We the undersigned…urge you to declare a moratorium on immigration raids in the State of Rhode Island, until our nation can implement a comprehensive and just reform of our immigration laws,” wrote Bishop Tobin and Catholic priests. “It is our hope that such reform will make immigration raids obsolete. Until then, we believe that raids on the immigrant community are unjust, unnecessary, and counter-productive.”

“As religious leaders we understand and support the need to apprehend and arrest individuals who are responsible for felonies and other serious crimes. The enforcement of just laws is necessary for public safety and the common good. But the arrest of serious criminals is not what we have observed in the arrest and detention of immigrants that has taken place recently in our State, particularly in Newport and in Providence.”

More coverage from the AP and CNA.

"New rules proposed to protect anti-abortion doctors"

And let me just say to begin with - this Associated Press news story title is very unsettling. Let me get this straight: abortion doctors need protection ... in order to not practice abortions. What a world.

Anyway, I early reported on this story here, and now it's made the mainstream:

The Bush administration proposed stronger job protections Thursday for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said health care professionals should not face retaliation from employers or from medical societies because they object to abortion.

"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," Leavitt said. "This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."

Leavitt, as I said before, seems very capable of handling himself, which is relief because it's rare to find someone in a position of authority who's on the right side of this type of issue.

Meanwhile, if we're talking about protecting doctors - how about not protecting doctors who remove organs from infants before they've met the criteria for brain death.

And let's focus on protecting the vulnerable party.

update: whoo-boy, are the "feministas" angry or what?

"Anger at removal of Newman’s remains"

The story:

THE VATICAN’S decision to remove the earthly remains of Cardinal John Henry Newman from his grave in Rednal, Worcestershire, to a new grave at Birmingham Oratory, has aroused the wrath of campaigners who believe it to be a betrayal of the Cardinal’s last wishes — to be buried alongside his lifelong friend, who, like him, joined the Roman Cathol­ic Church, the Revd Ambrose St John.

They shared a grave and memorial stone at Rednal. Cardinal Newman wrote shortly before his death in 1890 — and had twice earlier insisted — “I wish, with all my heart, to be buried in Fr Ambrose St John’s grave — and I give this as my last, my imperative will. . . This I confirm and insist on.” (UK Church Times)

Oh please. Cardinal Newman, as a faithful son of the Church, would joyfully accept the ecclesiastical requirement to transfer his remains. After all - he has an official canonization to gain from it.

Let's remember - it's your eternal resting place that matters most.

Another day, another cure from ADULT stem cell research

Monotonous, ain't it?

The abortion-rights arguments that cite embryonic stem cells as the potential solution for a vast array of human diseases has taken another significant hit with an announcement from a San Francisco research and development company that it has defined and isolated an adult cell that has been shown to develop into tissues matching those in the heart, lung, liver, pancreas, blood vessels, brain, muscle, bone and fat. (WND)

But don't worry, we still have to destroy human life if we want to get anything accomplished - or so some keep telling us .... (update: meanwhile, embryonic stem cell research continues to result in more complications).

And yet we're the ones labled "anti-science."

Update: More coverage of USD's decision to reject pro-abortion professor

The Associated Press has picked up on it (update: and CNA), making the story national:

The Catholic school withdrew its appointment of Rosemary Radford Ruether in July because she serves on the board of Catholics for Choice.

Administrators reaffirmed that decision Thursday despite a petition with more than 2,000 signatures, including 54 faculty members, organizers said. The petition asked the school to restore the offer or allow Ruether to visit campus for a week and give a lecture on academic freedom.

Remember, you can sign the counter-petition we've organized here. All it takes is a few seconds of your time and an email address (no spam we promise).

And I've got an inside tip that our counter-petition might be mentioned in future coverage of this story - so please, go sign it and help us reach 4,000 signatures - double what they collected.

update: From today's news briefs in the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Two Catholic bloggers out of Washington, D.C., and Chicago recently started a petition in support of USD. Thomas Peters' blog is called American Papist and Brian McDaniel's blog is Ora et Labora. –S.S.

