Noted: White House says Obama, Pope will have "frank" talk on abortion

With less than a day or so before Obama meets with Pope Benedict, interest is definitely picking up:

The White House is saying that pro-abortion President Barack Obama and Pope Benedict XVI, the head of the Catholic Church, will have a "frank' talk on abortion when they meet on Friday. Obama is currently in Italy for the Group of Eight summit and the two will meet after the conference concludes.

"I think there will be a frank discussion [about abortion]," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters aboard Air Force One, according to an AP report.

On subject like abortion where Obama is out of step with the pro-life teachings of the Catholic faith, Gibbs said "even if we don't see eye to eye on everything, there are steps that can be taken on a number of issues that will show progress, whether it's on something like unintended pregnancy or adoption." (LifeNews)

'Cuz, ya know, it went so well when Cardinal George met with Obama and had a "frank" talk on the issue:

[Cardinal George on meeting with Obama] "It's hard to disagree with him because he'll always tell you he agrees with you," he said. "Maybe that's political. I think he sincerely wants to agree with you. You have to say, again and again, 'No, Mr. President, we don't agree (on abortion).' But we can agree on a lot, and we do, and that's why there is so much hope. I think we have to pray for him every day."

... "He said we weren't exporting abortion," the cardinal said. "I said, 'Yes we are.' He would say, 'I know I have to do certain things here. ... But be patient and you'll see the pattern will change.' I said, 'Mr. President, you've given us nothing but the wrong signals on this issue.' So, we'll see, but I'm not as hopeful now as I was when he was first elected."

That was back in April ... and what has changed in the meantime?

*crickets*

Consistent: Abp. Hughs boycotting Xavier commencement over pro-abort speaker

I twittered this story yesterday but it deserves more attention.

Lest we think that the Notre Dame situation is a unique one - where the local ordinary (in this case, Bishop John D'Arcy) is refusing to attend commencement exercises that honor a pro-abortion speaker - Archbishop Hughes is making a similar stand in New Orleans:

"Archbishop Alfred Hughes will not attend Xavier University’s commencement because national democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who is a Louisiana native and Catholic, is scheduled to speak, according to a letter from Hughes.

... “Ms. Brazile has a public record in support of keeping abortion legal,” Hughes wrote.

"I recognize that Ms. Brazile is a Catholic Louisiana native who has worked effectively in service to the poor and African Americans in particular. However, her public statements on the abortion issue are not in keeping with Catholic moral teaching.”

Hughes cited Brazile’s support of Obama’s decision to reverse a Mexico City policy, which allows federal funds to go to organizations that provide abortions, as proof of her pro-abortion stance. (Local WWLTV)"

Brazile responded by email to a local paper:

"I will remain faithful to the Catholic Church and my Christian faith which keeps me grounded."

Some counter-argument.

Oh, and as a point of trivia: who gave Xavier's 2006 commencement speech? That's right: Senator Barack Obama. He's since moved on to bigger Catholic universities. You can read the text of his address that day here.

More on Abp. Hughes at Catholic News Agency, LifeSite, and Cardinal Newman Society.

Fr. Jenkins responds to criticism

In a Notre Dame Observer interview:

Jenkins made clear the University is not honoring the president for his stances on these issues, but for his leadership.

"The invitation of President Obama to be our Commencement speaker should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research," Jenkins said.

These "crucial differences" in positions on the protection of life are not being ignored in extending the invitation to the president, Jenkins said, but rather can be used as a catalyst for dialogue. (More.)

I'll respond later.

Majority of Americans disapprove of Obama decision to fund overseas abortions

Way down there at the bottom of the chart:

Here is the Gallup poll page and here is pro-life analysis from the Susan B. Anthony list.

This poll supports the point I and others have made: Obama's position on life issues - particularly abortion - is not in line with the majority of Americans, but rather represents an extreme position on the issue. He is even, I think it can be argued, farther from the center than people who would consider themselves "pro-life."

"Change you can conceive in"?

Newsweek asks the question "Could euphoric Obama fans be sparking a baby boom?"

Clearly, Newsweek and I differ as to what sort of things can be counted as part of a "baby boom":

In Chicago, where 28-year-old Chip Bouchard—a former Hillary supporter—attended Obama's acceptance speech, he says he looked over at his boyfriend, Chris, and thought: "This [is] the president under whom I [want to] get married and adopt a baby."

So many things to say to that, but not now.

Back to the "baby boom" ... sorry, agreeing with Jill, I think we can more expect an "abortion boom".

Bishop Finn frames Obama vote in terms of salvation

On the Chris Stigall show, Bishop Finn's electrifying line:

Stigall: "There are Catholics listening to me right now who are thinking strongly or are convinced that they will vote for Barack Obama. What would you say to them?"

Bishop Finn: "I would say, give consideration to your eternal salvation."

The audio:


Oh, and he had more to say on the widely-listened-to Hugh Hewitt show.

Your thoughts?

"If Obama Loses the Election, I'll Blame the Catholic Church"

So says one individual.

I'll be happy to share the blame, too.

Game point: Responding to the "pro-life Obama" argument

Ryan T. Anderson & Sherif Girgis have done us a service over at Public Discourse:

The Obama apologists are at it again, this time attacking Archbishop Charles Chaput for speaking out against their candidate's pro-abortion views. But the latest salvo from Doug Kmiec is a tangled web of falsehoods and fallacies.

Doug Kmiec is at it again. His most recent Obama propaganda piece is titled ''Why Archbishop Chaput's Abortion Stance Is Wrong.'' As far as we can tell, Kmiec, a legal scholar who identifies as pro-life, has never written an article titled ''Why Senator Obama's Abortion Stance Is Wrong.'' We await such an article. In the meantime, Kmiec has offered a pro-Obama reply to Archbishop Chaput's wise counsel that Catholics vote with a view to securing the equal protection of the law for all people, born or unborn. Kmiec's answers to the Archbishop can be divided without remainder into three categories: the irrelevant, the false, and the fallacious. Exposing their failure shows that the pro-life case against Obama is decisive.

Required reading for those who are still up in the air, or who know folks who are.

Related:

• "Barack Obama Wants Pro-Abortion Judges, "Pro-Life Catholic" Kmiec Says" (LifeNews)
• Doug Kmiec takes Archbishop Chaput to task for his remarks on voting (CNA)
• Catholics And Pro-Abortion Candidates (American Catholic)
• Obama sees Justices Breyer and Souter as judicial models (CNA)
• good: An open letter to our fellow Catholics on Election Eve
• AP Does Final Disservice to Voters, Hides Barack Obama's Pro-Abortion Stance (LifeNews)

AMP NEWS Video - Episode One Featuring Archbishop Chaput Interview!

This week I sat down for an interview with Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Archdiocese of Denver to discuss his NYT bestseller Render Unto Caesar as well as Catholic voting in this election as part of my new collaborative project AMP NEWS.

Regular AmP readers will know that Archbishop Chaput has been one of the most (if not the most) vocal bishop defenders of the unborn in the American public scene of late, despite some criticism. God bless him for it.

Archbishop Chaput, I am thrilled to say, gave me frank answers to the tough questions that are facing American Catholics this election, and it is my hope my that many people will have a chance to see this interview before they vote on Tuesday.

Embedded below are the four segments of AMP NEWS Episode One. You may also watch the entire episode as a whole right here on YouTube. We hope to continue providing quality Catholic news, interviews, and offbeat programming to you in the future!

