Papist Picture of the Day 7/31/09

"Your Holiness, do you know a good prayer for escaping quicksand?"

[source: AP Photo]

How dare Rep. Ryan deny the pro-life activity of American Catholics and Christians?

Pro-abortion forces aren't stupid, they're calculating.

I've already discussed the DeLauro-Ryan bill, and why I think it needs to be urgently defeated. It is attempting to split the pro-life movement by claiming that those who do not support contraception are not truly pro-life.

The sponsor of that bill, Democrat Tim Ryan, was quoted earlier this week by Steven Waldman, the guy behind religion internet portal Belief.net.

[a brief tangent on Waldman....]

Steven Waldman introduces Tim Ryan as a "pro-life Democrat and author of the Ryan-DeLauro bill, which attempts to reduce the number of abortions in part through expanded use of contraception."

Reality check: Tim Ryan, as others have explained (see link to the DeLauro-Ryan bill above), isn't pro-life. Or rather, his "pro-life" solutions will actually increase the number of abortions.

I typically try to make arguments about abortion through reasoned argument. I rarely, if some have noticed, pull out the Papist bat. But here I need to: just how does Waldman, who runs a religion website, think he can promote contraception without alienating faithful Catholics, and make no mention that he's going against the teaching of the Church? Would he, say, talk about advocating blood transfusions for jehovah's witnesses without tripping over himself to mention that the leadership of that denomination opposes it? Nope, because even the religion editor knows that Catholic teaching is the one that he can get away with ignoring, with no argument. 

That's a double standard. Okay, tangent over ... time to get back to Ryan:]

Mind you I haven't even gotten to the Ryan quote that Waldman thinks it's so important his religious readers see. Here it is:

"The new fault line is not between pro-life and pro-choice people. It's within the pro-life community. The question now is: 'are you pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people's lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so.'"

Despite claiming to be pro-life, Ryan just insulted the pro-life movement in a reprehensible fashion. 

He creates a straw man argument for the pro-life, anti-contraception movement. Does he honestly believe pro-life, anti-contraception individuals (let's be honest, the majority of them are Catholics) simply "hope and wish" that abortion will go away?!

Reality check: there are hundreds of pro-life pregnancy centers which do not distribute contraception, but provide concrete care to pregnant women. There are thousands of pro-life individuals who work at these institutions. There is a massive network of Catholic hospitals in the Unites States that provide care to pregnant women, and they don't distribute contraception. There are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Catholics (and other Christians) in America that support these efforts through the contributions of their money, time and prayers. 

So how dare Rep. Ryan claim that those who do not distribute contraception are not doing something to actively reduce abortion and promote a culture of life in America where every human being - mother and unborn child - are cared for and valued?

And I haven't even touched the fact that throwing contraception at women at-risk of becoming pregnant isn't going to ultimately address the problem of abortion in this country.

But let's start with some common ground: those who don't distribute contraception are certainly doing more to improve the lives of pregnant woman and children than just "wishing" and "hoping."

Publisher, editor fired over Canadian PM communion controversy

Remember that "Canadian Prime Minister pockets consecrated host!" story from earlier this month? 

In my coverage, I focused on the duty of the officiating Archbishop to refrain from giving communion to someone who isn't in communion with the Church. 

AmP readers were also quick to point out that in the distributed video, the Prime Minister is not actually seen "pocketing" the consecrated host.

Well, it looks like he did actually consume it, instead of pocketing it, and the publisher and editor cooked the story on the writers:

"The publisher and editor of the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal are no longer with the paper after it was forced to apologize to Stephen Harper and two of its own reporters over a story about whether the prime minister took communion at the state funeral of former governor general Roméo LeBlanc.

CBC News has confirmed that editor Shawna Richer has been fired and that Jamie Irving is no longer the publisher of the paper. Earlier, their names had been removed from the paper's list of senior staff.

The apology, which ran on the provincial newspaper's front page on Tuesday, said the story that ran on July 8 that accused Harper of placing a communion wafer in his pocket was "inaccurate and should not have been published."

"There was no credible support for these statements of fact at the time this article was published, nor is the Telegraph-Journal aware of any credible support for these statements now," the apology said.

"Our reporters Rob Linke and Adam Huras, who wrote the story reporting on the funeral, did not include these statements in the version of the story that they wrote. In the editing process, these statements were added without the knowledge of the reporters and without any credible support for them." (CBC News)

Let's still be clear, the Archbishop still shouldn't have given him Communion in the first place, he had no business accepting it, and the fact that the above story is headlined "Publisher, editor out over wafer story" tells you how far we still have to go when it comes to informed, respectful reporting of matters Catholic.

Video: Florida Quarterback shocks reporter by admitting he's a virgin

You get what you ask for:

LifeSiteNews has a story on this. Tebow is a homeschooled Christian. Quality guy. ;)

Offbeat Friday....

Indian health minister says that TV is the best contraception

Friday is offbeat news day at AmP, and the stories don't come much more offbeat than this [my comments in brackets] (ph/t Deacon Greg Kandra):

Ghulam Nabi Azad, the Health and Family Welfare Minister, has called for the country to redouble its efforts to bring electricity to all of its huge rural population.

The introduction of the electric light and television sets to those vast areas that still did not have them would discourage procreation, he argued.

“If there is electricity in every village, then people will watch TV till late at night and then fall asleep. They won’t get a chance to produce children,” Mr Azad said. “When there is no electricity there is nothing else to do but produce babies.” [Yeah, what a horrible existence.]

He added: “Don’t think that I am saying this in a lighter vein. I am serious. TV will have a great impact. It’s a great medium to tackle the problem . . . 80 per cent of population growth can be reduced through TV.” [And here we think a sex-saturated culture will only result in more intercourse. Whouda thunk it?]

Maybe that would be the way to promote a culture of life in America - cancel Monday Night Football.

It completely true that more children are conceived during black-outs. What funny people we humans are. 

Re-defeat: Abortion measure passes *then fails* in House

update: the post below has been rendered meaningless by an 11th-hour move by Rep. Waxman (D-CA) which brought the amendment up for a second vote, and then defeated it by a one vote margin:

An anti-abortion amendment to a sweeping health overhaul bill was voted down in a House committee late Thursday — a dramatic reversal just hours after the measure initially was approved.

The amendment said health care legislation moving through Congress may not impose requirements for coverage of abortion, except in limited cases. It was approved in the Energy and Commerce Committee after conservative Democrats joined Republicans to support it.

But committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., invoked House rules that allowed him to bring up the amendment for a second vote, despite Republican objections.

This time, one conservative Democrat — Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee — changed his vote from "yes" to "no." And a second conservative Democrat who hadn't voted the first time — Rep. Zack Space of Ohio — voted "no."

It was enough to take down the amendment on a 30-29 vote.

See how dead set the Democrat leadership is on keeping abortion in this health care bill?

===

original post....

I typically don't post blogs in the evening, but this is important news which shouldn't wait till morning:

Lawmakers have amended a sweeping health overhaul bill to ensure it does not require coverage of abortions.

The anti-abortion measure was approved late Thursday in the House Energy and Commerce Committee as conservative Democrats banded with Republicans to support it.

The amendment says health care overhaul legislation moving through Congress may not impose requirements for coverage of abortion, except in cases where a woman's life is endangered or her pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

The amendment would have to survive the full House and Senate.

The measure was offered by Rep. Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, along with Republicans Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Roy Blunt of Missouri. (AP)

What we should take from this:

1. Despite the attempt by pro-abortion groups to hide the truth, abortion is in this health care plan until the point that it is explicitly excluded. That's why we needed an amendment to rule it out.
2. We're not there yet. This measure still has to be approved in the full House and Senate. Keep sending in the emails, making the phone calls, and find ways of meeting with your representatives as they go back to their home districts in August.
3. Removing abortion coverage is a big step, but the health care reform plan still has serious flaws which also need to be examined over the coming weeks.

But that said, praise God that some measure of sanity has been introduced into our nation's health care debate. Our efforts are meeting some success ... now let's redouble them.

Papist Picture of the Day 7/30/09

After the pope's fall, the Vatican decided to add some precautionary steps to his bedtime routine.

[source: AP Photo]

Text: My response to Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL

Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, wrote a letter to the editor and published it in Politico yesterday (ph/t Salon) in response to a piece by Tony Perkins of Family Research Council (available here):

"Tony Perkins took 729 words to obscure a simple fact: What he and his allies are demanding is a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health insurance market (“Keep Abortion Funding Out of Health Care Reform,” July 28).

Today, private plans can choose whether to cover the service — and most do. If Perkins succeeds, women who purchase private insurance that now covers abortion services will lose that coverage.

The bills moving through Congress now do not reference abortion, so it’s obvious that Perkins is injecting this issue unnecessarily into the health reform debate in hopes that it will bring down the whole endeavor. That’s outrageous."

Here is my response, which I will try to have published on Politico:

Nancy Keenan took 106 words to cover-up a simple agenda. What she and her allies want is the greatest expansion of federally-funded abortions since Roe v. Wade. She is incorrect in claiming that Tony Perkins is "demanding ... a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health insurance market." Instead, he wants health care reform to respect existing laws which prevent federal funds from paying for abortions. The difference is that Perkins says his goal, while Keenan hides her own.

Keenan incorrectly claims that Perkins wants women to lose their private insurance coverage of abortion. Instead, Perkins is only talking about the government's proposed public plan, which is not private insurance. It is one thing for private individuals to decide what their money pays for (such as abortion coverage in private insurance), it is another for government to force taxpayers to pay for abortion, to the exclusion of existing laws which the majority of Americans support.

Perkins is not "injecting" the issue of federally-funded abortion into the bill, like Keenan claims. Otherwise, why have Democrats resisted every attempt to have abortion coverage excluded? If there is anything outrageous here, it is Keenan's efforts to obscure the facts.

I'll update this post if my response is published.

Why are Catholic organizations rushing anti-life health care reform?

Seeking healthcare for the needy is one thing,but  supporting the current draft of health care "reform" is entirely different, and I believe actually antithetical to the first idea.

Now when I see this picture with (at least one) Catholic bishop in front of the USCCB offices in DC (I've walked by it often) .... I agree that we should seek health care that protects life ... but the fact of the matter is that the current form of health care reform we are looking at does not protect life. 

So why on earth is this picture used in this video by the Catholic Health Association's campaign to pass health care reform "NOW"?! The picture ought to be featured in a video complaining that the current health care reform bill does not protect life ... so we're still waiting.

This is not an isolated case. 

Jack Smith describes what "NETWORK - A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby" (founded in 1971 by 47 women religious) is doing to support Obama's plan. 

More importantly, Steven Ertelt tells us (ph/t, ALL) that three large Catholic organizations are mobilizing on behalf of Obama-care: Catholic Charities USA, The Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and the Catholic Health Association (whose ad I mention above). More:

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Catholic Charities USA sent out an action alert asking members to contact their legislators immediately.

"Please call and e-mail your Representative in the next 24 hours expressing your support for Congress to enact health care reform now," the groups said in a joint action alert last week.

"Saint Vincent de Paul is partnering with Catholic Charities USA and the Catholic Health Association to amplify our collective voice to let Congress know that health care reform can not wait," that group says on its web site.

Kathleen Gilbert once again turned in some excellent reporting, and got someone on the phone:

When LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) described the healthcare plan's abortion mandate to Roger Playwin, the National Executive Director of the St. Vincent de Paul Society, he interrupted to say: "The bishops' office has advised us that that's not accurate. So I can't speak to it, because all I know is that the bishops' office has said that story is going around, but it's inaccurate. That's all I know."

Um, no, Mr. Playwin, you are mimicking the abortion-lobby's talking points.