I'm targeting for 300 signatures a day.

Papist Mystery Picture of the Day

This is ....

1. A humane robotic alternative to a dolphin for entertainment purposes.

2. A sea time-capsule with editions of the world's newspapers to be sunk in the Pacific.

3. The unmanned remote-controlled submarine that helped protect Pope Benedict in Sydney.

Answer here.

Picture: Hallmark rolls out gay marriage cards

Well so much for buying Hallmark:

Most states don't recognize gay marriage -- but now Hallmark does.

The nation's largest greeting card company is rolling out same-sex wedding cards -- featuring two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with best wishes inside. "Two hearts. One promise," one says.

...The language inside the cards is neutral, with no mention of wedding or marriage, making them also suitable for a commitment ceremony. Hallmark says the move is a response to consumer demand, not any political pressure.

...Hallmark started offering "coming out" cards last year, and the four designs of same-sex marriage cards are being gradually released this summer and will be widely available by next year. No sales figures were available yet. (AP)

Zogby poll: Obama losing ground among Catholics

The numbers from the latest Zogby poll:

Support among Catholics in July: 47%

Support among Catholics in August: 36%

Change: -11%

Ph/t: InsideCatholic.

"Bush plan would blunt state birth control law"

Pro-abortion/contraception groups are hopping mad about it, too:

A proposed Bush administration regulation on contraception and abortion would stop California from enforcing a state law that requires Catholic hospitals and charities to provide birth control coverage for thousands of female employees, state Attorney General Jerry Brown and family-planning advocates said Wednesday. (San Francisco Chronicle)

Sadly, I think they are going about this the wrong way:

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department regulation, still in draft form, would define abortion as including certain methods of contraception and would prohibit states and other recipients of federal funds from penalizing health care workers who refused to provide those services because of religious or moral beliefs.

Why not simply include contraception under the penumbra of treatments that health care workers are allowed to refuse because of religious or moral beliefs? The evidence supporting the claim that contraceptives are also abortifacients has been legitimately challenged.

In other words, sooner or later, if not already, contraceptives will not have abortifacient side effects. Then where will we be when Catholic individuals and organizations wish to refuse distributing them?

update: Dawn Eden has brought it to my attention that the San Francisco Chronicle is actually (intentionally or not) playing into the pro-choice talking points, and is not giving us the straight story.

In actuality, Secretary Mike Leavitt of the US Dep. of Health & Human Services agrees with me:

An early draft of the regulations found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review. It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true.

The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn. However, the issue I asked to be addressed in this regulation is not abortion or contraceptives, but the legal right medical practitioners have to practice according to their conscience and patients should be able to choose a doctor who has beliefs like his or hers.

There, doesn't that sound far more reasonable?

Planned Parenthood has its formidable attack machine trained on Mr. Leavitt, who responds to them here:

So, according to Ms. Gallagher’s ideology, if a person goes to medical school they lose their right of conscience. Freedom of expression and action is surrendered with the issuance of a medical degree.

There is something I’d like to point out to Ms Gallagher and the people she represents. It is currently a violation of three separate federal laws to compel medical practitioners to perform a procedure that violates their conscience.

... I want to reiterate. If the Department of Health and Human Services issues a regulation on this matter, it will aim at one thing, protecting the right of conscience of those who practice medicine. From what I’ve read the last few days, there’s a serious need for it.

Continue fighting the good fight, sir.

"Bishop of Beijing urges pope to visit"

They want him:

The Beijing bishop appointed by China's state-controlled Catholic Church said in an interview yesterday that he hopes Pope Benedict XVI will visit his country. "Relations with the Vatican are constantly improving," Joseph Li Shan told Italy's RAI state TV. Li is well regarded by the Vatican, and his installation last year was seen as a positive sign. (AP)

There's just that little pesky detail about not being in communion with Rome...

Please Sign the Petition to Support USD!

