Anti-Catholic: New mega-movie "2012" is directed by one

Like Matthew Archbold at Catholic Minority Report, "I'm a movie guy." So yes, I was mildly interested in the new movie coming out this weekend "2012". 

Mr. Archbold, however, has noticed something, er, a bit odd about the subject matter for many of the scenes in the movie's trailer - how many Catholic icons/people do you see get destroyed?

Matthew caught at least six, and that got him searching on Google:

Roland Emmerich, the director, is, according to numerous sources, openly gay and an activist liberal. But hey, it's Hollywood, who isn't?

I wondered if this guy has some sort of distaste for things Catholic. And darn it but what do I find? I warn you this is kinda weird.

In a closet in his house, Mr. Emmerich has a statue of Pope John Paul II laughing while reading his own obituary. That's right. Pope John Paul II. In a closet. Laughing while reading his own obituary. You don't believe me, right? Well, look and see.

Matthew uncovered more truly bazaar stuff about Emmerich, which I'll leave up to you to find out. But it's pretty clear: this twisted individual has decided to bankroll his Church-destroying fantasies on a big Hollywood budget. Let's not help him defray his costs.

Besides, it's scoring in the low 30's on movie meta-review website Rotten Tomatoes, so it's not like you're missing out on the movie of the year or anything.

Honor Roll: Bishops who supported traditional marriage in Maine

I've written before about the hard-fought battle won for traditional marriage in Maine earlier this month, with significant Catholic assistance.

Tim Drake at NCRegister has the numbers of the top dioceses which supported the Maine efforts financially {and I have added the names of the cardinal or arch/bishop in each diocese}:

Maine released its campaign finance filings, showing contributors to the Diocese of Portland’s successful effort to prevent the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”

According to the campaign finance records, nearly five dozen dioceses and bishops made financial contributions to the effort. Among the largest donations were $50,000 donations from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Diocese of Phoenix. 

Here is the list of the Top 12 Dioceses That Contributed to Support Marriage:

Phoenix         $50,000 - Bishop Thomas Olmsted

Philadelphia     $50,000 - Justin Cardinal Rigali

St. Louis         $10,000 - Archbishop Robert Carlson

Kansas City, Kan.  $10,000 - Archbishop Joseph Naumann

Newark         $10,000 - Archbishop John Myers

Providence       $10,000 - Bishop Thomas Tobin

Youngstown     $10,000 - Bishop George Murry

Fall River         $5,000 - Bishop George Coleman

Rockford         $5,000 - Bishop Thomas Doran

Crookston       $5,000 - Bishop Michael Hoeppner

Pittsburgh         $5,000 - Bishop David Zubik

Arlington         $5,000 - Bishop Paul Loverde

To see the entire list of campaign contributors, visit here.

Quite frankly, these are bishops who put their financial resources and personal reputations on the line to defend traditional marriage in this country. Traditional marriage is not a popular issue to defend these days. Just look at the attacks that have been aimed at the Mormons since Proposition 8 passed in California.

If you live in one of these dioceses (or another diocese that donated, but a lesser sum), please consider contacting your bishop and briefly expressing your gratitude to him.

I can guarantee these bishops will get angry letters (or worse) from individuals on the opposite side of this issue. 

The St. Louis Catholic blog, for example, has already detailed the case of the local Saint Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper attacking Archbishop Robert Carlson for supporting the efforts of his brother bishop in Maine to protect marriage. (The Archdiocese has issued a short statement in response here.)

Also, please continue to show your support for the local bishop in Maine, Bishop Richard Malone. 

I'm sure he is getting the brunt of their anger.

Outrageous: Rep. Lynn Woolsey says IRS should scrutinize bishops

My new least favorite person - Rep. Lynn Woolsey writes in Politico:

"I expect political hardball on any legislation as important as the health care bill. I just didn’t expect it from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Who elected them to Congress?

The role the bishops played in the pushing the Stupak amendment, which unfairly restricts access for low-income women to insurance coverage for abortions, was more than mere advocacy.

They seemed to dictate the finer points of the amendment, and managed to bully members of Congress to vote for added restrictions on a perfectly legal surgical procedure.

And this political effort was subsidized by taxpayers, since the Council enjoys tax-exempt status.

When I visit churches in my district, we are very careful to keep everything “non-political” to protect their tax-exempt status.

The IRS is less restrictive about church involvement in efforts to influence legislation than it is about involvement in campaigns and elections.

Given the political behavior of USCCB in this case, maybe it shouldn’t be."

Rory Cooper at the Heritage Foundation has a very good response to Woolsey.

I wonder how Catholics who are represented by Woolsey feel about her attacking their Church?

update - John Pitney with a lesson from history:

Of course, Representative Woolsey is not the first Democrat to object to legislative advocacy by the clergy. Here is another:

"It is an attempt to establish a theocracy to take charge of our politics and our legislation. It is an attempt to make the legislative power of this country subordinate to the church. It is not only to unite Church and State, but it is to put the State in subordination to the dictates of the church."

That was Senator Stephen A. Douglas (D., Ill.), on March 14, 1854. He was talking about an anti-slavery petition.

Update: Bp. Tobin stays strong, and Rep. Kennedy backs off

My friend Josh at Catholic Vote Action gives us an update on the ongoing "dialogue" going on between Congressman the-church-isnt-pro-life Kennedy and Bishop oh-yes-she-is-are-you-stupid Tobin. 

Bishop Tobin recently granted an interview to the Providence Journal:

At another point the bishop addressed what he called the question of whether church leaders are “trying to impose our moral or religious beliefs on Congressman Kennedy.” 

His answer: “Well, the fact is he professes to be a Catholic.” Speaking of Catholic legislators generally, Tobin indicated that the church’s view is that, “if someone is clearly and consistently and obstinately opposed to the church on something as serious as abortion — which again is a grave and intrinsic evil — then they really have to question their membership in the church and their participation in the life of the church.”

Josh further tells us:

Kennedy didn’t apologize to Bishop Tobin, but he did backtrack a little. From the Providence Journal:

Kennedy accepted the invitation in a letter last week and said his comments “were never intended to slight the church.” Kennedy acknowledged that “the church has always stood for health-care reform.” He added, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy of the church on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.”

Kennedy also said that no group “is getting everything it wants” in the medical overhaul. The church “has every right to promote its position,” he said, but if a group “seeks to impose absolutes on the debate, we are left standing idle instead of moving our nation forward.”

That last argument is a canard. Question: What is causing the biggest logjam in moving health care reform bills? It’s Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s insistence on having abortion coverage. If she relented on that, this process could move forward.

I totally agree.

Thanks again, papists, for heading my call to contact Kennedy's office demanding that he apologize, and for contacting Bishop Tobin and supporting his strong, public response to Kennedy's slander.

In aftermath of Maine, gays step up their attacks on the Church

Last night, by a comfortable margin of 53-47%, the citizens of Maine became the 31st state to vote down gay marriage (as has every single state that has given its citizens a chance to vote on the issue). 

Not surprisingly, the mainstream liberal press is beside itself with frustration, especially because it drives yet another nail in the "inevitability" and "wrong side of history" arguments we are often fed.

As I wrote on National Review this morning, Maine voted for traditional marriage "despite it being a liberal state, despite a 2-1 funding disadvantage, despite aggressive legal action against traditional-marriage defenders, despite unusually high voter turn out, and despite Rachel Maddow and the elite press running interference."

And unlike in California's Prop 8 victory for traditional marriage, proponents of gay marriage can't blame this Maine loss on "Mormons, on African Americans who turned out for Barack Obama, or on confusing ballot wording." 

They can however, blame it on Catholics, and some angry members of the gay marriage movement are already doing so.

As I wrote back in September, the Catholic Church in Maine - with the strong leadership of Bishop Richard Malone - effectively and institutionally supported efforts to preserve traditional marriage. I have been told the Catholic Church contributed upwards of $500k to the final $2 million or so that was raised by defenders of traditional marriage.

Now, like what happened to the Mormons in the wake of Prop 8, some gays are calling for a systematic attack on the Catholic Church and her freedoms in retaliation for Maine. In case you have any doubts about what happened to supporters of Prop 8 after that was decided, the Heritage foundation has posted a summary:

Supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry.

Now read what one gay blogger wrote today in the wake of the Maine referendum today:

"[Maine voters] have bowed their heads to the nameless, faceless financiers of campaigns which continue to sew bigotry, hatred, and suspicion of their fellows. They have bowed their knees to potentates in the Catholic and Mormon Churches and claimed that this was about their freedom of religion.

... The day will come very soon when Maine will regret turning its back on equality. It is time that the legislature of Maine strip the Catholic Church of all its exemptions. It is time to force the National Organization into the light. It is time to purge their dens of iniquity and shame and to force them into the light.

It is time to dismantle those who seek through deception and fraud to repress others."

Nor is such out-in-the-open hatred of the Catholic Church confined to isolated individuals - no less a figure than Andrew Sullivan, an openly-gay and widely-read author for The Atlantic Monthly - and who still claims to be Catholic - wrote today:

"After Maine, where the Catholic church actually organized a second collection to raise money to prevent gay people from having civil rights, the situation shifts again. Using a tax-exempt church to raise money to defeat the civil rights of fellow citizens is not too shocking in the age of Benedict. It is shocking if one believes in a separation of politics and religion, and if one believes that the church of Jesus should stand in solidarity with the marginalized, rather than seeking to marginalize and demonize them still further.

It is time to acknowledge that the Catholic church hierarchy can no longer pretend that it isn't the active enemy of gay people and our families. That this church hierarchy - especially in its more conservative wing - is disproportionately gay itself and waging war against their fellow gays through the cowardly veil of the closet, is not new. But it is, as we flinch with the sting of defeat, harder to take than ever.

It is time to demand that gay priests who are actively fighting against the dignity of gay people own their enmeshment in injustice, stigmatization and cruelty."

The Atlantic is a major publication, Andrew Sullivan is a significant figure. This is serious. And authors such as Sullivan are getting a free-pass for legitimizing lies and hatred against the Church.

All this is especially ironic when one considers how the gay marriage movement tries to cast itself as one that is seeking tolerance and acceptance of all. Well, apparently the Catholic Church isn't a legitimate recipient of such treatment. I would be more encouraged if leaders of the gay marriage movement would call out or apologize for outbursts against the Church like the ones I've cited above.

Nonetheless, in the coming days and weeks, we need to be vigilant for anti-Catholic rhetoric and attacks. Don't be surprised if a lot of damning stories about the Church are published in the short term. Even if the issue of gay marriage isn't mentioned, you can bet reporters who have something against the Church are dusting off their old file folders right now.

Now of course, this oft-repeated smear that the Catholic Church hates gay people and hates equality is completely without foundation. Just look at a portion of the statement Bishop Malone released today:

“These past few months have served as a teaching opportunity to explain to parishioners and the wider community about how and why the Church views and values marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It has also been an opportunity for listening, and I trust that those who voted for such a radical change did so out of concern for our gay brothers and sisters. Respect and acceptance of all people regardless of sexual orientation is not a point of controversy — indeed, it is a teaching of the Church. While the Catholic Church will continue its commitment to work for the basic human rights to which all people are entitled, it remains devoted to preserving and strengthening the precious gift of marriage.”

That sure doesn't sound like hate speech to me. {update: neither does the statement just issued by the US Bishops - for those stumbling across this post, please read it before attacking our position. It has been compassionately thought through.}

For our part, meanwhile, we have to be charitable and confident in the teaching of the Church and  be consistent in our own witness to it. Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is not to treat gays as inferior or unequal. This definition has overwhelming historical, cultural, sociological, and religious support.

Such anger and retaliation from the gay community are a sad indicator that they have no more arguments. Nonetheless, whenever the Church is attacked, we must defend ourselves and the Church we love, continuing to articulate the truths of the human person which reason reveal and faith confirms.

Truth, after all, is the foundation for equality, and for every valid social justice movement. So it should not surprise us that the only way the gay community is now attempting to establish its legal "right" to marriage is through power and intimidation. 

update - I won't clutter my post with more examples, but I'll add just one more. There are many others:

The Bishop of Maine, Richard Malone, must be quite pleased with himself. He ran a campaign of lies, hate and distortions -- and convinced enough Maine voters to vote with him. It's going to take me a couple days (or more) to get my head around this one. But, for now, suffice it so say: HATE was the winner in Maine. Hate and the Catholic Bishop. But, this isn't over. Time and justice really are on our side.

Luke 6:22.

Update: Abp. Dolan backs Bp. Tobin, demands Rep. Kennedy apology

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York - who evidently has a modest blog of his own on the Archdiocese of New York website! - yesterday wrote about the regrettable situation of Rep. Kennedy's stupid, anti-Catholic remarks:

Over this past weekend, several people mentioned to me Representative Patrick Kennedy’s blast at bishops for allegedly dividing the nation on the issue of healthcare; you can view the video here. His remarks were sad, uncalled-for, and inaccurate.

The Catholic community in the United States hardly needs to be lectured to about just healthcare. We’ve been energetically into it for centuries. And we bishops have been advocating for universal healthcare for a long, long time.

All we ask is that it be just that -- universal -- meaning that it includes the helpless baby in the womb, the immigrant, and grandma in a hospice, and that it protects a healthcare provider’s right to follow his/her own conscience.

This is what the President says he wants; this is what we bishops say we want.