LifeSiteNews has posted easy ways of contacting the various organizations. 

I could go into all of this in more detail, but I'll try to keep it short: telling people that Congress needs to fix health care "now" will only result in enacting a horrible piece of legislation which will not fix the problems it was written to solve, and will include many things which Catholics ought to oppose, such as mandated abortion coverage with taxpayer money.

It's extremely disappointing to see organizations charged with caring for the poor making such poor prudential decisions. If you follow the LifeSiteNews link above you can read an embarrassing attempt to justify this decision when the simple facts, I submit, should make us conclude that current bloated form of legislation being considered in Congress is something we shouldn't wait to vote No on.

The faster we get rid of this false start, the faster we can take a look at pursuing real health care reform.

Beauties of the Church: The Blue Church

[Beauties of the Church #10 ~ Apologies for letting this series go dormant lately ... again ... well, it's back!]

St. Elisabeth Parish - The "Blue Church" - in Bratislava, Slovakia.

Ph/t: Nathaniel Peters and Matt Alderman. 

Photo 1 by Eebrierly, Photo 2 by David Overton, more photos here.

Papist Picture of the Day 7/28/09

Clearly the photographer was more interested in the right side of the shot.

[source: AP Photo]

Active on APP

I have a few posts up on APP today if folks are interested

• When in doubt: blame Bush?
  
• Video: Not So Sure on Healthcare Reform
  
• Alert: APP founder Robert George on Glenn Beck today
  
• Summary of APP Topics - July 28

Pope: "My own guardian angel did not prevent my injury, certainly following superior orders"

Pope Benedict reflected today on the lessons he could learn from his recent tumble - and about the agency of his guardian angel. 

It's not hard to imagine the grin on his face that must have accompanied these words:

Pope Benedict XVI said Wednesday that his "guardian angel" let him down when he fell and broke his wrist earlier this month, but that the angel was clearly acting "on superior orders."

The pope thanked law enforcement officials for being "like angels," as he prepared to depart Les Combes, the Alpine resort where he tripped and injured his wrist 10 days ago while on vacation.

"Unfortunately, my own guardian angel did not prevent my injury, certainly following superior orders," Benedict said.

"Perhaps the Lord wanted to teach me more patience and humility, give me more time for prayer and meditation," the pope added.

Benedict leaves Les Combes, near the French border, later Wednesday to spend the rest of the summer in Castel Gandolfo, a papal retreat near Rome. (AP)

We should keep the pope in our close prayers. It's no fun to have a sprained wrist at 82.

Photo Caption Call - 7/28/09

• Commentary: Lessons to be learned from a woman who sailed the "abortion boat"
  
• Brilliant Video - Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth 
  
• Hope: In Boston, billboards announce the return of perpetual adoration
• Controversy: Priest at center of Medjugorje laicized by Holy See
• New bishop: Msgr, Luis Zarama named first Aux. Bishop of Atlanta in fifty years
• In the crosshairs: Let's defeat the DeLauro-Ryan scam bill!
  

Even if you don't have a caption, you can rate your favorite captions (submitted by others) in the comment box.

View the last Photo Caption Call here. Submit new photos for AmP photo caption call to my email!

[Photo: St. Margaret Mary's Catholic Church]

Lessons to be learned from a woman who sailed the "abortion boat"

Last October I was first made aware of the Dutch "abortion boat", a project of "Women on Waves" that attempted to spread awareness of abortion (and abortifacient pills) in countries that still have laws against these things.

Now I come to find out from a Netherlands news source that the "abortion boat" is putting down anchor for the last time. Steve Ertelt at LifeNews has a summary of an interview conducted with a member of the organization that ran the boat, Rebecca Gomperts.

I found snippets of the interview interesting. It's a rare chance to see an abortion advocate dis-engaged from the fight and speaking frankly about their opinion on what is happening.

"The abortion boat is a myth," says Gomperts. "There are people who think we provide practical help all over the world. Of course it's a pretty sight: a ship entering a harbour full of women saying: abortion is a right. And then there will always be people wanting to stop the boat. The result is a symbolic fight that speaks to the imagination." 

Insight: abortion advocates over-sell their accomplishments. In my first reporting of the story, I can't remember Women on Waves ever trying to dis-abuse people about their actual activities not including abortions.

... But in [Gomperts'] personal life there has been a drastic change. The woman who ten years ago said she had made a conscious decision to remain childless, is now the single mother of a three-year-old boy and a four-year-old girl. 

Insight: Life catches up to you. You can make yourself think almost anything you want, but as you grow older, some human desires can't be totally forever. She's a mother, even if it has changed her views.

"The other day I was giving a lecture at a school in the Bijlmer [a heavily immigrant part of Amsterdam, Ed.] I was shocked by the anti-abortion sentiment among young immigrant girls there. And the youth activities of the Evangelical broadcasting corporation draw tens of thousands of visitors. These are signs that lots of things are changing in our society. Opposition to abortion is growing." 

Insight: Good news, indeed. Some things ought never be taken for granted: abortion on demand is one of them. The world wasn't always this way, and it can change back, if people's hearts change.

Have you become more understanding towards your opponents over the years?

"If you believe that every life has to be protected I can imagine that you would be very passionate about that. Uncompromising. But it bothers me that they have no respect for people who think differently. Anti-abortion activists feel that everybody should act the way they think they should."

Insight: Does Gompert then believe every life ought not be protected? At least she is consistent, in a horrible sort of way. I don't see how I am supposed to respect the view that all innocent life ought not be protected.

And this most interesting of all....

Is a rapprochement even imaginable?

"No, I think it is impossible for proponents and opponents of abortion to ever come together. We're talking about two entirely different philosophies here. There is no room for discussion. To me, the fact that they want to limit other people's ability to make their own decisions will always be unacceptable." 

Insight: Gompert is speaking honestly here. Her statement further confirms a lurking suspicion of my own that common ground initiatives proposed by ardent pro-aborts will come to nothing. There is simply no common ground between those who think innocent lives may be killed and those who think they may never be killed.

What must happen on the part of pro-aborts is a change of mind and heart. Helping this conversion take place is what we must commit ourselves to accomplishing, and I believe one important step in that process is to hold fast to our position in support of life. Only from that high ground can we begin to reach out.

Brilliant Video - Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth

I think this is flat-out brilliant. It's factual, but accessible enough that I could see this video being widely picked-up on Facebook, MySpace, and high-school classrooms. Maybe you're the person to pick it up, in fact.

From PRI:

The Population Research Institute, a pro-life research group based in Front Royal, VA, has released the first in a series of humorous cartoons intended to disprove the myth of overpopulation.

This video, a minute and a half long, deftly refutes common misconceptions about world population, poverty, resource consumption, and the United Nations.

Here it is:

Also visited the associated website: http://www.overpopulationisamyth.com/

I've talked about the overpopulation myth before, particularly when I try to get my head around why some groups are still so desperate to spread contraception (not to mention sterilization). 

For a movement that claims to be scientifically-informed, they've sure manage to ignore confronting this truth for a long time.

In Boston, billboards announce the return of perpetual adoration

For the first time in 40 years, no less:

"To see the image of God in Boston, a passerby need only look up.

Two billboards featuring the Eucharist displayed in a monstrance tower over the streets in Brighton and East Boston. The words under the image read, “The Son’s rays for your soul.”

These advertisements are meant to get the word out about the return of perpetual adoration to Boston after a 40-year absence. St. Clement Eucharistic Shrine on Boylston Street will mark the start of adoration with a Mass celebrated by Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley on Aug. 15, the Solemnity of the Assumption.

From then on, the Eucharist will be exposed in a monstrance all day, every day, apart from regularly scheduled Mass times. - Boston Pilot

Priest at center of Medjugorje laicized by Holy See

I've been following the ecclesiastical problems faced by the Medjugorje phenomenon since mid-2007. Early on I tried to distinguish between the spiritual fruits of Medjugorje from the authenticity of the "visions" (other folks have made similar points).

That distinction is going to become a whole lot more important after, subsequently to being suspended from his priestly duties last year, the former spiritual director of the six visionaries of Medjugorje was laicized by the Holy See yesterday.

Lest we sugar-coat how grave the situation is, let's be clear about the allegations:

1. Fr. Tomislav Vlasic has fathered a child with a nun

2. He has been uncooperative with Vatican investigation

3. The six original seers have become very wealthy as a result of their "visions"

4. Medjugorje has never been officially approved as an authentic apparition by the Holy See.

Fr. Vladic has received some firm instructions from the Holy See:

"The Pope has insisted that Father Vlasic observes a set of conditions on pain of excommunication which include a total ban on teaching Christian doctrine and giving spiritual direction.

There is also an "absolute prohibition of releasing declarations on religious matters, especially regarding the phenomenon of Medjugorje"." - UK Telegraph

Now, unfortunately I have had to rely on secondary sources to do this post. I prefer to go to primary sources, of course, but don't have the free time at present. If I find anyone with good analysis of this sad situation I'll post it. 

In the meantime, Diane at Te Deus Laudamus has documentation and good links.

From A-to-Z: Msgr, Luis Zarama named first Aux. Bishop of Atlanta in fifty years

A day late, but (hopefully) not a nickel short. From the Archdiocese of Atlanta, happy tidings that, for the first time in over 50 years, Atlanta will have an auxiliary bishop:

"Pope Benedict XVI has named Monsignor Luis Rafael Zarama, 50, vicar general of the Archdiocese of Atlanta, to be auxiliary bishop of Atlanta.

.... The Atlanta Archdiocese has a population of 6,773,819 people, with 750,000, or 11 percent, of them Catholic."

The episcopal ordination will take place on Tuesday, Sep. 29th.

Yet another canon lawyer made a bishop. Seminarians - take note - if the bishop says he plans to have you study canon law, well, you best figure out what size miter fits you while you're at it. ;-)

Whispers has encyclopedic info on this story, from (A)tlanta to (Z)arama!

Papist Picture of the Day 7/27/09

• In the crosshairs: Let's defeat the DeLauro-Ryan scam bill!
• Action: Support 'Aid the Church in Need'
  
• Commentary: Prof. Kaveny needs a re-write on Pope and President
• Outrageous: NY hospital tried to force nurse to help with late-term abortion

Benedict meets Innocent.

[source: AP Photo]

In the crosshairs: Let's defeat the DeLauro-Ryan scam bill!

This bill (HR #3312) needs to be defeated, and with your help, I think we can.

Pro-abortion groups are throwing all of their weight behind it, and they are trying to pick up enough "pro-life" defectors to make the case to the rest of us that it represents "common ground" legislation....

.... It isn't. It simply throws $700 million dollars to pro-abortion organizations. And they already get plenty.

"But wait!" They'll say. "This isn't funding abortions." Sure it is, it's funding abortion providers. Their argument is like saying a piece of legislation doesn't fund drinking, it funds bars. You know, because plenty of people go to bars to access the valuable nutritional content of pub food, so we're just giving money to the bars so they can put on more happy hours.

I will provide information about HR #3312 and why it is important to defeat it. If you scroll to the bottom of the post you will find action items to make sure that it is defeated. 

Please link to this post if you are convinced. Let's get a lot of people involved on this one.

===

Summary/Analysis:

HR #3312 in summary reads: "To provide for programs that reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, help women bear healthy children, and support new parents." 

It is currently in committee, and is waiting to get to the floor of the House to be voted upon. Tim Ryan (D-OH) sponsored the bill, along with 12 other democrats, notably Rosa DeLauro (D-CT).

The main thrust of the bill is to increase Title X funding for Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups. It also mandates that Medicaid would universally cover both abortion and contraception. 

