Papist Picture of the Day - 10/31/08

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

"Uh, uh, uh - did I say you could touch the book?"

[source: REUTERS/Tony Gentile (VATICAN)

The fight for your Sunday morning parish parking lot

This Sunday, the last one before next Tuesday's election, folks will likely be placing flyers on cars parked in Catholic parish parking lots around the country.

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is trying to stop that phenomenon. They want to keep people in the mindset they already have, and they don't want their minds changed last minute.

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good has been roundly criticized by many Catholic bishops, such as Archbishop Chaput and Bishop Martino. They areinvolved with the Democratic party and have been charged with taking money from prominent pro-abortion activists.

Anyway, here is what they are telling their members to do this weekend (underlining mine):

"We are asking our supporters to join us this Sunday to keep our parishes from becoming partisan battlegrounds in this election. Here's what you can do to help:

• Inform your Pastor today of your concern that outside groups may try to flyer cars during Mass on Sunday and encourage him to instruct the ushers to monitor the church parking lot during the worship service.
• Volunteer to monitor your own church parking lot this Sunday, and ask others to join you in monitoring their church.
• If you do encounter people in the parking lot, respectfully ask them to leave and remove their literature, and inform the ushers immediately.
• Refrain from distributing, on any Church property, any election materials except those approved by the USCCB (Faithful Citizenship), your local bishop or State Catholic Conference. Do not distribute any partisan campaign literature or voter guides (even non-partisan guides).
• Do what you can this weekend to help safeguard our Sunday Mass as a sacred time that should never be used for political gain."

Did you get all that? Monitoring the lot, enlisting ushers, removing flyers?

What do you think about this? Do you take the side of Catholics in Alliance or do you think it's fair for other groups to try to get their message out?

What this email tells me is that Catholics in Alliance is primarily trying to neutralize other members of the Church who wish to provide information to their brothers and sisters in Christ on important issues. But I do realize there are other dynamics involved here, which is why I'd like to have your input as well.

So please discuss.

update: LifeNews notes that Catholics United is encouraging the same tactics:

CU spokesman James Salt emailed his pro-Obama team Thursday night and called the literature drops a "final act of desperation" by the "religious far right" and falsely claimed that the distribution of pro-life information "defies" the Catholic bishops -- who have said the pro-life issue trumps all others in the election.

"The goal of this activity is to convince Catholics that it's immoral to vote for candidates who don't subscribe to the right's narrow agenda," Salt claims.

Salt says Catholics United is heading up the campaign to "put the brakes" on the literature drops.

CNA also weighs in.

It bears repeating: Bishops who speak, speak this way

At least in the overwhelming majority of cases. Bishops who are not adopting this strong rhetoric calling Catholics to vote an informed conscience on the issue, particularly, of abortion can be counted on one hand.

Another case in point to close-out the day: Bishop Robert Carlson of Saginaw whose statement (PDF) treats the presidential election as well as pro-ESCR Proposal 2 in Michigan (which I have discussed here).

Since I see no need to reduplicate work already done well, please see Fr. Z's analysis of the document.

Abp. of Omaha: "No proportionate reason outweights abortion"

As a perfect example of what I see as a clear and growing trend, I submit this letter on voting entitled "Deciding the values that are most important to us" (PDF) by Archbishop Elden Curtiss of Omaha.

The general framework of this letter, and other letters recently published by American bishops:

• Catholics have a moral responsibility to vote and participate in the democratic process
• Catholics have to vote according to a well-formed conscience - and that means well formed by Catholic principles, not ideological or partisan preconceived notions
• Catholics must vote to respect and preserve the dignity of every human life
• Among modern threats to that dignity, nothing matches the ongoing grave evil of abortion

What happens next is interesting, and novel, but again - it's happening more and more often....

After laying out the four steps above, the bishop will add a fifth step - his personal conclusion:

"I cannot conceive of a proportionate reason that could outweigh the deaths of nearly 50 million children killed by abortion."

"Those who do not understand or accept this basic human right [to life] are unworthy of our trust."

Of course, this is a great simplification. And Bishop Curtiss adds the needed qualifications:

"We are surely not one-issue people because we have to be concerned about the well-being of everyone in our society, and especially those who are hurting and in need. We have to be concerned about women with unplanned pregnancies who are without the resources to give birth or to care for their babies. We are rightfully concerned about candidates for public office who do not seem to care about babies after they are born and their mothers, and their future welfare. But the very first right we must protect, if all human rights are to be protected, is the right to life for the unborn."

Anyway, this is just no. 84 on a list of over 115.

Poll: CA Gay Marriage Ban numbers down

AP:

A new poll shows California voters who oppose the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages slightly ahead going into Tuesday's election.

The Field Poll released Friday had opponents of the ban with a 49 percent to 45 percent edge. That's much closer than in previous surveys over Proposition 8.

I know - it's just a poll, but for any CA readers who thought they could just stay at home on Tuesday...

Photo: Pope Benedict blesses Stephen Hawking

A meeting of spiritual and scientific heavyweights:

Read about the occasion here.

photo credit: REUTERS/Osservatore Romano (VATICAN)

Friday link dump

I know, pleasant sounding blog title, right?

Anyway, links people have been sending me that might be of interst to you:

• http://www.onebabyonevote.com/ (Questions for pro-life, undecided voters)
• Bishop Loverde of Arlington, VA on "change for the right reasons"
• Vatican Encourages Psychological Testing to Prevent Homosexual Priesthood (LSN)
• Breaking news: Planned Parenthood admits infanticide (Jill Stanek) (LifeNews)
• Catholic voters no longer beholden to bishops and abortion (Jill Stanek)
• Render Unto Caesar (The Catholic Thing)
• Barack Obama's Health Care Plan Covers Abortion, Would Require Tax-Funding (LifeNews)
• Bishop Robert Carlson of Saginaw MI's statement for Catholic voters
• Bishop Tobin: "I don’t know about you, dear reader, but I could never vote for a candidate – of any party for any office – who supports laws that promote or allow the death of thousands of children in the hideous crime of abortion. I just don’t want that on my conscience."
• Bishop Zubik says "he will open up all the churches on Monday – some around the clock – so people can come pray about how they should vote on Tuesday"

And that's just a fraction of the stuff that comes across my desk daily. I think this is the good stuff.

update:

• Barack Obama Repeats Pro-Abortion Litmus Test for Supreme Court Judges (LifeNews)
• New Video Ad: Barack Obama Wants to Reverse Ban on Partial-Birth Abortions (LifeNews)
• Archbishop Elden Curtiss of Omaha (PDF file!): "I cannot conceive of a proportionate reason that could outweigh the deaths of nearly 50 million children killed by abortion."

On supporting one another in pursuit of the good and true

Doing the right thing often isn't easy.

Bishop Robert Vasa, in his most recent column, tells us one way that he is encouraged:

It might be a perception that my boldness regarding pro-abortion politicians is courageous but in truth I only follow the lead of those who exemplify a boldness far greater than my own. The bold speaking out on the part of Archbishop Raymond Burke regarding the contentious issue of Catholic pro-abortion politicians and Holy communion emboldens cowards like me to follow his example. The firm and measured response of Cardinal Egan and a variety of other Archbishops and Bishops to misleading statements of the Speaker of the House emboldens others, like myself, to shake off the shackles of fear and to stand with them.

Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, on Comending the Bishops:

Faithful Catholics in the US have been both stunned and gratified by the recent show of episcopal strength in dealing with the heretical nonsense of “Catholics” in public life who clearly misrepresent the Church’s teaching on vital issues.

... The trend is truly heartening. Let’s pray that it continues! Much more could be done, of course, but I am grateful that more bishops are standing up to strengthen and protect the faith of millions.

... [I would mention] the strong pro-life stances of Archbishops Burke (now in Rome) and Chaput (Denver) as well as Bishops Vasa (Baker, OR), Farrell and Vann (Dallas, TX), Martino (Scranton, PA) and Mallooly (Wilmington, DE) who are representatives of a group of other bishops who have made their voices heard forcefully on the Catholic voting issue.

... Thankfully, there are many more examples of episcopal courage that we could add to the reflections but suffice it to say that there seems to be a new wind blowing through the College of Bishops all around the world these days.

... We also need to thank them personally when they speak out in order to encourage them to do even more! Now that the example has been set, let us hope that other bishops and priests will have the audacity of our hope in Christ to go out and do the same!

What they said.

Papist Picture of the Day - 10/30/08

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

Some days the Pope's thinking cap can't handle the pressure.

[source: REUTERS/Giampiero Sposito (ITALY)]

So, three nuns write a letter to a newspaper ...

... and the punchline to the joke is: "Because they think they know theology!"

The context:

Three paragraphs of dripping, swarmy sarcasm from these three nuns, penned in response to Archbishop Charles Chaput's noble efforts to defend the unborn. And then this little gem:

We also appreciate the respect for primacy of conscience in our decision-making, as enunciated by Josef Ratzinger, now our current pope, Benedict XVI, who wrote: “Over the pope, as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else — if necessary, even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.”

Nice pull quote, sisters. But clearly it needs context. Otherwise, as I'm sure we'd all agree - ahem, I'm sure we'd all agree - the unfettered primacy of conscience would allow you to do, well, anything.

It would allow you, for instance, to support abortion.

... oh wait, you do.

It would allow you, for instance, to support gay marriage.

... oh wait, you do.

It would allow you, even, to deny that all salvation is through Jesus.

... oh wait, you do.

With that in mind, read their closing statement:

"We are making our ballot choices as adults and as faithful citizens who have weighed the issues in light of the gospels and the justice teachings of our church. We encourage all Catholics to do likewise."

Yes sisters, you clearly set a wonderful example of faithful citizenship lived in the light of the gospels, informed by the justice teachings of our church.

Tell me, what do the gospels say about lying?

On the lies that pro-Obama Catholics tell

Well, some Bishops and writers aren't letting them get away with it.

First, a writer:

During this election cycle a study on abortion released by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good has received plenty of attention from Democrats and Barack Obama supporters.

The spin is that state pro-life laws only have a small impact on abortion rates, and increasing welfare expenditures is the superior way to reduce abortion.

But in today's National Review Online, Professor Michael New of the University of AL and the Witherspoon Institute identified - surprise - errors in the study's methodology.

New conducted a proper analysis of the exact same data used by CACG and found pro-life laws - specifically public funding restrictions and informed consent laws - are effective at lowering abortion rates.

New also found the amount of money spent on welfare appears to have only a marginal impact on the incidence of abortion.

Second, a bishop:

The Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania has continued educating its members on the importance of life during this election season. In a new video titled, “The Catholic Church and Life Issues,” the diocese refutes claims by groups such as Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good that Catholics can vote for a pro-choice politician.