Brian McDaniel took up my challenge to collect 4,000 signatures supporting the University of San Diego's recent decision to rescind a prestigious position to heretical theologian Rosemary Radford Reuther.

If ever there was someone who clearly deserves no place of honor in a Catholic school of Theology - she's it. Beyond her long membership in the offensive "Catholics for Choice" organization, she also advocates women priests, homosexual marriage, and a litany of positions not in harmony with Church teaching.

The original San Diego Union Tribune article claimed that "Two national women's religious groups have sponsored a petition with more than 2,000 signatures demanding that she be allowed to assume the post."

I'd like to demonstrate to the University of San Diego that there are even more faithful Catholics who support them, and are with them attempting to live up to the challenge Pope Benedict has given to Catholic academe.

Please, go sign the petition and spread the word!

update: UPI has picked up on the story.

"The Case Against Barack Obama" booksigning

I just returned from a DC-area booksigning with the author of this book, David Freddoso. It's a hot one that has reached the top-5 on the New York Times and top-10 on the Amazon.com bestsellers lists:

Having covered the media reporting on Barack Obama for almost a year at this point, it is continually surprising for me to see how many troubling stories available on the public record (which are now presented in this book) have never before received any significant attention by the mainstream media.

I found this book to be a straightforward, informative read, with well-documented sources and footnotes. I don't hesitate to recommend it as the one-stop resource to learn about Obama's actual political track record.

Related: Read Freddoso's editorial in today's Wall Street Journal: "Obama Played by Chicago Rules."

Update: CNA talks about Freddoso and his book today.

Photo Caption Call - 8/20/08

[For today's blog topics, click here.]

Winning Caption: "Wait a minute...Papa Benny is a rock god?" - David B.

[Source: Flickr user "Breff"]

View the winning caption from the last Photo Caption Call here.

AmP Poll: Would you vote for a pro-choice Vice President?

Today's AmP Poll:

Online Surveys & Market Research

And as always, feel free to link to this poll (the wider sampling the better!) and discuss your response in the comment box below.

Prayer request: FUS student killed in car accident

Local Pittsburgh 4:

A sophomore college student was killed and six others were injured after a minivan carrying athletes from an Ohio college crashed into the woods off Route 22 in Washington County Tuesday afternoon.

The cross-country team from Franciscan University of Steubenville was heading back to school at about 4:40 p.m. when their van went off the road in Hanover Township, between the Post-Gazette Pavilion and the West Virginia state line.

Pennsylvania state police said the driver may have tried to avoid a tire on the road in the westbound lanes and lost control.

... News of [the] death hit campus fast as thousands of students mourned the loss of their classmate and prayed for her family.

How long can Obama ignore it?

A quick check in with point-woman Jill Stanek might yield an answer:

An insider tells me Obama's camp is going "ape sh**" over all this.

More basic question: how long can the media ignore the story?

Will ex-bishop Lugo be allowed to resume his ministry in the future?

This author thinks so but that's not what I've heard:

Having scored a popularity rating as high as 97 percent, Lugo had received a "special dispensation from Pope Benedict XVI to leave the church to become president, with the option of returning to the clergy" after holding public office in the secular world. Lugo's sister, Mercedes, will assume the traditional, ceremonial role of a presidential spouse to assist her unmarried brother in his new, political job. She told an Argentine newspaper: "I'm virtually convinced that, when Fernando Lugo finishes his term, he will return to religious life." Lugo himself "has renounced his $40,000 presidential salary and urged other politicians to do the same as a symbol of his vows for economic austerity and transparency." At his swearing-in ceremony, he told an audience of some 15,000 onlookers: "I have no need of this money, which belongs to more humble people...." He also said he "would be 'implacable with the robbers of the people' in his chronically corrupt nation." (Agence France Presse)

Previous stories about the Lugo saga archived here.

Snub: Democrats don't invite local bishop Chaput to pray/speak at Denver convention

Just how much are we supposed to believe the sincerity of Democratic Catholic outreach when they continue to display such ideological selectivity?