How much money are we talking about? As I said above, $700,000,000.00. That's right: seven hundred million dollars. If you had seven hundred million dollars dangling in front of you, and weren't scrupulous, wouldn't you think of a really clever argument to argue that you deserve it?

The bill includes enough other provisions to make the excuse that it isn't another veiled attempt to pump more money into these for-profit organizations. The bill provides heavy coverage for contraception, with the argument being that this will reduce abortions.

A country saturated in contraceptives, however, does not drive down the number of abortions. Efforts in the UK to increase contraception access have only resulted in the deepening of the abortion epidemic.

The bill's sponsor, Tim Ryan, who is Catholic, claims to be pro-life. He is not, or at least, he never votes pro-life. He recently voted to have taxpayers in DC fund abortions. As Jack Smith writes, "In the current and last sessions of Congress Tim Ryan had the exact same voting score from National Right to Life as Rosa DeLauro - 0." Jack Smith provides more background here.

Who likes this bill? Radical pro-abortion lobbies like NARAL. It's a ruthless cycle: abortion groups lobby for more money, so they can propose further legislation ... that gets them more money. Meanwhile the "powerful" pro-life movement continues to chug along on blogs, email lists, and concerned folks like you picking up the phone and sending emails to your representatives. I know, we have so much to gain, right?

Anyway, when a movement runs out of ideas and arguments, they can do two things: have a hard think about their position or attempt to co-opt/shut-up the opposition. The pro-abortion lobby has chose the second option. "Faith in public life" is a good example of marginalizing pro-lifers and claiming a consensus for their position when there is not one. Some Christian pastors have come out in support of the bill, but not one Catholic priest has voiced support for it. Because faithful Catholics understand that contraception and funding abortion providers is not going to drive down the number of abortions in this country, or promote a culture of life.

In fact, as I blogged about last week, the USCCB has taken the unusual step of specifically targeting this bill as unacceptable, calling it the "Planned Parenthood Economic Stimulus Package of 2009."

And if you want to know Pope Benedict's mind on the issue of governments promoting contraception, read what I wrote about that on July 8th. (hint: he's against it.)

If you are reading this far, you are probably interested in this sort of thing enough to be curious about the strategic opportunity here. 

In the wider picture, the DeLauro-Ryan bill is a preview of coming attractions: What DeLauro-Ryan floats as legislation, should it pass, is the type of "solution" the Obama administration will offer to the problem of abortion in White House-sponsored initiatives. 

In other words, Obama's long-awaited solution to the number of abortions is - not surprisingly - to further fill the coffers of the radical pro-abortion lobbyists and organizations which helped him and his associates win the White House and Congress. Sadly, it's still true in much of American politics that to find out what's happening, you have to follow the money. In this case it goes abortionists --> Obama --> abortionists (through Congress).

But if this bill is defeated, we may still have the chance of proposing counter-solutions acceptable to true pro-lifers, from people who sincerely want to see the number of abortions reduced by supporting women and helping them make the right choice, which is always to protect innocent life and give it the same chance we all deserve.

===

Action: 

The most effective thing you can do is call your congressional representative and tell them simply "Vote NO on the DeLauro-Ryan bill." If they want a reason: "It funds pro-abortion organizations which already receive too much federal funding." If they want an alternative bill to support on this issue, there is one (see below). The congressional switchboard is 202-224-3121 (don't hang up if it keeps ringing, it takes time for an operator to help you, but it will happen eventually). But you can also be completely done with the call in under a minute. The staffs are courteous and are there to take calls from people like you on issues like this.

You can also send a short email to your representative through this official form. Simply write the same thing and heck, give them the link to this post if they want to know why.

If you want help spread the word around the web, you can refer folks to this post, join a Facebook group I created (Stop DeLauro-Ryan) or Twitter about it (I propose the hashtag #stopryan).

As far as an alternative proposal, there is a good bill already in Congress, introduced by Lincoln Davis (D-TN) - HR #2035 which reads in summary: "To provide for programs that reduce abortions, help women bear healthy children, and support new parents." 

It is supported by Cardinal Rigali (head of USCCB pro-life) and numerous other Catholic and pro-life organizations, as Jack Smith explains. It is also bi-partisan: in the House it has 28 democrat and 12 republican co-sponsors! That's common ground, because pro-lifers can actually support it, on both sides of the aisle.

[photo credit: Third Way]

Action: Support 'Aid the Church in Need'

Sent in by AmP reader Michael:

Aid to the Church in Need is an international Catholic charity under the guidance of the Holy Father dedicated to helping suffering and persecuted faithful worldwide. As the voice of the suffering Church, we reach out to assist people in need in over 145 countries, supporting  more than 5,000 projects each year. Our donors have made a positive difference in the lives of literally millions of people worldwide, but the need is still great. Please consider making a gift to support a program, or offer general support. Another way to help is by Offering a Mass. You may also wish to view specific Projects in Need that are in urgent need of funding.

Prof. Kaveny needs a re-write on Pope and President

University of Notre Dame Law School:

M. Cathleen Kaveny, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, addressed the question “Why does the American Catholic leadership seem to be focused on abortion, while the Vatican appears willing to view that issue as merely one among many on which to judge a political leader?” in a New York Times blog.

Evidently, on a planet far, far away, Obama is still the man he claimed to be in his campaign ads. Sadly, the far, far away planet is the writing dens of notable, liberal Catholic academics like Prof. Kaveny. Well, I would challenge her that she needs to update her fact sheet and move beyond the campaign rhetoric of Mr. Obama and actually take a look at the facts. Reality, after all, has a habit of exploding poor arguments.

Reading through her comments, she makes a very convincing case - if we didn't have the experience of the last six months to jolt us out of these false hopes. Let's take a look at a few of her claims with red correction pen in hand:

From different vantage points, [the pope and president] are both grappling with the same challenge: how to protect and promote human dignity in an era of increased globalization, how to work together to solve the problems like the worldwide economic crisis, global warming, and food insecurity.

Let's see, so far Mr. Obama has repealed the Mexico City Policy (funding oversees abortions), removed restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, passed a failed cap-and-trade bill which has negligible international environmental impact at huge domestic cost, allowed an abortion mandate into his socialized health care policy, and - in the eyes of many - failed to support the people of Iran and Honduras in their struggle for a more just government.

Yes, the two men may be grappling with the same challenge, but how has Mr. Obama performed? Politics is absolutely about different groups seeking to right the same problem, but what matters is who comes up with the better solution, and who follows-through. Prof. Kaveny can assign the same legal problem to all of her students, but only those who reach the correct conclusions should receive high marks. Prof. Kaveny wants to give Mr. Obama a perfect score for just walking into the classroom. 

The Vatican, in my view, respects Mr. Obama as a man of moral seriousness, who in turn respects those who disagree with him on serious moral issues such as abortion.

Okay, can I ask an awkward question? Just what the heck does "moral seriousness" mean? No one, to my knowledge, is claiming that Mr. Obama is a morally "unserious", as if he's some sort of clown. We can all agree someone is morally "serious" and still conclude that they are philosophically, prudentially wrong. Prof. Kaveny is a legal scholar - would she give a student an "A" simply for being "morally serious" were he or she to make a legal claim in an academic paper for chattel slavery being just? Of course not! All the "moral seriousness" in the world isn't worth a hill of beans if you are seriously wrong in your moral conclusions.

Cardinal Cottier is impressed by the fact that Mr. Obama recognizes the tragic nature of the abortion choice, and the fact that he is committed to finding ways to reduce the need for — and therefore the numbers of — abortions. He highlights that Mr. Obama is committed to protecting the consciences of healthcare workers who morally opposed to abortion.

First of all, Prof. Kaveny is happy to selectively quote Vatican officials, finding the ones that she thinks supports her argument. But second of all,  Mr. Obama has never - to my knowledge - committed himself to reducing the number of abortions. That would mean he has to admit there is a problem with a woman expressing her "choice" to have an abortion. And he is too much enmeshed in the pro-abortion agenda to ever say that. And just try to make the point with an abortion advocate that reducing the need for abortions equals reducing the number. They will never admit this, for the same reasons Mr. Obama cannot and has not. Finally, search the new health care bill for a "robust conscience clause." It doesn't exist. So what world is Prof. Kaveny still living in? It doesn't look much like the real one you and I are inhabiting. 

Prof. Kaveny, in other words, makes two claims without providing any proof for them. And she also commits a logical fallacy when she presumes that reducing the need for abortions would result in reducing the number of them. It's almost as if she has never engaged a pro-abortion advocate in debate on this issue. Abstract conclusions make little difference when we are facing practical problems with real people. Especially these abstractions are contradicted by the concrete details.

Okay, three points seems enough. Of course, there are other areas where I profoundly disagree with Prof. Kaveny's essay. To conclude, she needs to update her talking points and respond somehow to the actual events which have transpired in the last six months. Until some liberal Catholic can do that, we're still playing word games. Just like Mr. Obama wants to see us do.

NY hospital tried to force nurse to help with late-term abortion

A sad preview of the future unless something is done:

A New York City hospital is the subject of a lawsuit after allegations that it attempted to force a nurse to participate in a late-term abortion. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit yesterday against Mount Sinai Hospital on behalf of a Catholic nurse who says she told the hospital about her objections.

Since 2004, officials at Mount Sinai Hospital knew that Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo had deeply-felt pro-life views and would not consent to assisting in an abortion.

That didn't stop hospital officials from threatening her with disciplinary measures if she did not honor a last-minute summons to assist in a scheduled late-term abortion.

Despite the fact that the patient was not in crisis at the time of the surgery, the hospital insisted on her participation in the procedure on the grounds that it was an “emergency."

Federal laws prohibit hospitals that receive federal funds from forcing employees to participate in abortion procedures under any circumstances but that apparently didn't stop Mount Sinai Hospital from asking Cenzon-DeCarlo to join in the abortion of the 22-week-old unborn child.

ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman talked with LifeNews.com about the case.

“Pro-life nurses shouldn't be forced to assist in abortions against their beliefs,” he said. “Requiring a devout, Catholic nurse to participate in a late-term abortion in order to remain employed is illegal, unethical, and violates her rights of conscience." (LifeNews) (ADF)

If Obama doesn't follow through on his promise, we can look forward to removing the description of "illegal" from this action which remains gravely "unethical" because it violates the conscience of the pro-life nurse.

Video: Colbert on WristStrong for the Pope

Video via Comedy Central, commentary via US Catholic:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Pope Wrist Watch
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Mark Sanford

Oh, Stephen.

Video: Ed Peters discusses a priest running for Philippines President

I read about this story last week but it was a bit far off my regular news beat to analyze.

My father, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters, however, took up the story on Al Kresta's radio program:


Watch live video from Kresta In The Afternoon's channel on Justin.tv

AmP Poll: Do you support Obama's health care bill?

AmP Weekend Poll: Do you support the current form of Obama's health care bill?

As always, please explain the reasons for your vote in the comments below, and then send end the poll around to your friends, Twitter, Facebook and/or blog! I'd like to get the widest sampling of Catholics as possible. Thanks, papists!

update: there's a glitch in the poll software I'm using which means you have to visit the blog homepage to see it appear correctly. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Papist Picture of the Day - 7/24/09

• Catholic Common Ground: Reject the DeLauro-Ryan bill
• Friday offbeat video: Liturgical Dance Wedding 
  
• Friday offbeat: Church of England offers 2-for-1 sacraments
  
• Urgent: A chance to defund Planned Parenthood
  
• Open thread: Friday Job Exchange 
  

"Hopefully we can avoid the Google Earth fly-over here!"

[source: AP Photo]

Catholic Common Ground: Reject the DeLauro-Ryan bill

Working in DC politics I get to observe a lot of situations which frustrate me, but this concerted effort to deceive pro-lifers into supporting a bill which hurts the cause of life in America gets me angry.