The video, which is posted on the Diocese of Scranton web site, discusses the importance of defending human life this election, though some groups are targeting Catholics to convince them that the issue is not one of relevance. (CNA)

The video:



Now if only we had the resources to get this message out to as wide an audience as these Soros-funded front-groups can.

Oh, and before I forget, guess who is on board with these groups offering an "alternative pro-life position" ... Fr. Thomas "Nothing New" Reese. (Why "Nothing New", you ask?)

NCR introduces "New voices from young Catholics"

National Catholic Reporter evidently saw the writing on the wall and is trying something new.

It's called "Young Voices" and here's how they describe it:

The future of our church is in the hands of a generation coming of age in the first decade of the 21st century. NCR went looking among this generation and found four young Catholics -- Nicole Sotelo, Kate Childs Graham, Mike Sweitzer-Beckman, Jamie L. Manson -- from different backgrounds and with different connections to the church. They will be sharing their stories in this space weekly.

Two possible goals here:

• Maybe they'd like to have subscribers under 40 again (no offense)
• Maybe they'd like to convince their subscribers over 60 that they are not a dying breed

Regardless of the conjectural editorial motivation, their inaugural column is by Nicole Sotello on Proposition 8.

Her thinly-veiled disagreement with the teaching of the bishops on this topic runs as follows:

But I wonder what type of laws we are preserving. We’ll be keeping a system of marriage laws that are not about love, but about privilege. Our current civil marriage laws privilege heterosexual men and women who happen to be fortunate in finding a partner. These couples receive special benefits with regard to taxes, pension plans, health care, social status and a variety of other societal advantages. Those who happen to be unlucky in love or whose families do not fit the mold are left out: unmarried parents with children, unmarried elderly individuals who live together and care for one another, and so on.

But marriage is a privilege - not a right. If it was a right, I could demand to be married - and as easier as that might make things for me on a friday night, it's clearly not reality. And marriage as a civil institution says nothing about love - that's a sacramental/interpersonal category, so it's unfair to ask if civil marriages are about "love". Try arguing that in a court.

Moving on: yes, marriage law privileges heterosexual couples, but why? Because they are the fundamental unit of society and society has an interest in protecting and fostering them. Society doesn't have that same interest in fostering the relationship between my brother and I, even if we share a house and expenses together (we don't, he has to graduate college first).

Protecting marriage is not about excluding people who are "left out". Even if gay marriage were approved by the state, that would do nothing to address the other situations Nicole talks about, including the unmarried, single-parents, etc. So that's really a completely separate issue.

And that coy "families who don't fit the mold" line? Please, if you're going to be a columnist, actually talk about the things you want to talk about. Don't use code language like that. Try being specific and explicit.

Oh, and in a column talking about Proposition 8, ya know that might be a really good time to express your understanding of the Church's teaching on homosexual unions and the civil ramifications.

My final take:

168 words of forgettable.

For anyone who's ever had a political sign stolen

Margaret Cabaniss at IC has the story:

On Monday, [Shawn Turschak] ran wires from his house and hooked the signs into a power source for an electric pet fence. Then he mounted a surveillance camera in a nearby tree and wired it to a digital recorder.

Tuesday afternoon, the camera saw this: A neighbor trotting up with an Obama-Biden sign, grabbing a handful of volts as he touched a McCain-Palin sign, then fleeing at top 9-year-old boy speed.

Video here.

In my neighborhood here in Washington DC there is a single McCain sign among myriads of Obama signs that I walk past everyday. I think it's a wonder that it's still standing.

Picture: what do you think of this crosier?

Archbishop Reinhard Marx of Munich-Freising:

Here is a larger picture where the crosier is more visible.

Wikipedia's crosier entry.

Tracking the Catholic Vote

Another nibble:

The race has tightened in part because of changes in a couple of important swing voting groups. Independents back Obama by 5 percentage points today, down from a 9-point edge last week. Similarly, among white Catholics, Obama held an 11-point edge over McCain last week and today they split 46-46. (Fox News)

The spread among all Catholics favors McCain, I would imagine.

And at last count:

"Among the over 110 bishops who have spoken out in this election in defense of Church teaching are 69 ordinaries (bishops who head dioceses). That's over one-third of the 197 dioceses and archdioceses in the United States." (Inside Catholic)

Excommunicate, already!

"Sign it. Seal it. Deliver it." says Canon Lawyer Ed Peters:

The more modernistic the liberal clerical cohort in Australia tries to become, the older are the heresies that they promote. Lately, one Fr Peter Dresser is promoting his own brand of Arianism, a heresy that basically denied the divinity of Christ, and which was solemnly rejected by the Council of Nicaea (325). "No human being can ever be God," writes Fr. Dresser in a booklet distributed to the faithful, "and Jesus was a human being. It is as simple as that."

Okay, here's my version of simple: "No Catholic priest may deny the divinity of Christ, and Dresser is a Catholic priest. It's as simple as that." If Fr. Dresser really denies the divinity of Christ (among several other things!), declare his formal excommunication and expel him from the clerical state. Do it quickly, do it cleanly, and do it without rancor. But do it.

Nice of Fr. Desser to make things easy on us.

He also claims Joseph was the biological father of Jesus, and the Virgin Mary had six children.

Bishop Finn on becoming the "Church militant" again

You know when you see a column titled "Warriors with Our Eyes Fixed on Heaven" you're in for some good stuff:

I am sometimes amazed at the casual manner with which Christians, Catholics included, take up our life within what Pope John Paul II rightly called the "culture of death."

The Church, by comparison, reminds us that we are engaged - by reason of our Baptism and Confirmation - in a battle, "not with flesh and blood, but with the principalities and powers, with the rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in heaven." (Eph 6:12)

Jesus Christ has won the ultimate battle, but we, in the course of our human life must make our choice, determining on whose side we will live and die. Whose side will you choose?!

What is at stake in this battle is our immortal soul, our salvation. My responsibility as bishop is with the eternal destiny of those entrusted to my care. My total energies must be directed to the well being of those who otherwise may come under the spell of a radically flawed and fundamentally distorted moral sense, at odds with what our Mother the Church teaches.

There are objective and transcendent truths. There is such a thing as right and wrong. There is a legitimate hierarchy of moral evils, and the direct willful destruction of human life can never be justified; it can never be supported. Do you believe this firm teaching of the Church?

How does Bishop Finn take his coffee?

Extra bold.

Update: ‘Fireproof’ Earns Twice As Much As ‘Religulous’

This news warmed my heart:

Fireproof has earned twice as much at the box office as Religulous.

Both opening weekend box office numbers and total to date are as close to two-to-one as you can get. On their respective opening weekends (one week apart), the barely advertised Fireproof earned $6.8 million while the highly advertised Religulous earned only $3.4 million. As of the date of this post the numbers are $23.6MM vs $10.6MM.

And let’s not even get into the profit margin side of things. Fireproof had an ROI of $46 for every dollar spent while Religulous earned $4 for every dollar (probably less, if marketing is considered).

It couldn't have happened to a nicer solipsist.

.. and shouldn't the picture have Maher on the left instead of the right?

Picture: St. Louis Claims First *Pregnant* Catholic Priest

RiverFrontTimes:

"A little over a year ago, 26-year-old Jessica Rowley shattered the stained-glass ceiling, so to speak, by being ordained a Catholic priest. Now the St. Louisan is on the verge of giving birth to her first child, and a Washington, D.C.-based group that advocates for women’s ordination says that makes Rowley the world’s first pregnant Catholic priest."

Her husband is a United Church of Christ minister. So which church will the baby be baptized in?

"That's a good question," says Rowley, with a laugh. "It's a topic of conversation in our home a lot. We're going to baptize him in both churches."

Why, of course! Why didn't I think of that? I'm so narrow-minded with my solutions sometimes....

What I'm Reading - Today's News of Note

Today is crunch time on many fronts for me, so here's what I would normally blog about, but must instead simply point you towards. If time permits, I might come back and revisit some of these topics.

• Diogenes on NCR's all-but-explicit endorsement of Barack Obama (My take here. I must also add - to their own credit, they published my negative comment and many, many others)
• John Allen predicts 2009 is shaping up as a 'Year of Africa' in Catholicism
• Fordham Honors Justice Breyer with Ethics Award as Faithful Catholics Voice Criticism (Cardinal Egan certainly wasn't pleased)
• SDG finishes his comprehensive argument for why voting third party might not be the most prudential option for Catholics this year
• Two Catholic priests killed in Moscow (strange)
• LifeNews editorial: Pro-Life Voters Must Back McCain to Stop Abortion
• CatholicVote.com's "Barack Obama on the Issues of Importance to Catholics" (CV's Brian Burch also has a good summary of "Scranton Bishop Blasts ‘Catholic’ Groups"

... and don't worry, the time away has been well spent - as you shall see!

Also consider this today's open comment thread.

Papist Picture of the Day - 10/29/08

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

Field trips in Rome are always better.

[source: AP Photo/Osservatore Romano, HO]

Top 10 Faith Factors in the Election

Steven Waldman's list mentions Catholics in points 4 and 5:

4. Will Catholics Ignore Their Bishops?
The overall Catholic vote has gone with the popular vote winner every election since 1968. Catholic bishops have been urging Catholic voters to vote for antiabortion candidates, but a majority of Catholic voters now favor abortion rights so it remains to be seen what influence the church will have. (Sen. Obama is also winning with the 100-year-old-nuns bloc.) Another factor in Sen. Obama’s favor: a higher percentage of the Catholic vote will be Latino this year.

Last election, President Bush won Catholic voters 52%-46%.

5. Can Obama Finally Bowl a Strike With Skeptical White Catholics?
During the primaries, Obama did poorly with white Catholics, often working-class ethnics or their offspring. Remember his feeble attempt to curry favor through bowling? They tend to be culturally conservative and haven’t voted for a Democrat since 1996. On the other hand, they’re especially concerned about the economy this year, and Sen. Biden has been trying to bond with them as a fellow “cultural Catholics.”

Point of reference: In 2004, Bush won 56% of white Catholics, Kerry 43%

My thoughts:

4. While a majority of Catholics might favor abortion rights (what poll claims this, by the way?), I would argue that a majority of Catholics would identify more with McCain than Obama on the issue. The question is how much weight they will give to abortion at all. As for Latino voters - I would guess them to be more conservative on the issue of abortion than other Catholics.

5. I think the success of Senator Biden's Catholic outreach is hovering somewhere near zero. Catholics who do take their faith seriously couldn't care less for his "cultural Catholicism" and Catholics who don't take their faith seriously I don't foresee being seriously swayed by it, either.

Tuesday will tell.

Time perpetuates "Biden = Catholic Vote" meme

Tucked into this Time magazine story about Joe Biden being hidden away from reporters (even more than Sarah Palin) in the final days before November 4th, an explanation for his selection:

"Whereas McCain's pick of a running mate was a big move aimed at jolting the race, Obama had hoped instead to bolster his foreign policy credentials, give him a second chance with white Catholics and, above all, do no harm."

