Photo Caption Call - 10/15/08

Today's top story: Texas bishops firmly rule out common justifications for Catholic pro-abortion voting

Add your captions below in the comment box!

[Source: Kris Kuksi, via Curt Jester]

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

Open thread: final presidential debate {updated}

High stakes, McCain's last chance to change the trajectory - yadda, yadda. What do you think?

update: the abortion question came up as the second-to-last question. I am aware of several grassroots efforts that petitioned the moderator to ask such a question, though I'm not sure those are directly responsible for it being asked tonight.

There is much to talk about here, but I'll summarize my impression (and I'll wait to comment further until I have access to a transcript): I think McCain missed a golden opportunity to press Obama on his pro-abortion positions. I can't even feel confident that McCain is aware of these positions or gives them much priority. Obama's support of FOCA and repealing the Hyde amendment are two examples of his radical positions that polling shows are unappealing to the American populace. Moreover: I have never heard Obama say before that he supports a ban on partial birth abortion (can someone track this down?) - such a position cannot co-exist with his unwavering support of abortion on demand, and on removing all restrictions to abortion access.

I think the question posed about supreme court justices gave us a small taste of what we simply have not seen in the debates this far - substantive questions about moral issues and cultural ones. What a difference a fourth debate might have made. The fact that Obama was so on the ropes and so disadvantaged when these topics came up would account heavily, I would argue, for his repetative insistence that all American's really care about is the economy ... surely we do, but we care about so much more. Economies ebb and flow, but the moral and cultural fabric is what sustains a nation throughout good times and bad. How will Obama support the government policies that will allow us to remain a great nation regardless of whether we are rich or poor?

Anyway, waiting for the transcript, the video, and the fact checks....

Pictures: Womanpriest in action

The Dorothy Day Catholic Worker House in Washington DC recently hosted the "First Mass of Roman Catholic Womanpriest Janice Sevre-Duszynksa." I reported on it the day it happened.

Since then Call-to-Action associated, and self-proclaimed woman priest Bridged Mary has blogged about it.

Janice's storytime - oops, I mean "homily" - consisted of her reading an excerpt from her 1980 musical "Altar Girls" (which, wouldn't you know it, was never staged). The plot could not better fit my expectations:

"Set in 1962 during Vatican II, it is about a young girl, Bibbianna, who wants to become an altar girl. Every Saturday morning when she cleans the sanctuary and priests'sacristy with Sister Joan, she tells her about her desire to become an altar girl. As time goes by, Sister Joan decides to take on Bibbi's quest as a lark at first. Later, however, her consciousness rises and not only does she support Bibbi, but she is able to name sexism in the church. In doing so she finds herself in trouble."

It's so sad, really. Sad even beyond caricature, or trying to reason with individuals in such a state of mind. The great number of grey and white hairs present in this gathering reveal that such things are already on their way out without any assistance from us.

But the greatest danger I could see happening is that such people get away with convincing others that they have discovered truths (about the dignity of women, to name one) which are not already contained in the Catholic Church, or which somehow undermine her witness.

And yet such truths are contained in the teachings of Christ and passed onto his Church. So while prayer may be are only recourse we have for Bridged Mary and Janice Sevre-Duszynksa, they should raise our awareness of the misunderstandings that can drive other people from communion with the Church. Frankly, I think seeing the alternative can be one good deterrent.

Finally, what we must not do is condone these activities and retreat from the truth. There's a certain "Rev. Joe Irvin" mentioned in this post. There's a technical term for his involvement with women priests - "enabling."

The one issue the MSM is careful to avoid

Look at this transcript of CNN's coverage of a townhall meeting with John McCain:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, first of all, thank you both for all you're doing for our country. I wanted to ask you about -- about the issue of abortion, and specifically about the debate a couple of nights ago. The moderator cleverly never brought this -- the question up.

And with the debate coming up again, I would ask if you're going to find a way to bring the subject up, even if it's not asked about, because I firmly believe it's an issue which you have the advantage.

PHILLIPS: John McCain campaigning in Waukesha, Wisconsin. You can still watch this live, if you want, at CNN.com/live. He's talking about your money and his pledge to bring it back.