Episode 1 - "Headlines"

Episode 1 - "Papist Chat with Archbishop Chaput {Part 1 of 2}"


Episode 1 - "Papist Chat with Archbishop Chaput {Part 2 of 2}"


Episode 1 - "The Papist Takedown"

This link creates a playlist of the entire episode: http://tinyurl.com/ampnews

Now that you have seen the show, please forward these videos to your friends and family who are preparing to vote on Tuesday, and send AMP NEWS to folks who are seeking an informed, Catholic perspective on the important stories facing Catholics in America today. Please also subscribe to our AMP NEWS YouTube Channel if you want to be updated instantly when new episodes are uploaded.

Special thanks go to the Catholic Information Center in Washington DC (and do check out their upcoming events) for giving AMP NEWS the opportunity of interviewing Archbishop Chaput, to AMP NEWS producer Alex Buder, to William Newton for creative input, and our profound gratitude to His Excellency, Archbishop Charles Chaput O.F.M Cap, for his faithful service on behalf of Christ and His Church.

update, some pull quotes from the interview with Archbishop Chaput:

• On Barack Obama: "Senator Obama is the most active pro-abortion politician to run for the Presidency since Roe v. Wade. He has committed himself to do things the Church would resist."
• On vocal bishops: "The bishops are aware ... a quieter approach to these things has not been effective ... we have to be stronger in what we say. We've just had it."
• On Faithful Citizenship: "[It is] not very clear. We either ought to get rid of it, or say things much clearer."
• On claiming Obama is a pro-life candidate: "It would be foolish to say that someone who ... runs on a party platform that has no regret at all about abortion ... to call that position pro-life is really strange."
• On IRS investigations: "It's simply bullying. It shouldn't stop us from talking about the important issues of our time."
• On the separation of Church and State: "We do believe in it. We don't like the state to tell us what to do. We don't believe in the separation of faith and politics."

And here is a running tally of the blogs/websites that have picked up on AMP NEWS so far:

• National Catholic Register Daily
• Commonweal
• HuffingtonPost
• LifeNews
• CatholicVote.com
• LifeSiteNews
• Catholic Culture
• New Advent
• BeliefNet's Pontifications
• Catholic Key
• Ignatius Insight Scoop
• Inside Catholic
• The Curt Jester
• Catholic iPod
• The Blog of the Courtier
• Te Deum Laudamus
• Aggie Catholics
• Catholic Mountain
• Duc in Madison
• The Arbiter of Common Sense
• A Shepherd's Voice
• Lily Maiden
• Zappe.us
• Servant For Truth

If I left your name off the list please send me an email!

Video: What's At Stake? Human Life.

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

It's also very moving.

Ph/t: AmP reader Fr. Steven.

Latest numbers: McCain back up among Catholics

Signs of hope?

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

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

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

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

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

But then again, this is just polling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Catholic Reporter editors endorse Obama, and I lose it

Well, in effect.

Here's how the editors of NCR begin:

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

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

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

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

And all this crosses a line. How dare they.

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

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

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

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

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

How dare they.

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

Purely political

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

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

Priority items:

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

Charles Krauthammer on not voting Obama

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

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

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

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

The evangelicals are scratching their heads, too

Dr. Tony Beam:

Why So Many Christians are Confused about the Election

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

Well....

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

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

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

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

update: are people listening?

But for Wales?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's unbelievable campaign wealth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's an idea:

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

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

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

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

Bad news: Obama close to double-digit lead

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

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

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

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

Weigel fires back at Kmiec, Cafardi & Kaveny

Catholic pro-Obama figures Nicholas Cafardi, M. Cathleen Kaveny, and Douglas Kmiec recently attempted to write a "Catholic Brief for Obama" in Newsweek. I thought it was balderdash.

George Weigel did too, but he puts it so much better (again, in Newsweek). Some of the best quotes:

Do Professors Cafardi, Kaveny, and Kmiec imagine that they have a better grasp of Senator Obama's views on the life issues than, say, the National Reproductive Rights Action League [NARAL], or other pro-choice Obama supporters?

... How is it possible to square a concern for women in crisis with support of the presidential candidate who favors ending the modest federal funding some of those crisis pregnancy centers now receive? How is it "pro-life" to support a presidential candidate who is publicly committed to requiring any federal legislation in support of pregnant women to include promotion of abortion?

... The truth of the matter, alas, is that most Catholic politicians are woefully ill-informed about the moral logic of the Catholic Church's teaching on the life issues, which is not a moral logic for Catholics only. This reflects an enormous failure on the part of too many pastors and bishops. That failure is compounded when prominent Catholic intellectuals who may wish to support a candidate for other reasons fail to make clear that the candidate's views and public record on the life issues are reprehensible. That compound failure is made even worse when such a candidate is repackaged as the "real" pro-life candidate.

... Should Senator Obama be elected president, Professors Cafardi, Kaveny, and Kmiec will enjoy a brief moment of satisfaction. That moment will likely be followed by the discovery that they have far less credit in the new administration's bank than NARAL and other longtime Obama supporters.

What he said (and what I've been saying, for some time now, just less well).

Claim: Obama's strenuous Catholic outreach making inroads

Could they be buying it?

"... the bigger news is Obama's jump among white [non-hispanic] Catholics, where he's totally reversed McCain's lead. Last month, McCain led 48-percent to 41-percent among white [non-hispanic] Catholics. Now, Obama's up 49-percent to 41-percent. And here's a fascinating tidbit: McCain's 16-point lead among White Catholics [overall] from last month has evaporated. The candidates are now dead even among those voters. Obama's strenuous Catholic outreach is finally starting to pay off." (BeliefNet)

Can you hear the glee in Dan's voice?

Related: Shock Poll: Dems Favor Obama (CMR)

Sullivan, predictably, predicts Catholics for Obama in November

I took issue with Amy Sullivan's last piece for Time Magazine on this topic ("Time Mag. asks: "Does Biden Have a Catholic Problem?"). In this current edition, she looks at the race from the perspective of the recent Al Smith dinner (previously blogged here - pictures & here - video).

Head-scratching line:

The slight [of not being invited to the Al Smith dinner in '92 and '96] was particularly painful for Bill Clinton, who developed an affinity for the Catholic Church as an undergraduate at Georgetown University.

I'm sure he was real, real hurt. The disregard of the social teaching of the Church (where it differed from his own) throughout his presidency notwithstanding.

Into her argument:

Why then was Obama welcomed to the Al Smith Dinner, his hand on Cardinal Egan's shoulder as they chuckled together, while Kerry had to stay away? It helps that Obama is not Catholic. Some Catholics have criticized his support for abortion rights, but as he is not a member of their tradition, they don't feel the same need to sanction him. But more importantly, the political landscape for Catholics has changed since 2004.

In a hierarchical tradition like Catholicism, debates don't happen very often. Right now, however, American Catholics are going through a revival of the arguments that took place in the 1980s between bishops who believed abortion ought to be the top political and moral focus of the church and the camp led by the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin that argued for a more "consistent ethic of life."

Truncated initial conclusion:

As a result, many Catholics can now argue that neither party fits precisely with Catholic social teaching — the Democratic position on abortion is still unacceptable but so are GOP positions on education and health care and the war in Iraq. This realization is reflected in changing party identification — as of this past February, 41% of Catholic voters called themselves Independents, an 11-point increase since 2004. And in opinion polls, Catholics are evenly divided between Obama and McCain.

41%?! An 11% increase? Can that be correct?

Amy claims a resurgence of the "progressive Catholic left":

This [liberal Catholic] void, and Kerry's defeat, prompted a group of progressive Catholics to create their own infrastructure after 2004. When two young graduate students first launched Catholics United, they had $1,000 in seed money and were operating out of a dorm room. Four years later, the nonpartisan organization has more than 30,000 members and a $200,000 budget. This month they are sending a direct mail piece titled "What Does Being Pro-Life Really Mean?" to 50,000 Catholic households in Pennsylvania and Ohio. The same message is plastered across billboards in heavily Catholic swing states.