On the ground, one Catholic reacts at a Joe Biden rally:

"Mr. Biden calls himself Catholic, and he's causing a scandal in the Catholic Church because he's saying the Catholic Church doesn't know what it's talking about," Haskell said. "And he's pro-abortion."

"The Catholic Church has always said that life begins at conception. ... God's pro-life."
One of the signs the women were waving read, "Bishops excommunicate Biden!!!" One had what appeared to be a photo of an aborted fetus. Another read, "Real Catholics are pro-life." (Ocala)

Whoops.

Cartoon: Joe Biden at Mass

For full-size version, click here or click on the cartoon:

By John Francis Borra, SFO. Used with permission.

"Climate change to get major attention in 2009"

CNS Blog:

Climate change and the vital importance of protecting God’s creation is going to be the focus of a major campaign opening in 2009 and coordinated through The Catholic Coalition on Climate Change.

The coalition, under executive director Daniel Misleh, is planning to introduce an ambitious effort to reach all of the country’s 19,000 parishes through what is being called the Catholic Climate Covenant: The St. Francis Pledge to Protect Creation and the Poor.

I want to hear your comments before I make mine.

Defendin' Palin

George Marlin does his best over at The Catholic Thing:

Governor Sarah Palin is driving liberal and conservative members of the eastern establishment bonkers.

Because Palin is a working mother of five, didn’t abort her Down syndrome child, is the main bread winner in her family, gave a terrific acceptance speech, held Biden’s feet to the fire in the vice presidential debate, attracts large crowds at campaign rallies, and is good-looking – liberal feminists are frothing at the mouth.

In their quest to destroy Palin, these self-appointed guardians of the women’s rights movement have discarded all the rules of civility and fair play.

Amy Welborn on why democrats are blue

Amy Welborn gives us a history lesson ending with the ironic observation: "Gee, I wonder why the pro-life activists starting doubting the Democratic party was open to their concerns?"

Find out how we got where we are, the first step towwards not repeating history.

Catholic Gov. Granholm claims her faith inspires her to destroy embryos

I know. It's a shocking line when you put it that way.

Here's how she actually put it:

"As a Catholic, I can say to be pro-cure is to be pro-life." (MLive)

Well geez - that's not much better, is it?

By "Pro-cure," of course, she is actually describing "pro-embryonic creation and destruction" as laid out in Proposal 2.

I'll make no secret of the fact that I was very happy to leave radical pro-abortion, pro-ESCR Catholic Governor Jennifer Granholm back in Michigan when I moved to Washington DC last year.

I was up until last year forced to deal with her as best I could when she was more of a local problem, like when she bought ads in three Catholic newspapers in advance of election day.

One thing has changed since I left Michigan, however: Bishop Earl Boyea, who has published a letter entitled "How shall I cast my vote?" (where he opposes Prop 2 by name), who has added a section to the diocesan website called "2 goes 2 far - vote no on 2" and ... when he heard about Granholm's outrageous statement quoted above, responded as follows:

"Of course Catholics and all other responsible citizens will continue to seek cures for disease and injury, but to imply that proposal two is a valid expression of Catholic principles is shocking. Nothing could be further from the truth. Saint Paul reminds us that we must preach the truth in season and out of season. The truth will never go unspoken. To be in favor of proposal two is not to be pro life. A well formed Catholic conscience would never lead a person to support proposal two as a Catholic."

That makes me wish I was back in Michigan, because Proposal 2 is in the lead among voters.

Video: What's At Stake? Human Life.

Be advised, this is not an easy video to watch:

It's also very moving.

Ph/t: AmP reader Fr. Steven.

Papist Picture of the Day - 10/28/08

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

On second thought, the Vatican could have chosen a better lost-and-found spot.

[source: REUTERS/Max Rossi (VATICAN)]

Latest numbers: McCain back up among Catholics

Signs of hope?

Two weeks ago McCain and Obama were nearly tied for the Catholic vote 42%-43% with 15% undecided.

A week ago Obama support among Catholics peaked at 49%-38% with 12% undecided.

Today, Catholics have flipped back to McCain 40-47% and 13% undecided.

Obama polls extraordinarily high among those who report "no" religion (74%) and Jewish (69%), he leads McCain in "Other Christian" (47%-42%) but falls behind among "other" religion (40%-52%) and Protestants (40%-53%).

Yes, it appears McCain continues to do less well among Catholics than Protestants (which presumably includes evangelicals).

But then again, this is just polling.

Million dollar question: does this recent shift have anything to do with the fact that over 100 bishops have published statements arguing for the priority of life issues?

update: if you want a taste for what these bishops are saying, read an excerpt from this one:

"In the U.S. Bishops' document, Faithful Citizenship, there is a section which addresses whether it might ever be morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports and intrinsic evil, such as abortion – even when the voter does not agree with the candidate's position on that evil. In response, the Bishops note that it might be possible if another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion.

While this is sound moral guidance, I ask you, are there truly any grave moral and proportionate reasons, singularly or taken together, that outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year?

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver puts it in perspective when he says: “What is a proportionate reason when it comes to abortion? It's the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them in the next life – which we certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives, then we can proceed." - Bishop James Johnston of Sprinfield-Cape Girardeau

And this statement was heard from the pulpit of every Mass this weekend. That has to have an effect.

"Expect Obama to sign FOCA in the first 100 days"

I often talk about the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), and how revealing it is that Obama has promised to sign it into law as "the first thing" he'd do as President. Fr. Thomas Berg explains FOCA:

Sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca) in the Senate (S. 1173), and Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) in the House (HR 1964), FOCA is a piece of legislation designed “to prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman's right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.”

In fact, FOCA, if it became law, would go well beyond Roe, sweeping away all limits on abortion -- state and federal -- including restrictions on government funding of abortion and conscience protections for healthcare providers. We have no reason to believe Obama would hesitate to sign FOCA into law as soon as it were to passed by the 111th Congress -- a probable outcome in early 2009 if Democrats gain enough new seats in November.

... And I alert my readers that you can find an extremely useful FOCA fact sheet here and many other useful FOCA-related articles and materials here, courtesy of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life activities.

Fr. Berg also conducted an informative interview with Susan Wills of the USCCB's pro-life committee.

Update: AmP News Pilot

Thank you, thank you, thank you to everyone who has sent in feedback after watching the pilot episode of AmP News.

Special thanks to the 36 people (at most recent count) who have subscribed to the AmP News YouTube Channel, making us the 6th-most-subscribed YouTube reporting channel this week!

We are now in the process of taking your tips and recommendations into account as we decide how best to move forward.

In the meantime, however, I can predict that a very exciting AmP News feature will be coming your way soon!

From Thomas Reese, SJ .... nothing new.

Over at Busted Halo Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ succeeded in fooling me into excitement for about as long as it took me to read beyond the first line of his article "Something New in the Abortion Debate":

"After decades of debate over abortion, something new has occurred this year."

Unfortunately, what follows is a catalogue of the old. AmP readers have already seen me respond to each and every argument Reese proposes, because Reese simply repeats what has already been offered by the Catholic pro-Obama advocates.

A brief highlight reel:

"after many years of insisting that abortion be legal and safe, the Democrats are finally emphasizing that it should be rare"

Nope: they actually removed that language (and added a promise to fund all abortions sought).

"The traditional pro-life strategy has been to try to make abortion illegal."

Nope - this is a falseminimilization of the comprehensive pro-life movement (see: Amy Welborn).

"A small group of Catholic pro-lifers, exemplified by Douglas Kmiec and Nicholas Cafardi, has concluded that criminalization is a failed strategy.

Nope - the bishops disagree.

"[they say]the most successful strategy to actually reduce the number of abortions is to vote for Democratic candidates."

Nope - and *blech* - prove it. You can start by responding to this.

"there is no difference between the positions of McCain and Obama on stem cell research and gay marriage."

Nope - McCain is certainly different on the question of embryonic stem cell research.

"they are a small minority among bishops since there are over 180 other dioceses where Biden is welcomed to go to Communion."

Nope - outright denying Communion, maybe, not speaking out against Biden? Plenty.

At this point Reese actually switches over to quoting Catholic pro-Obama websites. I guess we can conclude that he identifies and supports their arguments. But at least he has the honesty to say:

"If the Democrats do not deliver, the pragmatic pro-lifers [what Reese calls himself] will be left out on a limb."

But, let it be noted, it's not just Reese & Co. who will be left out on a limb if the "democrats do not deliver" - it will be hundreds of thousands of children cut off from the tree of life.

That, too - sadly - is nothing new.

The short road to modern eugenics...

... is upon us in the form of a "one-stop" genetic test for embryos:

A gene mapping test could tell parents-to-be if embryos are affected by almost any inherited disease, UK scientists have claimed.

The team from London's Bridge Centre say the £1,500 test could detect any of the 15,000 inherited diseases in weeks.

Current tests are either focused on a specific gene mutation, or take a lot longer to give results.

But other experts warned the fertility regulator would have to ensure there were strict limits on the test's use. (BBC)

.... because British courts have been so careful about imposing strict limits on embryonic procedures.

Cardinal Egan Objects to Award for Breyer

He's making a habit of being a good bishop:

Fordham University's plan to give an award to Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer has drawn criticism from alumni and the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in New York over Breyer's support for abortion rights.

Cardinal Edward M. Egan has spoken to leaders of the Catholic university in New York City to ensure that "a mistake of this sort will not happen again," said New York Archdiocese spokesman Joseph Zwilling.

... Egan has previously criticized Catholic elected officials and candidates who support abortion rights. Zwilling said this is the first instance he is aware of in which Egan has spoken out against giving an award to someone over the issue of abortion. (AP)

National Catholic Register did a story on a few weeks ago. So did I.

"Pro-Obama Catholic claims pro-lifers adhere to ‘pelvic theology’"

Oh my, what a classy charge to make:

Bill Roth, president of the Catholic Democrats political action committee, recently spoke about pro-life Catholics who strongly oppose the idea that voting for Barack Obama is a viable Catholic option, describing them as followers of “pelvic theology.”

Roth made the derisive comments while speaking to Rick Maese, a journalist from the Baltimore Sun. Maese reported Roth's remarks on Saturday in the Baltimore Sun article “Democrats again face the Catholic challenge.”

Roth, who claims to promote “civility” in intra-Catholic disagreements about abortion, told Maese that the American Roman Catholic Church is split between "believers in social theology" who are most concerned about poverty, health care and war, and "those with a firm adherence to pelvic theology," who are driven to the polls by issues such as abortion and same-sex marriages. (CNA)

While Austin Ruse provides the calm and reasonable response, I find myself wondering if a swift kick in the heinie to Mr. Roth would be considered a suitable expression of pelvic rhetoric.