Isn't that something? Someone brings up the topic of abortion - and the fact that it's not being talked about - and CNN immediatly cuts-away from McCain's response. More than that, the anchor claims that McCain's talking about "your money and his pledge to bring it back." Maybe earlier he was, but right now, he was talking about...

the one issue we're not supposed to talk about.

Ph/t: Philokalia Republic.

Yes, Early Christians Believed Jesus was God

Shocking what modern archeology has discovered.

(hmm - "modern archeology" - sounds like a contradiction in terms, I realize.)

Revealed: Pope John Paul II was stabbed in 1982

A revelation in a new documentary film which includes interviews with the late Pontiff's secretary Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz:

The late Pope John Paul was wounded by a knife-wielding priest in 1982, a year after he was shot in St Peter's Square, but the injury was kept secret, his former top aide says in a documentary film.

On May 12, 1982, the pope was visiting the shrine city of Fatima in Portugal to give thanks for surviving a first assassination attempt a year earlier on May 13, 1981, when he was shot in St Peter's Square by Turkish gunman Mehmet Ali Agca.

A crazed ultra-conservative Spanish priest, Juan Fernandez Krohn, lunged at the pope with a dagger and was knocked to the ground by police and arrested. The fact that the knife actually reached the pope and cut him was not known until now.

"I can now reveal that the Holy Father was wounded. When we got back to the room (in the Fatima sanctuary complex) there was blood," Dziwisz says in the documentary.

The pope carried on with the trip without disclosing his wound.

Krohn was arrested and served several years in a Portuguese prison before being expelled from the country. (Reuters)

This story is a good reminder that we should pray for the safety of Pope Benedict, and be thankful for the many times dangers to their person have been narrowly averted in the past.

Detroit auxiliary Quinn named coadjutor of Winona, Minnesota

As the Winona diocesan website says - "click here for all the details":

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, has named Bishop John Michael Quinn, former Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit, as Coadjutor Bishop of the Diocese of Winona. The announcement was made October 15 by Archbishop Pietro Sambi, papal nuncio to the United States.

Bishop Quinn will serve with and then succeed Bishop Bernard Harrington, who, upon reaching the age of 75 in September, submitted his request for retirement to the Vatican. When Bishop Harrington’s retirement is accepted, Bishop Quinn will relinquish the title of Coadjutor and become Bishop of the Diocese of Winona.

The Archdiocese of Detroit also has an info page prepared. The installation Mass will take place on December 11th.

Once again Detroit has lived up to its reputation as a bishop-making factory. Now that Quinn has moved on, that leaves bishops Reiss and Flores as the only two standing auxiliaries. At 68, Reiss seems an unlikely promotion, but Daniel Flores, at a spry 47? Now he's one to watch. It's really only a matter of time. With Quinn's departure, moreover, Detroit is about due for another auxiliary I'd say - but then again they seem to be having a hard enough time finding a new Ordinary.

I've had the opportunity of meeting Bishop Quinn several times. I was very impressed by those encounters, and have heard many good things about him from seminarians who appreciated the active interest he took in their formation at Sacred Heart Major Seminary.

All God's blessings to him and the diocese of Winona as he takes up his new ministry.

Texas bishops firmly rule out common justifications for Catholic pro-abortion voting

I have just finished reading an extraordinary document that was sent to me over the weekend. I have only just now come to it as I was catching up on my email correspondence. It is a two-page bulletin insert issued by Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas and Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth.

The Dallas website already has a note claiming the joint letter has "generated much discussion", but the bishops respond that they intended only to "clarify Catholic doctrine", not endorse or rule out specific candidates.

But what they have said is so clear, however, that either they must be reprimanded and/or contradicted by subsequent bishops/competent Church authorities or the claim made by some, that one may vote for a pro-abortion politician even when there is a pro-life politician in the race ... is false, at least in the concrete situation of America today.

Don't believe it? Let's follow what the document says, point-by-point. If I had to describe it in a phrase: "game changer."