This is a funny story considering today's revelation that two of the prominent liberal Catholic groups (including Catholics United), we now have reason to believe are funded by mega-billionaire progressive George Soros. What an awkward explanation for how these kids went from working out of their dorm room into their current opulence. Grassroots - or big money?

Sullivan, in her clever way, spends a bit more time mentioning the various arguments put forward by pro-Obama Catholics (without mentioning the obvious factual replies), and then throws her hands up and says it's all about the economy. Sullivan seems to have a habit of sowing doubts about a long-presumed position, and then switching topics completely instead of providing the other side of the story, for she did this in her last article as well.

Anyway, Amy:

In a year like 2008, when the economy trumps social issues, Catholics are most likely to return to their roots in the Democratic Party. And that's particularly true when they hear fellow Catholics arguing that Democrats reflect their religious values.

Indeed, for pro-Obama democrats have discovered the solution to Kerry's "Catholic problem" - simply ignore it. Simply claim there is no problem with Obama's position on abortion (and embryonic stem cell research), and suddenly he becomes a compelling candidate.

Make no mistake, the final push to rope Catholics into the Obama camp is in full swing. It feels like a full-time job simply documenting the examples. Because of this volume, I'm just going to focus on one narrative myth advocated by Sullivan in my next post.

On lying to American Catholics about Obama

I've reached that moment of feeling powerless to put out all the fires being started by pro-Obama "Catholics." Maybe if I received funding from George Soros like some of these "Catholic" groups do, I'd have the free time to take all of this on. But I don't.

I will, briefly, however, simply point out the many lies published on the "Catholics For Obama" website, specifically it's "Catholic Case for Obama." Just one example:

• "Senator Obama and Senator John McCain hold indistinguishable positions on embryonic stem cell research"

False. Obama wishes to dramatically expand it, while McCain allows for the use of already-created embryos. This leads to very different results, as Robby George points out. CFO also makes the claim that recent technology is acceptable to Catholics. Some of it is - but that's not the kind that Obama supports. He wants to create and then kill (more) embryos. That doesn't stop CFO, however, from quoting an irrelevant statement by Cardinal Rigali. They use the same tactic in their other points: misquote, misrepresent, misapply (oh, and avoid). I sure hope they haven't deluded themselves into thinking they are being objective.

"Taken all together, Senator Obama is a man who is familiar the Catholic Social Tradition, and has striven throughout his life to work for the common good. He chose a Catholic running mate..."

The only way one can claim Obama has worked for the common good is if you define unborn human life as not being part of humanity's common good. Catholics refuse to make that admission, so the above statement is false. Furthermore - Obama chose a Catholic running mate? A running mate who has been criticized by his own bishop, and numerous, numerous other bishops for his charecterization of Church teaching, and who remains a continual source of embarassment and scandal to Catholics. Good point, CFO, Obama sure did pick him. Thanks for that.

Finally:

"Senator Obama has proposed a new, more constructive approach to solving the abortion problem in a way that brings people together rather than pitting them against one another."

Parsed another way, Obama's solution is to say to pro-lifers "I respect your position, and now I'm going to repeal every possible restriction on abortion access in this country and make you help pay for it, which was a course of action demanded of me by the very most radical pro-abortion elements in my party, whom I have befriended, and to whom I intend to grant every wish."

Some solution! I'm sure pro-lifers felt brought together and not in the least pitted against one another.

I could go on and on in a similar vein, but really there's no point. Regular readers have heard the arguments before, and hopefully understand the deception taking place here. I'm just continually amazed by the power of the dollar to get their false arguments out there. Hopefully people spend some time looking for the truth.

Photo: The "Obama Votive"

Source, NRO: "A reader took this picture today at a street fair at Hayes and Octavia in San Francisco, of all places."

Coming out of the woodwork

Why is it that all these catholics have waited until now to come out for Obama?

It's not like he's new to the scene. Why the 11th-hour endorsement that serves to comfort Obama-leaning catholics that "people in high places agree with me", but does not allow time for a sustained debate about Obama's merits, or the merits of catholics voting for him.

It's called a pile-on, and the gates are apparently wide open.

Over the very same weekend that catholics in the pew heard the famous "render unto Caesar" gospel passage, numerous Catholics have decided who they are giving their denarius to this November.

Lisa Sowle Cahill of Boston College criticizes the "partisanship" of American bishops in the National Catholic Reporter (I know - what a surprising venue for such views!):

"Abortion is a moral tragedy for Catholics and many Americans. But when the Catholic church is perceived to be cheerleaders for one political party a rich faith tradition is badly damaged and loses its prophetic voice. Bishops should correct Catholic politicians who misrepresent Catholic teaching on life and justice issues in public interviews."

Why is it impossible for some to see that the bishops aren't cheerleaders for one political party, they are cheerleaders for the unborn, who happen to be defended better by one party?! Why, when the vast majority of culprits who "misrepresent Catholic teaching on life and justice issues" are democrats, is it the bishops and republicans who are criticized for being partisan on this issue?

M. Cathleen Kaveny of Notre Dame, meanwhile, does some philosophical gymnastics over at America:

For many pro-life Catholics, the issue of voting and abortion comes down to this: what does one do if one thinks that the candidate more likely to reduce the actual incidence of abortion is also the one more committed to keeping it legal? The language of intrinsic evil does not help us here. Only the virtue of practical wisdom, enlightened by charity, can take us further.

This might be an interesting thought experiment in another case, but in the practical situations presented to Americans this November, I can't see how it even applies. It's quite obvious that the occasion for this re-re-visiting of the obligation to eliminate "intrinsically evil" acts is prompted by the Obama candidacy and catholics desiring to vote for pro-choice politicians.

It does not seem to me a hyper-expression of practical wisdom that the candidate who will proliferate embryonic stem cell research and sign the freedom of choice act into legislation will increase, not decrease, the number of unborn human lives exterminated in America each year. How can someone who sees abortion as an inaliable right of women that can never be questioned or challenged somehow the actual path to eliminating the scourge of abortion?

CNA coverage of Cathleen Kaveny here.

update: Grek Sisk has penned an excellent, lengthy rebuttal to Kaveny over at MOJ.

Abp. Chaput names, criticizes Obama and Kmiec openly in address

Even though I'm running out the door, this story deserves coverage now:

Archbishop criticizes Obama, Catholic allies (AP)

Denver Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput labeled Barack Obama the "most committed" abortion-rights candidate from a major party in 35 years while accusing a Catholic Obama ally and other Democratic-friendly Catholic groups of doing a "disservice to the church."

Chaput, one of the nation's most politically outspoken Catholic prelates, delivered the remarks Friday night at a dinner of a Catholic women's group.

His comments were among the sharpest in a debate over abortion and Catholic political responsibility in a campaign in which Catholics represent a key swing vote.

Coverage here from CNA and Zenit has the full text of the Archbishop's address.

update, excerpt from Abp. Chaput on the "Catholic" argument for Obama:

To suggest -- as some Catholics do -- that Senator Obama is this year’s “real” pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred “pro-life” option is to subvert what the word “pro-life” means.

... I think [Kmiecs'] activism for Senator Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.