"Mel Gibson pours millions into extremist Catholic sect"

A sad tale:

"Australian actor Mel Gibson has poured another $15.2 million into his controversial private church in California’s exclusive beachside suburb of Malibu.

US federal tax filings showed Gibson’s Holy Family Catholic Church now has tax-free assets worth a total of $64 million.

Gibson is the sole contributor to the church, which has a small congregation of about 70 members and follows a 500-year-old ethos.

Among the church’s assets were art works with a listed value of almost $760,000." (Religion News Blog)

I love his movies, but can't countenance the way he's spending his profits.

Speaking of the former - has anyone heard rumors about what his next planned movie might be?

It's my understanding that he's still sitting on significant profits from The Passion of the Christ and even Apocalypto broke even (or did slightly better). So he doesn't need outside funding.

I've heard rumors ranging from a life of John Paul II to an adaptation of the Book of Maccabees.

Either would be awesome.

Sed Contra: Pro-Life Laws, Politicians produce results

Michael J. New at Public Discourse (which is dishing out the good stuff):

During the past 35 years, the pro-life movement has made real progress. The number of abortions has fallen in 12 out of the past 14 years and the total number of abortions has declined by 21 percent since 1990. These gains are largely due to pro-life political victories at the federal level in the 1980s and at the state level in the 1990s which have made it easier to pass pro-life legislation.

Thank you, pro-Obama Catholics, for giving us the occasion to revisit these important facts.

Introducing AmP News

I'd like to introduce AmP readers to a work-in-progress I've undertaken recently (that I hinted about earlier this month) which is now ready for public viewing.

I've been collaborating with a young man named Alex Buder to produce a video version (or "vlog") of this blog, American Papist, called AmP News. Here is our show's description:

"AMP News, an upbeat week-in-review of news, politics, and culture, along with commentary and interviews, all from a uniquely Catholic perspective."

Our working motto is "AmP News, reporting the stories you can believe." (Catchy, huh?)

We're taking this slowly, and are very excited about its potential. We've produced two segments so far, which you can now view on YouTube below. Consider this our "first draft."

AmP News Pilot Episode - The Headlines:

AmP News Pilot Episode - The Papist Take:

How can you help us out? Several ways:

1. Give us your feedback - send emails to "americanpapist [at] gmail.com" and let us know what we can improve, what you liked, didn't like, etc. Our aim is to serve you.
2. Subscribe to our AmP News YouTube channel so you'll receive notification of future segments, as well as comment, favorite, and rate the video, gaining it visibility
3. Embed the video on your blog or website, and email it to your friends (most important!)

If things go well, we intend to soon add exclusive interview segments and on-site reporting.

This project has the potential to reach a much wider audience of young Catholics, fallen-away/nominal Catholics, as well as the general public, providing them with accurate, interesting news and content, all from a uniquely Catholic (= Papist) perspective.

And no worries - I'll still be blogging up a storm.

Thanks so much, and please keep our efforts in your prayers.

National Catholic Reporter editors endorse Obama, and I lose it

Well, in effect.

Here's how the editors of NCR begin:

"Another presidential election cycle is nearly ended, and once again the Catholic bishops in the United States have sadly distinguished themselves for the narrowness and, in too many cases, barely concealed partisanship, of their political views."

Notice, for the NCR editors, bishops who defend the teaching of the Church must be partisan if that teaching conflicts with the liberal viewpoint of the NCR editors. The fact that these same bishops are perfectly willing to accept pro-life democratic candidates completely eludes them.

Fundamentally, the NCR editors parrot the "get over Roe" talking point which has been made popular by pro-Obama catholics. Moreover, the NCR editors sign onto this position even after it was explicitlty condemned by the competant authorities in the US Bishops Conference.

The NCR editors even criticize the bishops for being narrow minded, for "turning the abortion issue into a partisan rallying cry" for "damaging the church and the pro-life cause" and for "erod[ing] the legitimate authority of an already beleaguered episcopal conference."

And all this crosses a line. How dare they.

How dare they claim that it is "partisan" affiliation which has prompted 60+ bishops (at last count) to speak out about the radical centrality of respecting human life in this election?

How dare the NCR editors claim that it is some sort of affinity for the GOP party (why? what do the bishops have to gain, exactly?) which prompts the bishops to council against supporting a candidate who would overturn every restriction on abortion in the books, who radically supports the right of a mother to have her child dead even in cases of a live birth, and who would have catholics and other Americans pay for it?!

And finally, how dare the NCR editors claim that they say all of this because of their Catholic faith?

Essentially, they are claiming to be more Catholic than (at least) 1-in-4 American bishops.

And they have intentionally put themselves under the condemnation already leveled against those who have similarly employed this nonsensical, disingenuous "the way to reduce abortions is to increase funding, support and access to them" argument.

How dare they.

(Oh, and having this photo - of young people walking in the annual March for Life, petitioning the Supreme Court to repeal Roe - serve as the accompaniment to their editorial? You know what I'm going to say.)

Purely political

The last week before an election is always crazy. The atest communiques from the battlefield:

• "Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said that as president he would hold regular press conferences and "not just call on my four favorite reporters." But the Democratic presidential nominee hasn't held a full press conference -- submitting himself to more than a handful of questions from his whole press corps -- in more than a month, since Sept. 24, 2008, in Clearwater, Fla. (ABC Blog)
• "Newspapers and magazines swarmed around the first black student to win the most coveted spot at the most vaunted club at one of America’s most prestigious institutions. In interviews, Mr. Obama was modest and careful. (In a rare slip, he told The Associated Press: “I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me.”) He signed a contract to write a memoir." (NYT)
• Chuck Norris: "I'm voting for those not yet born" (guess who he's not voting for)

Priority items:

• "A taped radio interview from 2001 that has re-emerged has Barack Obama saying the civil rights movement failed when it became so dependent on the Supreme Court that it never got around to working toward redistributing income. (FoxNews) [Watch the YouTube clip here.] {Fallout tracking here, excellent and insightful NRO commentary here.}
• WaPo: "Almost Everyone Would Do Better Under the McCain Health Plan ... His tax credit is larger than the current tax subsidy for insurance."

Joe Biden's new bishop not letting him get away with it, or is he?

Whispers:

In response to Senator Joe Biden's comments on abortion in a recently-unearthed 2007 interview with his hometown paper [I discuss it here - AmP], the Democratic VP nominee's bishop -- Wilmington's Fran Malooly -- penned a letter to the editor run in this morning's News-Journal.

... Biden's name will appear twice on the First State's ballot next week, both as part of the Democratic ticket and for re-election to the Senate seat he's held since 1972.

The beginning of Bishop Malooly's letter:

In his interview with The News Journal published Oct. 19, Sen. Joe Biden presents a seriously erroneous picture of Catholic teaching on abortion. He said, “I know that my church has wrestled with this for 2,000 years,” and claimed repeatedly that the Church has a nuanced view of the subject that leaves a great deal of room for uncertainty and debate.

This is simply incorrect. The teaching of the Church is clear and not open to debate.

Biden famously tried to call himself a "John XXIII sort of guy" (as opposed to a "John Paul sort of guy" - seriously) ... well, here's what bishop Malooly has to say about that claim:

The Didache, probably the earliest Christian writing apart from the New Testament, explicitly condemns abortion without exceptions. It tells us there is a “way of life” and a “way of death” and abortion is a part of the way of death. This has been the consistent teaching of the Church ever since.

... It was the teaching of Pope John XXIII as well as Pope John Paul II. It is the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI and the bishops of the Church, including me as shepherd of this diocese. (underlining mine)

The bishop's conclusion:

We hope Sen. Biden will carefully listen to the Church’s 2,000 years of testimony on abortion and that he will join in the defense and promotion of the sanctity of life.

This is good stuff. It also raises a question in my mind: is this the most he can do? Is the Bishop already "firing on all cylinders", or is this (necessary) preparation and groundwork prior to imposing a canonical penalty? What more would Biden have to do (or could do) to deserve such a recourse?

update: Rocco pursues this line of questioning:

As for refusing the Eucharist to the potential vice-president, Malooly told the diocesan Dialog in an interview on his September arrival that "I do not intend to get drawn into partisan politics nor do I intend to politicize the Eucharist as a way of communicating Catholic Church teaching.

"It is critical to keep the lines of communication open if the church is going to make her teachings understood and, please God, accepted. It is my belief that Catholics of all occupations have the same duty to examine their own consciences before determining their worthiness for the reception of communion.

"I think I will get a lot more mileage out of a conversation trying to change the mind and heart than I would out of a public confrontation. That might not make some people happy who feel there ought to be a confrontation but I have to follow my own conscience and try to do what I can for the long term."

I disagree with this approach. Denial of the Eucharist is not a decision dictated by "partisan politics", it is prompted by very sound theology which teaches that receiving the Eucharist in a state of grave sin is harmful to the person receiving it, and also represents a sacrilege of the Eucharistic presence, as Abp. Raymond Burke has persuasively demonstrated.

Listed: Bishops who have spoken out for life

Inside Catholic is attempting to compile a list of bishops who have "spoken out on the primacy of life issues in the coming election." Rocco Palmo recently counted "over 50," but IC has found over 60, and is asking folks to help them search diocesan websites/newspapers for more.

It wouldn't surprise me if, before November 4th, we discover the majority have spoken out about life.

"Catholic bishops want the word of God on iPods"

But really, not just iPods - everywhere:

Catholic bishops meeting in Rome said Friday they want the word of God to be heard through what could be considered an unlikely channel: iPods.

The bishops, attending a synod at the Vatican since October 5, called for increased distribution of the Bible "in the largest variety of our planet's languages".

They said in a message to believers that the printed text is no longer sufficient at a time when communication has been transformed by technology.

"The voice of the divine word must also resonate over the radio, Internet channels with virtual online distribution, CDs, DVDs, iPod ...", it said.

It went on to add to the list "television and cinema screens, in the press, at cultural and social events." (AFP)

It is good that they are saying this, but let us remember that the Catholic laity are already doing us a huge service by distributing the teaching's of the bishops using these new technologies. The examples are too many to name.

Ph/t: Whipsers (who also tries to do some naming).

Proposed: Women lectors

CNS Blog:

Probably the most newsy — and somewhat unexpected — item in the final propositions of the Synod of Bishops on the Bible was a proposal to allow women to be officially installed in the ministry of lector.

The issue was raised in Proposition 17 on “The ministry of the word and women,” and on Saturday morning it passed with 191 votes in favor, 45 opposed and three abstentions, according to our sources.