Bishop Thomas Tobin, Representative Kennedy’s bishop, has a good point: Mr. Kennedy owes us an apology.

A small proviso - President Obama has never said he wants to protect the helpless baby in the womb.

I'll repeat my action items from yesterday's post on this same issue:

• Contact Rep. Kennedy (through his press secretary kerrie.bennett@mail.house.gov) and demand he apologize to Catholics for his ignorant and hateful comments
• Contact Bishop Tobin (through his communications director - kdavis@dioceseofprovidence.org) and thank him for standing up for Catholics, and for the truth.

Stupidity: Rep. Kennedy attacks the Church, and Bishop Tobin takes him to task

Patrick Joseph Kennedy II, a democrat US House representative from Rhode Island and the son of the late Edward Kennedy, viciously smeared the Church in an interview with CNSNews.com (updated - fixed):



Transcript of Kennedy's comments:

“I can’t understand for the life of me how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social justice issue of our time, where the very dignity of the human person is being respected by the fact that we’re caring and giving health care to the human person - that right now we have 50 million people who are uninsured,” Kennedy told CNSNews.com. “You mean to tell me the Catholic Church is going to be denying those people life-saving health care? I thought they were pro-life?” said Kennedy. “If the church is pro-life, then they ought to be for health care reform because it’s going to provide health care that are going to keep people alive. So this is an absolute red herring and I don’t think that it does anything but to fan the flames of dissent and discord and I don’t think it’s productive at all.”

Local Bishop Thomas Tobin wasn't about to let Kennedy get away with it, responding:

“Congressman Patrick Kennedy’s statement about the Catholic Church’s position on health care reform is irresponsible and ignorant of the facts. But the Congressman is correct in stating that “he can’t understand.” He got that part right.

As I wrote to Congressman Kennedy and other members of the Rhode Island Congressional Delegation recently, the Bishops of the United States are indeed in favor of comprehensive health care reform and have been for many years. But we are adamantly opposed to health care legislation that threatens the life of unborn children, requires taxpayers to pay for abortion, rations health care, or compromises the conscience of individuals.

Congressman Kennedy continues to be a disappointment to the Catholic Church and to the citizens of the State of Rhode Island. I believe the Congressman owes us an apology for his irresponsible comments. It is my fervent hope and prayer that he will find a way to provide more effective and morally responsible leadership for our state.”

"Irresponsible. Ignorant. A Disappointment. Owes us an apology."

... now that's taking the gloves off language. As Bishop Tobin is justified in using. Kennedy completely deserved this strong rebuke, because of his pro-abortion record, and because of his recent comments which are squarely against the facts, and unabashedly anti-Catholic.

Action items - updated:

• Contact Rep. Kennedy (through his press secretary kerrie.bennett@mail.house.gov) and demand he apologize to Catholics for his ignorant and hateful comments
• Contact Bishop Tobin (through his communications director - kdavis@dioceseofprovidence.org) and thank him for standing up for Catholics, and for the truth.

Patrick Kennedy: Catholic Church Fanning ‘Flames of Dissent and Discord’ by Opposing Health Bill Over Abortion Funding

Patrick Kennedy needs to go back to CCD class:

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I) told CNSNews.com that the Catholic Church is doing nothing but fanning “the flames of dissent and discord” by taking the position that it will oppose the health-care reform bill under consideration in Congress unless it is amended to explicitly prohibit funding of abortion.

“I can’t understand for the life of me how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social justice issue of our time, where the very dignity of the human person is being respected by the fact that we’re caring and giving health care to the human person--that right now we have 50 million people who are uninsured,” Kennedy told CNSNews.com when asked about a letter the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had sent to members of Congress stating the bishops' position on abortion funding in the health-care bill.

“You mean to tell me the Catholic Church is going to be denying those people life saving health care? I thought they were pro-life?” said Kennedy. “If the church is pro-life, then they ought to be for health care reform because it’s going to provide health care that are going to keep people alive. So this is an absolute red herring and I don’t think that it does anything but to fan the flames of dissent and discord and I don’t think it’s productive at all." (CNS News)

He is effective, however - the number of errors in his statement make it very not-worth my time to answer them.

Anti-Catholicism: Experts continue to question Catholics on the Supreme Court

A sad reminder of what Catholics in public office still face:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito voiced frustration Tuesday over what he called persistent questions about the court's Roman Catholic majority.

Alito aired the topic in a speech to an Italian-American law group in Philadelphia.

"There has been so much talk lately about the number of Catholics serving on the Supreme Court," Alito said in a speech to the Justinian Society. "This is one of those questions that does not die."

Alito complained about "respectable people who have seriously raised the questions in serious publications about whether these individuals could be trusted to do their jobs."

He said he thought the Constitution settled the question long ago with its guarantee of religious freedom.

Alito, 59, the son of an Italian immigrant, is one of six justices on the nine-member court who were raised Catholic, including new Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

... The Roman Catholic Church endorses positions on several high-profile legal issues, including abortion, the death penalty and gay marriage. Some commentators have argued that Catholics in the court's conservative voting bloc — Chief John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Alito — are likely to oppose abortion or otherwise apply Catholic teachings to their rulings. (AP)

Three quick thoughts:

• The elephant in the room here is social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. No one would complain about Catholics stacking the supreme court bench if they all were liberal on their views about these issues. No one complains about how many Catholics Obama has appointed to his administration, because all of his appointments agree with his liberal views on these issues. As I've said before, the kind of Catholic the President likes, is a bad Catholic (a "bad Catholic" is someone who actively dissents from the Church's teaching).
• Catholics on the supreme court who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage do not do so because they are Catholic, they do this because they can think. Catholic opposition to practices which harm human life and society are enlightened by faith through reason, not dictated by faith in opposition to reason. The bottom line here is that you don't have to be Catholic to oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. But it can help your conviction.
• The recent case of Sonia Sotomayor's nomination is a perfect illustration of the ulterior purpose behind this stupid claim that there are "too many Catholics on the supreme court." The fact that Sotomayor promised to uphold the unjust precedent established by Roe v. Wade - and was never fundamentally challenged to express her opinion about homosexual marriage - guaranteed that pundits would not go after her too much for her religion. If she promised to uphold the natural law conclusions about the dignity of human life and the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage, things would have been very different.

Bottom line: there is no reason to accuse Catholics of being bad for America. Such a charge is always a cheap-shot which ignores the substantive arguments that Catholics bring into the debate, and the long tradition of public service that today's Catholics are proud to continue.

It's time to face our arguments, not accuse our religion.

Sarah Silverman's modest proposal for the Pope, and what I propose for Sarah

Professional attention-searcher Sarah Silverman has released a YouTube video called "Sell the Vatican, Feed the World" which will soon pass half a million views.

You are welcome to watch it, but we warned that it's extremely vulgar.

In the video, Silverman tries to make an argument that the Pope needs to sell the Vatican to feed poor people.

I'm not disagreeing with Silverman that poor people ought to be fed, but I'm sure sick of liberal know-it-alls getting away with stupid arguments and ignorant stereotypes of the Church. That's what I'm going to focus on.

Even the Associated Press has covered this story, and it doesn't help the reputation of the Church when Rev. James Martin, SJ - culture editor of the Jesuit magazine America, writes that Silverman may be onto something.

.... excuse me?!

Silverman is trying to claim that if the pope doesn't sell the Vatican to feed the poor, the pope and the Church are somehow being hypocritical - that their actions don't reflect their beliefs.

Well, let's take a look at the facts:

• The Catholic Church already feeds more people than any private institution in the world. In the world. There's not even a close second. As a Church, of course we could do more. But we are doing something - and its a lot of something. Silverman might give credit where credit is due.
• Silverman makes the slur that the Vatican was involved in the holocaust. Seriously, Sarah? The historical evidence firmly exonerates the activity of the Church during the holocaust. Pope Pius XII personally saw to the protection of thousands of Jews, at great personal risk to himself and the Church. As a person of Jewish ancestry, how dare she attack the institution credited by Jews the world over with protecting Jews when so many world governments were deaf to their cries. This is beneath even her.
• Silverman likes quoting Christian sayings back to the pope - does she know about motes and beams? I'm curious how much of Sarah's profits, including her movie profits, have you used to feed the poor? If she is tired of seeing starving people on TV, what has she done about it, besides uploading a self-promoting video to YouTube? Shouldn't those who work to feed the poor be outraged at the antics of Silverman, when she uses the plight of starving people to further her own popularity and distract from their needs?
• At the end of the day, it's just a really stupid idea even in itself. The assets of the Vatican (St. Peter's Basilica, etc.) don't have a fair market value. Who is going to buy the Vatican? The best use of the Vatican is to continue to provide a place of worship to the millions of people who are members of the Church, who are in turn the economic engine behind the Vatican's ability to feed the poor. Pure and simple.

Some of you may be thinking: "Thom, chill out, everyone knows this is a joke."

Well not so fast - we look at this proposal and find it preposterous, but plenty of people watch this and receive yet another confirmation of their ingrained opinion - frequently reinforced by pop culture - that the Catholic Church is a bunch of selfish hypocrites who use Christianity as a way of lining their fur-coat vestments.

Honestly.

So my last point is for Fr. Martin, who writes that Silverman "is on to something - like Jesus was":

• Attacks on the Church are not the correct opportunity for pius hand-wringing. The take-away from the Sarah Silverman proposal is not "Gee, I guess she has a point". Rather it is: "The only good point Sarah makes we Catholics already knew, now has she heard any of the points we Catholics have in response?"

I, and every serious Catholic, don't need Sarah Silverman telling us we need to do more as individuals and as a Church to feed the poor. However, Sarah Silverman and most everyone who listens to her, needs to know that the Church is attempting - to the best of its ability and despite all its human failings - to live out the gospel mandate of Jesus Christ to feed the hungry.

(A little example might help here, if Silverman promised to match the charitable output of the Church dollar-for-dollar in its care and feeding of the poor, she would be bankrupt in a couple days. And that's just a guess. Maybe she would be bankrupt sooner.)

So no, Sarah Silverman doesn't have a point. The Church has a point - it has the truth.

That's what we should be talking about.

I realize papists don't need to hear these truths from me, but when your friend or co-worker asks you, "so what do you think about that Sarah Silverman video?" ... you know what I have to say about it.

Answer Sarah Silverman, Teach the World.

Weird: This week marked the first "Blasphemy Day"

What sad, God-haunted, people:

In his youth, Ronald Lindsey planned to enter the priesthood, so fervent was his devotion to God. But these days, Lindsay is devoted to protecting a person's right to ridicule, criticize -- even lambaste God.

You might say he is a blasphemer's savior.

The devout Catholic turned non-believer leads a movement that is all about protecting people's rights to speak irreverently about religion.

Criticizing God is an act punishable by death in several nations. In America, blasphemy laws remain on the books in six states, though they are largely arcane and not enforced.

But everywhere, it seems to Lindsay, scoffing at God is not socially acceptable. (CNN)

Yeah, we're *such* a Godly society.

Way to be daring, Ronald, in least in an oh-so-tired-and-predictable-way.

BC residents hand out copies of "Da Vinci Code" to oppose Opus Dei retreat center!

In follow-up to my previous post, these folks need to work on their critical reading skills:

Residents of a quiet West Coast community say they will fight plans by a Catholic organization featured in the novel The Da Vinci Code to build a spiritual retreat in their town.

Opus Dei was depicted in the fictional bestseller by Dan Brown as a powerful and insidious secret society involved in a bloody conspiracy that reached up into the highest levels of the church. The real-life organization, however, says there is nothing sinister about its plans.

... The project will have benefits for the community, but those opposed to the plan have been handing out copies of The Da Vinci Code to encourage opposition, Sarraf said.

Here is a picture from the planning meeting:

"Skeptical residents search the slides for Opus Dei's hidden plans of world domination."

Outrageous: Italian PM calls Pope Benedict a liar in newspaper

Watch it. That's my pope you're talking about:

The Italian newspaper Il Giornale, owned by the family of Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi, carries a headline today dominated by the words “Ha mentito” - “he lied”, referring to Pope Benedict XVI. The paper is busy stirring up trouble over the claims by Swedish TV, due to be aired tonight, that the Vatican knew in advance about the Holocaust-denying background of Bishop Richard Williamson before his excommunication was lifted.

The words “he lied” are admittedly taken from the programme. But it’s a malicious allegation: Benedict has told no lies whatsoever regarding this matter, even if Vatican officials working for him have a case to answer. (UK Telegraph Blog)

Damian Thompson has the full background.

Here's hoping the Vatican press office vigorously and competently defends the pope against these unfair accusations.

I mean, there's a first for everything.

Surprise: Washington behind forcing Belmont Abbey to pay for contraception

I blogged on this story earlier in the week. Turns out someone pulling strings in Washington is responsible for reversing the previous conclusion, which was in favor of Catholic religious liberty:

"In an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) today, Belmont Abbey College president Dr. William Thierfelder said officials at the Charlotte division of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) told him that a decision to close a discrimination complaint against the school for failing to offer contraception coverage was reversed after the matter went to the nation's capital."

The times, they are a-changin' for the worse.

update - whoops! forgot to include the link to the original LSN article.

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.

Kathleen Reeves doesn't want to understand the Church

I was virtually introduced to the writing of Kathleen Reeves when someone forwarded me a post by her on RHReality Check (those folks behind the "common ground" forum I've been monitoring lately). Kathleen writes that "Jill Stanek Doesn't Want to Prevent Abortions."