... The one genuinely new quality to Catholic arguments for Senator Obama is their packaging. Just as the abortion lobby fostered “Catholics for a Free Choice” to challenge Catholic teaching on abortion more than two decades ago, so supporters of Senator Obama have done something similar in seeking to neutralize the witness of bishops and the pro-life movement by offering a “Catholic” alternative to the Church’s priority on sanctity of life issues. I think it’s an intelligent strategy. I also think it’s wrong and often dishonest.

Discovered: Obama article on abortion rights in 1990

Politico found the unsigned law review article penned by Barack Obama in 1990. Excerpts:

The six-page summary, tucked into the third volume of the year's Harvard Law Review, considers the charged, if peripheral, question of whether fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers. Obama's answer, like most courts': No. He wrote approvingly of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that the unborn cannot sue their mothers for negligence, and he suggested that allowing fetuses to sue would violate the mother's rights and could, perversely, cause her to take more risks with her pregnancy.

... And he concluded the article with a flourish: "Expanded access to prenatal education and heath care facilities will far more likely serve the very real state interest in preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in to lives of pain and despair."

But wait, I thought Obama advocates hope. I guess he thought that these little ones only had despair to look forward to in their future. Better to end their lives then see them live in pain, I guess. What sort of hope is this?!

Full coverage here.

Robert George on Obama and Infants Born Alive

I know, I know. But it needs to be brought up again. If Barack Obama has in-fact been lying about his record on this topic it's important because he re-enunciated this lie as recently as the last presidential debate.

Robby George:

But Obama still did not tell the truth last night. As his original 2002 statements make clear, he sought to defeat the Born-Alive Act because he recognized that it bears at least implicitly on the larger question of abortion in America. He seemed to realize that the logical implication of protecting the child born alive after an attempted abortion is that abortion involves taking the life of a child in the womb, and that acknowledging that, even at the extreme margins of the practice of abortion, could put the legitimacy of abortion itself in question. Therefore, Obama chose to defend the widest possible scope for legal abortion by building a fence around it, even if that meant permitting a child who survives an abortion to be left to die without even being afforded basic comfort care.

Some of Senator Obama's supporters are now making one last, rather desperate-sounding attempt to defend his votes against protecting infants born alive after unsuccessful abortions. Their argument goes this way: Permitting children who survive attempted abortions to be abandoned is so heinous, so barbaric, that for someone to accuse Senator Obama, a decent man who is himself the father of two daughters, of supporting what amounts to legalized infanticide is too outrageous to merit an answer. There is a problem, though. In light of the documentary evidence that is now before the public, it is clear that the accusation against Senator Obama, however shocking, has the very considerable merit of being true.

This is George's conclusion after running through the evidence.

Slideshow: Cardinal Egan, Obama & McCain together

Al Smith was the first Catholic Presidential candidate. My father has one of his campaign buttons. Yesterday Cardinal Egan hosted both John McCain and Barack Obama at Al Smith's fundraising dinner:

Coverage at WSJ.

So what do you think of this?

1. A perfect image of the Church transcending politics and bringing people together?
2. A pitiful depiction of the worst sort of pandering for political expedience?
3. An unconsciounable ignoring of the differences that truly divide us?
4. A benefit dinner - what else?

Obama's mind might have been elsewhere during the evening:

Cardinal Edward Egan, Senator McCain, and Senator Obama were staged for their grand entrance in seating order. However, all did not go as planned.

McCain's name was called, and the Republican nominee took the stage. Obama's name was called in the midst of the applause and he appeared to not hear and did not take the stage, producing an awkward moment where the Democratic presidential nominee was chatting unknowingly as people waited for him to take the stage.

The announcer then went on to introduce Cardinal Egan instead.

Obama was then introduced - for a second time - and he finally took the stage to sustained applause. (ABC)

(Unendorsed) commentary at Commonweal. And interesting observations from the National Post.

update: Diogenes is not pleased.

Bishop Finn does everything but name Obama

In his upcoming column for the Catholic Key, Bishop Finn responds to the question "Can a Catholic vote, in good conscience, for a candidate who supports abortion?" He says he is asked this question "over and over again", and this is his response.

(You will remember, at the outset, that Bishop Finn co-authored this excellent pastoral letter along with Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City. Finn made it into AmP's '06 coverage: Everyone Loves Bishop Finn - "and with good reason!" I added at the time.)

First of all, Finn explains that a politician who seeks the Catholic vote on an issue in which he opposes the Church is doing something very wrong:

"I must say that there is another question I would pose. What is the effect on Catholics of a candidate who has been consistently supportive of abortion?

When a candidate supports ready access to abortion on demand, they are inviting Catholics to put aside their conscience on this life and death issue. Such a candidate is inviting conscientious Catholics to look elsewhere for moral leadership.

When a candidate promotes total unhindered “choice,” he or she discourages the Catholic vote, and at the same time tempts the voter to betray one of the most obvious intuitions of our humanity and to support the continuation of the willful destruction of human life.

If the candidate has supported partial birth abortion, he or she asks the voter to affirm the continuation of an act that 75% of the population has rejected as repulsive."

Finn puts quotation marks around those who advocate a vote for Obama, and explains why:

Some groups calling themselves “Catholic” have suggested that generous programs for the poor will reduce abortions more than the repeal of Roe v. Wade. But a candidate who pledges that he or she will seek to immediately ratify the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), signals to voters that the reduction of abortions is not a goal. They are asking voters to suspend the effort to constitutionally protect human life, and – at the same time - to discard all the good progress we have made to actually reduce the number of abortions in the last thirty-five years. Such a candidate is asking Catholics to “give up” on abortion. They want us to deny our conscience and ignore their callous disregard for the most vulnerable human life.

And now, Obama is named, in every way except by using his name (underlining mine):

If the candidate has addressed their legislative assembly, urging opposition to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, then it must be concluded that this candidate wishes Catholic voters to be complicit in infanticide. Rejection of this Act, which would require that a baby who survived an unsuccessful abortion attempt be cared for and not laid aside to die with no medical assistance, is a convincing example of the numbing of our moral sensibility. The candidate who supports this fatal neglect of life and asks our vote, asks too much of any fellow human being.

Our country is at the edge of the precipice concerning the protection of the life and dignity of the human person. A significant new attack on innocent human life will likely send us into a moral freefall that would rival any financial decline. The price for such a “walk over the cliff” is millions more human lives for many more years to come.

A candidate who asks us to add our weight to such a destructive momentum in our society, asks us to be participants in their own gravely immoral act. This is something which, in good conscience, we can never justify. Despite hardship, beyond partisanship, for the sake of our eternal salvation: This we should never do.

Following the statement released by the bishops of Texas and Fort Worth (blogged extensively here), we have a third bishop unambiguously a) rejecting the argument of pro-Obama Catholics, b) condemning the actions of pro-choice politicians who seek the Catholic vote, and c) calling Catholics to unapologetically reject candidates that support and promote the evil of abortion to the degree that Obama does.

I described the Texas statement as a "game changer," I think this is the beginning of momentum. Bishops are gaining courage in their position, and systematically ruling out the reservations, objections and counter-arguments that have been brought forward.

In the spotlight: Pro-Obama Catholics

The question of whether one may, in good conscience, support Barack Obama as a Catholic after taking into account his positions and views will be an ongoing AmP feature leading up to the November election.

After last night's debate, it's a perfect time to survey what top Catholic writers and intellectuals are saying about the decision-making process, and about the recent minority phenomenon of (militant, vocal) Catholic Obama supporters.

As an important qualification - one that I thought could be presumed but judging from the comments and emails is evidently not apparent - arguments that raise questions about the prudence of voting for Obama do not necessarily constitute an argument for a McCain vote. That's a separate question, and while I realize a consideration of either men does not occur in a vacuum, it is crucial to realize that my reservations about Obama are not the result of a prior decision that McCain is the right candidate. That said.