... The question is whether women can be officially installed in such a ministry. Until now, the Vatican has said no: canon law states that only qualified lay men can be “installed on a stable basis in the ministries of lector and acolyte.” At the same time, canon law does allow for “temporary deputation” as lector to both men and women, which is why women routinely appear as lectors.

Disagreement:

It’s interesting that this proposal, while passing overwhemlingly, drew the greatest number of “no” votes than any of the other 54 propositions, most of which passed with fewer than five opposing votes.

Waiting to hear a canonist's take...

Announced: Pope Benedict to visit Africa in 2009!

What. A. Pope.

Details:

It’s official — Pope Benedict XVI plans to make his first trip to Africa next March, visiting Cameroon and Angola.

The pope said he will hand-deliver the African synod’s Instrumentum Laboris, or working document, when he travels to Cameroon in March to meet with representatives from African bishops’ conferences.

... Pope Benedict said he would go from Cameroon to Angola, where he will celebrate the 500th anniversary of that country’s evangelization.

For months, rumors have been percolating around the Vatican of a papal trip to Africa, a continent that has not hosted a pope since 1998. In October, the Vatican’s advance team traveled to Africa to firm up plans, according to sources.

At present, it’s the only foreign trip on the pope’s calendar next year. With the synod to follow, it looks like 2009 with be a year of Africa for the church. (CNS Blog)

Gee, I wonder who wants to give me press credentials? I'm serious.

And ... I hate to say it now, but I can predict what the mainstream media's talking points will be:

• The Church in Africa is experiencing an uptick in conversions to evangelical and other protestant churches (partially true)
• The Church's prohibition against condoms is exacerbating the humanitarian crisis (false)
• Celibacy and discipline are generally lax in the Church in Africa (partially true)

Time to start doing our homework. Pope Benedict proclaimed Hope to the Church in America - will he proclaim Love to the Church in Africa?

"Holy See to publish document on use of psychology in seminaries"

Important:

On October 30 the Congregation for Catholic Education will issue a new document entitled, “Orientations For The Use Of Psychological Competencies In The Admission And Formation Of Candidates To The Priesthood.”

...According to a Vatican official consulted by CNA, the document “is intended to propose clear criteria for establishing an adequate balance between recourse to psychology and spirituality, in order to avoid falling into both a psychology that ignores sin and grace, and a spirituality that overlooks factors related to the human mind and affectivity.” (CNA)

Without going into details, I have heard that the use of psychology has been abused in seminarian formation programs in the past, and the Holy See has as one its top priorities ... fixing it, and quickly.

Papist Picture of the Day - 10/26/08

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

American Preidents have the secret service, cardinals have ... nuns.

[source: REUTERS/Max Rossi (VATICAN)]

Lies, Damn Lies, and ... Polling

Much is being made of Faith in Public Life's new poll "The Young and the Faithful". I've discussed it previously here and, after asking, found the AmP community's input to be very helpful. Read through those here.

Recently, CNS published it's take on the results:

The survey indicated that younger Catholics are less traditional than older Catholics. More young Catholics identified themselves as Democrats than as Republicans -- 54 percent to 35 percent -- whereas older Catholics were almost evenly split between the two political parties . Only 28 percent of young Catholics said they are politically conservative, compared to 42 percent of older Catholics.

CNS gives the last word to a Faith in Public Life spokeswoman:

Expect to see the dividing lines of the culture wars continue to fade," said Katie Paris, director of communications strategy at Faith in Public Life.

My take? I think this poll and the accompanying analysis of its results have many blind spots.

If I had to choose *one* blind spot, it would be the difference between active and nominal Catholics. This difference applies to Catholics over 35, and even more so to those under 35.

Nominal Catholics, not surprisingly, closely follow the national trends. As AmP reader Gradchica said: "One might think these infrequent attenders have learned just enough of their faith to dangerously misinterpret it, and to miss the fine distinctions."

Active Catholics, however, are counter-cultural and don't follow the national trends. The proof for this claim is very easy to provide.....

For instance, a CNA editorial notes:

Where Obama has broken the pattern, his Catholic problem shows up among weekly Mass attendees. He won in Missouri, 50 percent to 46 percent, but lost active Catholics, 46 percent to 53 percent. He tied in Wisconsin but lost among active Catholics, 46 percent to 53 percent.

CWNews, commenting on a Pew forum study, also points out:

The Pew profile confirm that Catholics compose a crucial political constituency. But the survey also shows a sharp distinction between the Catholics who attend Mass regularly and those who are not active. Thus for example, among Catholics who attend Mass weekly, 60% say that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances; among those who do not go to Mass regularly the figure is 29%. Similarly, 42% of the regular Mass-goers oppose research that entails the destruction of human embryos; only 22% of the less active Catholics take that stand.

More troubling, however, is another trend: younger Catholics are less likely to be as active in their faith as their parents. This fact explains the general trend of young Catholics being "less conservative", or what have you.

Which brings us back to the point Archbishop Charles Chaput makes in his book Render Unto Caesar, that the crisis of voting is at root a crisis of faith. It should therefore not surprise us that people who do not even attend Mass regularly, who do not live an active faith, also do not have the same perspective on moral issues as the Church does.

I realize this is a bold claim, and that I have expressed it without all the qualifications, provisos and considerations that a more full treatment would contain, but I think it remains the fundamental insight which explains both how a) active Catholics vote differently and yet b) overall, Catholics are more "mainstream" in their voting habits than the previous generation.

Final consideration:

Are things getting worse? I don't think so. I think matters are becoming more clear. Pope Benedict has said, and I have quoted him before as saying, that active, passionate minorities shape cultures. The cohesion shown among conservative Catholics, and the stable dedication they demonstrate to the teachings of the Church, is more able to spread itself through teaching and witness, and propogate itself through children and education, than a nominal faith ever can or will.

One only has to look to the constant biblical admonition of Jesus that, to those who have much faith, more will be given, and to those who have little faith, even what they have will be taken away - to begin understanding the reality that I would claim is again present here before us.

So our task? Increase our faith, live it, and share it with others.

And don't fret about the polls.

EWTN airing "Into Great Silence Tonight and Thursday

Via Jeff:

Philip Groning's stunning new documentary on the spirituality of Carthusian monks will be on EWTN this week.

Sun 10/26/08 9:00 PM ET & 6 PM PT

Thu 10/30/08 2:30 PM ET & 11:30 AM PT

My previous posts on this documentary here.

You can watch EWTN online for free here.

Photo Caption Call - 10/24/08

Today's top story: 1-in-4 Bishops Promote "single issue voting"

Add your captions below in the comment box!

Winning Caption: "Where are the guns on this thing?" - Marty

[Source: AmP Reader Tom Lang]

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

The List: Prominent Pro-Obama Catholics

I was trying to find a list of prominent Catholics who have endorsed Barack Obama for President but couldn't, so I figured I would make one.

I think such a list would be useful because, should Obama win, it will allow us to retroactively judge the accuracy of the claims and predictions they are making now.

Obviously, this will be a work in progress as I gather the names and review their arguments, so in the meantime, please drop tips in the combox or send them to me in an email.

I hope to have a fairly complete list published sometime over the weekend. Thanks in advance for all your assistance!

[photo credit: Flickr user "odonoughue"]

Charles Krauthammer on not voting Obama

I feel bad giving away the ending, but if you like this, read the rest:

How has [Obama] fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he’s been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it, and — finally — deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today’s economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I’m for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

Friday Joke: Sarah Palin and the Pope

I think this was originally Al Hurley, but I got it from Lisa Schiffren:

So, Sarah Palin's advisors decide that it is time for her to meet a bunch of serious world leaders. They head to Europe, where, first up, she has an appointment with the Pope. The Pope and some of his Cardinals invite her for a boat ride on the Tiber.

As they are sitting in the gondola talking, a wind starts up and blows the Pope's hat into the water. Palin looks around and realizes that no one is going to do anything about it, so she calmy rises, takes off her her high heels, and steps off the side of the boat.

Instead of diving into the water, however, she walks across it, to the hat, picks it up and walks back across the water to the boat. She climbs in, hands the Pope his hat and continues discussing whatever it was they had been talking about.

The Cardinals are open mouthed in astonishment at what they have just seen. The news media, in nearby boats are busy discussing among themselves how to report it.

Headlines the next day at the New York Times, The Washington Post and the networks all blare: "New Revelation: Sarah Palin Can't Swim."

CatholicVote.com video nears 2 MILLION views

Simply incredible:


CatholicVote.com is the AmP website of the month (but I'm surely not responsible for all two million of those views). I'm also an occasional contributor to their group blog. Give both a visit!

The evangelicals are scratching their heads, too

Dr. Tony Beam:

Why So Many Christians are Confused about the Election

One Web site that claims to be Christian declares Barack Obama to be the most pro-life candidate in the race. Another declares Obama is the only real Christian in the race. Yet another proclaims that life under an Obama presidency will mean the restoration of true justice in America. Yet another claims Obama would never fully support the Lesbian, Bisexual Gay, Transgender (LBGT) agenda. How can well-meaning, good intentioned people who claim to be speaking as representatives of Jesus Christ be so deceived? There is one indisputable fact in this election and that is Barack Obama is the most pro-choice, pro-homosexual rights candidate to ever receive a major political party’s endorsement for president. From his stand against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have simply protected the life of a baby who managed to survive a botched abortion, to his 100 percent pro-choice Senate rating, Barack Obama has never met an abortion he didn’t like.

Amy Welborn on the pro-life movement

Good thoughts - highly recommended reading.

Parental notification ballot proposal leads in California

Good news:

Proposition 4, the California ballot proposal that requires a waiting period and parental notification before a girl under 18 may have an abortion, is leading among likely voters by 52 to 33 percent, a new survey reports. (CNA)

Bad news:

We can kiss this legislation goodbye, and all legislation like it, if Obama and the Democrats have their way.

An update on Chase Hilgenbrinck

During the summer I did a story on Chase Hilgenbrinck, a brave young man who sacrificed fame and fortune on the soccerfield to discern a call from God. ESPN's page two visited him at seminary and published a story on what Chase has been up to lately.




Looks like he's doing alright.

Cardinal Egan asks readers to "just look" at picture of unborn child

In his column yesterday for the New York Catholic, Cardinal Egan tried something different:

The picture on this page is an untouched photograph of a being that has been within its mother for 20 weeks. Please do me the favor of looking at it carefully.

Have you any doubt that it is a human being?

If you do not have any such doubt, have you any doubt that it is an innocent human being?

If you have no doubt about this either, have you any doubt that the authorities in a civilized society are duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if anyone were to wish to kill it?

If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest—even insist—that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot—must not—be tolerated.

Farther in:

It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing—and approving—with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers. We know full well that to kill what is clearly seen to be an innocent human being or what cannot be proved to be other than an innocent human being is as wrong as wrong gets.