Democrats have invited more than two dozen religious leaders to pray or speak at their upcoming conventioin with a notable exception: Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, a policy wonk and the leader of Colorado's largest religious denomination.

Several Catholics, including former Colorado state Sen. Polly Baca, "Dead Man Walking" author Sister Helen Prejean, social justice lobbyist Sister Catherine Pinkerton and Pepperdine University professor Douglas W. Kmiec, are on the program.

Organizers are also flying in Greek Orthodox Archbishop Demetrios from New York to give the opening prayer Wednesday.

But Archbishop Chaput's only contact with the convention has been a meeting with Leah Daughtry, chief executive officer of the convention and a Pentecostal pastor, and an invitation to attend the event as an observer. (Washington Times)

CNA covers the story here. Roman Catholic Blog also provides links to Archbishop Chaput's recent (and lengthy) interview on the Hugh Hewitt show (ph/t: Jeff Miller).

As for this (intentional) oversight made by the Democrats, ought we to conclude that it is connected with the Archbishop's recently-published book on Catholics & Politics (which I'm currently reading)?

Talk about a golden opportunity for real change ... missed.

Catholic Perspectives on the Political Race - 8/20/08

A link depository:

• McCain's campaign is getting savvy to the embarassment Obama has opened himself up for as a result of trying to hide his voting record on the born alive infant protection act.
• Black pro-lifers plan to protest at the democratic national convention:

"Colorado Right to Life and American Right to Life will stand with black leaders from around the country at their Power in the Park rally and press conference on August 25, 2008, 8:30 am at Martin Luther King Park, one block from the largest Planned Parenthood abortuary in the nation.

The killing center, dubbed Auschwitz, by local opponents of the racist organization, is situated in north Denver’s minority neighborhood - consistent with the patterns of targeting minorities noted by Blackgenocide.org.

... [they] will expose the tragedy that although black women comprise 6% of the population, they receive nearly 40% of the abortions in America. The leading abortion providers exploit blacks by placing 94% of abortuaries in urban neighborhoods with high black populations." (source)

[Michelle Malkin even picked this story up.]

• More veep rumors for Obama. Seriously, just wait until Saturday and we'll all know.
• Meanwhile, the latest "Poll shows McCain in 5-point lead over Obama".
• But at the same time, "McCain refuses to defuse rumors about pro-choice VP pick".

That last factiod is really becoming annoying to me, and not just me.

Also, the keynote GOP speaker will be Giuliani (why?), and Bobby Jindal will be speaking after the VP nominee. It's good to see some high visibility for Bobby - they should have given him the keynote I think.

update: Sen. John McCain has ruled out pro-choice running mate, reports say while LifeSiteNews asks "Is it True McCain "Got the Message" About not Running a Pro-Abortion VP?"

Developing: USD revokes invitation to feminist theologian

Biased reporting from the San Diego Union-Tribune, but enough to go on:

A University of San Diego decision rescinding a prestigious position to a Catholic feminist theologian has thrust it smack in the middle of a national debate over academic freedom versus adherence to church teachings.

Faculty and Roman Catholics are divided over USD's decision to withdraw the appointment of Rosemary Radford Ruether to an endowed chair. At issue is Ruether's position on the board of directors for Catholics for Choice, an abortion rights organization.

Two national women's religious groups have sponsored a petition with more than 2,000 signatures demanding that she be allowed to assume the post.

USD is standing by its decision.

GOOD FOR USD!

I really want to get a counter-petition started, supporting USD's decision. Anyone know how? I'll link to it.

update: Brian McDaniel has risen to the challenge and has given us our online petition. Go sign it!

"Pope Benedict prays for tornado victims in Poland"

I can't remember a pope praying for tornado victims before:

During the weekly audience for pilgrims in his summer residence at Castel Gandolfo on Wednesday, Pope Benedict addressed the Polish victims of the hurricanes and tornados that devastated large areas of Poland last week.