What especially angers me is how the Catholic pro-life movement is treated by pro-abortion supporters of this bill. Just read what "Catholics for Choice" president Jon O'Brien wrote:

"Not everybody agrees with the bill. The nation's 400 Catholic bishops have not signed on. However, we should remember that their 400 votes count for little when taken beside the nation's 67.5 million Catholics--the majority of whom will support the bill's provisions."

Excuse me? Is this sort of argument supposed to appeal to me as a faithful Catholic?

The USCCB Prolife office has taken the extraordinary (and needed) step of forcefully repudiating the claims of DeLauro-Ryan bill supporters:

Let the Taxpayers Beware!

It should be called the Planned Parenthood Economic Stimulus Package of 2009.

Instead, co-sponsors Tim Ryan (D-OH) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) have given their “new” (though largely recycled) bill the promising title “Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act.” Sponsors describe the bill as a “common ground” approach to reducing unintended pregnancies and abortions, one that should appeal to opposing sides in the abortion debate.

Sure, the bill is dressed up with some funding for after-school programs, and some (very poorly crafted) efforts to provide support for pregnant students. But make no mistake. The bill is “about access to birth control,” according to Congressman Ryan (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” May 19, 2009). In the same interview, Ryan explained: “We have to have birth control and contraception offered to these poor women who don’t have access to contraception, period, dot. There’s no other way we’re going to be able to reduce [abortions].” About what you’d expect in a bill whose co-sponsors enjoy a 100% pro-choice rating from NARAL.

... let your member of Congress know that the Ryan/DeLauro bill cannot fulfill the promises in its title. The real abortion-reduction bill in Congress now is the Pregnant Women Support Act (S.1032, H.R.2035), which needs our support.

I wrote earlier today about a chance to defund Planned Parenthood subsidies in the new Health and Human Services fund allocations. Faithful Catholics should also reject the Ryan/DeLauro bill as a deceptive ploy to give more money to big business abortion.

update: for the record, Rep. Tim Ryan deserves especial blame here, as Jack Smith points out:

Rep. Tim Ryan is not prolife. In the current and last sessions of Congress Tim Ryan had the exact same voting score from National Right to Life as Rosa DeLauro - 0. While once prolife, Ryan's record is now as extreme on abortion as Rep. DeLauro and Senator Barbara Boxer - supporting even taxpayer funding of abortion in DC.

The lie that Tim Ryan is prolife is very convenient for the true backers of the "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act". Planned Parenthood and NARAL can say the bill represents "common ground". But claiming the bill is "common ground" and that Ryan is prolife are both lies.

Friday offbeat video: Liturgical Dance Wedding

I guess traditions are different in Minnesota.

Friday offbeat: Church of England offers 2-for-1 sacraments

Specifically, "A wedding for the couples, and baptisms for their kids":

The Church of England is offering couples a two-for-one service - marriage for them and baptisms for their children.

The church says it is recognizing the changing reality of British families. Statistics show that 44 per cent of children in Britain are born to unmarried women.

New guidelines sent to the Church of England's 16,000 parish churches encourage services that combine a wedding with a christening or a service of thanksgiving for the birth of a child.

Some clergy welcomed the move Thursday, but others said it undermined church teaching about the sanctity of marriage.

The church said it was responding to demand, but still believed the best place for sex was within marriage. (AP)

Did you catch that? Marriage is not the "only" place for sex, just the "best" place.

Urgent: a chance to defund Planned Parenthood

update: 247-183 against the Pence Ammendment. I wonder if any congressmen who claim to be pro-life voted against the ammendment? Thank you for all your efforts. One of these times, we'll succeed.

Pro-life warrior Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has given us a chance to have Planned Parenthood cut off from receiving federal funds through the Health and Human Services Department.

Pence has said (and written):

“The time has come to deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funds under Title X.”

He has offered a simple amendment which reads:

"None of the funds made available under this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under Title X of the Public Health Services Act."

It's a miracle this amendment made it through the rules committee last night, making it eligible for a general floor vote today. This is a chance to defund Planned Parenthood and also a chance to see who is in their pocket.

Since this vote is happening so soon, the best thing to do is call your congressional office now and tell them "I want you to vote for the Pence Ammendment and defund Planned Parenthood!" The switchboard number is 202-224-3121 and they can direct you by state to the right office. Staffers are waiting to hear your voice. That's why they are there.

Let's defund Planned Parenthood and have something to celebrate this weekend.

update - Congressman Mike Pence makes his case on the floor:

Open thread: Friday Job Exchange

Sent in by an AmP reader:

I am a faithful Catholic working as an IT project manager at at a Catholic university in Chicago. We are looking to move away from Chicago in the fall due to a growing family and I am beginning to look for faithfully Catholic job positions that utilize some of my skills.

In addition to Catholic colleges or universities, where would you all recommend I look for a job that furthers the Catholic faith? I graduated from Notre Dame, I have an MBA, and a strong IT background.

Thanks in advance. Peter Prina  (pprina [at] alumni.nd.edu)

Feel free to post in the comment box if you are looking for a Catholic job or know of a position that is open.

Photo Caption Call - 7/23/09

Even if you don't have a caption, you can rate your favorite captions (submitted by others) in the comment box.

View the last Photo Caption Call here. Submit new photos for AmP photo caption call to my email!

[Photo: Fiji World News.]

Update: President emails AMU over Fessio firing

As an update to the story I covered on Tuesday, this email was sent by AMU President Nick Healy to current students, staff and faculty of Ave Maria University. It was not sent to alumni.

As previously stated, Ave Maria University (AMU) is grateful to Fr. Fessio, S.J. for his past contributions to the university. We also recognize the strong personal convictions he holds and the respect he has earned in the Church.

Nevertheless, and despite the likely controversy it would occasion, the university administration concluded that Father Fessio should no longer hold a position with the university. This was discussed with the university’s Board of Trustees, which supported the decision. It is the university’s policy to refrain from going into details regarding personnel matters.

That the issues were not related to the university’s commitment to its mission should be obvious from Father Fessio’s own statement that he “will continue to recommend AMU to students and parents”. Furthermore, the already distinguished Board of Trustees was recently strengthened by the addition of the local ordinary, Bishop Frank Dewane, and Cardinal Adam Maida to the three existing clerics on the university’s Board of Trustees: Msgr. Laurence Higgins, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R. and Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J.

- Ave Maria University

Local newspaper Naples Daily News reports, however, that the AMU board never formally voted Fessio out:

"Ave Maria University’s board of trustees discussed firing the university’s theologian, the Rev. Joseph Fessio, at its June meeting but took no formal vote on the matter, the board’s chairman said Wednesday."

On the campus reaction:

"...with class out of session at the rural campus south of Immokalee, students and alumni are connecting on the social networking Web site Facebook and video sharing site YouTube to discuss Fessio’s fate — and what they should do about it."

On other official reaction:

"Chairman Michael Timmis would not say Wednesday whether the entire board agreed at the June meeting. He said the decision to fire Fessio was not something that required a board vote. Timmis would not cite a reason for Fessio’s firing.

“Personally, as I read the scriptures, good people can disagree,” Timmis said.

... The Diocese of Venice issued a statement this week saying that Bishop Frank Dewane was not consulted on the decision to fire Fessio.

Dewane was named to the university’s board of trustees at the same June meeting where Fessio’s firing was broached but was not a member at the time, Timmis said Wednesday."

On Fessio's plans:

"As for Fessio, he said he doesn’t plan on exiling himself from Ave Maria University.

He said Wednesday that, if administrators want him to, he is willing to continue to oversee the university’s fundraising and planning for a theater building on campus."

So there you have it. Although I'm not sure what we have here.

My take on Obama's Health Care news conference

I've written about last night's prime-time news conference on health care by Obama over on APP:

"On Snake Oil, Straw Men, and Blue Pills"

As I wrote, "Amazingly, the crux of the debate is not even ideological or philosophical, but factual."

And, I'll add here - what singular question was singularly absent from the evening's proceedings? That's right: abortion funding and democratic leadership refusal to remove it.

Because, of course, that topic would just get us distracted.

Action: Help restore a historic Catholic landmark in St. Louis

From AmP reader Canon Wiener of the Oratory:

An important restoration campaign is underway at Saint Francis de Sales Oratory, a National Registry of Historic Places landmark on the South Side of Saint Louis. Originally founded in 1867 to serve the German immigrant community, Saint Francis de Sales has faced the challenges of changing demographics and urban blight in more recent years, like many urban parishes. The majestic century-old neo-Gothic structure, replete with a 350-foot tall steeple, like any building of its age and size, stands in serious need of restoration. A new phase in the life of the church began in 2005 when Archbishop Raymond Burke entrusted the church to the Institute of Christ the King, a society of apostolic life offering Mass and the sacraments in the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. The Institute places a strong accent on sacred art, architecture and music in the service of God and has carried out a number of notable church restoration projects.

As the Oratory of Saint Francis de Sales—already important as an architectural and religious monument in the city—has been reborn and continues to grow, the need for restoring the church has become more pressing. Preserving the structural integrity of the steeple tower is an immediate and urgent need, as the tower is pulling away from church’s foundation. Even the slightest incline is exerting great pressure on the building, affecting the walls and windows. The structural restoration alone will cost $1.5 million. Additional funds will also be needed to beautify the tower house, including renovating the vestibule, the clock, and the bells. Subsequent phases of the restoration will encompass the stained glass windows and tuckpointing, as well as refurbishing the interior elements such as the organ, confessionals, and altars. A successful restoration of the sacristy has already been completed. For more information about this worthy project, please consult the Tradition for Tomorrow website or contact the Oratory at 2653 Ohio Avenue; Saint Louis, Missouri 63118.

Tonight: Stop the Abortion Mandate (.com)

Tonight the largest pro-life webcast in history will take place at 9PM EDT to organize the resistance to taxpayer funded abortion: www.stoptheabortionmandate.com.

I'll be at a fundraiser event for a local crisis pregnancy center, but STAM has compiled an impressive list of presenters and it should be a very good and useful listen.

As I mentioned yesterday, if you are looking to do something about all this, consider taking a few moments to sign this petition circulated by the Susan B. Anthony List: "Tell the Senate Abortion is NOT Health Care."

update: take action here - http://tinyurl.com/stoptheabortionmandate

Papist Picture of the Day - 7/22/09

• Outrageous: Obama on federal funding for abortion: "Let's not get distracted"
  
• Picture: Sotomayor photoshopped into Guadalupe Image
  
• Offbeat: Canon Law and Lunar Landings
• Life: GE says "Who needs Lab rats? We have human stem cells!"
• Cool: Year for Priest T-Shirts!

"Be berry, berry, quiet - I'm taking pictures of the pope! ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!"

[source: Reuters]

Obama on federal funding for abortion: "Let's not get distracted"

Yesterday Katie Couric asked Obama the question that Catholics and other Americans are very worried about:

Katie Couric: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?

President Obama: What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we're still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station. (CBS)

I explain why I think Obama's response is deeply flawed over at this American Principles blog entry.

Briefly: how are we to take seriously Obama's claim that he wants to reduce the number of abortions in America when his attitude about the single-greatest expansion of abortion access in our nation's history is ... "let's not get distracted"?!

update: and now that I think about it for a few more seconds- if Obama doesn't want abortion to "distract" us, why not simply rule out covering them with taxpayer dollars? That strikes me as a very simple fix.

Picture: Sotomayor photoshopped into Guadalupe Image

... 'cuz it's cool to make fun of Catholic stuff. (/sarcasm)

NewsBusters reports:

With the start of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination confirmation hearings the topic of abortion naturally arises – not only because it one of our most polarizing legal and social issues, but also because Sotamayor claims to be Catholic, a religion that adamantly and explicitly teaches the evil of abortion.