Do me a favor. Look at the photograph again. Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of "legalized" abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act.

... but, did he mention any of this to Obama last weekend?

I mean, I agree with everything Cardinal Egan says, I'd just like to know what we're to make of the above.

Individual bishops vs. the USCCB?

Steve Skojec has a thought-provoking post over at IC which I'm still thinking through:

Those words are long overdue from those of our bishops who recognize that their God-given teaching authority has long been usurped by a collective body with no authority of its own.

They are the words of Bishop Martino of Scranton Pennsylvania, who took matters into his own hands when he visited a parish forum on the upcoming elections, where documents like "Faithful Citizenship" were used by some to justify voting for Barack Obama [I covered that story here - AmP].

[Read more of Steve's post.]

Pope Benedict picks three alternative endings for Mass

No - not in the way you are thinking. I'm referring to the very last prayers that the priest says:

The Vatican has prepared three alternative endings for the priest's words of dismissal at Mass, to emphasize the missionary spirit of the liturgy.

Pope Benedict XVI personally chose the three options from suggestions presented to him after a two-year study, Cardinal Francis Arinze told the Synod of Bishops in mid-October.

The Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, published an interview Oct. 17 with Cardinal Arinze, head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.

He said along with "Ite, missa est," the Latin phrase now translated as "The Mass is ended, go in peace," the new options are:

"Ite ad Evangelium Domini annuntiandum" (Go and announce the Gospel of the Lord).

"Ite in pace, glorificando vita vestra Dominum" (Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life).

"Ite in pace" (Go in peace).

Quotable Arinze:

The idea for alternative words at the end of Mass was raised at the 2005 Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist. Many bishops wanted the final words to reflect a more explicit connection between Mass and the church's mission of evangelization in the world.

Cardinal Arinze said the concern was that, for many Catholics, the present words of dismissal sounded like "The Mass is ended, go and rest." (John Thavis)

Love that cardinal.

Britain Approves Animal-Human Embryos

Bad, bad news:

British plans to allow scientists to use hybrid animal-human embryos for stem-cell research won final approval from lawmakers Wednesday in a sweeping overhaul of sensitive science laws.

The House of Commons also clarified laws that allow the screening of embryos to produce babies with suitable bone marrow or other material for transplant to sick siblings.

It was the first review of embryo science in Britain in almost 20 years.

The legislators voted 355-129 to authorize the proposals after months of sometimes bitter debate that has pitted Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government and scientists against religious leaders, anti-abortion campaigners and others anxious about medical advances. (AP)

We're really losing badly here. And just to make the obvious connection: A liberal president and democrat-controlled House will in all likelihood introduce and sign similar legislation in the U.S.

Calling down the IRS on teaching bishops

It's already happening:

A church-state watchdog group has asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate whether the Roman Catholic bishop of Paterson, N.J., violated tax laws by denouncing Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama.

In a letter sent to the IRS on Wednesday (Oct. 22), Americans United for Separation of Church and State accused Paterson Bishop Arthur Serratelli of illegal partisanship for lambasting Obama's support of abortion rights. (Religion News Service)

Read Bishop Serratelli's column here.

Video: Feminist scare tactics

The Feminists are "scared":



More rage from other Feminists (warning: adult language).

Both websites strongly support Obama - surprised?

Video: "Real Life Priests Become Popstars"

(... as opposed to "fake dead" priests?! Anyway, not to distract:)



The story.

Well....

Never trust a blogger when he says "this will be my last post..."

Anyway, what Drudge described as the "Most accurate pollster in 2004 election" is today showing Obama 44.8%, McCain 43.7%, Not Sure 11.6%...

McCain has cut into Obama's lead for a second day and is now just 1.1 points behind. The spread was 3.7 Wednesday and 6.0 Tuesday. The Republican is making headway with middle- and working- class voters, and has surged 10 points in two days among those earning between $30,000 and $75,000. He has also gone from an 11-point deficit to a 9-point lead among Catholics.

Interesting. {update: link fixed - thanks Edward!}

update: are people listening?

A final reflection for today

I've thrown alot of material up on the blog today - 8 posts on the election alone. Let's get concise.

I think what SDG said reflects accurately the opinion many observant, thoughtful Catholics are forming:

1. John McCain does not deserve your vote.
2. If Obama loses — to anyone — it will be a victory for life.

Even for those who admit the truth of 1, it's almost impossible to get around the urgency of 2.

And I think 3 logically follows.

Photo: Beautiful "flaming rainbow"

I only recently saw one of these in person for the first time:

Technically, it's called a "Circumhorizontal Arc", but don't let that ruin your appreciation of it.

Claim: 1-in-4 Bishops Promote "single issue voting"

Writing for the UK Tablet, Rocco does his homework, crunches the numbers, and comes up with this:

A quarter of America's bishops have said that the most important issue for voters in the forthcoming presidential election is abortion - comments that may help boost the fortunes of Republican candidate John McCain.

Some 50 out of the nation's 197 active bishops have published articles or given interviews during the run-up up to the election urging abortion as the key issue on which voters should decide which way to vote.

Of course, "single issue voting" is a caricature of what these bishops are teaching. They are actually defending the centrality of certain issues against those who would subjectively marginalize them. And so, in a very real way, the bishops are promoting "all issue voting", at least when compared to the alternative. We must always guard against letting the other side claim this truth as their own.

But let's get back to the really amazing statistic: over 1-in-4 active bishops have said this!

Rocco, whose comprehensiveness is to be trusted, can in fact only find two bishops who apparently argue the alternative "there's alot of issues out there" approach. So by my count, the bishops split like this:

• Abortion is the key issue: 50+
• Abortion is one issue among many: 2
• No comment (yet): 145

So what is the correct conclusion? Well, I would say it can no longer be claimed that the number of bishops who are concerned about the dismissal of abortion (and other fundamental life issues) constitute a slim minority - in fact, they are now a significant voice in the American hierarchy.

Some people, however, are obviously still living in serious denial. Robert Kaiser writing for the National Catholic Reporter today is a sterling example of the inability to admit the tide has turned. He begins:

"I really resent the few U.S. bishops who are now engaged in a campaign to swing the election for John McCain -- as they did for George W. Bush in 2004."

And let me just stop him right there, because by Rocco's count (and with the confirmation of the reporting I have done over the past months), Kaiser actually "resents" about 1-in-4 American bishops, if he resents those bishops who teach publicly that abortion is the key issue for Catholics when voting.

So, who should feel lonely now?

On Keeping/Kicking Kmiec Out

One bishop (Most Rev. Lawrence E. Brandt, JCD, PhD of Greensburg, PA) is trying:

Yesterday afternoon I received word that Seton Hill University had extended an invitation to Mr. Douglas Kmiec to speak on its campus regarding faith and politics. I have attempted in vain to reach the President of Seton Hill, Dr. JoAnne Boyle in this regard, but to no avail.

As the teacher of authentic Catholic doctrine in the Diocese of Greensburg, I feel compelled to state in view of this situation that Mr. Kmiec distorts Catholic teaching by making it synonymous with his own personal views. There is no “other” Catholic position except the one which appears in authentic Church documents. His misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine do a grave disservice to the Catholic community and far beyond.

I seriously question the good judgment of the University administration in allowing him a platform on campus.

... Is it any wonder then that not only the demonstrators at the event, but many others as well, consider his presentation an offensive trivialization of the institution's declared Catholic identity!

In a related vein, I wonder how this will go?

Decide in Faith: A Presidential Forum

Now you will have the chance to ask some questions! All questions will be based on Catholic Social Teaching! Questions submitted on this web site will be reviewed nd selected for the forum by a panel of Catholic college students and young adults!

Featuring Catholic Surrogates from the Presidential Campaigns // Senator Obama: Professor Douglas Kmeic, Author, Former Advisor to President Reagan // Senator McCain: Brian Palmer (R-Romeo) // Panel: College Students and Young Adults // Moderated by Fr. David Buersmeyer, Pastor of SS John and Paul in Washington, MI

An AmP Shout Out to the person who prints out one of the many arguments I've made against Kmiec's position and asks it during the debate. Audio/video would be a plus, too.

update: Seton Hill University says it will release a statement soon.

Partisans accusing the non-partisan of partisanship

I would argue that this is essentially the situation that obtains when pro-Obama Catholics tell bishops to stop speaking out about the urgent evils of abortion and other life issues.

Those with far more experience and wisdom in these matters agree. From Mirror of Justice:

[Cahill] publicly rebukes a number of American bishops because of the proper emphasis that they have placed on the abortion issue. Yet, she fails to address that the candidate whom she has publicly endorsed will make as his first priority the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act that I addressed yesterday in a posting at Mirror of Justice. She decries that “when the Catholic church [sic] is perceived to be cheerleaders [sic] for one political party a rich faith tradition is badly damaged and loses its prophetic voice.” I do not recall any of the bishops that she has critiqued having endorsed any candidate or political party; rather, they have spoken clearly on the profound evil of abortion and how the Catholic electorate needs to consider this weighty issue. By contrast, she is the one, from her position as a university teacher, who has been a “cheerleader” of a particular party and its presidential candidate.
Her assertions are mystifying until she reaches the conclusion of her brief essay. Then her double standard of “freedom for me but not for thee” becomes clear, and the mystery disappears. She concludes her posting by stating that, “Catholic clergy should reaffirm their essential role as moral leaders, and leave partisanship behind.” What she does not seem to understand is that they have; however, she is the one who has taken up the cause of partisanship which does not appear to trouble her in the least.

When Pope Paul VI concluded the proceedings of the Second Vatican Council in 1965, he stated to the civil leaders of the world that the Church asked only one thing from them: freedom. Apparently, Professor Cahill expects this freedom for herself, but she is unwillingly to grant it to those whose duty it is to teach and lead the Church to which she professes that she belongs. What she has asserted for herself and denied others, including the Church’s leadership, is the real disturbing trend for both religion and democracy as we approach November 4. - RJA sj

My question: when will one of them respond to this counter-criticism? When will one of these vocal "bishop-hushers" answer why they are not in fact using a double-standard methodology?

I'm waiting, and it seems like I'm always waiting.

Just Awkward

In this NYT article which describes the "infighting" taking place between liberal and traditional Catholics leading up to the November election, I can't help but feel awkward everytime Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good are mentioned. For instance:

The liberal groups are trying to distribute their material through direct mail and at meetings of lay Catholic groups.

Alexia Kelley, executive director of Catholics in Alliance, said her organization was spending more than $250,000 on radio, print and billboard advertisements in Scranton and other heavily Catholic areas. The advertisements emphasize what Ms. Kelley described as the broader spectrum of Catholic concerns about the “common good,” including health care, jobs and home foreclosures.

Why awkward? Because I'm trying to figure out how much of those funds came from pro-abortion hyper-activist George Soros. Even when they deny it has, they say they would accept it.