That's a surprising claim to make, considering Stanek converted to the pro-life movement after holding an expiring child in her arms until the little baby died. The child, of course, was a "survivor" of a later term abortion.

My point is, it takes some serious nerve to claim a registered nurse, who has held dying babies in her arms, doesn't want to prevent abortions. Really, how dare Kathleen claim such a thing?

(So much for common ground.)

Kathleen, it's pretty clear, doesn't have arguments of her own when it comes to debating issues surrounding abortion and contraception. What we get, instead, are amateur conclusions like this:

But there’s something much more immediate and practical in [Stanek's] refusal to consider contraception a “lesser evil.” If she did, she would be admitting that she, and all religious fundamentalists, are wrong. She would be ceding ground to safe sex, to free condoms in bars, to Planned Parenthood! Let’s not forget that even Jill Stanek, with her superior knowledge of Satan’s works, is human. She has her pride to think of.

Let me get this straight: all religious "fundamentalists" think contraception and abortion are equal evils? Okay, that's an easy one: Kathleen is wrong about that claim. Moving on: even if contraception is a "lesser" evil, it *does not follow* that anything *less* than murder (such as contraception) should be promoted! In other words, just because something isn't the most evil thing in the world does not mean it should be accepted ... especially when it leads to worse evils.

Stanek, therefore, cedes absolutely no ground when she says in the same breath (my phrasing): don't abort children because it's taking an innocent life, and don't use contraception because it's immoral and in fact leads to a culture of death which will always require abortions to clean up its "mistakes." Does Kathleen truly believe America is critically lacking in access to contraception? Does she believe a culture that has already severed sex from new life will ever rule out destroying new life once it has been conceived through sex?

(Sadly, I'm betting Kathleen can't understand such a logical argument.)

Let's shift gears a bit - Kathleen claims that Jill Stanek doesn't want to prevent abortions (without, mind you, ever mentioning why Kathleen herself thinks abortions should be prevented ... is she ready to admit something is "wrong" about abortions? Whoops, there I go asking logical questions again!).

Well, here's a claim back at her: Kathleen doesn't want to understand the pro-life movement. In particular, when it comes to the question of contraception and abortion, she does not want to understand the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Instead, she makes a point of attacking the Church and the Church's teachings in almost every one of her posts on RH Reality Check. I found many such posts simply by looking at the first paragraph of her recent pieces.

(Remember my frequently-stated lament: anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.)

I'll take just a few lines from each one of these posts:

• "As in America, religious people are capable of forming political or social beliefs independently from clerical influence." (discussing the role of the Catholic Church in Spain)
• "Indeed, the Catholic hierarchy’s distance from the experiences of American Catholics is exacerbated by the Catholic Church’s specific version of patriarchy. How does it feel as a woman (or as a man) to have a celibate man tell you about sexuality?" ("Contraception and Catholics: Quiet Disobedience")
• "Tolerance, apparently, is Enemy Number 1, especially in places where the Catholic Church’s sphere of social and political influence is intact, but waning." ("Catholic Aid Organization's Subversive Support of Latin Americans")
  
• "Would [the leaders of the Church], in the spirit of pragmatism and compassion, allow at least a dialogue about contraception?" ("When the Catholic Church Was Pragmatic, Not Doctrinal")
  
• "The suggestion that American bishops should have a greater political presence is offensive to me as an American and as a Catholic. Many Americans have a complex, nuanced relationship with their faith, and Catholics, like non-Catholics, are capable of holding political views. Gaynor’s implication that political power lies in the Catholic hierarchy rather than in Catholics will only alienate the faithful. His is the type of attitude that’s threatening to make the Church extinct." ("The New Inquisition")
• "I wish that the Catholic Church was free of the constraints that so often impede governments—the messy and sad trade-offs of national and international politics. But it’s clear that we can’t count on the Pope to take a daring stand on this issue." ("With the Future of a Continent in His Hands, the Pope Fumbles")
• "... as we bicker about gay marriage in the United States and as many gay couples travel to the two states in which same-sex marriage is recognized, gay couples have been marrying in Spain for four years. The Catholic Church was ticked off at that, too." ("Catholic Crusaders No More")

... and that's just a start. 

It's hard to find common ground with someone who evidently despises the authentic teaching of the Church and doesn't even attempt to understand it or give it the benefit of the doubt. Can you imagine if RH Reality Check was attempting to reach common ground over territorial disputes in the Holy Land and employed virulent anti-semites (or ex-jews who despise the jewish tradition) to make its rhetorical and practical arguments?

There's a lesson to be learned here, I think, even though it requires me to paint with a broad brush: militant pro-aborts who call for "common ground" sound awfully similar to bad Catholics who call for doctrinal dissent. Oftentimes (again, painting with a broad brush here), they are the same individuals. 

I'm waiting for a common ground that doesn't compromise my principled, non-negotiable commitment to building a culture of life and defending the unborn, as taught by the Church and is evident through reason.

Important: CT legislature attempts to oppress Catholic Church, Bp. Lori leads response

Connecticut is becoming a flash-point for government oppression of Catholic institutional autonomy. 

I reported extensively on the events which have led to this situation when they began to unfold in early March of this year.

Bishop Lori is not taking this most recent - and most serious - attack lying down:

The bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., says he's a man of God, not a lobbyist. But state officials say he's both.

According to the Connecticut Office of State Ethics, the diocese acted as a lobbying organization in March when it rented buses to transport people to a rally in Hartford — the state capital — to protest a bill that would have granted more power to parishioners regarding church finances.

Officials also are investigating whether the church acted as a lobbying organization on its Web site when it urged parishioners to contact lawmakers about the bill, which eventually was withdrawn amid public outcry, and about a another bill to legalize same-sex marriage, which was signed into law in April.

Now the ethics office is "evaluating" whether the diocese failed to register as a lobbyist — an investigation that Bishop William Lori says violates the diocese's First Amendment right to free speech and assembly.

"I don't know what the motive of the Office of State Ethics was or is, but I do know that their actions stem directly from our attempts to defend ourselves in the face of two pieces of legislation that were unfriendly to the day-to-day mission of the church," Lori told FOXNews.com on Thursday.

"We were simply seeking to fulfill our mission, to continue to be ourselves."

And the diocese is fighting back, bringing a civil lawsuit against two Office of State Ethics officials — Enforcement Officer Thomas K. Jones and Executive Director Carol Carson." (FOX News)

Make no mistake, what is happening in Connecticut is also critically important for the Church throughout the United States. I'll be keeping a close eye on this situation as it develops. Keep it tuned here at AmP and also visit the Bridgeport diocese website.

If the Connecticut legislature succeeds in penalizing the Church for acting as a "lobbyist" organization there, the rights of Catholics and Catholic institutions will be endangered elsewhere. We must stop their efforts in their tracks.

Huh? Video game company pays people to fake protest as Christians

I actually blogged about this game some time ago, on an offbeat friday.

But now I'm not smiling:

Video game giant Electronic Arts has admitted it funded a group of fake protesters who pretended to be Christians as a publicity stunt to spur interest in its upcoming action game very loosely based on Dante’s “Inferno.”

The game company hired a group of almost 20 people to stand outside the Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles on Wednesday, the Associated Press says. The phony protesters passed out amateurish material and held signs bearing slogans such as “Trade in Your PlayStation for a PrayStation,” “Hell is not a Game” and “EA = Electronic Anti-Christ.”

Holly Rockwood, an EA spokeswoman, said the charade was arranged by a viral marketing agency hired by the company.

... A web page in the crude style of 1990s web design was also created in connection with the stunt. It depicted crosses crushing the word “sin” and placed images of the King James Bible among phony condemnations and thinly-veiled promotions of the game.

“A video game hero does not have the authority to save and damn... ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE. and he will not judge the sinners who play this game kindly,” the site said. (CNA)

I think EA's move is especially bone-headed considering how many Christians might be interested in a game that at least tries to include "spiritual" things, and considering how many Catholics might get a kick out of the game for its gag value. 

I mean, getting to play Dante as he slashes his way through hell? It sure beats Tetris.

More CT drama: legislators try to stifle Catholic free speech

From the Diocese of Bridgeport website:

In United States District Court today, attorneys representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport filed a lawsuit against officials of the State of Connecticut Office of State Ethics (OSE), seeking a court order to stop them from an unconstitutional application of state lobbying laws.

These officials are requiring the Diocese – and presumably all other organizations – to register as a lobbyist in order to engage in activities such as a rally at the State Capitol or using its website to encourage its members to contact their elected representatives. Application of the law in this manner would subject the First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Assembly to government oversight and penalties.

In laymen's terms, the Connecticut legislators are trying to create bureaucracy in order to thwart future grassroots efforts by Catholics to speak out when the rights of the Church are being threatened by ... the Connecticut legislators.

I did a huge amount of coverage on the Connecticut backstory which is gathered under this tag.

The diocese of Bridgeport has video, background and contact information. (Good use of technology!)

Carla Bruni criticizes Pope Benedict XVI on condoms

Carla Bruni has evidently had a religious de-awakening:

"Mrs Bruni-Sarkozy said: "I was born Catholic, I was baptised, but in my life I feel profoundly secular.

"I find that the controversy coming from the Pope's message – albeit distorted by the media – is very damaging.

"In Africa it's often Church people who look after sick people. It's astonishing to see the difference between the theory and the reality.

"I think the Church should evolve on this issue. It presents the condom as a contraceptive which, incidentally, it forbids, although it is the only existing protection," she told Femme Actuelle, the women's magazine." (UK Telegraph)

Gerald Warner responds:

"Even from a secular viewpoint, if we did not have the wise words of Carla Bruni to guide us we might have lent credence to the Catholic abstinence campaign in Uganda which reduced the 18 per cent HIV infection rate among adults in 1992 to 5 per cent in 2007.

Without Bruni, we might be tempted to listen to uninformed commentators such as the director of the AIDS Prevention Center at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies who said: "The best evidence we have supports the Pope's comments."

Gotta love British irony.

Text: Letter of Catholic leaders to Obama over anti-Catholic Harry Knox

Here is the text of the letter signed by 20 catholic leaders (including myself, and probably by the time of publication, many more) sent to Obama over the outrageous appointment of anti-Catholic bigot Harry Knox to the President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships:

On April 6, you named Harry Knox to your Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. You claim to have created this Council, among other things, to “bring everyone together – from both the secular and faith-based communities.”

Harry Knox is the hate-filled antithesis of this noble objective. Knox is a virulent anti-Catholic bigot, and has made numerous vile and dishonest attacks against the Church and the Holy Father. He has no business on any Council having to do with faith or religion.

We do not know if you or members of your Administration were aware of Knox’s deplorable, abusive attitude towards the Church and Pope Benedict XVI when you named him to the Council. We assume you were not. But since then, there have been numerous press reports on Knox’s loathsome, and clearly bigoted rhetoric, so there no longer is any excuse for your failure to act. We can remain silent no longer.

As Catholics, we call on you to remove Mr. Knox from his position and to formally disassociate yourself from his militant anti-Catholicism. Failure to do so will result in the tainting of your Faith-Based Council—and indeed, your entire administration—as anti-Catholic. We urge you to give this matter your immediate consideration.

I'll try to keep track of its reception.

update - I forgot to mention, I believe this above letter was combined with a second page excerpting some of Knox's most offensive quotes. It's easy to find them on the internet as well.

Vatican demands UK newspaper issue "immediate and unambiguous" retraction

Looks like the Vatican press office is trying to earn its paycheck today:

The Vatican has demanded that The Times retract a "completely untrue" story that Pope Benedict XVI planned to present a "luxury facsimile" of the 1530 appeal by English peers to Pope Clement VII asking for the annulment of Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

[Damian Thompson has a photocopy of the letter, and some fascinating background.]

Frankly they could be doing this sort of thing every day, considering the amount of trashy reporting that gets printed about things Catholic in presses around the world.

But UK tabloids are particularly bad about spreading false (and often clearly false) Vatican rumors.

update - to their credit, at least one reporter has apologized.

Outrageous: Homeland Security document claims Pro-Lifers may be terrorists

It's a bad time to hold minority convictions:

Just months into his administration, President Barack Obama is already targeting pro-life advocates as the Obama administration has released a document that claims pro-life people may engage in violence or extremism. The new document comes on the heels of one in Missouri that caused a national uproar.

According to the Washington Times, a footnote attached to the nine-page report from the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis say the activities of pro-life advocates is included in "rightwing extremism in the United States.”

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says. (LifeSite)

Pro-abortion advocates love to paint pro-lifers as extremists. Pot, meet kettle.

John Tomasic tries to cast Abp. Chaput in a bad light

John Tomasic, writing at the Colorado Independant, tries to do a hit job on me and Archbishop Chaput:

"Rejoicing in the anti-Obama speech campaign, “American Papist” blogger Thomas Peters referenced Chaput’s letter-writing call-out in real time at the blog. Peters later blogged his hope that Bishop D’Arcy employ the “nuclear option” and “remove Notre Dame’s Catholic identification.”"

Let's get the facts straight. First, I don't "rejoice" at anti-Obama speech. Instead, I rejoice at Catholic bishops upholding Catholic teaching, which always defends the rights of the innocent, and especially the helpless. Second, I never expressed "hope" that Bishop D'arcy would employ the "nuclear option", I said: "I don't think it will happen in this case, but down the road ... next time .... somewhere else .... it's worth reading up on the possibility." (see the difference?)