And while her Catholicism scares some liberals, others are using it as a selling point, and in doing so desecrating a holy image of the Virgin Mary. Felix Sanchez, the CEO of D.C. government and public relations firm TerraCom and chairman of the National Hispanic Foundation for the Arts, has updated his Twitter page with a background of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Over Our Lady’s face, the likeness of Sotomayor has been superimposed (shown at right).

The patron saint of all the Americas, Our Lady of Guadalupe has a special place in the hearts of Hispanic Catholics, especially Mexicans (which Sotomayor is not). But Sanchez seemed to use the image to appeal to all Hispanics and to promote his plea to “Confirm Sonia Maria Sotomayor,” as his Twitter page says.

Yesterday, NARAL officially backed Sotomayor.

While elected officials who claim to be pro-life hem and haw about how difficult it is to pin down what Sotomayor actually thinks about abortion, one of the most pro-abortion groups in the United States is perfectly happy to take a wild guess.

Oh yeah, and shame on Felix Sanchez.

Canon Law and Lunar Landings

To clever to pass up on passing on:

"There's a story here in Baltimore about our beloved Archbishop-emeritus-emeritus, William D. Borders. He was ordained bishop in 1968 and made the first Bishop of Orlando, Florida. The new diocese encompassed central Florida and included Cape Canaveral, from where, the following year, Apollo 11 launched, bound for the moon. 

After that historic launch and lunar landing, with all the images of our astronauts walking, golfing, and planting the flag, Borders made an ad limina visit to Rome to meet with Paul VI. During their meeting, Borders rather nonchalantly observed, "You know, Holy Father, I am the bishop of the Moon." Pope Paul looked at him rather perplexed - probably wondering where along the line this American prelate lost his mind. Borders then continued by explaining that by the existing (1917) Code of Canon Law, he was the de facto ordinary of this "newly discovered" territory." 

- Jesus Goes to Disney World: Finding Christ in Popular Culture

GE says "Who needs Lab rats? We have human stem cells!"

I wish I was joking:

General Electric has announced that it will use embryonic stem cells provided by Geron Corporation for the purpose of testing toxic effects of drug treatments.

GE issued a statement, attempting to preempt criticism over the decision, saying, "We acknowledge the considerable debate and take very seriously the ethical and societal issues associated with research using stem cells derived from embryonic or fetal tissue."

"We conduct our research in an ethically and scientifically responsible manner," the statement said. (LifeSiteNews)

How do they get to claim they are conducing "ethical" research? 

What if I were to steal a video someone made, upload it to my American Papist You Tube Channel and when the original copyright-holder complained, responded by saying "Don't worry, I did it ethically"?! Who would be satisfied by such a dismissive response?

This habit of using human instead of animal stem cells marks the continuation of a dangerous trend:

Konstantin Fielder, General Manager of Cell Technologies at GE Healthcare said that stem cells harvested from human embryos could even replace lab rats as the primary scientific testing method.

"Once you have human cells and you can get them in a standardized way, like you get right now your lab rats in a standardized way, you can actually do those experiments on those cells," he said.

Do something about this: Contact General Electric on the web or call them at (203) 373-2211.

Cool: Year for Priest T-Shirts!

AmP reader Phil:

Hello, I thought I would send you an e-mail about some Year for Priests T-Shirts that I have been designing. These t-shirts are apart of my online apostolate Digital Catholic, where I design Catholic Wallpapers and Catholic T-Shirts. I am just trying to spread the news about the Year for Priests in hopes of getting more people involved in praying and supporting our priests!

I can support that:

Year For Priests T-Shirt by digitalcatholic
See other Tridentine T-Shirts

Papist Picture of the Day - 7/21/09

• Urgent: Abortion in Obama's Government Health Care Plan
• New on APP: Bioethics, Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage & Sotomayor
  
• Commentary: Abortion "common ground" = Dissent from Church teaching
• Breaking: Ave Maria University dismisses Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ ... again (letter included) 

Papist Realty: Offering Firm Foundations since 33 A.D.

[source: Reuters]

Urgent: Abortion in Obama's Government Health Care Plan

Here is some common ground on the abortion issue I'm willing to offer: I'm not going to pay for them.

The White House continues to dodge the issue.

The US Bishops have released a statement which says:

“No health care reform plan should compel us or others to pay for the destruction of human life, whether through government funding or mandatory coverage of abortion. Any such action would be morally wrong.”

Sr. Mary Ann Walsh is also blogging away: "Making sure the legislation is abortion-neutral takes one huge obstacle out of the way [of reforming health care]."

For the record, on prudential grounds, I think the health care "reform" bills being pushed through the House and Senate ought to be completely scrapped.

But I am sure Catholics would agree with me on this: we cannot allow our government to foot the bill (with our tax dollars) when anyone in this country wants to have an abortion.

On an important related issue, Jack Smith gives us an update on the Ryan-DeLauro bill:

The Ryan-DeLauro Bill looks to be presented as the President's much vaunted "common ground" approach to reducing abortion - appealing to both pro-life and pro-choice leaders. Problem is, it is sponsored by two pro-choice legislators. By his consistent moves in the last two legislative sessions, Rep. Ryan has given up any claim to being pro-life. As we mentioned above, he is actually working against pro-life Democrats.

This Ryan-DeLauro bill is meant to derail any truly common ground approach to aid women in crisis pregnancies and their families. In its previous incarnations the bill is top heavy with hundreds of millions for Planned Parenthood and lite on actual support for women. Its unveiling this week will reveal whether it gives more to Planned Parenthood and abortion providers than before.

That is my fear and should cause concern for all who have supported common ground efforts to reduce abortion. Now more than ever, it is critical for Democrats and Republicans to show support for the Pregnant Women Support Act written by Democrats for Life and strongly supported by the USCCB.

So, to recap: no taxpayer-funded abortion in government health care bills, and no large-scale sneaking of taxpayer-money to the major abortion providers in this country.

If forcing all Americans to pay for abortions they know are morally wrong counts as "common ground" in these people's minds, then they were never actually serious about reducing abortions in the first place.

action: if you are looking to do something about all this, consider taking a few moments to sign this petition circulated by the Susan B. Anthony List: "Tell the Senate Abortion is NOT Health Care."

New on APP: Bioethics, Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage & Sotomayor

Just a quick reminder - most of my specifically-political blogging is shifting over to the American Principles Project blog.

The American Principles Project website, meanwhile, is beginning to provide regular, topical, principled essays from impressive thinkers:

• The Embryo as Human Being: The Scientific Case - by Robert George et al. "Scientific evidence shows that fertilization produces a new and distinct individual of the human species."
  
• Sotomayor & Natural Rights - by Hadley Arkes. Why was her reflex to consider the right to self-defense as a right conferred by positive law?
  
• Sotomayor & Feinstein - by Hadley Arkes. The response to Feinstein’s questions was more revealing or interesting than I had anticipated.
  
• Sotomayor & Same-Sex Marriage - by Gerald V. Bradley. Judge Sotomayor has not revealed how she might rule on a constitutional claim for same-marriage.
  

Keep up on APP's doings through Twitter and Facebook too!

Abortion "common ground" = Dissent from Church teaching

I've recently discussed both the various "common ground" ideas (here, here, here & here) being floated by pro-abortion advocates, as well as Obama's recent pick for Surgeon General, a Catholic who appears to support Obama's pro-abortion stance.

My disagreement with pro-abortion advocates on these "common ground" issues are not simply matters of perspective - there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences between our two positions, I believe.

Thus, when WaPo writes an article entitled "Surgeon General Pick's Stance on Abortion May Clash With Church's", it is meaningless for Common Ground to describe it as "Obama's Surgeon General Picks Believes in Common Ground on Abortion Issue."

What the Surgeon General actually believes, is what Obama thinks about the abortion issue, not what the Church teaches about it. And yes, there is a difference. Especially when you have to apply pressure on his administration to not include universal funding of abortion in their new health care proposal (more on that later).

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues wanting to have it both ways, resulting in ridiculous statements such as this one from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claiming that President Barack Obama made the same pledge to Pope Benedict XVI about reducing the number of abortions that he made to Planned Parenthood as a presidential candidate in 2007 (when he promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as President).

Can we honestly believe the claim that Planned Parenthood and Pope Benedict will be satisfied with the same solution to the scourge of abortion?!

Ave Maria University dismisses Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ ... again (letter included)

I have breaking news that Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ has been dismissed from Ave Maria University today.

In this letter from Fr. Fessio himself, he explains the circumstances of the dismissal:

This morning, (Monday, July 20th) Dr. Jack Sites, Academic Vice President of Ave Maria University, flew from Houston, where he was attending a meeting of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, to San Francisco, to inform me personally that I was being dismissed from Ave Maria University. Our meeting was amicable and Dr. Sites, as always, acted as a Christian gentleman.

He said that the reason for my dismissal stemmed from a conversation I had in November of 2008 with Jack Donahue, then chairman of the board of AMU. At that time I felt it an obligation to speak to the board chairman before the upcoming board meeting, to make sure he was aware of the urgency of the university’s financial situation. After I had informed him, using projections based on publicly available documents and statements, he asked me what I thought was the solution. I told him that there were policies being followed that were at the root of the problem, that the present administration was irrevocably wedded to those policies, and that without a change of administration the university was at great risk.

Dr. Sites said that Jack Donahue related this conversation to Tom Monaghan, and it was decided (I don’t know specifically by whom) that the university could not have a faculty member making these criticisms of the administration and thus undermining the university.

Dr. Sites told me that there were unspecified others who had similar substantive concerns that I was undermining the university.

I continue to support the university. I pray for its success. I have great admiration for the faculty, students, and many of the staff. I do disagree with some of the policies of the administration. This seems to be the reason I was fired the first time, in March 2007, since the official explanation was “irreconcilable administrative differences”.

Nevertheless, I think it is an accurate summary to say that I am being dismissed as a faculty member because of a private conversation with the chairman of the board in which I made known my criticisms of the university administration; and because of allegations which have not been made known to me and to which I have not been given an opportunity to respond.

I will continue to recommend AMU to students and parents. And I will continue to think my dismissal is another mistake in a long series of unwise decisions.

On the Ave Maria University website Fr. Fessio is listed as a "professor of theology and chaplain in residence." Also on the AMU website, it appears that Fr. Fessio just finished teaching a summer course for the university on July 17th.

Fr. Fessio is best known for founding Ignatius Press.

AmP readers will recall that, in March 2007, Fr. Fessio was summarily fired-from-and-rehired-by the university in circumstances I covered here. Before March 2007 Fr. Fessio served as the provost of the university.

update: Eric Statts at the Naples Daily News adds details....

In a statement late Monday afternoon, the university confirmed it had “ended its formal relationship” with Fessio but did not cite a reason.

“The decision was made by the leadership of the university and supported by its Board of Trustees,” the statement said. “While Fr. Fessio will not be continuing in any capacity at the university, AMU wishes to express its gratitude to him for the assistance that he rendered to the university.”

... Speaking later in a telephone interview, Fessio would not be specific. He said he would continue to express his concerns privately, if asked.

Fessio said he doesn’t expect a change of heart by the university administration this time around — and he’s not looking for one.

As word spread Monday of his firing, one faculty member contacted Fessio to offer a show of support akin to 2007, Fessio said.

“I said I think the decision’s been made,” Fessio said. “There’s no use trying to reverse the action.”

Fessio was due back at the university next week to help teach a session to high school students, he said.