I mean, it really takes the wind out of their sails whenever they try to claim this is "infighting" between sincere Catholics.

Actually, "poaching" strikes me as the more accurate term to describe their efforts.

USCCB leadership meets with Pope today {updated}

From the Vatican bulletino:

"The Holy Father today received ... Cardinal Francis E. George O.M.I., Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson and Msgr. David Malloy, respectively president, vice-president and secretary general of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops."

Hmm, I wonder what they talked about?

update - Whispers notes CNS coverage:

"After the Oct. 23 meeting, Cardinal Francis E. George, conference president, told Catholic News Service he did not feel it was appropriate to discuss details of the private meeting."

Hmm, he ain't talking.

But for Wales?

So the famous quote goes, as St. Thomas More speaks to Richard Rich after he has perjured himself for political gain: "Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?"

Reading Ramesh Ponnuru over at the corner today, as he dismantled the pattently-absurd arguments of the pro-Obama Catholics Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec, I realized that we have three Richard Rich's on our hands.

I say this only because the alternative - that these figures really do believe the arguments they are making - is even more pathetic. I think it is a service in charity to point out stupidity when you see it, and well, the arguments offered by these three Catholic intellectuals don't pass muster. I'll repeat myself: I'm hoping this is just ignorance, but frankly, given their educational background and prior accomplishments ... it's a very tenuous hope.

Consider: in their response to the criticism they have received, these three have demonstrated a chronic inability to admit the faults of their candidate of choice. Here Ponnuru is most on target:

The authors say nothing about Obama’s support for taxpayer funding of abortion, which the abortion lobby itself suggests will result in many, many more abortions; nothing about his stated commitment to make passing the "Freedom of Choice Act" the very first thing he does as President; nothing about his opposition to providing legal protection against homicide for all infants; nothing about his opposition to parental consent and notification laws (which have demonstrably reduced the number of abortions); nothing about his opposition to federal funding for pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that help make it possible for pregnant women in need to avoid resorting to abortion; nothing about his support for the industrial production of "research embryos" by cloning. . . well, you get the picture.

Yes, I get the picture, but for them to not get this picture ... again, it is either a case of incredible ignorance or willful oversight. How can three people talk about Obama for so long, and never once mention these positions he has taken? How can they even claim to be in a debate, as opposed to spouting their stump-speech talking points?

I agree with Ponnuru: "these three professors have given the sort of intellectual performance you would expect of an unscrupulous politician."

But I'll go further: at least when you listen to a politician, you expect them to emerge from a biased background. These three professors, on the other hand, have claimed to be emerging from an objective background formed by Catholic principles of social thought.

I don't mind, particularly, Obama people supporting Obama. At least they are being honest about their priorities. I do mind Catholics claiming to support Obama, who never seriously engage the issues or answer the questions which Catholics hold most dear. That's politicking, and worse, it's stealth politicking, and I won't stand for it.

I have the benefit of time on my hands. I'll be around to watch what happens to these three figures should Obama become elected. I just figured I should say something now. "I told you so" will have so much more meaning this way. But let me also be very clear: it will be the tragic "I told you so" because more children have been needlessly put to death. For that I only have (in order) prayers, tears, and my words.

More about the "clergy sex abuse garden" in Oakland

When I first reported the clergy sex abuse garden planned for Oakland's new Cathedral of Light, I commented that "Abstract landscaping is not how Catholics heal spiritual and psychological trauma."

Today CNN does a story on it:


Photo caption: "Terrie Light, a victim of sexual abuse, says this broken rock represents the shattered lives of victims."

She explains: "She says the garden's centerpiece, a symbolic low stone sculpture that's broken, is fitting for those whose lives were shattered by priests. "The energy that the artist put was this circular stone trying to pull itself to become unbroken. That is our journey. That is what we try to do every day -- is to try to be unbroken."

She goes on: "Terrie Light, who has been a vocal advocate for abuse victims for many years, says getting the garden built was not an easy process. "We got silence, then we got passed around," she says."

Even worse:

The bench placement is deliberate and takes into account the feelings and needs of abuse victims. Those who choose not to face the cathedral end up facing a small lake across the street.

So people are expected to come all the way to the Cathedral, to the abuse garden, only to stare ... away?

More of this:

Why outside?

"There are people that want to go into a church that cannot. It's too painful, too emotionally traumatizing," she says. "There are other people that are ambivalent -- that want to be there and not want to be there. This gives them the option."

The garden is not what survivors had originally envisioned -- a lush, English garden with flowers and trees. But they are pleased with the outcome.

First of all, again, this garden should not serve as an alternative to the true reconciliation which must occur within and through the Church. Nature walks and foux spiritualism are not how such wounds heal.

Oh, and - wait a minute - they say they wanted a lush, English garden "with flowers and trees"?! Then who was pushing for the modernist/abstract solution that was actually implemented?! Questions, questions ... regrets.

Top myths about abortion dispelled on USCCB website

Spread this news. Richard M. Doerflinger has published a concice essay on the USCCB website asking the question "What Reduces Abortions?"

His answers are startling and contradict claims spread by pro-Obama catholics. Consider (underlining mine):

Sometimes election years produce more policy myths than good ideas. This year one myth is about abortion. It goes like this: The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision is here to stay, and that's fine because laws against abortion don't reduce abortions much anyway. Rather, "support for women and families" will greatly reduce abortions, without changing the law or continuing a "divisive" abortion debate.

Various false claims are used to bolster this myth. It is said that over three-quarters of women having abortions cite expense as the most important factor in their decision. Actually the figure is less than one-fourth, 23%. It is said that abortion rates declined dramatically (30%) during the Clinton years, but the decline stopped under the ostensibly pro-life Bush administration. Actually the abortion rate has dropped 30% from 1981 to 2005; the decline started 12 years before Clinton took office, and has continued fairly steadily to the present day.

More myths (underlining again mine):

The steepest decline is among minors. Is it plausible that economic factors reduced abortions for teens but not their older sisters, or their mothers who support them?

The reality is this: In 1980 the Supreme Court upheld the Hyde amendment, and federally funded abortions went from 300,000 a year to nearly zero. With its decisions in Webster (1989) and Casey (1992), the Court began to uphold other abortion laws previously invalidated under Roe. States passed hundreds of modest but effective laws: bans on use of public funds and facilities; informed consent laws; parental involvement when minors seek abortion; etc. Dr. Michael New's rigorous research has shown that these laws significantly reduce abortions. In the 1990s, debate on partial-birth abortion - kept in the public eye, ironically, by President Clinton's repeated vetoes of a ban on this grisly late-term procedure - alerted many Americans to the violence of abortion and shifted public attitudes in a pro-life direction, just as growing concern over AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases was giving new force to the abstinence message for teens. Now the Court has upheld a partial-birth abortion ban, and signaled that other laws to save unborn children and their mothers from the horrors of abortion may be valid. If Roe is reversed outright, that will allow more laws that can further reduce abortions.

By contrast, a pending federal "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) would knock down current laws reducing abortions, and require public programs for pregnant women to fund abortion. No one supporting that bill can claim to favor reducing abortions.

Conclusion:

Many women are pressured toward abortion, and they need our help. The pressures are partly, but only partly, economic in nature. Women are influenced by husbands, boyfriends, parents and friends, and by a culture and legal system that tells them the child they carry has no rights and is of no consequence. Law cannot solve all problems, but it can tell us which solutions are unacceptable - and today Roe still teaches that killing the unborn child is an acceptable solution, even a "right." Without ever forgetting the need to support pregnant women and their families, that tragic and unjust error must be corrected if we are to build a society that respects all human life.

This essay is significant for its publication on the USCCB website, and its timing - days after the US Bishops' statement setting the record straight on Roe v. Wade and other common errors.

This may feel a little bit like throwing sandbags on a broken dike, but that's what we are called to do. So roll up your sleeves and get to work. Dikes don't repair themselves.

You know it's bad....

.... when GOPers are already planning the 2012 comeback.

And heeeeeeere's Bobby!

Obama's unbelievable campaign wealth

Obama promised to take federal funds. Well, now we know why he changed his mind:

Having hauled in a record $208,333 every hour of every day last month -- $150 million in all -- plus a few more unreported millions so far this month, Barack Obama is worried that he might come up short in the political money war with the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket.

Just to relieve himself of that $150 million before the polls open, Obama will have to spend $12.5 million a day.

And, according to an e-mail plea to supporters, tonight's the absolute deadline to donate $10 more and receive your special edition Official Obama-Biden car magnet.

Having now collected more than $605 million altogether, the freshman senator shows no concern over the appearance of buying the presidency. Imagine for a moment the national political conversation that could be going on now if rich Republicans had raked in that much loot for one campaign.

Obama's team is so well-funded and well-organized it has spread its political web into one-time red states, forcing McCain to defend them with his measly $84.1 million in federal funds. (LA Times Blog)

Here's an idea:

And, hey, if there's a few hundred million dollars left over in the campaign coffers on Nov. 5, win or lose, maybe Obama would like to put it toward the immense federal budget deficits that our colleague Stephen Braun warns this morning will confront the hopes and current plans of either an Obama or McCain White House come Jan. 21.

Oh - but wait, looks like Obama has other plans for that leftover money:

Election Day is less than two weeks away, and Chicago could be home to the biggest political party in the country. Construction is underway for a massive stage in Grant Park where Barack Obama could declare victory on election night. (CBS Chicago)

What a sensitivity to the plight of ordinary Americans does Obama reveal.

Open Thread: other stuff

Everything non-political here. Yes, as in stories not related to politics. What are you reading? What's happening? What have I missed? What is the pope up too? Any good links? Any funny pictures for a caption call?

Open Thread: politics stuff

Okay, get it out there - thoughts and observations that haven't come up, or that you think should be examined again here. Less than two weeks to go. Plenty riding on this election. So Let's talk about it. 1-2-3-go!

Photo Caption Call - 10/22/08

Today's top story: US Bishops set the record straight in new statement

Add your captions below in the comment box!

{image removed.}

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

Vatican newspaper likes "Wall-E" animated movie

Andrea Piersanti, writing for L'Osservatore Romano, thinks Wall-E "underscores defense of life, hope and humanism." It's certainly one of my favorite movies of the year, and I think you would like it.

The Martino Event - Complete Coverage

Reports are still coming in, and I'm not prone to immediately trust the account rendered by the Wayne Independant, but we'll follow CNA's summary first:

An election forum at a Pennsylvania parish that took place last Sunday was organized to allow Catholics the opportunity to defend their support for McCain and Obama. However, the forum took a surprising turn when an unexpected guest showed up to guide his flock, the Bishop of Scranton, Joseph F. Martino.