Point one: Some people are arguing stridently that Obama is the more acceptable candidate to Catholics.

Point two: When Archbishop Wuerl was presented with the dominant strains of the pro-Obama argument by Catholic journalist John Allen, he repudiated them.

Point three: Robby George has published a comprehensive overview of Obama's positions on the life issues, and talks about an often-neglected aspect of Obama's anti-life views, namely, his desire to proliferate embryonic stem cell research:

But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.

He sandwiches this point around two statements:

"I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying...

... In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies."

Point Four: George Weigel in Newsweek has also heard the arguments and contributes in his response a summary of the current situation and a prediction of the future should Obama win:

The argument [of pro-Obama Catholics] is, some might contend, a bold one. Yet it is also counterintuitive, running up against the fact that, by most measures and despite his rhetoric about reducing the incidence of abortion, Barack Obama has an unalloyed record of support for abortion on demand. Moreover, he seems to understand Roe vs. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions as having defined abortion as a fundamental liberty right essential for women's equality, meaning that government must guarantee access to abortion in law and by financial assistance—a moral judgment and a policy prescription the pro-life Catholic Obama boosters say they reject.

About the growing boldness of the American bishops, he observes:

Many U.S. bishops, in other words, seem exasperated with Catholic politicians who present themselves as ardent Catholics and yet consistently oppose the Church on what the bishops consider the premier civil-rights issue of the day. It seems unlikely that the bishops, having found their voices after discovering the limits of their patience, will back off in an Obama administration—which could raise some interesting questions for, and about, a Vice President Joe Biden, whose fitness to receive holy communion may well be discussed in executive session at the bishops' annual meeting in mid-November.

Indeed, the questions and problems we are facing now will only increase - dramatically - if this will come to pass. I join Weigel in waiting to see what the likes of Kmiec, Kaveny and Cafardi will have to say about this. I'll be here, blogging about it when that happens, but I'm not looking forward to it.

As context to this whole debate, let's add a few remaining points.

Point five: Raymond Arroyo notes that this remains a seriously open question mostly to those who have not examined the questions carefully and at length:

"The real swing voters in this election will be the Easter/Christmas Catholics — those who infrequently attend church, but consider themselves in the fold. They too will be influenced by the cultural tug of the faith described above. How to capitalize on the inherent tendencies of Catholic voters will be for the candidates to discover. But it will take real savvy and sensitivity to win over this block — and a few novenas couldn’t hurt."

Point six: But for all that, ignorance of Obama's true positions are not just found among Catholics. Average Americans are decidedly more pro-life than Obama:

A new national poll of Americans finds a large majority take one of three pro-life positions opposing all or most abortions. The survey also finds more than one-quarter of people who say they are "pro-choice" on abortion really take a pro-life position against abortions.

Some 60 percent of Americans say abortions should never be allowed or only in the rarest of circumstances, such as rape and incest, that constitution less than two percent of all abortions nationwide. (LifeNews)

Point seven: Amazing as it might seem, I'm approaching this issue not just because of the upcoming election. Obviously we stand at a crossroads and Catholics have a critical part to play in the upcoming election. But we also have a critical part to play the whole year round, year by year, in forming a culture of life. Election moments, especially when candidates such as Obama are on the ballot, provide special opportunities to examine how, as Catholics, we form our conscience and prudentially strive to participate in building that culture of life.

I'll leave off at this point since I've already compiled a huge amount of information here to read through.

Open thread: final presidential debate {updated}

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

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

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

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

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

Video: Obama and Palin on abortion

First, Sarah Palin connecting the dots:

Via GodSpy.

Now see Obama at Planned Parenthood:

Note the contrast.

Audio: Laura Ingraham Interviews Sarah Palin on abortion

... and other stuff:



Via Hot Air.

Related: Much-Needed Advice for John McCain

In Obama's crosshairs: Abortion alternatives

LifeNews:

Pregnancy centers across the country that provide women with abortion alternatives could be shut down or face severe regulations if Barack Obama wins next month. That's because a bill targeting pregnancy centers could easily be approved in a pro-abortion Congress and land on Obama's desk.

Obama has already promised pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL that he will be their lap dog in the White House and these are the groups leading the effort to pass the bill.

Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey reintroduced the bill in April in the Senate and issued a statement alleging that pregnancy centers mislead women by giving them information on abortion's risks and alternatives.

The so-called "Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act" would place burdensome regulations on pregnancy centers.

It would also force the Federal Trade Commission to create and enforce rules to prohibit deceptive practices that pregnancy centers say they never use to reach women -- such as advertising under the "abortion services" section of the phone book.

I don't think it's that unlikely a scenario. Pregnancy centers are a huge factor in immediatly, effectively reducing the incidence of abortion in this country. They are, morever, in the eyes of Planned Parenthood and professional abortion providers - "competition" in the reproductive services market. And we all know that PP doesn't mind bending and breaking the rules when it can get away with it.

Does Obama support universal coverage for abortion?

John McCormack on the Weekly Standard Blog:

Dduring a campaign conference call about health care yesterday, I asked Obama-Biden surrogate Gov. Kathleen Sebelius if Obama's health care plan would mandate coverage for all legal abortions.

"I really don’t know the specifics of that," she replied. An Obama-Biden spokesman told me via email that he'd find an answer to my question. But subsequent emails and phone calls in the past 24 hours from me to Obama-Biden spokesmen have gone unanswered.

Apparently the Obama-Biden campaign doesn't think it needs to provide basic factual information about their candidate's health care plan. Will any one in the mainstream media hold Obama accountable?

Family Research Council notes:

If abortion coverage is an element of Obama's plan, a poll commissioned by FRC earlier this year shows that it would be to his detriment. A majority of voters (56%) said they would be "less likely" to vote for a presidential candidate proposing universal abortion coverage compared to 31% who would be "more likely" to support such a candidate.

So of course the Obama campaign wouldn't make the "yes" explicit if they could avoid it.

Open thread: reactions to the debate

I watched about the first hour of it or so. I found the conversation monotonous.

Sure, the economy, health care, foreign policy and energy are important topics, but they are not the only topics, and yet these were the only things talked about.

Fred Barnes agrees:

"The problem was the questions .... No doubt there were some questions that would have surprised McCain and Obama or caught them off-guard or forced a moment on candor. But those weren’t asked.

The candidates were queried on a narrow range of foreign, economic, health care, and environmental issues--the stuff they talk about every day at rallies and fundraisers. These didn’t come close to what voters at a real town hall meeting might have asked. There was no mention of abortion, immigration, moral values, same sex marriage, guns, their role models, their view of the presidency, or their religious faith.

... The result was questions that reflected what interests an East Coast newsman.

... Oddly enough, it wasn’t a journalist who staged the best debate between McCain and Obama. It was an ordained minister, Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in California, the author of best-selling The Purpose-Driven Life. In separate sessions, he asked the same questions, first of McCain, then of Obama. Their answers gave voters a far better idea of what makes the two candidates tick than all the policy-reality questions asked in the two official presidential debates and one vice presidential debate.

So what did you think? Who did better? Did your opinions on anything change? Any off-hand observations?

Obama supporter resigns for Franciscan University Board

I mentioned the case of Nicholas Cafardi briefly when he published an article in the National Catholic Reporter. Here's what I identified at the time as objectionable in his article:

• Selective reading of Faithful Citizenship which ignored key passages
• Despair at ever overturning Roe and exhortation that we should get over it
• False claim that McCain and Obama are identical on ESCR
• Gross overstatements about the new DNC platform's language regarding abortion
• False claim that reducing poverty outweighs the DNC plan to liberalize abortion legally
• False claim that republicans have more total moral baggage than Democrats

50+ comments later, today's headline rolled into my inbox: "Obama Supporter Dr. Cafardi Resigns from Franciscan University Board." Before this happened, Franciscan University of Steubenville issued a press release saying Cafardi's views did not reflect those of the University.