[It should be quickly noted, as well, that the bishops are being attacked for this statement. Local reports say people have walked out of the churches where this letter was read, one person claimed "My bishop basically told me that if I vote for Barack Obama, I will go to hell", others have suggested an IRS audit and said "you’ve got feet; don’t be afraid to use them."]

Points one and two summarize the continued teaching of the Church that "not all issues have the same moral equivalence" and the destruction of the unborn "undercuts the basic human right to life ... [and] also subverts and distorts the common good."

Point Three, ellucidates these claims (all formatting, by the way, is in the original document):

"Therefore, we cannot make more clear the seriousness of the overriding issue of abortion – while not the “only issue” – it is the defining moral issue, not only today, but of the last 35 years. Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, more than 48 million innocent lives have been lost. Each year in our nation more than one million lives are lost through legalized abortion. Countless other lives are also lost through embryonic stem cell research. In the coming months our nation will once again elect our political leaders. This electoral cycle affords us an opportunity to promote the culture of life in our nation. As Catholics we are morally obligated to pray, to act, and to vote to abolish the evil of abortion in America, limiting it as much as we can until it is finally abolished."

Now here is where the rubber begins to hit the road. Point Four anticipates a common response to the above position, and rules it out:

"As Catholics we are faced with a number of issues that are of concern and should be addressed, such as immigration reform, healthcare, the economy and its solvency, care and concern for the poor, and the war on terror. As Catholics we must be concerned about these issues and work to see that just solutions are brought about. There are many possible solutions to these issues and there can be reasonable debate among Catholics on how to best approach and solve them. These are matters of “prudential judgment.” But let us be clear: issues of prudential judgment are not morally equivalent to issues involving intrinsic evils. No matter how right a given candidate is on any of these issues, it does not outweigh a candidate’s unacceptable position in favor of an intrinsic evil such as abortion or the protection “abortion rights.” (Italics original)

My summary: Matters of prudential judgement - including health care, the economy, concern for the poor and the war on terror - do not equal matters of intrinsic evil, and it does not matter how right a candidate is on the former if he opposes the latter. That's what this document teaches. Prudential matters, even many of them, do not outweigh the intrisic evil of abortion in America today.

Point Five responds to the "but I'm not voting for this candidate because they are pro-abortion, I'm voting 'despite' their position on the issue of abrtion" (the most - and indeed really only -common counter-argument proposed by Catholic thinkers today):

"Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in paragraphs 34-37, addresses the question of whether it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil – even when the voter does not agree with the candidate’s position on that evil. The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following:

a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or “abortion rights,” a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,

b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no “truly grave moral” or proportionate” reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.

To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or “abortion rights” when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible."

My summary: I can't say it more clearly than they have. I've said it before, but I can apply it to the debate. Here is the shift in the debate the Texas bishops are proposing: "As Catholics, one must prove there is not a morally acceptable alternative to voting for a pro-choice politician." In other words, one must claim it is not even morally acceptable to refrain from voting for that candidate!

It is possible, I admit, that the Texas bishops are presuming that one will vote one way or the other, in which case the shift still remains: one must prove how there is no moral alternative to actually voting for a pro-choice candidate. This is, of course, a very tall order, indeed - because the document has said that in the situation of America today there are no issue which can outweigh abortion.

Again, that is what the document says. I admit I could be missing something - in which case I'm waiting to have it pointed out. But if I am right, then either the Texas bishops are wrong about Church teaching, or a common argument claimed by some Catholics is wrong. I don't see how the two positions can co-exist in the situation as it exists in America today for catholics.

Point Six moves further still, reminding Catholics that voting is never morally neutral:

In conclusion, as stated in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the decisions we make on these political and moral issues affect not only the general peace and prosperity of society at large, but also may affect each individual’s salvation. As Catholics, we must treat our political choices with appropriate moral gravity and in doing so, realize our continuing and unavoidable obligation to be a voice for the voiceless unborn, whose destruction by legal abortion is the preeminent intrinsic evil of our day. With knowledge of the Church’s teaching on these grave matters, it is incumbent upon each of us as Catholics to educate ourselves on where the candidates running for office stand on these issues, particularly those involving intrinsic evils. May God bless you. (underlining original - bolding mine)

My conclusion:

Does this mean every Catholic in every election in America will vote the same way when there is a pro-abortion politician running against a pro-life one? No, it doesn't. It does mean, however, that a common argument used to justify voting for the pro-abortion option has been thoroughly ruled-out by this statement. I don't see how they can be any more clear.