... After Sr. Gannon spoke, the bishop took the floor. Bill Genello, a spokesman for the Diocese of Scranton told the Wayne Independent that when Bishop Martino arrived, his intention was to listen “to the presenters and how they might discuss Catholic teaching.”

However, he continued, “Certain groups and individuals have used their own erroneous interpretations of Church documents, particularly the U.S. Bishops’ statement on Faithful Citizenship, to justify their political positions and to contradict the Church’s actual teaching on the centrality of abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research.”

When the bishop heard the speakers using the bishops’ statement to justify their choice for president, he reminded the audience that those “groups and individuals who make statements about Catholic teaching do not speak with the same authority or authenticity as their bishop.”

The prelate then clarified his authority as bishop and the Church’s teachings on abortion as an election issue.

“No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese,” said Martino according to the Wayne Independent. “The USCCB doesn’t speak for me.”

“The only relevant document ... is my letter,” he continued, “There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.”

Bishop Martino has taken plenty of flack on the local front (as I detail here), but he evidently isn't phased.

Rocco notes:

The Scranton prelate was absent from last November's USCCB meeting in Baltimore which -- in a rare show of (near-)unanimity -- passed the Faithful Citizenship statement with 98% approval from the nation's hierarchy.

My main issue with the Wayne Independant is the horribly unflattering picture they chose to publish with the story. Really, he doesn't always look like such a bear.

Initial reactions (as reported by the WI):

After his comments, most of the audience stood and clapped loudly while some were angry that the bishop usurped the forum. About a quarter of the audience left after the bishop’s comments, which preceded the last half of the forum, a question and answer session with the panelists. Martino exited shortly after his comments.

... “I think this meeting was torpedoed,” said Gene Tagle, the forum’s moderator. “He’s (Martino) known for three months that this has been in the works.”After calm returned, Boylan said: “We were very careful not to endorse anyone.” He said it was meant to be “a political slash editorial forum about the presidential election” and that he “carefully followed” state church guidelines for such an event.“I did not know that the bishop does not support the U.S. Conference of Bishops,” said Gannon, after Martino’s remarks. Shepstone said the forum was “giving cover” to candidates who support abortion and promptly stormed out. Parente left without notice. It went on, however, for another 45 minutes with the focus remaining on abortion.

Not surprisingly, eye-witness accounts conflict, this from the daily review:

Participants at the event described a spirited exchange of ideas that was either interrupted or invigorated by the bishop’s arrival.

Gene Tagle, the moderator of the event, said the bishop “torpedoed” the forum, even though he had been told about the event as early as May 27 this year.

“If the bishop disapproved, it seems all he had to do was have his secretary pick up the phone, call our parish pastor and tell him not to go ahead with the forum,” he said. “Instead he came in at the midpoint of the meeting and totally surprised everyone.”

Tagle said the bishop criticized the resident pastor, Rev. Martin Boylan, for holding the forum and “seemed to justify his presence there by stating that he owned the building.”

He also described the bishop’s tone as “angry and admonishing” and said his words created a surprising level of emotion in the audience.

“When he left it was chaotic,” Tagle said. “He incited his supporters to wild applause and shouting. And some individuals were castigating others for supporting pro-choice candidates. It was pretty wild there for a while.”

The bishop left shortly after his remarks and many audience members — some put the number at two-thirds of the group, others say a quarter — left after him.

Shepstone, the panelist, was one who left.

“I left because it was singularly inappropriate to continue the meeting after the bishop had spoken,” he said Tuesday, explaining that the bishop had made it clear he wanted the meeting to stop.

“He spoke eloquently and he spoke forcefully and there was nothing else to be said.”

Wow.

Okay, two things happening here:

• 1) a dramatic, controversial encounter between people who hold different positions
• 2) a theological question regarding the weight one must give to the local bishop's statement when it appears to focus on the issues in a different way than the USCCB's document

I'm betting we will witness more instances of "1" in the next weeks. I wonder what people think about "2"?

update: a third account.

One pharmacy says no to birth control ...

... and the world doesn't explode:

A new drug store at a Virginia strip mall is putting its faith in an unconventional business plan: No candy. No sodas. And no birth control. Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy is among at least seven pharmacies across the nation that are refusing as a matter of faith to sell contraceptives of any kind, even if a person has a prescription.

States across the country have been wrestling with the issue of pharmacists who refuse on religious grounds to dispense birth control or morning-after pills, and some have enacted laws requiring drug stores to fill the prescriptions.

In Virginia, though, pharmacists can turn away any prescription for any reason. (AP)

On Tuesday, the little pharmacy that could received a blessing from Arlington bishop Paul Loverde.

Sarah Palin's fashion budget over $150,000?

Semi-gratuitous Palin photo:


The price of fashion isn't cheap (underlining mine):

The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

... The entries also show a few purchases at Pacifier, a top notch baby store, and Steiniauf & Stroller Inc., suggesting $295 was spent to accommodate the littlest Palin to join the campaign trail. (Politico)

Some of the money probably went to John McCain and other people on the campaign as well.

... too much?

Then again, Obama's campaign has spent almost $500,000 on "food/meetings".

And of greater substance: Sarah Palin to Dobson: I'm Solidly Pro-Life and McCain Opposes Abortion

CNS's anemic reporting on important US Bishops' document

Yesterday the US Bishops' issued an extraordinary document which set the record straight on the Church's position concerning Roe v. Wade and abortion in America.

Today's CNS coverage of the event I found to be particularly lacking. It added little context. It named no names (after all, this document was prompted by a vocal minority - at least on one side). And it provided no broader reflection upon the critical upcoming election season. One could almost assume they editors didn't find the document to be very important, or the debate very interesting.

I mean, why didn't they just copy and paste the USCCB's own press release?

Quote of the Day: "Nimble Catholics"

From a Chicago Tribune piece on pro-Obama Catholics:

"Catholics have, historically, been nimble at finding loopholes in church doctrine, ways to deftly excuse themselves from the guilt of lesser sins skipping church, swearing, eating meat on Fridays. Abortion is a much steeper hill to climb."

This gives me a new phrase: "Nimble Catholics."

More Bad news: Legalized suicide in Washington

NPR has an audio report saying "Washington could become the second state [behind Oregon] in the nation to have an assisted suicide law for the terminally ill. The state has an initiative on the November ballot and it is currently ahead in the polls."

Needless to say, the Church teaches that suicide is a grave evil against the dignity of the human person.

Want to do something about it? Visit http://www.noassistedsuicide.com/

Related: New Study Shows 26% in Oregon Who Requested Suicide Were Experiencing Depression

Bad news: Obama close to double-digit lead

Polls can be wrong. But lots of polls showing a general trend are normally right:

“Three big days for Obama. Anything can happen, but time is running short for McCain. These numbers, if they hold, are blowout numbers. They fit the 1980 model with Reagan's victory over Carter -- but they are happening 12 days before Reagan blasted ahead. If Obama wins like this we can be talking not only victory but realignment: he leads by 27 points among Independents, 27 points among those who have already voted, 16 among newly registered voters, 31 among Hispanics, 93%-2% among African Americans, 16 among women, 27 among those 18-29, 5 among 30-49 year olds, 8 among 50-64s, 4 among those over 65, 25 among Moderates, and 12 among Catholics (which is better than Bill Clinton's 10-point victory among Catholics in 1996). He leads with men by 2 points, and is down among whites by only 6 points, down 2 in armed forces households, 3 among investors, and is tied among NASCAR fans.” (Zogby)

Catholics will put Obama over the top, unless we do something about it.

update: aw geez - "AP presidential poll: All even in the homestretch" (I give up.)

Good news: Prop. 8 is winning in CA

Let's hope this winning margin holds:

According to the latest poll from California, those fighting for the defense of traditional marriage have a nine point advantage over activists seeking state recognition of same-sex marriage.

The poll released on Tuesday afternoon by the Knights of Columbus, reports that the drive to pass California’s Proposition 8 is leading among likely voters 52 to 43 percent. If Proposition 8 is passed, it will amend the state Constitution to say, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in the state of California.”

The poll also shows that Proposition 8 leads in every region of California except the San Francisco Bay Area, where 58% are opposed to the measure. (CNA)

Need a hotel discount? Schedule an abortion.

Complimentary breakfast provided.

From the Christian Newswire, economic incentives for women facing problem pregnancies:

An abortion clinic that performs abortions up to the sixth month of pregnancy has worked out an arrangement with two area hotels to provide substantially discounted room rates for women seeking abortions.

Based on reports from local citizens participating in the 40 Days for Life prayer vigil outside the Cherry Hill Women’s Center, New Jersey Right to Life has confirmed that the Clarion Hotel in Cherry Hill offers a reduced rate of $59 for a room originally priced at $109 to those women who provide a receipt from the clinic that says they have to stay overnight. In addition, the Quality Inn in Maple Shade offers a discounted rate of $74.95 for a room originally priced at $99.99 and a free breakfast of eggs and pancakes for women who present a stamped pamphlet from the clinic.

Every sarcastic comment I could think to make about the importance of eating a balanced breakfast in such a situation struck me as being completely out of place. Also out of place? This group:

Good Counsel Homes, a Catholic agency that assists homeless pregnant women, recently cancelled its banquet at the Clarion upon learning of the hotel’s arrangement with the abortion clinic.

Marie Tasy, Executive Director of New Jersey Right to Life said, “This experience shows us that the Legislature needs to act immediately to place a parental notification constitutional amendment on the ballot without delay.”

Oh no, clearly legislative solutions won't help. Why should parents get involved, anyway? The girls already have found a place to stay, for a good rate, and they even get breakfast as part of the deal.

(that was sarcasm.)

In your email inbox: "You've got an STD!"

The web 2.0 solution to one of those pesky drawbacks of the "sexual revolution", from WebMD:

It has never been so important to check your inbox.

Four years after the launch of inSPOT.org, which allows people with sexually transmitted diseases to notify sexual partners via email, nearly 50,000 e-cards have been sent, according to an article published in PLoS Medicine.

The site is designed to increase the notification of partners -- part of an overall strategy to prevent and control sexually transmitted diseases. In the U.S. there are 19 million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases diagnosed each year, including 900,000 cases of chlamydia, 330,000 cases of gonorrhea, and 55,400 HIV infections, according to the PLoS Medicine article.

A picture:

A sample message:

The electronic cards deliver the news in a variety of styles. Some are flirty: "You're too hot to be out of action. I got diagnosed with an STD since we played. You might want to get checked too."

Some are somber: "Who? What? When? Where? It doesn't matter. I got an STD; you might have it too. Please get checked out."

Helpfully, WebMD considered these sort of articles to be topical to the above story:

• What Does It Take to Lift Your Sex Life to the Next Level?
• Which Birth Control is Right For You?
• International Teen Sex Survey

... and it's a surprise that we need an E-Card STD-notification