The University also quickly moved to distance itself and its president "stressed that Dr. Cafardi's resignation from the board of Franciscan University was voluntary and had in no way been requested by the University" and added that he was "grateful" for Cafardi's letter, as Deal Hudson chronicles. In fact, a group of University students protested a schedule lecture by Cafardi at Carlow College in Pittsburg.

Cafardi is the former dean of the Duquesne University Law School. He was quickly criticized for his public position, and you can bet Steubenville received plenty of complaints as well.

My take: I think Steubenville handled this situation very well, and Cafardi's (publicly) voluntary resignation was probably the best way to handle it.

I wonder what would happen if Doug Kmiec was still at Catholic University as he energetically seeks to convert Catholics into Obama supporters. I have noted that recent press releases for his Pro-Life Pro-Obama media center now include an asterisked line stating clearly that his views are his own and do not represent Pepperdine University.

And, as an aside, it's also fairly evident to me that Kmiec has given up his attempts to have an intellectual debate about his position - he's just part of the Obama faith outreach machine at this point.

Catholic Money funded Obama's political machine

As we attempt to live more frugally, and become better stewards of our resources, I'm sure most folks won't be too pleased to find out that money given to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development has been used, well, to assemble Barack Obama's political machine, as Stephanie Block explains, and Deal Hudson puts into context.

Whatever happened to designated contributions?

Update: MM noticed.

CUA student posts open letter to Professor Doug Kmiec

I thought this was an excellent summary response. This was written by Therese Cory, a graduate instructor at the Catholic University of America. AmP readers will recall that I have taken issue with Kmiec's arguments, as well as the "Pro Life, Pro Obama" website.

Dear Prof. Kmiec,

I wish respectfully to protest against the claims on your new website, "Pro Life, Pro Obama," that pro-life Catholics can in clear conscience vote for Senator Obama.

As a philosopher myself, I respect the fact that you have clearly given long and serious consideration to the problem of pro-life voting. Nevertheless, it seems that one should consider whether promises to fund programs for pregnant mothers counterbalance the social and moral damage done by the strong pro-abortion positions that Senator Obama and his party support, including universally funding abortions through Medicare, banning state parental consent legislation, etc. (see FOCA) This kind of legislation sends the message that abortion is acceptable and makes it more rather than less easy to get an abortion. I heartily endorse offering support to pregnant mothers to alleviate the social problems which fuel abortion. But it seems that such support will be in vain, if a government also sends the contradictory message that abortion is a morally neutral event, by vastly increasing abortion availability. How can truly support the needs of a pregnant mother, without encouraging her as to the value of the life she bears, and while cementing a culture of increasingly free and easy access to abortion?

As a Catholic, moreover, I cannot help but find Senator Obama's pro-abortion voting record antagonistic to the goals set out by recently by numerous U.S. bishops on pro-life voting, and I see no indication that his accession to the presidential office would result in a change of direction. You mention that Senator Obama does not support late-term abortions. But what about his support for partial-birth abortion and criticism of the Supreme Court's upholding of the partial-birth ban? This point at least deserves mention on your website, in view of presenting a complete case. Moreover, his voting record on the case of infants born alive deserves closer investigation; his explanation that the bill in question would overturn Roe v. Wade is most questionable, in view of the provisions stated in the bill (see for instance, here).

In conclusion, Senator Obama's position clearly contravenes the Catholic position on the value of human life. While it may be unrealistic to expect a reversal of Roe v. Wade in the immediate future, Obama's policies would usher in a new era of unprecedented funding for and unrestricted access to abortion. It would consequently solidify the culture of disregard for the value of unborn life. No matter how many mother-friendly programs we support, how can we truly be "pro-mother" when we are constantly sending the contradictory message that her unborn child is of no value?

Respectfully,

Therese Cory

=====

Please consider sending your own letter to Professor Kmiec here: Douglas.Kmiec@pepperdine.edu

Related:

• Catholics Misled Who Back Barack Obama Thinking Abortions Will Go Down
• USAID Decision Points to How Barack Obama Would Fund US, Intl Abortions

Michael Novak takes on "Catholics for Obama"

The entire article is illuminating reading, but I excerpt Michale Novak's reaction to one of the arguments de jour of the new pro-Obama Catholic apologists (underlining mine):

The other reason for supporting Obama that some Catholic leftists put forward is that very little in reducing abortions has been accomplished by the Republican party in the years since President Reagan. Is that claim true?

Well, President Bush did sign the two acts of legislation that Obama opposed in their state forms, the ban on partial-birth abortion and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. These acts do not seriously alter the number of annual abortions. But they do establish in law the fundamental principle of the natural rights of infants in the womb. They treat these human individuals as worthy of respect and they defend their rights to live and breathe and continue growing into adults.

Two formidable obstacles have prevented Republican presidents from going farther. The first is heavy resistance from most Democrats (who until recently were driving pro-life Democrats out of party leadership) and some Republicans (country-club Republicans, mostly). The second is furious resistance from the liberal judiciary (mostly country-club liberals) at almost every higher level.

It is mind-twisting for reasonable people to discern how leftist Democrats think Obama will change his abortion stripes, and then go farther than President George W. Bush (boo! hiss!) in promoting a culture of life. Most of those who will vote for Obama do not think Obama is pro-life. Why should a few leftist Catholics?

Exactly. If Obama were actually the candidate that a few leftist Catholics claim him to be, that means the vast majority of people voting for Obama don't know what he is about. This is a deception being played upon Catholics on a grand scale, and the rank-and-file Obama planners and strategists know it.

"Pro-Life, Pro-Obama" website launched

As proof that "the best lie is a bold lie," I give you the quote of the day:

"Can you be pro-life and support Senator Obama? The answer - upon even a moment's reflection - is 'unequivocally yes.'" (Doug Kmiec, ProLife-ProObama)

Kmiec has jumped the shark. He had once crafted perhaps the single best justification argument for a pro-Obama vote, but now this ... this is all-out vote pandering.

The idea that Catholics can honestly determine that Obama is pro-life "upon even a moment's reflection" is simply absurd beyond argument, looking at the facts. And deciding after a moment's reflection? I'm positive that claim does not even apply to Kmiec himself!

Kmiec surely took more than a moment's reflection to support Obama. In fact, he took years.

Kmiec is throwing all of his eggs into the Obama basket to win over the "Catholic vote," including his previous record: "As Ronald Reagan's legal counsel and as a dean and professor at Catholic University and Notre Dame, I have worked to put the law on the side of life where it belongs."

The point? "Catholic University and Notre Dame hired me! See? I'm Catholic. You can trust me."

Kmiec is the face of Obama's Catholic support. And I'm exasperated by him using his faith to deceive fellow Catholics and make his (arguable) conclusions obligatory upon the rest of us. He is systematically challenging and making a mockery out of every Catholic voter's guide issued by the American bishops, he also makes a shambles of the process by which Catholics are called to inform their conscience, and frankly ... he demonstrates either a deep ignorance or a pathological inability to admit the shortcomings of his candidate.

Kmiec is essentially saying that Catholics must vote for a candidate who can only be called "pro-life" despite his own intention to unequivocally support universal access to abortion. If Obama doesn't want to be pro-life in the proper sense, how are we being pro-life in the proper sense by voting for him?