Here is one more taste of the journalistic backlash Archbishop Chaput receives on his home turf for trying to defend the unborn: "The archbishop is likely back in Denver now. Look for him to appear at a major local news outlet soon, if he hasn’t already."

And why, exactly, shouldn't an Archbishop make media appearances? Notice how Tomasic doesn't even try to grapple with what Chaput is saying. For Tomasic, the mere fact that an Archbishop is speaking out publicly about current issues strikes him as inappropriate.

Well, guess what, freedom of speech applies to the leaders of the Catholic Church, too.

Outrageous: "Facebook users wage condom campaign against Pope"

Science rarely restrains Stupidity:

Critics took to the social networking site Facebook to voice their fury over Pope Benedict's remark that condoms do not prevent HIV.

Thousands have pledged to send the pontiff millions of condoms to protest the controversial comment he made to journalists as he flew to Cameroon last week.

... "The clergy aren't supposed to have sex at all, but they are free to tell people how to conduct themselves? That's like a girl who wears no make-up as the CEO of CoverGirl," one member posted on the page, "Condoms for Pope Benedict XVI." (CNN)

Before they start trying to figure out international postage, they might consider reading (senior Harvard research scientist) Edward Green's op-ed in this Sunday's Washington Post: "The Pope May Be Right".

Carl Anderson of the Knights of Columbus comments: "We need more people like Dr. Green, who won't let politics color their objective judgment and more journalists who will pay attention."

Meanwhile the UK "Lancet medical journal [has] accused Pope Benedict XVI of distorting scientific evidence in his statement that condoms worsen the AIDS crisis. It said he should retract the comments.

Finally, through Zenit, a reference to "HIV/AIDS in Africa: What is the Science actually saying?".

Report: Obama aide to put pressure on Vatican over Abp. Burke

A scoop from Austin Ruse at the Catholic Thing:

A reliable source tells me that someone representing the Obama administration is about to put pressure on the papal nuncio to the United States to get Archbishop Raymond Burke to be quiet. The Obama complaint is that Archbishop Burke, who is now head of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, has supported another bishop in his chastisement of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for her support of abortion.

The pressure won't work, of course. Burke is just too smart, and tough. But Obama and his representatives are coming dangerously close to interfering in internal Church matters. More than anything else, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution was intended precisely to protect religious bodies from meddling by the state, even covert meddling by the White House like this. Obama and his pet Catholics should back off – and fast.

This action was evidently planned even before Abp. Burke's Randall Terry interview on Communion.

Anti-Catholic slur gets NY Palace Hotel boss fired

Couldn't happen to a nicer anti-Catholic bigot:

The manager of one of the city's most luxurious hotels was given the boot after ordering a Catholic employee to clean up his forehead on Ash Wednesday.

"Wipe that ------- s--t off your face," managing director Niklaus Leuenberger told a bell captain at the New York Palace Hotel on Feb. 25, sources said.

The unholy ultimatum ended up costing Leuenberger his job at the Palace, a swanky 55-story tower on Madison Ave. across the street from St. Patrick's Cathedral.

"As of Monday, March 23, Leuenberger is no longer employed by the New York Palace," hotel spokeswoman Teresa Delaney told the Daily News Tuesday.

The incident was deemed so severe, Christopher Cowdray, head of the London-based Dorchester Collection, which owns the Palace, flew here to hand Leuenberger the pink slip. (NY Daily News)

The hotel's lease is owned by the Catholic Church. *snap*

Anti-Catholic CT legislators still at it

They should stop while they're behind:

During a meeting to officially kill legislation, including the bill that brought thousands of Catholics to protest last week, the chairmen -- Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, D-Stamford, and Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven -- warned that the General Assembly is in danger of stifling research and debate.

"We hear all sorts of issues that are sometimes great but just too controversial to vote on, some aren't ready for prime time, some that don't have money for them," McDonald said. "I suspect that people on this committee would be very angry if the co-chairs only allowed issues that we support or in our opinion have no constitutional concerns." (Connecticut Post)

Oh sure, let's debate issues that are clearly anti-constitutional....

Wait - WHAT?! Are they on crazy pills?!

If this guy won't get excommunicated, who will?

My basic take on Robert S. McElvaine stinker piece in the Washington Post On Faith column was "Fine, let him have his way - excommunicate him." I mean, here's a guy who seems to make his career off being a bad Catholic. No one would listen to him if he wasn't Catholic ... and the Church has tools to fix this.

Consider what my father Ed Peters has to say:

In fewer than 500 words, McElvaine manages to insult meanly and repeatedly Pope Benedict XVI and to impugn (sophomorically, I grant, but nevertheless clearly and directly) a half-dozen important Church teachings on sacraments, ecclesiology, and moral doctrine. If McElvaine's column does not constitute a violation of, among other norms, Canon 1369, then folks, I am never going to recognize it when it is violated.

Now, it's one thing for the bishops to have ignored gross insults to themselves (I think they were wrong to have done that last year, but I can see why they might have acted thus). But it is entirely something else for them to ignore the kind of venom that McElvaine has just poured out on the pope. Their pope. Our pope.

He lays out a clear road-map out for how to deal with McElvaine.

The law is there for a reason.

More on Condoms

Some follow-up links to the story we've been covering the last couple days:

• The Cathoholic: Condoms, the Pope & Africa
• NRO: Benedict Has It Right (good article)
• Kathryn Jean Lopez: Media coverage of papal comments on AIDS in Africa is March madness.
• Whispers: Damage Control, PopeTrip Edition
• Off the Record: African wife-beaters urged to practice "safe-sox"

Outrageous: Take them at their word - Excommunicate them.

How Robert S. McElvaine slunk his way into a Washington Post's "On Faith" column I'll never know. Unless the column is a joke.

McElvaine's entry ("impeach the pope") sure is laughable and - I would argue - actionable. It's clearly offensive. Some quotes:

"Amid all the justified outrage we all feel at Bernie Madoff and the AIG bandits, let us save some intense outrage for Pope Benedict XVI."

"I am a Catholic and the idea that such a man [as Pope Benedict] is God's spokesperson on earth is absurd to me."

"Let's start a movement within the Catholic Church to impeach Pope Benedict XVI and remove him from office. While we're at it, let's replace him with a woman.
He reversed the excommunication of a Holocaust denier. Will he excommunicate me for pointing out that he is a misogyny denier?
If this be heresy, make the most of it."

Well heck, fine with me. Excommunicate him if that's his wish. He's certainly guilty of being an idiot.

Plus he has insulted a figure beloved by literally hundreds of millions of people. Plus he's ignorant of basic truths of historical fact, demonstrating absolutely no good will or honest desire to verify his libelous claims about the Catholic Church in the process. Plus he does all of this as a Catholic - causing grave scandal to the faithful.

"On Faith" should be embarrassed to welcome such malevolent contributions.

And while we're at it, let's add another to the excommunication docket:

The pope's comment was "irresponsible and dangerous", said Jon O'Brien, head of Catholics for Choice, adding that "few Catholics and even fewer medical personnel agree with his stance." (AFP) [More damning evidence here.]

At least O'Brien is bought and paid for, McElvaine is trying to draw attention to his new anti-Catholic book.

CT Bill Update: "Death with Dignity" pulled because of "clerical error"

The two clowns McDonald and Lawler behind the anti-Catholic CT Bill had also tried to sneak in a Euthanasia Bill (SB1138). Now they've yanked it, citing a "clerical error" (I'm sure).

From the blog of Connecticut Senator Michael McLachlan:

The assisted suicide bill from co-chairs Senator McDonald and Representative Lawlor, scheduled for a public hearing before the Judiciary Committee on March 20th, appears to be dead for this session. The reason for pulling SB1138 off the agenda is reported to be "clerical error."

I feel bad for the clerk and staff of the Judiciary Committee.

Last week the committee staff got hammered trying to process thousands of emails and phone calls from outraged Catholics and First Amendment rights advocates when their bosses - the co-chairs - began a frontal assault on the Catholic Church. This week the co-chairs decided to take on the right-to-life advocates and the calls and emails started flowing into the Capitol again.

Can someone in the Connecticut Democratic Party tell Senator McDonald and Representative Lawlor that we have a budget crisis and we need to focus on balancing the budget - not waste tremendous state resources on personal vendettas?

If they don't get the message from their party, I hope they get it from the voters of Connecticut.

update: An AmP reader clarifies: "Dropped" is a little strong - it's still in the hopper, but they've decided not to hold a hearing on it until next year's session.

Morning dose of uninformed feminist anti-Catholicism

It's like they all write out of the same playbook - after dozens of half-truths and a generous portion of twisted logic, this Winnipeg Sun commentee's conclusion: "It's almost like the Church gets off on female suffering."

Thanks for the words of wisdom, Mindy.

... oh, what's that? She also feels confident to weight-in on the Williamson controversy?

"Obviously, [rehabilitating a Holocaust-denier] is not what the Pope intended. The head of the world's most powerful top-down church isn't used to a backlash from the rank and file. Well, now the poop has hit the Pope."

Hmm, I guess it doesn't take much to get published these days, as long as you're anti-Catholic.

Roundup: MSM coverage of the Connecticut Rally

Closing down shop for the day, but before I head out the door:

• Reuters: "Thousands of Roman Catholics demonstrated in Connecticut on Wednesday against a state government proposal to shift control of parish finances to lay officials from priests and bishops."
• AP: "Thousands of Roman Catholics descended on the Connecticut statehouse Wednesday, as simmering resentment over bills they consider anti-Catholic reached a boiling point with a recent legislative attempt to give parishioners more say over parish financing."
• John Talleos brings up some good points in the Hartford Conservative Examiner
• Glen Beck had a roundtable on Freedom of Religion, with transcript and video

Praise for Pope Benedict's letter about SSPX

Canon Lawyer Ed Peters:

One can hardly praise a pope without sounding a bit presumptuous, but here goes: the 10 March 2009 letter of Benedict XVI on the SSPX excommunications remission is a fine document.

The pope's letter acknowledges that the excommunication remissions came as a surprise to all and were issued without adequate contemporaneous explanations. As a result, even friends of the pope were ill-prepared to defend his actions in the court of human opinion (and yes, the court of human opinion matters, as evidenced by the pope's letter itself). Church enemies had a field day amid the confusion, but since that's what enemies do anyway, there's not much more to be said about them. [More.]

Advance text of the Pope's letter and coverage here.

First Take: Video of Bp. Lori at CT Catholic Rally

You're getting this content practically as it is uploaded:
Broadcasting Live with Ustream.TV

CT Dem. accuses Catholic leaders of "smear campaign"!

Outrageous:

Democratic state Rep. Robert Godfrey, a Judiciary Committee member, accused Catholic leaders of a smear campaign.

“The Bishop [Lori] doesn’t want anyone to see the diocese’s books and how the money is spent,” Godfrey told CNSNews.com. “He is trying to smear the co-chairs. It’s very sad. The public is outraged over a fiction. The scheduled hearing tomorrow was cancelled because the Capitol Police were sweating crowd control.”

Crowd control issues?! Because us Catholics are so rowdy when we get together....

[/sarcasm]

Flash: Anti-Catholic CT pulled! Update: Rally still a GO!

UPDATE - THE RALLY IS STILL A GO!

Looks like they didn't want this one blowing up in their face:

controversial bill that would change the way the Catholic church governs itself has been pulled and a public hearing planned Wednesday on the issue postponed until its constitutionality can be determined.

The hearing had been expected to draw hundreds of people, many of whom where angry about what they view as the state's inappropriate and perhaps unconstitutional incursion into church affairs.

At a press conference this morning at the legislative office building, Tom Gallagher of Greenwich, who has long advocated that lay people be given greater responsibilities within the church, said he has asked Rep. Michael Lawlor and Sen. Andrew McDonald, co-chairmen of the legislature's judiciary committee, to put off the hearing until Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has reviewed the matter.

Lawlor and McDonald agreed. "At the request of the proponents who are advocating this legislation, we have decided to cancel the public hearing for tomorrow [and] table any further consideration of this bill for the duration of this session,'' the lawmakers said in a joint statement. (Hartford Courant)

Caught 'em red-handed. Well done, everyone. Remain vigilant. {update - rally still a go!}

The two proponents of the bill are now trying to claim that they were simply following Connecticut legal precendent which employs specific legislation for particular religious institutions.

In other words, what began as a precedent for their actions has now also become their justification. In fact, they are trying to claim that they believe this precedent of preference "doesn't seem right."

Well no kidding - then why in the first place did they introduce a bill that took advantage of the precedent?

Because it was useful to their ulterior purpose of coercing the Catholic Church in Connecticut.