He attributed the timing of his firing, during the summer and in between academic years, to university leaders wanting to avoid a repeat of the protests that ensued after his first firing in March 2007.

Also of note .... and perhaps this has something to do with the timing as well: this fall, Ave Maria Law School is moving down from Michigan to take up residence in its new home - the old temporary campus which Ave Maria University originally occupied.

Full disclosure: I graduated from Ave Maria College in 2005. Since then, Ave Maria University in Florida has replaced Ave Maria College, which had its campus in Michigan.

Papist Picture of the Day - 7/20/09

The Papist Mount Rushmore is a bit more humble.

[source: Reuters]

Video: My appearance on Kresta in the Afternoon

The tech wizards at Ave Maria Radio have the segment up in blogger-friendly embeddable format:

Watch live video from Kresta In The Afternoon's channel on Justin.tv

More Kresta in the Afternoon goodness here.

Hear me on Kresta in the Afternoon today!

I'll be in studio with Al Kresta this afternoon around 5:40PM EDT, discussing - well, whatever he feels like. Kresta in the Afternoon is a production of Ave Maria Radio.

Al has been recently building a significant blog and online streaming TV presence. I'm very happy to see him active in new media.

Afterward the interview, I'll be having fish for dinner. *hint, hint.*

update: watch live!

Watch live video from Kresta In The Afternoon's channel on Justin.tv

Pope Benedict fractures wrist - prayers asked

New York Times:

Pope Benedict XVI fractured his right wrist in a fall Friday morning while on vacation in northern Italy, the Vatican said.

In a statement, the Vatican said that the pope had slipped in his room in the chalet where he is staying in the mountainous Valle d’Aosta region, but was well enough to eat breakfast and celebrate Mass before being taken by car to the local hospital.

“It’s nothing serious,” the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said in a telephone interview . He said that the pope’s wrist had been “immobilized.”

Doctors operated on the pope’s wrist for about 20 minutes, Reuters reported, and he will have to wear a cast for about a month.

Whispers has several updates, including that the Holy Father has been released from the hospital. 

I thought this was admirable:

Italian news footage shows pope walked inside hospital emergency room with his aides.

Pope insisted he get no special treatment at hospital. He waited his turn for X-ray, operating room.

Well, he's first in line for my prayers today.

Offbeat: Why Catholics need to eat fish on Friday - because they are trying to eat us.

For generations, fish knew their rightful place in God's creation because faithful Catholics observed the tradition of eating them en masse every Friday.

Sure, the idea was to offer up the pleasures of eating meat as a penance one day out of the week, but frankly, those faithful Catholics still ate mammals six days out of the week. 

So really, there could be no doubt in those tasty farmyard minds about who was the boss. I mean, have you ever witnessed a cow or pig try to attack someone? Of course not! Except maybe that one time (on a Friday - surprise, surprise).

Anyway, fast-forward to 40 or so years after Vatican II, and it's clear that fish have forgotten our deal. The new generation of fishes, in fact, are now systematically, actively "testing the waters" to see if the time is ripe to have their turn at the top of the food chain.

Luckily, so far their attempts have been unsuccessful. 

This week a 24-foot basking shark washed ashore on Long Island beach. Now of course naysayers will point out that the basking shark is harmless, has no teeth, and feeds primarily on plankton. Well, it also has a mouth big enough to swallow your little sister in one gulp. I'm just saying, I wouldn't let a basking shark into my little sister's swimming pool.

Unfortunate navigation error, or calculated reconnaissance mission?

Earlier this week, on the opposite coast, dozens of Jumbo Humbolt Squid washed up minutes after a 4.0 earthquake hit off the coast of La Jolla, California. 

... sure people, earthquakes, like God never uses those to get a message across!

Before Vatican II, this squid would never have been allowed to grow bigger than sushi-roll size.

The local reporter in the case above was only too eager to leave the story high and dry:

"For now there are more questions than answers; did the earthquake cause the squid to wash up or was it simply a coincidence?"

Sure, give in to the dictatorship of relativism. Don't quit your Friday Lamb Kabob habit. Keep smugly visiting Sea World to watch dozens of eligible dinners wiggle around behind the Plexiglas unharmed and carefree.

Not surprisingly, the most disturbing case of underwater-based aggression to date has occurred in Europe, which is especially guilty of ignoring the admonition of the Church to eat fish on Fridays:

"Police divers have ended the reign of terror of a huge fish that was attacking swimmers in a Swiss lake.

The zander, which was 70 centimetres (two feet three inches) long and weighed eight kilos (17.5 pounds), was harpooned on Sunday after it bit six swimmers over the weekend, fish warden Fabio Croci told local media."

In other words, after biting six swimmers (presumably one each day), the fish rested from its nibbling on the seventh day, and was finally killed on that Sunday. Apparently even Zander fish have standards. So just what does that say about us? If the Zander fish had been eaten on Friday ... some Swiss kid would have kept on to his pinky finger on Saturday.

My recommendation: bring an oven along with you on the boat. It just saves time.

In fairness, I was relieved to find out, upon reading the story of the Zander fish's reign-of-terror more closely, that its delectable remains were "served up to tourists at the lake." As the saying goes, an eaten fish is a happy fish.

After hearing about these examples of modern icthyan aggression, I think it should be very clear to all informed readers why we, as a community and a Church, need to make the serious effort of continuing the venerable tradition of consuming our scaly arch-enemies with reckless abandon every Friday. 

After all, it's supposed to sound like "Fry-Day" for a reason.

If this fish were still alive, it would be asking you to eat it.

Papist Picture of the Day - 7/16/09

"And around the final turn it's Bishop Smith in the lead with Monsignor Ganswein a length behind but oh wait Pope Benedict is pulling ahead on the inside rail!!!"

[source: Reuters]

Why is Bishop Hubbard supporting the disastrous "Cap-and-Tax" bill?

I strongly disagree with the prudential opinion expressed by Bishop Howard Hubbard:

"The US bishops have given their enthusiastic support to the Waxman-Markey bill, a piece of legislation designed to address climate change, which Republican opponents have characterized as entailing "the largest tax increase in American history."

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 proposes a complicated series of schemes known as "cap and trade," ultimately imposing taxes on the carbon-dioxide emissions that are cited as a major factor in global warming. Even before the 1,200-page legislation was made available to Congress, the members of the House of Representatives received a letter from two leading representatives of the American Church, giving their strong endorsement for the bill.

Bishop Howard Hubbard, who chairs the US bishops' committee on international justice and peace; and Ken Hackett, the president of Catholic Relief Services, welcomed the introduction of the Waxman-Markey bill." (CWNews)

I work in politics now. I know this is a bad, bad bill. It has a negligible effect on the environment (even environmental groups have admitted this!), it stresses an already deeply-weekend economy with more taxes and bureaucracy, it will result in more domestic job losses, and - perhaps most outrageously of all - will result in American dollars being spent to build foreign infrastructure at the expense of American private enterprise (the bottom line keeping our progressively-more-top-heavy government running in the first place)!

Just look at some indepentent analysis of this bill's effects:

"The Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of the legislation, concluded that the Waxman-Markey bill would entail new costs of $770 a year for the average American family. A separate analysis by the Heritage Foundation suggested that this figure was grossly understated, and the actual costs would be closer to $3,000 per year for a typical family of four-- rising steadily up to $4,600 by the year 2035. The Heritage analysis added that the bill would increase gasoline prices by 58%, home heating oil by 56%, and electric rates by 90%. The total drag on the economy would likely result in a loss of over 1 million jobs, Heritage concluded. In spite of this enormous cost, the Foundation argued, the Waxman-Markey bill would produce only a miniscule effect on the process of climate change, producing a drop in world temperatures of "only hundredths of a degree Celsius" in the next 40 years."

So why on earth is Bishop Hubbard supporting this ineffective and harmful bill using the mantra of the US bishops? 

It lessens the effectiveness of the Church's voice on moral issues when one of its bishops so foolishly takes an imprudent decision on a practical one.

Politics: Infanticide-promoter Peter Singer argues for rationing health care

Peter Singer, a eugenicist who believes in infanticide, takes to the pages of the New York Times magazine to advocate rationing health care for you and me:

"Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse. If we ration we won’t be writing blank checks to pharmaceutical companies for their patented drugs, nor paying for whatever procedures doctors choose to recommend. When public funds subsidize health care or provide it directly, it is crazy not to try to get value for money. The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable. Then we can ask, What is the best way to do it?"

Who would honestly want to be on the same side of a debate as Peter Singer?

This is a man who admitted that if it was up to him, he might have pulled the plug on his sick mother (luckily his sister had joint care of her and wouldn't allow it). There is also some disagreement that he actually helped pay for his mother's health care costs - which contradicts his utilitarian philosophy.

So either he is a hypocrite or a monster. And I'm disturbed that he likes Obama's socialized health care plan. With advocates like that, who needs critics?

Gilgoff: Sotomayor staying mum on abortion views

Dan Gilgoff reports:

On the abortion front, I'm struck by two dynamics at work in Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. One: Republicans are attacking the idea of a constitutional right to abortion with a unity and forthrightness not seen in years, grilling Sotomayor on how the Constitution could be construed to contain such a right.

Two: As Republicans lift their voices on the issue, Sotomayor is evading all questions about her personal views on abortion. While recognizing that she considers Roe v. Wade to be settled law, Sotomayor has gone out of her way to obscure her personal position, disavowing signs that abortion rights supporters and opponents have taken as evidence of her pro-abortion rights views.

... Sotomayor is not going to vote to overturn Roe. But her obfuscating on other abortion-related questions raises questions about how she'd rule on restrictions on late-term abortions and on consent laws. And those are the kind of cases—as opposed to direct challenges to Roe—that would be more likely to come before her on the Supreme Court.

I'm sure her team of advisors have taken note that her personal position on abortion is seriously out-of-touch with mainstream America. So much for that oath to tell the whole truth to the American people. How can she single-out abortion (and its many related issues) as a topic upon which she has no opinion besides the "settled law" of the land? As a Supreme Court justice she will be charged with making the law of the land!

Furthermore, there is clearly interest on this topic. The AP's story on the subject was the top story on Yahoo! News yesterday (the largest internet news portal in the U.S.).

I'm looking forward to today's testimony by Charmaine Yoest at Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings. She's the lone representative from a pro-life organization to be invited.

Papist Picture of the Day - 7/15/09

• Study: Unborn babies can form memories by 30 weeks 
  
• Video: Catholic Vote's 3rd pro-life video
• Open topic: Is Obama's (Catholic) pick for Surgeon General pro-abortion?
  
• Open topic: New Science Czar Once Backed Forced Abortions? 
• Cool: Blessed G. K. Chesterton?
  
• Report: "More Murder by Swiss Euthanasia Group"

You mean you don't take a helicopter when you go on vacation?!

[source: Reuters]

Study: Unborn babies can form memories by 30 weeks

And, as NewsBusters reports, ABC's Good Morning America is careful to keep these scientific results separate from the fact that, in this country, it is legal to kill a 30-week-old human being that can, among many other human activities, form memories:

A new study found that unborn babies may start to develop memories as early as thirty weeks into a pregnancy, but ABC’s “Good Morning America” ignored the study’s potential impact on the abortion debate, especially concerning late term abortion.

Reporter Sharyn Alfonsi’s July 15 segment covered the pivotal study without even mentioning abortion. Anchor Chris Cuomo attempted to broach the issue during a follow-up interview but fell short.

Alfonsi touted the study, “Day by day, a fetus goes through remarkable changes. By 30 weeks, opening and closing their eyes. Making facial expressions. And now, a new study reveals, forming memories. Yep, barely three pounds, but already able to remember. For the study, researchers used a fetal monitor to make a buzzing sound against a mother's belly. The noise and vibrations startle the fetus and it typically reacts by moving. But with repeated applications of the buzzing the fetus learns its okay and does not have to react. And four weeks later, when the fetus is buzzed again, many don't react at all, because researchers say they now remember the sound.” [Read on...]