It goes without saying that I applaud and thank the bishops for the gift of this clear teaching. I would claim that it agrees in substance with the position I have been arguing for months in my writings. But I do not speak with authority - they do. One can ignore my arguments and conclusions, but a Catholic is bound to listen to the guidance and arguments of his shepherds. I find myself agreeing with both.

What do you say?

Noonan doesn't know who she is voting for

Via HotAir:

I disagree with Allahpundit's claim that it's Obama's rhetorical skill that Noonan is attracted to. As I read her most recent book, I more get the impression that what she appreciates is Obama's sense that this is an important election, and that Americans must fundamentally re-think how they approach politics.

Of course, that's what Obama aspires to, but has failed to practice in his political career thus far. So I'm really not sure what she's in the air about. Sounds like hot air to me, in fact.

Photo Caption Call - 10/14/08

Add your captions below in the comment box!

Winning Caption: "Nervous moments backstage at 'Dancing With The Cistercians'" - Dave

[Source: Flickr User ".bullish"]

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

Video: Obama and Palin on abortion

First, Sarah Palin connecting the dots:

Via GodSpy.

Now see Obama at Planned Parenthood:

Note the contrast.

Pope Benedict asked to begin blogging at Synod

I kid you not:

The Synod of Bishops on the Bible heard an unusual suggestion Tuesday morning when a Hong Kong observer asked Pope Benedict to start up his own daily blog on Scripture.

Agnes Kam Leng Lam, president of the Catholic Biblical Association of Hong Kong, said people need to experience Scripture in small but significant doses.

“To put it in a nutshell, I’d like to suggest to you Holy Father to start a multi-language blog to shepherd today’s world by scriptural verses, daily verses,” she said on the synod floor. The pope’s blog should include simple reflections that relate Scripture to real-life situations, she said.

Lam included advice that’s probably good for any blogger: “Remember, brief texts, Holy Father, and plentiful images, and this will be very attractive to the young generation and to today’s people.”

The talk apparently provoked a positive reaction and some laughter, but the pope, who was presiding over the Oct. 5-26 assembly, didn’t say whether he’d be blogging anytime soon. (CNS Blog)

I agree with how Pope Benedict handled this. He definitely should wait to announce his blog until he has at least decided on a template and platform. After all, that's just common practice.

Pope Benedict's blog would not be the first time a Pontiff has taken an active role on the web. Many will remember that Pope John Paul II was often known to lurk on Catholic forums (photographic evidence).

(/joking.)

update: The Curt Jester has a hilarious follow-up to this story, complete with his "photographic evidence."

Hadley Arkes on the economy v. abortion

Hadley Arkes on why the question of abortion is important, even in times of economic downturn, as he writes today for the The Catholic Thing. Good afternoon reading.

Vitae Caring Foundation event tonight

Through the kind invitation of individuals at Family Research Council, I'll be attending the Vitae Caring Foundation's 2008 "Benefit dinner to build a culture of life in the D.C. area" featuring:

Mark Melcher: A staunch defender of life, Mark L. Melcher is an award-winning writer and for many years was voted top political analyst on Wall Street by Institutional Investor magazine.

He is founder and president of The Political Forum, a research and consulting service that looks at cultural, political and social trends and how these affect both U.S. and global economies and securities markets for institutional investors.

He is a member of the Board of The National Humanities Institute and of O'Meara, Ferguson, Whelan, and Conway, an investment banking firm specializing in helping religious organizations manage their temporal affairs.

It sounds very pertinent, and I'm eager to hear his comments about the current state of affairs.

Please take some time to learn about VCF, and support their efforts if you are able.

Got a minute?

If you do, please consider voting for me in the 2008 Blogger's Choice Awards. Thanks!