Connecticut's Anti-Catholic Bill - Update

An update of what has happened recently:

• Knights of Columbus President Carl Anderson on Shredding the First Amendment in the Constitution State. More from the Knights at their Headline Bistro web presence.
• Archbishop Chaput weighs-in: "The legislative coercion directed against the Catholic community in one state has implications for Catholics in every other state. If bigots in one state succeed in coercive laws like SB 1098, bigots in other states will try the same." [More.] [CNA summary.] (What a Bishop!)
• Context: Catholic bishops angry over proposed law
• Here's something: "Senate Republican Caucus Unanimously Opposes SB 1098" [PDF file.]:
  "This bill is an unconstitutional assault on religious freedoms. Specifically, it represents a clear violation of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise of Religion Clause contained in the First Amendment."
• Also, I'm being told that "many in the state are calling for Lawlor and McDonald to be expelled from office due to their EXTREME bias which we have seen repeatedly."
• It's also worth noting that a non-Catholic individual emailed me about their outrage over this bill. As they put it: "if they can come after the Catholic Church and get away with it, nobody is safe." I appreciated the person's pledge of solidarity a great deal. A second individual emailed me and said that, even though they do not always agree with me, they appreciated the thought-provoking nature of my coverage of this issue. Again, this means a great deal to me. In these times such encouragement will serve us in great stead.

My complete coverage is here. Remember: for those in the area, I urge you to make a showing tomorrow at 9AM in Hartford, CT. Support your bishop, support your priests, support the Church we love!

update: LifeSiteNews coverage.

update 2: CNA: Connecticut bill on Catholic Church nearly identical to Voice of the Faithful strategy ... New Tactics: Influencing the Church through Civil Legislation

Becket Fund President calls CT Bill "Doubly unconstitutional"

In response to the story I covered over the weekend about a breathtakingly anti-Catholic CT bill:

"This bill is doubly unconstitutional. It would be unconstitutional underthe First Amendment even if it applied to all churches. but the fact thatit applies to only one church - the Catholic Church - makes itunconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment besides. This is truly amonstrosity."

-- Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, President, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Video: Bp. Lori explains the response to Anti-Catholic CT Bill

The backstory is here.

Video of Bishop Lori answering questions, explaining the situation (and updated information) here.

If you can make it to Hartford, CT at 9AM on March 11th for the public demonstration - please do. Bishop Lori is hoping for 1,500-2,000 people ... well, let's smash that and turn out 5,000 for him!

Update: internal memo by Bishop Cote re: Anti-Catholic CT Bill

Forwarded to me by an AmP reader in response to this story I covered yesterday:

Following are excerpts from an internal communication by Bishop Michael R. Cote

This bill (#1098) is a legislative attack on the governance of the Catholic Church in Connecticut. No other religious organization in the State is mentioned in this bill. It will do irreparable harm to the Church.

Your (pastors and parishioners) assistance is urgently needed. Please help defeat this very harmful repeal of current Connecticut General Statutes.

Attend the hearing on this bill on Wednesday, March 11, 2009, at the Legislative Office Building at the State Capitol. We must show strong opposition to this attempt to interfere in the governance of the Church.

Together on this Second Sunday of Lent, we pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to rebuff attacks on the Church and its leadership so that we may continue to do the Lord’s work by which we give praise to God our Father.

Alert: New Connecticut Bill Attacks Church Independence

Update: Anti-Catholic CT pulled! Rally still a GO!

Connecticut lawmakers moved this week to directly attack the self-governing rights of the Catholic Church.

The Diocese of Bridgeport is calling on Catholics across the state to mobilize and "fight the irrational, unlawful, and bigoted Proposed Bill #1098/2009":

This past Thursday, March 5, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced a bill that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith.

This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and the Bishop would be effectively excluded.

This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.

The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion. (source: Bridgeport Diocese)

Here's what you can do:

We urge you to call and e-mail Sen. McDonald and Rep. Lawlor:

Senator Andrew McDonald:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-1420; Home phone: (203) 348-7439
E-mail: McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov

Representative Michael Lawlor:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-8267; Home phone: (203) 469-9725
E-mail: MLawlor99@juno.com

We also ask you to come to Hartford this Wednesday, March 11, to be present at the public hearing. Details on bus transportation will be available on Monday. If you would like to attend, contact your Pastor.

Even though it is named "An Act Modifying Corporate Laws Relating to Certain Religious Corporations" the bill in fact names the "Roman Catholic Church or congregations" in the state as the only party in question.

On top of it being an outrageous violation of the First Amendment it is also particularly anti-Catholic, and the politicians who have introduced and supported this bill should be strongly rebuked not just by Catholics, but by all Americans who hate religious discrimination and "hate legislation."

One particularly-offensive line in the bill (underlining mine):

"The corporation shall have a board of directors consisting of not less than seven nor more than thirteen lay members. The archbishop or bishop of the diocese or his designee shall serve as an ex-officio member of the board of directors without the right to vote."

That's right - archbishops and bishops under this bill would be stripped of their power to govern.
The General Counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says "I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a bill that’s so blatantly unconstitutional. It targets the Catholic Church explicitly and exclusively, and attempts to use the civil law to alter Church governance, particularly to divest the bishop of authority." Tom Hoopes calls it the "Miter-box Bill", because bishops should just box their miters if it passes.

The blog Catechism on Call says:

Right now we don’t know who sponsored this bill. The Catholic Key Blog notes that the dissident Catholic Group “Voice of the Faithful” has often promoted the idea of “trusteeism” or lay members hiring and firing pastors. But, to be fair, we don’t have evidence they are behind this legislation.

Regardless of where this idea came from - we do know who was willing to put it into practice. One wonders if the Church could take some sort of legal action in response to this unlawful intrusion. You can keep up to date on the bill's progress here. Paul's comment on Fr. Z's blog here is very helpful if you want to get a handle on the the legal in's and out's of the situation.

I'm happy to see the Diocese of Bridgeport rallying Catholics. I have not yet seen any activity on the Connecticut Catholic Conference website or the Archdiocese of Hartford or the Diocese of Norwich. The Knights of Columbus are headquartered in New Haven and will be very active I'd wager. I'll be chasing down these threads next.

update: Here (forwarded to me) is the justification for the bill given by one of the legislators who introduced it, Mike Lawlor:

... the current state statutes governing Roman Catholic corporations ... were enacted in 1955. SB 1098 is a proposal to make changes in that law, which was suggested by parishioners who were the victims of theft of their funds in several parishes, and these parishioners feel that the state's existing Roman Catholic Corporate laws prevented them from dealing with the misuse and theft of funds.

I agree with you that the whole notion of having a statute governing the church seems like an intrusion on the separation of church and state, but the current law does that already. Perhaps we should repeal the whole thing, but if we are going to have a corporate law of this type, it probably should make sure there cannot be deception of parishioners.

The Diocese of Bridgeport's statement responds to this claim of financial improprieties:

The Pastors of our Diocese are doing an exemplary job of sound stewardship and financial accountability, in full cooperation with their parishioners.

For the State Legislature — which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this fiscal year — to try to manage the Catholic Church makes no sense. The Catholic Church not only lives within her means but stretches her resources to provide more social, charitable, and educational services than any other private institution in the State. This bill threatens those services at a time when the State is cutting services. The Catholic Church is needed now more than ever.

We reject this irrational, unlawful, and bigoted bill that jeopardizes the religious liberty of our Church.

Connecticut: "keep your state out of our church!"

update 2: for the newest updates on this story, click on this tag.

Georgetown U.'s Mary statue defaced, students respond with prayer vigil

This happened in my "neighborhood" last week.

Before:

After:
A report by the Cardinal Newman Society.

Excerpts from an email sent out by Georgetown's Office of Mission & Ministry:

"Late last week, the Office of Campus Ministry became aware that the statue of the Blessed Mother on Copley Lawn had been vandalized: the face of the statue was painted black. We immediately contacted the Department of Public Safety, which is investigating the incident. We also made arrangements for the prompt renovation of the statue, which is currently underway.

...While we do not know the motivation of the person or persons who painted the face, nor whether they are members of the University community or not, all of the chaplaincies of Campus Ministry -- Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim -- recognize that the statue's alteration caused great pain to students, faculty and staff who hold particular devotion to the Blessed Mother.

For many people of faith on campus, the statue is a daily reminder of the University's religious identity. As a Catholic and Jesuit university committed to interreligious understanding, we hope that all religious symbols and sacred spaces on campus are respected.

...When the renovation of the statue is completed, the Roman Catholic Chaplaincy of Campus Ministry will rededicate the statue in a public ritual."

An appropriate response, I think.

Update: Holocaust denier Bp. Williamson will review evidence

The Associated Press:

A bishop who faces a Vatican demand to recant his denial of the Holocaust said he would correct himself if he is satisfied by the evidence, but insisted that examining it "will take time," a German magazine reported Saturday.

Richard Williamson is one of four bishops from the ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X whose excommunication was lifted by the Vatican last month. The decision sparked outrage because Williamson had said in a television interview he did not believe any Jews were gassed during the Holocaust.

On Wednesday, the Vatican demanded that Williamson recant his denial before he can be admitted as a bishop into the Roman Catholic Church.

Williamson made clear he does not plan to comply immediately, and rejected a suggestion that he might visit the Auschwitz death camp, the weekly Der Spiegel reported.

"Since I see that there are many honest and intelligent people who think differently, I must look again at the historical evidence," the British bishop was quoted as saying.

"It is about historical evidence, not about emotions," he added, according to the report. "And if I find this evidence, I will correct myself. But that will take time."

Yeah, Google searches can take lots of time, especially when they turn up 28 million hits.

The other story: Pope Benedict and the SSPX

My intensive coverage of the Maciel situation put all other stories on the back burner in the past 48 hours.

But there is something else important happening: the ongoing controversy surrounding Pope Benedict, the SSPX, and Bishop Richard Williamson.

It's another complicated situation, so I'll try to summarize and shed some lights on where things stand now:

Liberal Catholic theologian Hermann Haering's call for the pope to step down, I think, is preposterous.

Things got more serious when German Chancellor Angela Merkel rebuked Pope Benedict and asked him to "clarify unambiguously that there can be no denial and that there must be positive relations with the Jewish community overall."

The pope's brother, Fr. Georg Ratzinger, shot back: "[the pope] doesn’t need me to defend him. But it angers me how unjust and badly informed the people who are attacking him are."

I'd of course, agree with Fr. Ratzinger. Of course Pope Benedict supports positive relations with the Jews. He's been working for that his entire ecclesiastical and papal career!

So how did we get here? Two things: a) bias against the Church and b) admittedly poor handling by the Vatican. This is not the first time the Vatican has badly bungled the handling of a delicate situation, and it is frustrating - to say the least - that this still regularly happens.

Vatican expert Sandro Magister explains:

A few days after the events, the lifting of excommunication from the four Lefebvrist bishops is increasingly manifesting itself at the Vatican as a double disaster, of governance and of communication. In the disaster, Pope Benedict XVI found himself to be the one most exposed, and practically alone.

{Magister reviews Pope Benedict's deep theological understanding and teaching about the issue of SSPX reconciliation, etc.} But little or nothing of this {papal explanation} was stated in the decree issued on January 24 by the Holy See. In the "vulgata" diffused by the media, with this decree the Church of Rome was simply clasping the Lefebvrists to its bosom.

{Now the twist:} Then, to make the misunderstanding worse, there came the uproar over an interview with one of the four bishops granted clemency, Richard Williamson of England, in which he supported ideas denying the Holocaust.

In the media all over the world, the news read as follows: the pope clears a Holocaust denier bishop from excommunication, and welcomes him into the Church.

Magister's hypothesis (underlining mine):

The question comes naturally: was all of this really inevitable, once the pope had decided to lift the excommunication of the Lefebvrist bishops? Or was the disaster produced by the errors and omissions of the men who are supposed to implement the pope's decisions? The facts point to the second hypothesis.

The decree revoking the excommunication bears the signature of Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the congregation for bishops. Another cardinal, Darío Castrillón Hoyos, is the president of the pontifical commission "Ecclesia Dei," which, ever since its creation in 1988, has dealt with the followers of Lefebvre. Both of these cardinals have said that they were taken by surprise, after the fact, by the interview with Bishop Williamson, and that they were never aware that he was a Holocaust denier.

At this point Magister goes on to describe one failing after another. Two main points:

• "The media release of the decision also seems to have been entirely negligent. The Vatican press office limited itself, on Saturday, January 24, to distributing the text of the decree, in spite of the fact that the news had already leaked out a few days earlier, and a fiery controversy was already growing around the statements denying the Holocaust made by Williamson.... And yet, if nothing of this was done, it was not the fault of the Vatican press office and its director, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, but of the offices of the curia from which they receive their orders. These offices of the curia converge in the secretariat of state."
• "So then, throughout the entire affair of the lifting of the excommunications for the Lefebvrist bishops, the secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, despite his highly active and outspoken nature, distinguished himself by his absence. His first public comment on the question came on January 28, during a conference in Rome at which he was speaking. But more than words, what were lacking from him were actions equal to the gravity of the situation. Before, during, and after the issuing of the decree. Benedict XVI was left practically alone, and the curia was abandoned to disorder. The fact that Benedict XVI has given up on reforming the curia is now before the eyes of all. But it is conjectured that he compensated for this non-decision by entrusting the leadership of the offices to a tough, dynamic secretary of state, Bertone. Now this conjecture has also been shown to be lacking. "

Magister's final point:

"Bertone's personal devotion to Benedict XVI is beyond all doubt. Not so that of the other curia officials, who continue to have free rein. It is possible that some of them deliberately oppose this pontificate. It is certain that most of them simply do not understand it, do not measure up to it."

Wow, that's alot to take in. Given this state of affairs, it should not surprise us that there has been no official Vatican reaction to other current controversies - notably the Maciel meltdown. Quite simply: they have their hands more than full.