In 2005, for instance, over 15,000 abortions occurred past the 20-week mark in the pregnancy.

LifeBusters continues:

So if the study is correct, in many of those cases, the babies aborted were developed enough to have short- and perhaps long-term memory.“Good Morning America” preferred to focus its report on prenatal care. Alfonsi visited a prenatal yoga class and one pregnant woman said the class was helping her “be more conscious of my own emotional and physical state.”

The memory study, Alfonsi said, “… is proof that we need to be more careful about what experiences we expose babies to in the womb.” Like the experience of, say, murder?

Let's be clear, George Tiller killed unborn children at this late stage of development.

Video: Catholic Vote's 3rd pro-life video

They've done it again:

I've blogged about their work before here. Please spread the word! (And visit CatholicVote.org)

Open topic: Is Obama's (Catholic) pick for Surgeon General pro-abortion?

This is an important story but one I don't have a great deal of time to delve into at present. Hopefully AmP readers can work towards some conclusions in the comment box after I present what I've found out (which does not appear to be very encouraging).

First what happened....

NYT: "President Obama selected Dr. Regina Benjamin, an Alabama family physician, as the U.S. surgeon general on Monday, announcing the appointment during a ceremony in the Rose Garden."

AP: "Benjamin became the first black woman and the youngest doctor elected to the American Medical Association's board. She also received the Nelson Mandela Award for Health and Human Rights in 1998, and Pope Benedict XVI awarded her the distinguished service medal Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice."

That last point raised my eyebrows when I first read it.

Catholic News Service was quick to point out: "Dr. Regina Benjamin, a member of the board of trustees of the Catholic Health Association, is being nominated as surgeon general this morning."

Then this factoid emerged (via LifeNews): "Obama Surgeon General Pick Regina Benjamin Wanted Docs to Learn Abortions"

Original reporting at McClatchy Newspapers gives more cause for concern: "President Barack Obama's nominee for surgeon general is a Catholic best known for founding an Alabama clinic that treats the poor, but her lesser-known support for abortion rights puts her at odds with her church and some of the groups that have praised her work.... White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said that Benjamin "supports the president's position on reproductive health issues. Obama supports abortion rights and public funding of contraception and sex education."

Now, Benjamin's nomination for surgeon general requires Senate confirmation the Associated Press reports. So there is some chance of influencing the process.

CNA and Whispers both have long posts on the subject. Fr. Z adds this quote from the Catholic League: "Dr. Benjamin should not wait until the Senate considers her appointment to let the public know where she stands. As a practicing Catholic, she cannot chair a committee that would support mandated abortion coverage in employer insurance plans."

In the meantime, my initial take ... yet another pro-abortion Catholic pick by President Obama ... which adds support to my frequently-stated claim that the kind of catholic the Obama administration likes ... is a bad catholic.

Open topic: New Science Czar Once Backed Forced Abortions?

This is just. plain. scary:

Another nominee of President Barack Obama is coming under fire for taking an extreme position in favor of abortion. This time, John Holdren, whom Obama appointed to become Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is accused of backing forced abortions and population control.

Holdren will become Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Informally, the position is known as the Science Czar.

In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, Obama's nominee wrote that women could be forced to have abortions whether they wanted them or not. (LifeNews)

And if you really want your toes to curl, visit this link which provides all the details.

update - in fairness: "Obama’s science czar does not support coercive population control, spokesman says"

Cool: Blessed G. K. Chesterton?

Zenit found someone who is hopeful:

Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936) is well known for his clever and humorous writing, and his thought-provoking paradoxes. But he might also become known as a saint, if a proposal to launch his cause of beatification goes forward. [Read on...]

Now I have two reasons to find a signed-copy of Orthodoxy ... it could, after all, become a third class relic and buying it at this point wouldn't amount to simony!

related: look over to Catholic Femina for a little GKC theologizing.

Report: "More Murder by Swiss Euthanasia Group"

Busy week for me, so commentary will be brief ... sorry to start a Wednesday with such a depressing story:

LONDON – British conductor Edward Downes, a longtime stalwart at the Royal Opera and maestro of the first-ever performance at Sydney's iconic Opera House, has died with his wife Joan at an assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland. He was 85 and she was 74.

The couple's children said Tuesday that the couple died "peacefully and under circumstances of their own choosing" on Friday at a Zurich clinic run by the group Dignitas. (AP)

For a Catholic take on this, see the Courtier's analysis.

Papist Picture of the Day - 7/14/09

• Noted: Taxdollar-paid abortions are too much for Winters, as they should be 
• Better Idea: Downloadable "Ask a Catholic a Question" Free Handbook 
• Hope: Voice of the Faithful is going broke, with your (lack of) support 
• Important: Is the White House mocking pro-lifers? 
  

Ironically, eHarmony says these four people have a common interest in "the pope".

[source: Reuters]

Taxdollar-paid abortions are too much for Winters, as they should be

I usually disagree (strongly) with Michael Sean Winters over at America magazine.

Today however, he got an issue (mostly) correct. 

As background, yesterday I laid out very clearly how both the House and Senate versions of Obama's health care bill will allow federal taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and how Democrats are trying to hide this fact from the general public.

Three more important points to realize:

1. If left unchanged, this legislation would bring about the biggest expansion in abortion access since Roe v. Wade. The stats clearly show that whenever federal funds are made available for abortions, more abortions happen. It makes Obama's promise to reduce the number of abortions meaningless.
2. A majority of Americans oppose the idea of making all Americans (including those who oppose abortions) pay for procedure. This is an unpopular, left-wing agenda position that the Democrats are sticking to right down the line.
3. Democrats have thwarted several attempts by Republicans to include a clause saying abortions are to be excluded from the covered procedures. The Democrats, in other words, have had many chances to fix this and have categorically chosen to keep abortions under the umbrella of federal funding.

Well, all of the above is too much for Michael Sean Winters, who writes:

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

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

I could use this as a selfish opportunity to point out that, on multiple occasions, I have exactly predicted that this would happen: that Obama and the Democrat leaders in congress are more chained to the liberal agenda (which necessarily includes unlimited access to abortion, at least according to the current model of Democrat preferment) than they are concerned about promoting an authentic culture of life. 

But I don't care about being right. I care about babies and my tax dollars being spent to kill them, and more of them dying because my tax dollars are available to make that killing less of a hassle.

So, I readily join Michael Sean Winters in drawing this line in the sand. May it be the first of many lines drawn closer and closer to the minimum standards the Gospel of Life calls us to boldly make.

Better Idea: Downloadable "Ask a Catholic a Question" Free Handbook

Back in March I blogged about this great idea:

Ask a Catholic a Question began in the spring of 2007 to spread awareness of Catholic beliefs to students, from students. They answer questions from a steady stream of people most days when they appear in Academic Plaza. On days when a preacher is on campus stirring up polarizing views, the dichotomy between the two becomes immediately apparent.

Now it's an even better idea:

Because of the number of requests for information about our program, Ask A Catholic A Question, we received from other campus ministries, parishes, organizations, and individuals; we have written a manual - Ask A Catholic A Question Handbook: Evangelization On-Campus. It comes in both a downloadable format as well as a website.

You can check it out here.

Practical evangelizing is the best.

Voice of the Faithful is going broke, with your (lack of) support

This couldn't happen to a nicer dissident group.

Jack Smith with excellent, original reporting:

Funds are drying up for VOTF and they are now in serious financial straits. The Boston Globe has picked up on it and I've updated the post to include information on SNAP and their financial irregularities.

I suspect that more than the economy, decline in receipts for VOTF is reflective of the fact that most big priest sexual abuse cases are now settled. Being able to stage a protest / press photo-op on the front steps of any chancery in the U.S. whenever a settlement is close seems to be a lot more lucrative than holding conferences on church management structure.

SNAP has also seen a major decrease in revenue from $930,985 in annual income for 2006 to $437,407 in 2007 (the last year figures are available). The group which previously concentrated exclusively on abuse by Catholic priests has now branched out with new affiliates - SNAP Native American, SNAP Baptist, SNAP Orthodox, SNAP Presbyterian and SNAP Boy Scouts.

Let me be very clear: I don't condone the hiding of predatory priests. But VOTF's tactic was to make the clergy sexual abuse scandal an opportunity for remaking the Catholic Church in their own image. True members of the Church serve it - they don't prey upon it when it has been weakened.

It's also hard to ignore the serious financial interest that trial lawyers had in VOTF's activities. More scandals and lawsuits equaled plenty of dollars for the trial lawyers, taking a huge chunk out of what was intended for the victims themselves.

Good riddance.

Important: Is the White House mocking pro-lifers?

AmP reader Chris emailed me:

You may remember sometime ago there was an empty envelope campaign where folks on the side of the unborn were encourage to send an empty envelope to the white house, with the message "this envelope represents a life lost to abortion" or something along that line. My wife sent an empty envelope. In our mailbox today, was an empty envelope with the return address "The White House, Washington, DC, 20500." There is no message inside nor on the back. It is hand-addressed to my wife

Here is a picture of the letter she received:

She blogs about the experience here (the comments are also interesting). 

I'd be interested to find out if others who sent empty envelopes to the White House received an empty one back. It's an odd coincidence, to say the least.

If some snarky intern did indeed think this would be a fun way to get back at pro-lifers, I think Chris and his wife are owed a second letter - an official apology.

Papist Picture of the Day - 7/13/09

• Outrageous: Senate Health Care Plan *does* fund abortions with taxpayer dollars  
• Unfortunate: Papist Quote of the Day
• Of Note: Recent topics on APP
• Update: Fr. Berg breaks his silence about the Legion

Honestly, Your Holiness, I don't know what I just gave you, either....

[source: Reuters]

Senate Health Care Plan *does* fund abortions with taxpayer dollars

Pro-abortion advocates in the House and Senate have been trying to hide the fact that, under their new health care plans, taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions. It's amazing to watch them try to squirm out of actually admitting it (as reported by FRC):

HATCH: "...Would this include abortion providers? I mean, it looks to me like you're expanding it to... for instance, Planned Parenthood. Would that put them into this system?"
MIKULSKI: "It would include women's health clinics that provide comprehensive services and under the definition of a woman's health clinic, it would include, uh, it would include, uh, Planned, uh, Parenthood clinics. It would, um, it does not expand in any way expand a service. In other words, it does not expand, um, uh, or mandate abortion service."
HATCH: "No, but it would provide for them."
MIKULSKI: "It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate."
HATCH: "Well, I would have a rough time supporting it on that basis. I just wanted to get that clarified. Thank you."
Later...
HATCH: "Madam Chairman, would you be willing to put some language in [about] not including abortion services? Then I think you would have more support."
MIKULSKI: "...No, I would not, uh, be willing to do that at this time." 

FRC also reports the sad news that an attempt to scratch abortion coverage was defeated 11-12:

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) was the only Democrat to stand his ground and vote for life. If you'd like to help FRC in this battle to ban taxpayer-funded abortion, log on to our new site, www.clearconsciencehealthcare.org, dedicated to promoting the rights to life and conscience.

Now Planned Parenthood is desperate to get (more) federal money. And here's how they put it:

"We've been deeply concerned that women would be the first targets in health care reform and now it's happened. Yesterday, anti-choice Senator Orrin Hatch launched an attack on Planned Parenthood and the U.S. senators who were trying to help women."

Take a look at this Planned Parenthood claim:

"Instead of telling the truth, [Sen. Hatch] claimed that it mandates abortion coverage in an attempt to drum up opposition. This is an outright lie — and we need your help to fight back."