"Last week, Poland saw hurricanes and tornados at a scale unheard of in that part of the world. There were fatalities and injuries. Many lost their entire life savings as a result. I want to offer my spiritual closeness and prayers to every one who was affected by the elements in any way,” the Pope spoke to the Polish pilgrims in their native language.

Poland experienced extremely strong winds and tornados on Friday evening, with roofs ripped off farmhouses and barns and cars destroyed in the southern and central parts of the country, killing at least four. (Polish Radio)

Let's join our prayers with his.

I still really want to see a tornado someday (from a safe distance, of course).

"Only a Catholic Kid"

Aww:

“This morning, my two-year-old son dipped his fingers into the tray below the ice-dispenser on the fridge (full of water) and then proceeded to make the sign of the cross.”

I knew there was a good reason I kept Faith & Family in my blog reader.

Do your young kids/siblings do things like this that reveal their papist affiliation?

Rumor: FPOs asked to leave Mt. St. Mary's Seminary?

This is on deep background, but I bring it to press to see if anyone can fill in the details.

Found in Cardinal Sean O'Malley's blog comment thread, from "Kathleen Boyle Palkovic":

Dear Cardinal,

I have been a TFPO since Sept. 2007. I started as a cordbearer and now have moved up. My first experience with the FPO’s was a vocation talk from Fr. John Sweeney from Emmitsburg, Md. His talk to my students was so moving that we continually invited him back for more. He made our Catholic faith more understandable, made us realize how important it is, and challenged all of us to be bold in our faith.

I have just completed my first retreat with the FPO's. It was life changing. I have become a better person (my husband’s remark). I have been more loving, forgiving, seeking to help others, more peaceful, and more involved in learning about my Catholic faith.

I was looking forward to another educational and faith filled year with the FPO's. So naturally, I was surprised and somewhat devastated at the “recall” of all the FPO”s back to Boston.

I’m sure there were many good reasons that I will never know and I’m sure the decision was prayfully arrived at, but they were loved by so many. I loved their courage to speak the truth, live a life of penance, be an example of a true Catholic.

FPO's refer to the Franciscans of the Primitive Observance. More information about them here in the comment thread over at The Road to Reform. The student newspaper of Mount St. Mary's University talks about them here back in 2003. Roman Catholic Vocations has several posts about them, which you can read here.

So, anyone know what's going on?

Very Pleased

If you've noticed an uptick in the caliber of the stories and overall vitality of AmP recently and can't account for it, you have your fellow readers to thank.

I'm extremely happy about the news tips I've been receiving via e-mail - they really help prevent wasted effort on my end and with your help, I'm thrilled to see this blog gradually transform from a one-man operation into a community of active, informed Catholic readers.

As far as my editorial contribution, I like to think I've become much better at establishing a regular routine when it comes to reading tips, drafting stories and timing their publication. I read every tip.

So, this isn't a post in which I'm asking you to change anything that you're doing ... kust keep the tips coming like before, and - if anything - maybe send in a few more. Or send in your first:

"thomas [at] americanpapist [dot] com"

US Bishops promote Novena before Nov. election, include prayers for protecting unborn

A promising novena which forms part of the US Bishop's Faithful Citizenship innitiative:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is encouraging Catholics across America to pray a novena for life, justice, and peace called ‘Novena for Faithful Citizenship’ before the elections in November.

In a press release from the USCCB, Joan Rosenhauer, Associate Director for the USCCB's Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development, explained that this timely novena is a component of "the bishops' campaign to help Catholics develop well-formed consciences for addressing political and social questions." (CNA)

The novena will be available for download until the election at http://fc.mach1media.com/resources/podcasts.

For other Faithful Citizenship resources, visit http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org/.

The reflection from Day Four of the novena (PDF link):

"How do I defend the right to life especially of the unborn
and those near death? How am I tempted to turn away
from the commandments and not support the right to life
of all people? How can I overcome that temptation?"

And the prayer which is said each day includes the line (PDF link):

"From sins against human life from its very beginning, deliver us."

Amen.