Let me be very clear: what I take issue with here, specifically, is Kmiec's claim that Obama is somehow a natural or obvious choice for Catholic voters. To say that, one must simply dissent from the Church's teaching that abortion, and the legal support of abortion is gravely wrong.

If Kmiec claims to be a Catholic in good standing, a Catholic to whom other Catholics can look with confidence, I'd like to see one example where he has read the recent writings of Catholic bishops on this and related topics.

Endlessly complaining about the persecution one has received from lay Catholics is an empty self-martyrdom if one continues to obstinately avoid dialogue with the shepherds of the Church.

Catholics know this, and Kmiec should know better. If his position is so obviously the Catholic one, why is he scared to approach the shepherds of the Church - the guardians of what truly is Catholic - with his argument?

I predict we can expect a well-organized media onslaught of Kmiec-clone arguments in the remaining weeks leading up to the election. Sadly PACs and grassroots political organizations frequently have better access to the Catholic faithful than do our own priests and bishops.

But don't be fooled, don't just trust the "experts" - listen to what the bishops are saying. I would challenge anyone to find what Doug Kmiec is saying, printed-up in a voting guide issued by the U.S. Bishops this year.

You won't.

Right on schedule: Nicholas Cafardi of the Religion News Service in National Catholic Reporter.

Let's see....

• Selective reading of Faithful Citizenship while ignoring key passages? Check.
• Despair at ever overturning Roe and exhortation to get over it? Check.
• Lying in the claim that McCain and Obama are identical on ESCR? Check.
• Gross overstatements about the new DNC platform's language re: abortion? Check.
• Claim that reducing poverty outweighs the DNC plan to liberalize abortion legally? Check.
• Claim that republicans have more total moral baggage than Democrats? Check.

Kmiec defends pro-Obama position in conference call

This morning I was able to listen-in on some brief parts of a conference call hosted by the Matthew 25 Network which featured Doug Kmiec defending his position that a Catholic can support Barack Obama for President.

John Allen asked a very interesting question and has posted Kmiec's response.

I only heard bits and snatches of Kmiec's comments in response to a CNS question about the reaction he has encountered subsequent to coming out in support of Obama as a Catholic. He did, however, make some sort of claim that the blog world has been filled mostly with hatred for him and that most of his critics haven't even bothered to read his book.

I have a few reactions to Kmiec. First, my extensive criticisms of his position have always been based on his public position and actual words. As you can see, I've found plenty of material right there.

Second, as for reading Kmiec's book, here's the best review of it I've read so far:

"It doesn't contain anything new, but it does make the best argument that can be made for a preposterous position." (source.)

Kmiec's arguments aren't anything new, and what he says in the book is simply a more extended version of the argument - albeit refined with greater precision - that he's already been peddling. It's an argument I've extensively critiqued on these pages, and think simply does not hold up.

I'll end with an observation about this Matthew 25/Kmiec phenomenon. It doesn't feel genuine. It feels calculated, and political. For one thing, they protest to much: they protest that anyone who criticizes Obama's position on life issues must in fact be a republican and be criticizing Obama essentially for political gain.

I wish they could prove to me that they weren't supporting Obama for identical reasons (i.e., political). And I have some sort of sneaking suspicion that this whole push to get Catholics on the Obama bandwagon ... well, I think all this attention is going to evaporate the day after the election.

Because it's our votes they really want.

More reading (to be updated):

• Catholic Vote Dynamics for the Last 34 Days
• Reagan lawyer now stumps for Obama
• A pastoral letter from Bishop Martino (responds to many of Kmiec's arguments)
• Stephen Douglass 1860 (Jeff Miller's satirical and revealing recasting of Kmiec)
• Straw Everywhere (Amy Welborn is getting mad at this "deceit" as well)

Obama v. Catholics

Obama's Catholic Outreach is coming ... to Saint Joseph's Catholic University.

Obama v. Babies

If you are looking for a simple, succinct, chilling overview of Obama and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act controversy, see Hadley Arkes.

Meanwhile, Jill Stanek fact checks factcheck.org, which as I said in my last post on this topic, makes the best possible attempt at a counter-claim.

BornAliveTruth.org is also asking for support to spread its message.

As Hadley Arkes mentions above, the Obama camp is playing very aggressively on this issue (almost for broke), trying to make reverse political profit on it.

Papist Quote of the Day

Deal Hudson on pro-Obama Catholic Doug Kmiec's new book:

"It doesn't contain anything new, but it does make the best argument that can be made for a proposterous position."

Deal suggests reading this article by Deacon Keith Fournier for a thorough review and refutation.

I pointed out a serious error in Kmiec's book last week here.

Related: Doug Johnson on the Obama Abortion Reduction Scam

Video: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

It may generate some heated debate, but this video has become very popular (6ook+ views) and makes the case that the current economic woes can be directly tied to democrat-mandated programs under the Carter and Clinton administrations which forced banks to issue faulty loans to people who could not repay them.

The video, while clearly partisan, does not contradict, for instance, the situation described by this 1999 New York Times article.

A root question about this economic downturn must be "what caused it"? Right now, democrat-proposed legislation to force the availability of "affordable home loans" to those who could not repay them seems high on the list of likely causes. Not the exclusive cause, mind you, but an important one.

Okay, have at it....

The"Freedom of Choice" Act: A wolf waiting in the shadows

Barack Obama promised a group of prominant abortion advocates that his "very first" act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law.

Such a law, it has been predicted, would result in many, many more abortions in America each year:

FOCA is usually reported as “codifying Roe v. Wade,” but it is much more. Since the Webster and Casey decisions in 1989 and 1992, the Supreme Court has allowed states to limit abortion somewhat by such things as requiring parental involvement and informed consent, prohibiting government funding of most abortion, and more recently outlawing most partial birth abortions.

Specifically, if FOCA is passed it will increase abortions by 125,000 more per year in the United States. Since 2004, Dr. Michael New has published studies with the Heritage Foundation showing that a large reduction in abortions can be attributed to these three kinds of laws. (LifeNews)

Such grim statistics really put the lie to the claim that the democrat platform intends to reduce the overall number of abortions in America each year. As much as their social plans may reduce the occurance of abortion incedentally, it is a known fact that their legal proposals will increase the occurance of abortion directly and dramatically.

The American bishops are aware of this fact as well, and Cardinal Regali, the chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities has written to congress:

Cardinal Justin Rigali sent the letter to Congress on Friday and warned against enactment of the proposed bill (S. 1173, H.R. 1964).

“Despite its deceptive title,” he wrote, “FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry."

He added: "FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. And FOCA would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country.”

Cardinal Rigali, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, wrote that, under FOCA, “abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women.”

While some have said the bill would simply codify the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, he added, supporters of FOCA say it “would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies” that are now in effect because they do not conflict with Roe.

These include bans on public funding of abortions as well as “modest and widely supported state laws” protecting women’s safety, informed consent and parental rights.

With his letter, Cardinal Rigali enclosed a legal analysis by the bishops’ Office of General Counsel documenting the extreme legal impact of FOCA. (LifeNews)

You can read the cardinal's letter here (PDF) and the legal analysis here (PDF). Zenit provides a summary.

Joseph Bottum sums things up

Joseph Bottum, editor of First Things, has an excellent piece in the UK Weekly Standard that sums up well about twenty or so stories that AmP has been covering in recent months regarding catholics and American politics.