Magister's analysis jives with John Allen's Jan. 30th column: "The Lefebvrite case: What was the Vatican thinking?":

On the lecture circuit, I'm sometimes asked for my opinion about the Vatican's communications strategy. My glib answer generally is, "As soon as they have one, I'll be glad to tell you what I think of it."

The line usually draws a few chuckles. However, this week's furor over the lifting of the excommunication of four traditionalist bishops, including one who's a Holocaust denier, offers a reminder that the lack of PR savvy in Rome is actually no laughing matter. {Read his entire column.}

While the Vatican Information Service released a brief communique on the subject today, they are also taking more drastic measures, including, apparently, demanding that Bishop Williams recant.

It's pretty evident that Vatican officials from top to bottom really dropped the ball on this one, and gave the detractors of the Church a clear opportunity of working against her in the court of common opinion. I say this because it's nothing new for people to attack the Church in public, it is something out of the ordinary for Vatican officials to be so pell-mell in their response, up to and including pointing the figure at one another.

(I think it's worth noting, as Whispers does here, that the release of Bp. Williamson's Swedish TV interview might have been timed to embarrass the pope. Nonetheless, Williamson's record is far older than this interview and the situation could have been avoided altogether.)

I hope this is a serious reality check. And maybe it's time to hire a couple research assistants. I know how to use Google pretty well.

And because Pope Benedict is so very alone on this - and unjustly being attacked - I would ask readers to sign this petition to publicly support him.

Update: Catholic Bishops Bash ACLU Lawsuit

I reported on this disturbing development earlier in the week.

Now the bishops are responding:

The nation's Catholic bishops are bashing an ACLU lawsuit against the Bush administration to make them provide abortions for victims of sex trafficking. The pro-abortion law firm sued the Department of Health and Human Services saying it shouldn't let the USCCB prohibit abortions for those women.

.... In a statement sent to LifeNews.com on Thursday, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said the ACLU lawsuit is "without merit and an affront to religious liberty."

Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee for Migration and Refugee Services, said the ACLU would only further exploit women by making the USCCB work with abortion businesses.

.... Wester told LifeNews.com that the lawsuit would hurt, not help, trafficking victims and would violate the First Amendment religious liberty rights of the USCCB.(LifeNews)

Suit up, folks, there's more to come I'm sure.

More anti-Catholicism in San Francisco

What makes it especially bad is that in San Francisco, it's the local government doing the persecuting:

The San Francisco Chronicle ran a story today on San Francisco City Assessor Phil Ting's attempt to squeeze millions from the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco in the form of Real Estate Transfer Tax. The unprecedented action is looking a lot like payback against the archdiocese for its support of Proposition 8.

.... The City government has a history anti-Catholicism which has only become more strident, and politically advantageous, since the passage of Proposition 8. Mayor Gavin Newsom excoriated the Catholic Church and the archdiocese during a tirade at what was supposed to be a Mayor's Prayer Breakfast with religious leaders, including Archbishop Niederauer. The Mayor, according to reports, got a standing ovation.

... Any clear-eyed observer might view this action by Ting, who's rumored to want the Mayor's chair after Newsom, as pandering to the anti-Catholic sentiment of voters in San Francisco.

[More from the Catholic Key.]

I'd be interested to hear what the Archdiocese has to say. If they want support, they should ask for it.

Catholics shunned at Obama Inauguration

Here in DC it seems that everyone and his brother is coming into town for the Inauguration of Barack Obama.

Well, actually, scratch that. It seems that Catholic clergy aren't being invited to the official events:

Steven Waldman of Beliefnet.com notes that Catholic clergy are conspicuously absent from Barack Obama’s selection of religious leaders invited to participate in his inauguration.

.... While all four of Obama’s picks are Protestants — albeit ones with highly disparate doctrinal outlooks — Beliefnet’s Waldman points out that before 1990 it was routine to include a Catholic representative among clerical inauguration invitees.

.... We suspect Obama’s omission of a Catholic participant was a whole lot more intentional than that. This year’s Democratic National Convention in Denver also notably excluded an invitation to Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, unlike invitations extended at previous conventions to bishops such as Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles at the DNC in 2000 held in that city.

Why the contemporary reluctance among Democrats to grant Catholic bishops a voice at functions they have organized? Perhaps it’s because they fear that virtually any Catholic bishop they invite will call the nation’s attention to the Democratic Party’s failure to respect the sanctity of life of the unborn, because of the party’s formal commitment to the promotion of abortion rights. (Tom McFeely at National Catholic Register)

Considering how null Obama's personal outreach was to Catholics during his campaign, I'm not surprised we're not being invited to the table now. Our commitment to protecting unborn life would be an awkward sign of contradiction at the festivities, and a reminder that going ahead into the future, there are still issues that deeply (and tragically) divide us.

ACLU sues HHS over Catholic human-trafficking victim care

The Boston Globe article fails to mention some important details, but here's the gist:

The US government is allowing a Catholic organization to limit a program for human-trafficking victims to groups that do not provide access to abortion or birth control, the American Civil Liberties Union charged yesterday in a lawsuit filed in Boston.

The US Department of Health and Human Services hired the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2006 to help immigrants who had been forced into prostitution or slave labor. The bishops have disseminated millions of dollars in federal funding the past two years to an array of nonprofits, including the International Institute of Boston, that directly assist victims.

.... Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the Catholic bishops in Washington, acknowledged the restrictions, saying they are in keeping with the church's religious and moral beliefs. She said they won the federal contract because they offer an extensive network of services for victims, including access to healthcare, housing, and job training. The bishops have received about $6 million in federal funding to aid more than 600 victims nationwide.

Reuters gets a little more specific:

Sister Mary Ann Walsh of the bishops' conference said the $6 million figure cited in the suit was the full amount authorized. But "far less" money had been appropriated, she said without giving a figure.

"The problem of trafficking in this country is huge and serious and the Catholic Church has the best network of services bar none," she said. "Going to the Catholic Church for social services is very logical."

Mary Ann Walsh hits the nail on the head: the fact that this organization is Catholic is irrelevant to the reality that the Catholic Church is objectively the best "contractor" to provide these services.

The ACLU is simply using the Church's firm opposition to abortion and contraception as a wedge to drive the Church out of the human services marketplace. Now that's discrimination. If the ACLU wins this suit, we can expect them to continue harassing Church organizations that dispense federal monies.

SF pro-homosexual church vandalism investigated as hate crime

... as it should be investigated:

Parishioners of the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood plan to arrive early for morning Mass today so they can paint over walls that were scrawled with swastikas and other graffiti.

A priest walking his dog early Sunday outside the church at 100 Diamond St. found the black swastikas and angry messages about Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that voters approved in November, a church employee said Monday. The vandalized walls were washed Monday morning to remove most of the scrawlings.

... The vandals wrote Niederauer's name on the side of the church along with the question, "Where is the love?" (SF Chronicle)

Most Holy Redeemer should be familiar to regular AmP readers.

A legislative threat to the Archdiocese of Washington?

Local blogger William Newton alerts us:

Former Mayor and current City Councilman Marion Barry is known for (and has plead guilty to) many things. Now he appears to be spearheading a movement to go after the Archdiocese of Washington in court. In the interest of supporting our Archdiocese, I supply the following which was forwarded to me[]. Please pray, and do what you can to combat this effort.

I'm looking for some confirmation. Has anyone else heard about this?

update: read the DC Wire to get more of the back story. Note how enemies of the Church cleverly phrase their arguments to mask their intentions. But their aims are obvious: they want to further pilfer Church assets.

update 2: Read this letter to the editor in WaPo from the Arch. of Washington's Chancellor.

Ph/t: Eric Wilson.

Nude Virgin Mary cover prompts Playboy apology

As if we didn't have enough reasons to despise the publication:

A nude model resembling the Virgin Mary on the cover of the Mexican edition of Playboy magazine, published only days before a major Mexican festival dedicated to the mother of Jesus, prompted the company's U.S. headquarters on Friday to apologize.

The magazine, which hit newsstands on Dec. 1 as ceremonies began leading to Friday's pilgrimage to the Mexico City shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe, showed a model wearing nothing but a white cloth over her head and breasts.

She is standing in front of a stained glass window with the cover line, "We Love You, Maria" in Spanish. (Reuters)

Actually, the line reads "Te Adoramus, Maria." That has a slightly different flavor to it.

And the apology is completely unacceptable:

While Playboy Mexico never meant for the cover or images to offend anyone, we recognize that it has created offense, and we as well as Playboy Mexico offer our sincerest apologies," the statement said.

Raul Sayrols, publisher of Playboy Mexico, said in a statement, "The image is not and never was intended to portray the Virgin of Guadalupe or any other religious figure. The intent was to reflect a Renaissance-like mood on the cover."

Oh come on. I've seen the cover, and it's obviously trying to be provocative by alluding to the Virgin Mary. The trouble is, there's no point calling for a boycott here because no Catholic should ever buy Playboy in the first place.

I mean, it's not like Playboy has any moral integrity to squander.

Pope Benedict XVI under-fire for 'negative' statements

Who the heck does Marco Politi think he is?

Pope Benedict XVI has come under fire from a leading Vatican watcher as "The Pope who says No" following a series of "negative" Vatican statements on homosexuality, the disabled and bio-ethics.

Marco Politi, the veteran Vatican correspondent of La Repubblica, said this was "yet another papal no" after Vatican opposition to UN declarations on the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the rights of the disabled, on the grounds that they could be seen a sanctioning gay marriage and abortion.

"It is one veto after another" Mr Politi wrote. "Not to this, no to that. No, no, no". He said the Vatican was clearly aware that under Pope Benedict it was acquiring a reputation for "banning everything", since it had issued a "pre-emptive statement" noting that "on a superfical first reading" the document on bio-ethics "might give the impression of being a collection of prohibitions". "But that is precisely the public perception", Mr Politi said. (UK Times Online)

Oh brother, nothing new here. Mr. Politi risks acquiring a reputation for "missing the point of everything".

As I first heard my parish priest say, behind every No of the Church (and of God), is a deeper Yes. The Church affirms the dignity of the person and denies those procedures which endanger it.

And the rest of the article is a catalogue of inaccuracies. It always really gets me the way the UK tabloids can be so anti-Catholic, and specifically anti-Pope. I realize this was an Italian journalist, but the UK tabloids are always seem eager to pick this sort of trash reporting up and republish it.

I have to say, finally, that the published comments made in response to the UK Times article reveal a wonderful example of faithful Catholics actively defending the Church and the Pope online. Good for them!

Papist Quote of the Day

It's a depressing one:

"Hate crimes occur when homosexuals are attacked. Christians don't count." - Diogenes

Ron Howard having a tough time filming in Rome

Boo-hoo:

"Da Vinci Code director Ron Howard had to shoot the movie's forthcoming prequel using imitations of the Catholic churches in the storyline - after the Vatican banned him from all of its holy buildings.

The first movie's portrayal of the Catholic church angered the religion's heads, who were in no mood to cooperate when Howard headed to Rome, Italy this year to shoot an adaptation of author Dan Brown's 2000 book Angels & Demons, which is set in the Vatican City.

As a result, Howard has been forced to used camera trickery and substitute locations.

He reveals, "We've had problems filming in Catholic Churches. We just weren't allowed anywhere near them." (Wenn)

[photo credit: divxplanet, which also has a photo album of pictures taken on the movie set ... yeah, you're looking great, Tommy.]

Papist Quote of the Day

Well, more like the "Papist Paraphrase of the Day":

Several Beaufort County residents and officials expressed surprise and anger Tuesday after County Councilwoman Laura Von Harten criticized the Roman Catholic Church’s stance on women and reproductive rights during a rezoning discussion Monday.

Von Harten brought up church positions that don’t allow women to become priests and on “uterus rights” while the Land Management Committee debated whether to grant a zoning request to allow the expansion of St. Gregory the Great Catholic Church in Bluffton.

Though the committee approved the rezoning, Von Harten promised to fight the expansion, calling official Catholic church policies “an affront to my dignity and all womankind.”

“I just have to vote in favor of love not hate,” she said. (The State)

Wow, I'm surprised a Unitarian Universalist (no kidding) would show such .... intolerance!

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

This news warmed my heart:

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

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

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

It couldn't have happened to a nicer solipsist.

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

Calling down the IRS on teaching bishops

It's already happening:

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

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

Read Bishop Serratelli's column here.

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.

Pic: Anti-Catholic, Anti-Bishop Cartoon in Scranton Newspaper

Bishop Martino of Scranton, PA - the hometown of pro-choice Senator Joe Biden - recently wrote a pastoral letter for Respect Life Sunday which focused on the evil of abortion. He told all his priests to read the letter in place of their homily this past Sunday.

Here's how the local paper, the Scranton-Times Tribune responded:

Gee, I guess depicting the Bishop with a baby cradled in his arms wouldn't convey the kind of point this cartoonist-satirist is comfortable with. I've said before that anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice, and this is a perfect example. Imagine a cartoon that claimed Jewish leaders are shills for the Democrat party? Yeah, it doesn't get published.

I don't want this story to get unfocused by chasing down the rabbit trails of biased reporting that is also coming out of the Scranton-Times Tribune (here they are if you are interested). Suffice it to say the paper has a history of allowing this sort of anti-Catholic editorial and journalistic content. {Just look at this cartoon also mocking Bishop Martino.}

I think the best thing is to submit a letter to the editor telling them why you don't appreciate this cartoonist mocking a bishop for caring about the rights of unborn children - a constant teaching of the Church. And watch your own papers - this sort of thing is sadly not confined to Scranton.