Full-court press for gay "Marriage"; Bishops call for Catholic response

Connecticut has ruled gay "Marriage" is legal.

First, a cluster of news links....

[The NYT: "Gay Marriage Is Ruled Legal in Connecticut" Commentary: "Using Biology, Not Religion, to Argue Against Same-Sex Marriage"Related, WSJ: "First Graders Taken to San Francisco City Hall for Gay Wedding" Local: "State Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage"]

The Connecticut Catholic Conference, has condemned the decision and "calls for a “Yes” vote on a Constitutional Convention" More information on that campaign here.

Let me make it doubly clear - here is what the Catholic Conference of Connecticut has said:

"... we will be calling on the Catholic people of our state to vote “Yes” for a Constitutional Convention and the right of referendum on Election Day." (source.)

That's pretty clear.

Meanwhile, on the other coast.... http://www.protectmarriage.com/ & TFP's action blog.

Moreover, some of the California bishops are active. From an AmP reader:

"There is a new website up (http://www.marriagematterstokids.org/) that has a series of videos on the meaning of marriage. The site is a Catholic response to the situation of marriage in California and what the upcoming election might mean.

There are extended (10-20 minutes) interviews with Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Diego, Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco, and Bishop Allen Vigneron of Oakland.

The home page has a 13 minute video with Bishops, Priests, a family counselor, a constitutional lawyer and ordinary people discussing marriage and what it means."

Form your conscience - vote Catholic this November!

American Bishops' VP discusses the status of pro-abort politicians

Expert canonical commentary over at CanonLawBlog.com:

Bp. Kicanas on Catholic pro-abortion politicians Bp. Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, now vice-president of the USCCB, gave an interview to the National Catholic Reporter's John Allen on, among other things, the situation of pro-abortion Catholic politicians. While I hesitate to read too much into Kicanas' answers (they seemed off-the-cuff, understandably so), and while I recognize that some of Allen's questions were oddly phrased, what the future USCCB president says about this issue is important, and I think a few remarks are in order. {Read about it here.}

Bonus topic: "American Sign Language as a Catholic pastoral language"

Liberal website libels Catholic author Dawn Eden

I watched this story develop over the weekend and around 9pm tonight I knew it was time to get involved. You see, it's a twisted tale - as twisted as the nutroots efforts to attack Sarah Palin in any way/shape/form that presents itself - including the fictitious.

I'll quickly describe the situation and you'll see what I mean.

A while ago Catholic author Dawn Eden (a personal friend, I should add) posted her SAT scores online. A few days ago, someone doing a Google image search for "SAT scores" found Dawn's photocopy, and substituted Sarah Palin's name for it - and replaced some of the scores with lower ones. The point of this forgery was to spread the rumor that Sarah Palin didn't perform well in her standardized testing.

Fast-forward a couple blog news cycles later, and most the major liberal outlets that had claimed the story to be true ... backed off.


Then Gawker stepped in it. Dawn:

"Three days ago in the post below, I exposed how Gawker fell for a forgery that purported to be Sarah Palin's SAT scoresheet but was actually a Photoshop job—made by someone who stole my own scoresheet off my blog and pasted in bad grades. Now, Gawker admits it fell for a forgery—and libels me by claiming the bad grades are mine.

That is just plain bad reporting, and, if not corrected, crosses the border into libel. (It would be hard for Gawker to prove absence of malice, given its previous reportage on me.)"

Click the image above or here for a preview of Gawker's post - no reason to give them traffic unless you are curious.

The only one with egg on their face at this point is Gawker, who swooped in on a story that was wrong to begin with, and then when they discovered their error, made a second serious error (or at least embarrassingly poor fact-gathering), and just presumed that because Dawn is a practicing, conservative, chastity-talk-giving Catholic ... well then she must be stupid.

Gee, if you look at the facts, it's Gawker that sure looks stupid. I mean - at least Dawn demonstrates fourth-grade reading comprehension. I'm not sure that I can say the same about Gawker.

Also, if anyone wants to represent Dawn against Gawker pro-bono, drop her a line.

Gawker might benefit from the detention.