But if Planned Parenthood is telling the truth, and abortions won't be covered... then why did Sen. Mikulski oppose adding language to explicitly exclude abortions? Because Planned Parenthood is lying.

Jodi Jacobson at my favorite-radical-abortion-agenda-website-to-expose RH Reality Check mimes the Planned Parenthood talking points and claims that abortions won't be covered. Well she's right - abortions aren't covered directly. Abortion providers are covered. But that's not really a difference, is it?

Because the pro-life movement is under fairly constant attack these days for using "incendiary" language, let's extract a few lines from the super-popular liberal blog DailyKos:

[Senator] Hatch! I pay for YOUR health care, I've paid for your health care for years with my tax dollar.

Now, you'd better listen up and get it straight about health care for American women.

And you can take your anti-woman religiosity and stuff it up in your place where the sun never shines.

We American woman are getting mighty tired of the idiotic shenigans of Republican Senators, from David Vitter, the whoremaster of Louisiana, to Larry Craig of Idaho who tap dances in men's bathrooms, to John Ensign of Nevada and his corrupt crony Tom Coburn of Oklahoma who heads the secret sweety payoff to silence committee.

Ah, don't you love that liberal temperate language?

LifeNews recommends taking this action if you are concerned about your tax dollars paying for abortions:

See the members of the committee and send them an email or call them in response to the vote for the pro-abortion Mikulski amendment. Tell them you don't want abortion coverage in health care.

Phone calls are more effective than emails. And don't be scared about picking up the phone - the staff of these offices are used to hearing from the constituents back home. Add your voice.

update: video:

Papist Quote of the Day

Life-in-DC blog DCist has a weekly column which I enjoy reading, In it, people contribute things they hear people saying in DC. But this one from May 15th is just sad:

There's so many things wrong with this

Mother's Day at Giant supermarket on 7th and O:

Two girls and a guy in their 20s in the checkout line.

Guy: "Should we send [female name] a Happy Mother's Day text?"
Girl 1: "But didn't she have an abortion?"
Guy: "Yep, we should send her one anyway..."

Recent topics on APP

Things are picking up over on the American Principles Project website. Here are some recent articles of note:

• "Empathy" by Gerard V. Bradley of the University of Notre Dame School of Law
• "Why Inflation Matters" by Samuel Gregg of the Acton Institute
• "Farewell to the President's Council on Bioethics" by Aaron Kheriaty

And over on the APP blog, we've launched "Sotomayor Central" for all your Sotomayor news and commentary needs. :-)

Fr. Berg breaks his silence about the Legion

In an exclusive interview with Sandro Magister:

...The request for an apostolic visitation had been advanced, in the early months of this year, by some of the most prominent Legionaries themselves.

One of these is the American Thomas Berg (in the photo), a member of the Legionaries of Christ since 1986, a priest since 2000, professor and confessor at the Legion seminary in Thornwood, New York, and very involved in formation activities. In April, he left the congregation, and asked to be incardinated into the archdiocese of New York. Archbishop Timothy Dolan made him a vicar of the parish of St. Columba in Hopewell Junction. Berg is also the director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person.

In this interview, Fr. Berg explains in measured terms what is truly at stake, what are the strong and weak points of the congregation under investigation, what must be demolished and what rebuilt. He denounces the cult of personality that still surrounds the figure of Maciel. He criticizes the reasons why obedience to superiors often degenerates into blind submission. And he highlights the fundamental question: how it is possible that so many good things have come out of an institution that has been shown to be so full of flaws.

It is the first time that an authoritative member of the Legionaries of Christ, a member for many years, has spoken publicly and candidly about the crucial problems that have exploded in this congregation. [Read on...]

Live Twittering: DiNoia Ordination

Details here (and here).

Twittering from the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception here.

Papist Picture of the Day - 7/11/09

Vatican employees drop their kids off at Swiss Guard summer camp.

[source: Reuters]

Required Reading: Abp. Chaput on Media, New & Old

I'm going to break with tradition and not excerpt any of the text because I think you should just click through this link and read the whole thing.

... especially if you spend a good deal of time digesting mainstream and new media (and really, who of us doesn't?). Not a single wasted word!

What I'll be doing today (attending an episcopal ordination!)

I was surprised to find local living-in-DC blog DCist post such a good summary of what's happening. The writer must be a closet papist. So yes, anyway, that's where I'll be at 2PM EDT! I may even fit in some twittering.

Papist Picture of the Day - 7/10/09

• Recap: Obama's meeting with the Pope 
• Video: Friday Offbeat
  
• Canada: Homosexual altar-server sues bishop for dismissal
  
• Update: More on the Canadian Prime Minister/Eucharist controversy
• Commentary: Prepare for the Obama-Benedict meeting spin
• Update: More on this week's motu proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem
• Picture: Obama's gift to Pope Benedict - St. John Neumann's stole
  

None of the proposed nun habits passed papal muster.

[source: Reuters]

Recap: Obama's meeting with the Pope

Plenty of encouraging signs here, let's go through them.

First, the official Vatican take:

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

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

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

Conscience clauses and life issues front-and-center. Good, good. These are, of course, the areas of greatest disagreement so they deserve to be given especial attention, in addition to their objective importance.

Hilary White, LSN's Rome Correspondent, gives us some more useful tidbits:

Pope Benedict gave US President Barack Obama a surprise gift of the Vatican bioethics document "Dignitatis Personae," and discussed the ethics of abortion and embryo research in their first meeting in Rome this afternoon.

... At the end of the meeting, Pope Benedict told the president, "A blessing on all your work and also for you." The president responded, "Thank you very much. We look forward to a very strong relationship."

... The Vatican has made unusual accommodations for the visit, scheduling it in the late afternoon before Obama proceeds to a visit to Africa and allowing extensive live video coverage. The tradition-conscious Vatican normally schedules such meetings for midday.

Now how about Obama's response? Here also there are some encouraging signs:

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

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

Also:

Father Lombardi said he spoke with the pope after the meeting and the pope "seemed extremely satisfied with how the meeting went."

He said the pope found Obama to be "attentive and ready to listen."

"The president explicitly expressed his commitment to reducing the numbers of abortions and to listen to the church's concerns on moral issues," he said.

Note: reducing abortions. period. none of this deception "reduce the need for abortions" language.

Most of these important details are also being picked up by the mainstream coverage.

Now ... we wait and see. Obama has made promises to the pope about reducing the number of abortions, about listening to the Church's moral teaching, and about having a strong relationship with the Vatican. 

I pray that he holds fast to these promises.

Video: Friday Offbeat

For some reason I was worried I'd get through today without finding anything wierd enough to post for Friday Offbeat news day:



Well, I'm relieved.

Canada: Homosexual altar-server sues bishop for dismissal

LifeSiteNews has the developing story:

Jim Corcoran, the owner of one of Canada's largest and most lavish spas, has launched a human rights complaint against the Bishop of Peterborough Ontario for refusing him permission to continue to serve as an altar server.

Corcoran admits that he is homosexual and lives with another homosexual man, but says that he follows the Church's teaching and lives a chaste lifestyle. According to the Catholic Register, Bishop Nicola De Angelis asked Corcoran to accept his decision that he not serve on the altar based upon the bishops' desire to avoid public scandal.

Corcoran is seeking monetary damages of $25,000 from the bishop and $20,000 each from 12 parishioners who complained to the bishop about Corcoran and his roommate having been invited by the local priest to serve on the altar at Masses.

The matter is tricky because Corcoran claims to be living chastely with his live-in boyfriend.

If that previous sentence didn't quite make sense to you, you're on to something. Corcoran would be an object of scandal if he was a heterosexual man claiming to be living a "chaste lifestyle" with his live-in girlfriend. The fact that he is an open homosexual exacerbates the problem.

As I've said before, the homosexual agenda cannot be reconciled to biblical Christianity, and the two movements cannot co-exist peacefully in society (they certainly do not appear to be co-existing well now). This episode, to my mind, is one more case which proves the truth of that claim.

More on the Canadian Prime Minister/Eucharist controversy

"Canadian Papist" and AmP reader Matt with a useful comment:

Hey, just wanted to throw you a line to let you know that the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) confirmed that the host was, in fact consumed. Also, in knowing the Archbishop of Moncton, who gave Prime Minister Harper the host, he really dropped the ball. He should be a lot more careful in giving out the Eucharist, as I'm certain Harper had no idea what was going on. 

"Unfortunately, the camera did not stop long enough on the prime minister, but, as I told you, the prime minister is a Christian, and when he was offered communion by the priest, he accepted it and consumed it as well," Soudas said. 

Soudas is his spokesman. Is it still wrong for Harper to consume it? Sure, but he didn't know better, and he can't be held responsible for his ignorance.

My father, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters, focuses in his commentary on the ministerial obligation of protecting the Eucharist - and in this case - the Archbishop's woeful neglect of said obligation.

Prepare for the Obama-Benedict meeting spin

As this post goes live, Barack Obama will be meeting for the first time with Pope Benedict XVI.

I will be shocked shocked if the mainstream interpretation of this meeting does not include such conclusions as a) the meeting was an unmitigated success involving two enlightened individuals b) the meetings was a validation of Obama's presidency and major parts of his agenda and c) the meeting was a refutation/dismissal of the widespread criticism Obama has received from dozens upon dozens of Catholic bishops and hundreds of thousands of American Catholics.

Of course it is none of these things. It is a meeting of the most powerful man in the world with a Pope who is charged with safeguarding the universal Church.

Surprises may happen, of course, remember how well the Vatican handled the visit of House Speaker (and convenience Catholic) Nancy Pelosi? Obama's visit to the Holy Father will take place on the pope's home turf.

The early word from the Obama administration is hardly encouraging. Instead, it's more of the same. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, himself a Catholic, said yesterday: "The President often refers to the fundamental belief that each person is endowed with dignity." 

I'm sorry but I almost want to stop reading there because, of course, Barack Obama totally ignores the teaching of the Church that unborn children also are endowed with dignity. It's like someone claiming as common ground "we all agree not to shoot people between 2pm and 12pm", and then shooting them precisely at 1:59PM. Such a person can't claim to be against shooting.

Anyway, we'll see.

Also of note: Dan Gilgoff wrote a piece yesterday "How Meeting the Pope Can Change Obama's Rocky Catholic Narrative". 

I think it's analysis is superficial. The substantive and fundamental disagreements between Obama and Pope Benedict won't be solved with a single meeting. There is also an inability to grasp that what American bishops do is not what the Pope is charged to do, when it comes to relating to the American President. 

The fact that the pope and American bishops may treat Obama in different ways does not show that they hold different opinions about him, but that they have diverse ways of dealings with the problematic he presents.

Even on the international stage, I hardly think the pope has any cause to be impressed with Obama's track record so far. The President, after all, has quickly seen to the federal funding of international "reproductive health" initiatives, which basically equal contraception and abortion - both soundly condemned by the pope in his most recent encyclical.

Also, President Obama has managed to side with the dictator in both significant conflicts currently taking place in troubled counties (Iran and Honduras). This is hardly the tactic that the pope would probably consider appropriate when he speaks about how a just government should serve as oppose to exploit the common good of its citizens.

And climate change? Please. The current Cap & Trade bill being introduced in the Senate is widely-agreed to have almost zero impact on the global environment, and will instead only leverage more taxes on average Americans, reducing the possibility of their human development. And an economically weaker America has diminished potential to do good in the world.

I could go on, but hopefully my point is coming across. I fail to see what the Pope and President Obama have in common, save good words. Only Pope Benedict's words are true and he follows up on them through action.