Related: "The Five Non-Negotiables" (Mark Brumley lists: "Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell experimentation, human cloning, and same-sex marriage." This list is not alphabetical.)

Cardinal Newman isn't in his tomb, and that's okay

This editoral published in the UK Times ("Please - enough of this ghoulish sideshow") is quite a handful.

First, let's separate the facts from the anti-Catholic comments (which requires a editing scalpel):

On Saturday [Church officials] confirmed that since the [Cardinal Neman] never had a lead-lined coffin, he is all gone. “Brass, wooden and cloth artefacts” were recovered, but “there were no remains of the body... in the view of medical professionals in attendance, burial in a wooden coffin in a very damp site makes this kind of total decomposition unsurprising.”

Regular AmP readers will remember that I've been covering the efforts (and resistance) to exhuming Cardinal Newman's body, an ordinary part of the Catholic Church's canonization process.

As for Libby Purves' vitriolic commentary, I could go line-by-line on it, writes hundreds of words that most people won't bother to spend the time reading, or I could jump right to the heart of the matter:

For all her pretense of erudition, Ms. Purves completely misses the point when she says:

"The Church's weird horror of fleshly things (unmarried or contracepted sex, gay love) is nastily counterpointed by its affection for cadavers."

Actually, it is the radical Christian respect of the fleshly that causes us to both hold ourselves to a high standard of sexual purity (see: the writings of St. Paul, the unbroken teaching of the Church) and to simultaneously respect the dignity of the human body even in death (see: relics, belief in bodily resurrection, adoration of the human nature hypostatically united to the divine nature in the person of Jesus Christ).

Her second major mistep, the subtitle to her article:

"The creepy attempt to exhume the remains of Cardinal Newman will drive people away from the Church"

That's certainly odd coming from someone who claims she was a "genuinely devout Catholic schoolchild" who "hated this stuff, and ... hates it more now." I'm sorry that she is repulsed by the Church's veneration of a holy person's body. I'm sorry she doesn't realize that same respect undergirds why Catholics attempt to remain pure in this life as well.

But don't say you're terrified the Church might lose members over it. Try to understand it first.

Update: BBC World News if you're intrigued by the actual story.

Protesting YouTube's hosting of desecration videos

The group America Needs Fatima has been trying to organize a response:

8,201 people in 7 days have respectfully asked YouTube to remove videos that show the Holy Eucharist being desecrated, including one being flushed down a toilet.

I strongly believe these videos violate YouTube’s hate policies. They are sacrilegious and demeaning to God, to Catholics and to the Roman Catholic faith.

At first, it seemed YouTube heard us. The videos were pulled yesterday morning. However, by the afternoon, the videos were back!

That’s why we’re turning our petition into a protest!

Please go here to send your NEW protest message to YouTube.

Related: YouTube pulls Eucharist desecration videos after petition (?)

"Student Claims She Was Humiliated By Teacher Over Rosary"

And not because someone thought the rosary was a "gang symbol":

An eighth-grader at a northwest side charter school said she was humiliated by one of her teachers over her religious expression.

Kelsey, a 13-year-old at the School of Science and Technology's Discovery campus, said one of her teachers humiliated her in front of her classmates while repeatedly questioning her religious beliefs because she wore a Catholic rosary.

"She told me to take it off, and I told her no," Kelsey said. "So she took me to the principal's office and he took it away from me, and told me to get it at the end of the day."

Kelsey said she continued to wear the rosary to school only to have the unidentified teacher question her religious beliefs. (Local KSAT has video)

YouTube pulls Eucharist desecration videos after petition (?)

*post edited - see below*

The claim:

"Today, responding to a worldwide protest from Catholics, the internet video sharing site YouTube has removed 40 videos showing horrible desecrations of the Holy Eucharist from its site. The account of the author was also suspended.

The video removal petition was circulated by the Catholic group America Needs Fatima and 18,201 people signed it in only seven days." (Metro Catholic)

When I checked YouTube just now, however, it was clear that the author's account has not been suspended and that the videos have not been pulled.

So what gives? Did YouTube re-instate the author and videos?

I blogged this story first on Tuesday.

update, 4pm: looks like someone jumped the gun, or more accurately, YouTube pulled a bait-and-switch: first removing, then re-instating the offensive material, as Headline Bistro reports.

What a mess.

YouTube v. Decency

HeadlineBistro:

YouTube Allows Videos of Eucharistic Desecration

People can find a video of almost anything on YouTube: babies’ first steps, Saturday Night Live skits, news clips, concerts and now – to the shock of Catholics everywhere – desecration of the Eucharist.

YouTube has long been a destination for Catholics seeking video clips of Masses, apologetics lectures or devotions, but now Catholic outrage is growing as the site has become home to a string of videos depicting acts of Eucharistic desecration, including flushing a host down the toilet, putting one in a blender, feeding one to animals, shooting one with a nail gun and more.

Evil.

Take a hike, Bill Maher.

I just rejected an advertisement that had been submitted to me for Bill Maher's offensive "Religulous" movie. It wasn't a small add buy, either. $68 would always be welcome around here. But clearly Bill Maher's promotion agency doesn't read my blog, or know what it stands for, or realize that it can't be bought.

Here's a taste of what the advertisement would have looked like:

Clearly it was a no-brainer to reject this offensive image, for an offensive movie. I want no part in promoting it.

I've seen the trailer for Religulous, in which Maher extends his bloated solipsism and egoism (if that's possible) by tracking down inept representatives of various faiths, editing their comments out of context (clearly) and then claiming to have somehow "disproved religion" in the process.

I wonder if he's ever appeared in a forum that he doesn't directly control.

This is a fools quest, undertaken by a man I pray never has to fully realize how much of a fool he is making himself out to be, and who is sadly countenanced and enabled by his producers and viewers. Don't get me wrong, I hope and pray that he comes around, but it will be painful considering the path he has chosen. Well so be it.

This is the same Bill Maher, of course, who is the host of HBO's "real time" and has said "I have hated the Church way before anyone else" and claimed the pope "used to be a Nazi" and has also said "If you have a few hundred followers, and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If you have a billion, they call you 'pope.'" (source)

Now, I know why AmP was solicited to promote this movie: to make such a film a commercial success (which is their bottom line, of course), they need to get religious people angry enough to begin talking about it, condemning it, organizing a boycott, etc ... but each of these actions just play into their game.

This would all be free advertising for them , and makes us appear that we are threatened by its (truly laughable and elementary) arguments. But we are not scared - we are just going to be smart about how we beat this pathetic "mockumentary" and quickly relegate it to the dustbin of its predecessors.

So I'm not talking any more about it. It's garbage and not worth any thinking person's time.

And it's certainly not worth 68 bucks.

update: I sent the link for these remarks to the publicist who tried to make the blog ad buy. I'd be happy to explain the situation to Bill Maher directly if he/they want, but I somehow doubt they want that kind of press.

Call Larry King Live tonight about anti-Catholic Bill Maher

That's what ALL is asking its members (and you) to do:

American Life League is asking its 300,000 supporters to call the "Larry King Live" show Tuesday night, August 19, and ask Bill Maher why he hates Catholics. The HBO talk show host will appear on Larry King's cable show to talk abour politics and his show "Real Time." Maher's latest project, "Religulous," a "mockumentary" whose title is a combination of the words "religious" and "ridiculous."

Maher makes no secret of his hatred for religion: "I have hated the Church way before anyone else," Maher said in 2002.

But the comedian's long history of anti-Catholic vitriol came to a head in April, at the time of Pope Benedict XVI's first apostolic visit to America. On his show, Maher claimed that Pope Benedict XVI "used to be a Nazi," called the Catholic Church "the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia" and said, "If you have a few hundred followers, and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If you have a billion, they call you 'pope.'"

ALL has collected over 30,000 signatures on its FireBillMaher.com web site since April. The organization demands that Time Warner fire Bill Maher for his hate speech and now asks those same supporters to voice their concerns on "Larry King Live."

"Why is Larry King giving this guy yet another platform to spew hate-filled propaganda against millions of Catholics?" asked Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League. "Why are we letting this kind of bigotry stand? There's been enough anti-Catholicism in this country; we don't need Larry King and Bill Maher fanning the flames of hate."

American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

American Life League: Fire Bill Maher http://firebillmaher.com/

CNN: Larry King Live http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/

Reuters: American Life League Unleases FireBillMaher.com http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS171345+18-Apr-2008+PRN20080418

"Papal spokesman calls Catholics for Choice ad 'paid propaganda'"

Good to see the Vatican speaking out:

Responding to an open letter from dissident groups asking Pope Benedict XVI to change church teaching on birth control, the pope's spokesman said the letter was "paid propaganda in favor of the use of contraceptives."

The letter, sponsored by the U.S.-based Catholics for Choice and signed by dozens of its national chapters, sections of We Are Church and groups promoting women's ordination, was published July 25 in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.

... Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the papal spokesman, told Vatican Radio that the ad was "nothing new" from a collection of small groups already known for their opposition to church teaching on a variety of topics."

In addition, the harshest accusation -- that the Catholic position is the cause of the spread of AIDS and, therefore, of suffering and death, blocking enlightened policies of public health -- is demonstrably unfounded," he said.

The spread of AIDS has nothing to do with someone's religion, he said, and policies responding to AIDS that rely chiefly on the distribution of condoms "have largely failed."

"Responding to AIDS requires interventions that are much deeper and detailed," he said, and Catholic agencies and religious orders are actively involved in those projects.

The most interesting thing about the protest letter, Father Lombardi said, was the fact that "it does not touch -- in anyway -- the true question at the center of 'Humanae Vitae,' which is the connection between spouses' human and spiritual relationship and the exercise of their sexuality as an expression of it and its fruitfulness."

"In the entire letter," he said, "the word 'love' does not appear once."

Father Lombardi said the letter does not "express a theological or moral position," but seemed to be "paid propaganda in favor of the use of contraceptives. One also could ask who paid for it and why." (CNS)

I normally tend to not quote articles at great length, allowing instead my readers to follow through themselves if they have an interest. But I found everything Lombardi had to say to be topical and enlightening. Well done!

Report: Sacred Heart statue beheaded in Madrid?

If it did, it happened right after the announcement made by Pope Benedict that the next World Youth Day would be held in Madrid, Spain. Rorate Caeli has more. [Ph/t: Matthew.]

Report: "Major U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church"

This was an outrageous civic action taken in San Francisco about two years ago (via WND):

A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion.

Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs."

It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."

As WND reported, Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church's ban on adoption placements into homosexual couple households, issued by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.

The fine folks at the Saint Thomas More Law Center aren't about to let this one go:

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is appealing the District Court decision on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco, disagrees with Patel's decision.

"Sadly, the ruling itself clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church," he said in a statement. "The judge in her written decision held that the Church 'provoked the debate' by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded 'responsibly' to all of the 'terrible' things the Church was saying."

Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith," he said.

You can read the original document in PDF here (thanks to the AmP reader who sent it to me).

Desecration Watch: Eucharist stolen, Professor claims to have possession

Following up on an earlier rumor of mine, a confirmation of the distressing news:

Eucharist taken from Cathedral tabernacle

The Eucharist was stolen Friday from the tabernacle at Corpus Christi Cathedral on the 500 block of North Upper Broadway, police said.

Corpus Christi Police Lt. Raymond Lara said the Eucharist, the consecrated bread used in Catholic Mass, was taken after someone entered the church through an open door. The exact time of the theft has not been determined and there have been no arrests made in the case, Lara said.

Corpus Christi Cathedral officials would not comment when reached Monday.

In a parallel - but no way proven to be related - story:

Professor who threatened desecration claims to have consecrated Hosts (CNA)

University of Minnesota Morris biology professor and science blogger Dr. Paul Zachary Myers, who last week threatened to desecrate the Eucharist and to broadcast the act on the internet, says he has acquired Eucharistic Hosts consecrated at a Catholic Mass.

Prof. Myers explained in an e-mail to CNA that he has received the Eucharist from several people. “So far, the crackers I have received have been given to me in person or sent to my home address.”

I'm following leads on a third, equally troubling, related story.

MN professor promises to desecrate Eucharist; Eucharist stolen Friday

CNA had good coverage of this outrageous and provocative gesture:

A Minnesota professor and science blogger has said he will personally desecrate the Eucharist and publish photos of the desecration on the internet if any of his readers acquire a consecrated Host and mail it to him. “I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare,” he has written.

Paul Zachary Myers, an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota at Morris, made the threat while commenting on a University of Central Florida incident in which a student senator stole and held hostage a consecrated Host from a June 29 Mass.

...

Professor Myers criticized the incident in a derisive July 8 post on his science blog Pharyngula, hosted at scienceblogs.com. He also solicited his readers to acquire consecrated Hosts.

“Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers?” Myers wrote. “…if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage… but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web.”

While Bill Donohue is lodging a complaint against the professor, I'm still disconcerted that I was emailed earlier today with the news that on Friday the Eucharist was stolen from Corpus Christi Cathedral.

I only have one report so far (can anyone confirm it?) which said the adoration chapel had been shut down and the police had been able to obtain fingerprints. I'm not claiming that these two stories are related. I just found it interesting that they happened so close together.

At any rate, let's pray that the Eucharist is not defiled.

Also, examples like this professor have always puzzled me. What, exactly, possesses someone with the desire to trample upon the beliefs of others in this callous manner? Is it an easy out for me to think he's been hurt in some way and this is his way to lash out?

In all seriousness, however, it's pretty clear this professor has seriously violated the terms of conduct stipulated in his contract and his immature and offensive rantings simply should not be tolerated by his employers.

And for all his bombast - he's taken down his original offending post.

Stuff that ticks me off....

Close to the top of the list .... anti-Catholic condom-throwers:

When Catholic youth around the world converge in Sydney, Australia for World Youth Day, they will be handed condoms in an attempt to protest the Pope’s unwavering opposition to abortion, contraception and homosexuality.

The NoToPope Coalition, a group of abortion, homosexual and atheist activists, including Raelians and the Socialist Alliance, will reportedly number between 1,000 and 5,000 protestors. They plan to distribute condoms to pilgrims en route to the Papal Mass at Randwick Racecourse July 20. (LifeSiteNews)

I remember people doing this at WYD '05 in Germany. I'm not sure if it was the same group, but it's a good thing I never personally saw them in action because I would have given them a piece of my mind - to start.

"Catholic League declares end to Rev. Hagee controversy"

Proof that, yes, apologies can put some things to rest.

Or at least should.

Not like we'll see any apologies on this one, however.

Video: Colbert on anti-Catholic John Hagee

Stephen Colbert interviews Bill Donohue:



I previously reported this story at-length here.

Related: "McCain “categorically rejects” Hagee’s anti-Catholic statements" (CNA)

John McCain accepts endorsement of undisputed anti-Catholic John Hagee

A conscientious reader brought this to my attention earlier in the week, but I didn't get a chance to look into it more closely until today.

Associated Press gives us the gist:

Endorsed by an influential Texas televangelist, Republican John McCain endeared himself to one group of voters but risked alienating another with the pastor's anti-Catholic views.

...The televangelist, San Antonio megachurch leader John Hagee, has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and called it a "false cult system" and "the apostate church"; the word "apostate" means someone who has forsaken his religion.

He also has linked Adolf Hitler to the Catholic church, suggesting it helped shape his anti-Semitism.

McCain said he does not agree with some of Hagee's past comments. "It's simply not accurate to say that because someone endorses me that I therefore embrace their views," McCain told reporters at a news conference Monday in Phoenix.

After additional pressure from Catholic groups, including the Catholic League, McCain clarified:

"... in no way did I intend for his [Hagee’s] endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not."

McCain also said he appreciated Hagee's support for the state of Israel and admired his spiritual leadership:

"And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel."

Before we look at the fallout, this video of Hagee in action speaks a thousand words:


... this is what we are dealing with: flagrant anti-Catholicism.

It's interesting to watch the outrage from such inveterate liberal critics of the Catholic Church such as Daily Kos and the Huffington Post. Somehow, I don't see in their response so much concern for respecting the Catholic Church, as interest in seeing Catholics leave McCain over this spat.

A secondary, but important discussion is being generated which asks whether McCain/Hagee is being treated differently in the public forum than a related case with Obama/Farrakhan. More on that here.

Stephen Bainbridge gets the last word: "... this is even worse than McCain’s about face on Bob Jones University. It’s extremely disappointing."

Reactions?

update: John Hagee writes a most unconvincing defense.

Joe Feuerherd gets himself into hot water

Two quick updates:

• Catholic News Agency presents again the argument published at the In the Light of the Law blog, and then takes a second opinion by J. D. Flynn, a canon lawyer for the Archdiocese of Denver.
• More importantly, Sister Mary Ann Walsh of the USCCB has replied in the WaPo.

This story was first mentioned indirectly here and then at more length and directly here.

It will be interesting to see if Feuerherd tries to mount a response to the wave of criticism he's received.

Follow-up: Feuerherd runs foul of Canon Law, and Common Sense

Yesterday I noted, as part of a general commentary, Joe Feuerherd's slimy op-ed for the WaPo.

Today, my father Canonist Ed Peters tells us what can be done about this studied form of offensiveness:

To wish damnation on an individual or a group is to wish on them the absolutely worst fate conceivable: separation from God forever. CCC 1035. Catholics possessed of even a rudimentary catechesis know that one cannot invoke upon a human being any greater calamity than damnation, and that it is never licit, for any reason, to wish that another person be damned.

On February 24, National Catholic Reporter correspondent Joe Feuerherd, writing in the Washington Post, expressed his desire to see the bishops (of the United States) literally damned before he would fail to vote Democratic this Fall.

[Read what can be done about it here.]

There's really no excuse.

"Anti-Catholicism: the last acceptable prejudice."

update: Carl Olson also takes notice (and issue), and Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO does as well:

Feuerherd doesn’t take the tack that it is wrong in principle for the bishops to suggest that some types of political behavior can endanger people’s souls. It is hard to see how he could take that tack, given that he appears to believe, first, that there is such a thing as an eternal soul that can be damned or saved, and second, that moral choices can affect the outcome. Nor does Feuerherd argue, exactly, that the bishops are wrong to regard abortion as a grave injustice. He says that he is himself pro-life. Evidently, then, he believes that abortion is the unjust killing of innocent human beings, and the “right” to abortion therefore amounts to a license to commit an injustice of the gravest kind.

In other words, either Feuerherd is incapable of writing proper english grammar, or his claim to be "pro-life" is sarcastic in the worst sense, or he's utterly illogical. Again, what a fine argument he presents.

Commentary: A sadly common collusion of bigotry and idiocy

One of the first rules of debate is that the person you are debating should be able to recognize their own opinions when you try to characterize them. Otherwise, all you've managed to do is construct a charicature of the other person's position.

With that little tip in mind, see if you can recognize your beliefs as an orthodox Catholic about a current sensitive issue well represented (or not) in the cartoon below, which I found on the Feministe blog:

Yeah, I didn't think you would.

In fact, the rest of the short post only confirms my suspicion that the author Jill couldn't identify the "Catholic" position if her life depended on it, which is ironic considering her choice to categorize the post under "Crazy Conservatives."

Maybe it's me, but I didn't realize you could call someone crazy unless you understood what they were suffering from, or had proven you weren't yourself suffering from a severe case of altered perception.

Consider her argument:

Democrats may be against wars that kill millions, in favor poverty alleviation, and supportive of international policies that save millions more, but so long as they don’t think women should be forced into continuing pregnancies, they’re going to Hell. And you’re going with them if you vote for Obama or Clinton:

Well, let's think about this a moment. Yep, Catholics are against wars that kill millions, are in favor of relieving poverty, and - oh wait, I think the "international policies" that would "save millions more" which she is referring to actually constitute forced abortion, sterilization and contraception. On that topic, we do indeed disagree. But these tactics which she claims save millions of lives, actually take more, and hurt the survivers.

Regarding forcing women to continue pregnances, I can't think of a single pro-life individual who would describe their goal that way. More like,"Allowing human beings to live." That's what we're trying to do, and it doesn't sound so bad.

As for sending people to hell, we don't have that authority on our own. But from what I hear, it's sure not a place I'd like to see my friends visit. And if I were doing things that put me in danger of going there, I'd hope that my friends would have the kindness to tell me.

Now, all this that I've just gone through constitutes nothing new to folks used to debating ignorant, anti-Catholic individuals. There's something tediously predictable about their arguments, which sound all the more shallow each time they more vocally proclaim them.

Which is why it should also come come as no surprise that the source Jill used for her flawed and hackneyed script was none other than ... a National Catholic Reporter journalist writing an op-ed for the Washington Post. This journalist (Joe Feuerherd) , we are told, "covered the U.S. bishops and the 2004 presidential race as Washington correspondent [for the Reporter.]"

If you wonder how fair and accurate that coverage probably was, you have only to read his piece.

But since I don't like distressing my readers unduly, I'll reprint his summary paragraph:

"So what's a pro-life, pro-family, antiwar, pro-immigrant, pro-economic-justice Catholic like me supposed to do in November? That's an easy one. True to my faith, I'll vote for the candidate who offers the best hope of ending an unjust war, who promotes human dignity through universal health care and immigration reform, and whose policies strengthen families and provide alternatives to those in desperate situations. Sounds like I'll be voting for the Democrat -- and the bishops be damned."

Quite an argument, there. Is it me, or is there an elephant in the room he's ignoring?

I thought so.

To conclude, it is fascinating to watch how desparately Mr. Feuerherd sees his Catholic faith in this election as a political issue, nay, as the validation for his ultimate pick. And here, I thought all the folks telling me I didn't have to vote my faith were doing so on the premise that voting is not a religious issue.

I hope Mr. Feuerherd has quite an effect with his line of reasoning, just not the effect he intends.

"There must be something they’re not telling us."

The Religion News Blog, in its round-up today placed this story in the category of "Headlines that have us worried":

"Catholic Church looking for actor to play Jesus"

Along with the comment "There must be something they’re not telling us."

Actually, I think they are telling you everything. The question is, did you bother to read it?

A clearing house of the challenges facing Catholic public witness

... is handily provided by this article in the UK Times, both in what it says, and in how it says it:

"Italian bishops condemned for urging actors to shun sex scenes"

Point 1: Let's just pause at the title.

The bishops themselves are the ones being "condemned" for urging actors to shun sex scenes. The news subject is actually the bishops being criticized for speaking out.

Point 2: A misappropriation of the facts:

Father Nicolò Anselmi, head of the youth section of the Italian Bishops Conference, said that Moretti was normally noted for his “idealistic and sensitive” films. But the “gratuitous” sex scene with Isabella Ferrari, his co-star, would have an undesirable effect on the “impressionable young” since it was shown without any context involving love or tenderness.

I doubt this quite captures the essence of the Italian Bishops' criticism. Sex scenes in movies are not problematic only when they are "shown without any context involving love or tenderness." Sure, that's a part of the problem. But more fundamentally, sex scenes involve ... people engaging in sexual activity(!), and doing so outside of marriage b) publically c) for profit and publicity, etc., etc.

In other words, sex scenes depicted even in a "context involving love or tenderness" would still be wrong.

Point 3: Anti-Catholicism.

Franco Zeffirelli, the film and opera director, said: “The Church is full of pedants who have lost all sense of proportion.” It was a “fourth-rate” film that did not merit the publicity generated by the bishops' intervention.

A condescending generalization. It's like saying "America is full of nitwits who have lost all sense of honor." What organization besides the Church can routinely be treated in this way with such tolerance? This comment from the man who has previously offered to help Pope Benedict with his style, saying on the one hand "The papal robes are too opulent and flashy" but then claiming "I am in continual contact with his inner circle. The Holy Father honours me with his esteem." He sure isn't sounding like a reliable opinion source to me.

Point 4: Anti-Catholicism (again):

"The row comes amid charges that the Centre Right, led by Silvio Berlusconi, is playing the Catholic card by making abortion an issue in the run-up to the general election in April. Mr Berlusconi has asked the United Nations to pass a moratorium on abortion and the death penalty."

Bringing up the issue of abortion, in a county with one of the lowest birth rates in a continent already experiencing population implosion, is ... "playing the Catholic card." I'm sorry, I don't get it.

Point 5: Anti-Catholicism (surprise):

The comments posted in response to the article follow certain numbing, universal patterns of argument on this topic. Most of them hold that because the Church allowed the sex abuse scandal to happen, for it to speak out on any issue of human sexuality ever again is nothing but hypocrisy. Well, try to defend that conclusion logically.

The later comments do, however, contribute a little glimmering of hope in their use of reason and practice of civility. But honestly, those voices are generally marginalized.

Just like the Italian bishops.

L’Osservatore Romano nails La Sapienza profs for Wikipedia misuse

How. Embarassing.

The Vatican daily L’Osservatore Romano is reporting that 67 professors from La Sapienza University in Rome who wrote a letter opposing a visit by Pope Benedict XVI based their opposition on a quote taken out of context from Wikipedia.org.

The professors portrayed themselves as defenders “of freedom of research and of knowledge.” “In the name of ‘freedom of research and of knowledge,’ they have taken false information to be true, accepting an assertion without checking whether it is factual,” the Vatican newspaper reported. - CWNews

Icing on the proverbial cake:

“That Wikipedia in all likelihood is the source of the quote is evident by the fact that the letter from the 67 professors makes reference to a speech by Cardinal Ratzinger on March 15, 1990 in Parma. The speech was given, but it took place in Rome, at La Sapienza University on exactly that day,” L’ Osservatore continued. “The surprising thing is that whoever took the quote from Feyerabend could not have read the rest of the entry in Wikipedia, as he would have realized that the meaning of Ratzinger’s statement is exactly the opposite of what the 67 claimed the Pope was saying.”

“Each person is free to judge if this way of using reason is correct or if it is an act of disloyalty. The risk of reason folding to the pressure of interests and to the attractiveness of utility is exactly the risk which the Pope would have warned the staff of La Sapienza about had he been able to speak there,” the Vatican newspaper stated in conclusion.

I don't think this discovery can be overplayed as it brings out several important points: 1) This is a scandal to the protesting La Sapienza professors. 2) This ellucidates the anti-catholic and anti-papal bigotry in play here. 3) L'Osservatore Romano should be praised for its original journalism and forthright presentation of the facts.