I urge you to read the whole article, but if don't have time, at least note his conclusion (underlining mine):

"And yet, there remains that question of abortion. Things have tightened over the last few years, the Catholic position is firmer in the public's mind--firmer in the Catholic mind, for that matter. McCain was a long way from the pro-lifers' first choice for a Republican nominee, but the Democrats this election cycle are determined to force the issue. They've pushed, and they've pushed, and they've pushed, until Catholics are falling off the cliff. Poor Doug Kmiec and his sad question, "Can a Catholic Support Him?" As a matter of good conscience, the answer looks increasingly like no, a Catholic can't support Obama. And as a matter of political fact--well, that's starting to look like no, as well, isn't it?"

Of course, it's better to earn this conclusion after following Bottum's extended analysis.

If you don't agree with Bottum's conclusion, please at least read the entirety of his piece before objecting.

Obama's official faith tour ... flops?

The Christian Broadcasting Network had the scoop on the plan:

An official with Barack Obama’s campaign tells The Brody File that beginning next week the campaign will start an official faith tour in key battleground states called “Barack Obama: Faith, Family and Values Tour”. The subheading of the tour is as follows: “Voting ALL Our Values”

The Brody File is told that top faith surrogates will hit the trail for Obama. Some of those high profile figures include Former Indiana Congressman and pro-life Democrat Tim Roemer, Catholic legal scholar Doug Kmiec, and author Donald Miller.

But the early word from one source is that only 15 people showed up for the first event.

Can anyone add any details to this picture?

Bishops invite presidential candidates for a sit-down

They're saying "stop on by!":

Leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have invited both major party presidential candidates to meet with them before the election, reportedly to discuss social issues. The bishops who would attend any such meeting are chairmen of USCCB committees on pro-life issues, education, migration, international affairs and communications.

A spokeswoman for the McCain campaign told the Wall Street Journal that the Republican senator wants to accept the invitation, but does not know if he can fit a meeting into his schedule.

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, Media Director of the USCCB, confirmed to CNA that neither candidate has accepted the invitation yet. (CNA)

As I've noted before, McCain has squeezed-in meetings with several bishops during his journies across the states. Obama? Not-a-one (that I've seen reported, anyway).

Again, this really makes me wonder about the sincerity of Obama's Catholic outreach, when he himself refuses to pursue a meeting with our bishops and the head of his Catholic outreach committee refuses to debate any notable Catholic representatives.

Basically, it makes me think they just want our votes, not our input.

Picture: The Obama bumper sticker you won't see

Jeff Miller heard about the Obama campaign rolling out a line of "faith merchandise", and added his own:

And that's just a sample.

Video: Born Alive Truth (+ links/commentary)

BornAliveTruth.org is trying to spread awareness about Obama's record of voting (four times) against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. BornAliveTruth just released a $350,000-funded TV spot:

I thought it interesting that the partial-birth abortion survivor's name is Gianna. Saint Gianna Beretta Molla is perhaps the most famous pro-life saint of the 20th century. I wonder if there is a connection.

Jill Stanek, who is deeply involved in this issue, updates us on the initial Obama-camp response:

"We're hearing from the media Obama's people are telling them they have no comment on the Gianna ad, that Obama didn't vote for Born Alive because it would undermine Roe. Even if that were true, which it is not, am I hearing Obama admit he supports infanticide if it would otherwise interfere with legalized abortion."

By way of comparison, note this observation by the TV spot's accompanying press release:

"Legislation identical to the proposed Illinois law was passed by the U.S. Senate (before Obama became a US Senator) by a vote of 98-0. This included even the most adamant pro-choice Senators."

Obama has tried to claim that the Senate legislation was not "identical", but the facts simply do not support his claim, as I blogged previously. In fact, he went so far as to call those who disagree with him about this factual matter "liars." Calling truth-tellers "liars" never wins points in my book.

Jill Stanek isn't letting Obama's media team confuse the issue, and says "Stick to the Obama/Born Alive talking points." Until they respond to those forthrightly they simply haven't got a case. We're still waiting on that one.

Now, in the interest of fairness - because I do believe the facts are on BornAliveTruth's side when it comes to this contested issue - Reproductive Health Reality Check mounts the best defense it can. (RHRC is ultra-liberal in its promotion of abortion, contraception, etc.)

I contend, however, that all RHRC succeeds in doing is to demonstrate that Obama vigilantly safeguards abortion rights in any and all circumstances. The supreme "right" to abortion-on-demand is a core value of his that trumps all other human rights issues, and it is, moreover, an issue intimately wrapped-up in the "politics as usual" of the Democrat party that he constantly claims to have moved beyond.

Either way, BornAliveTruth makes an important point.

update: thanks to a reader who notes that FactCheck.org also vetted this controversy extensively. From my reading, it seems to me an unfair claim to say that Obama "supports infanticide." I do think, however, that it is clear he is prepared and committed to defending abortion to its extreme limit (e.g., you can kill a child as long as it has not yet taken a breath outside its mother's womb).

Moreover, FactCheck.org does point out that Obama and his surrogates have essentially switched their explanation in regards to the motivations and details surrounding Obama's votes.

What happened? My take: A junior state senator played local Democrat party politics to the advantage of the moment and is now trying to retroactively gloss-over his decisions when appearing in a national spotlight, with a national election at stake.

Again, either way, BornAliveTruth makes an important point.

update 2: Stanek responds:

"... if you listen to the audio recently released [link includes transcript] of Obama's 2002 SenateFloor speech on Born Alive, you can come to no other conclusion than that he supports infanticide.

In the clip he admits babies may survive abortions but a 2nd physician shouldn't be called to assess and resuscitate the baby because it would place a "burden" on the "original decision" of the mother to abort. What else is that if not supporting infanticide?"

Obama's point is this (and it takes some effort to glean what he is saying): providing a safety net of a second doctor to ensure that children accidentally born alive during partial-birth abortions would "burden" the women's decision to abort her child ("how?" one might ask). What Obama is worried about preserving is the absolute "right" of the woman to not have a live child on her hands, one way or the other, once she has decided to have an abortion.

The darker insinuation one could make is that in fact Obama does not want a second doctor around keeping a watchful eye out to ensure that the original doctor does not break the law by withholding life-sustaining treatment from a live-born infant.

Obama campaign rolls out line of "faith merchandise"

Aimed broadly at Christians, but more specifically at Catholics:

The Obama campaign is preparing rolling out a new line of “faith merchandise” – the latest move in an ambitious effort to win over religious voters.

“Check out the Believers for Barack, Pro-Family Pro-Obama, and Catholics for Obama buttons, bumper stickers and signs….” says Obama Deputy Director of Religious Affairs Paul Monteiro in an e-mail obtained by the Beliefnet Web site.

Both campaigns have been making a major push for the Catholic vote, which has gone to the winning presidential campaign in every race since 1976, except Al Gore’s 2000 White House bid.

Beliefnet reported that "Clergy for Change" and "Pro-Israel Pro-Obama" merchandise will soon be offered. (CNN)

Of course, there are other stickers to be had out there.

With less than 50 days to go until Election Day, watch for things to heat up - fast. It's a changed game: "For 1st time this election, more Americans think McCain will win."

Strange that the Obama campaign should be doing all this merchandising distribution, while staunchly avoiding any opportunity to dialogue with the leaders of the Catholic church.

McCain has met repeatedly with various bishops during his travels, and I'm sure Obama has had similar opportunities but has turned them down. The infamous "Pelosi Timer" is at 10 days and counting. Joe Biden has not publicly responded to to any of the fourteen bishops who have criticized his public defense of abortion and he skipped out on the installation Mass of his own local bishop.

Oh wait, not so strange at all, really.

4:15PM EST: Hudson v. Kmiec?

{update - 4:21pm ... it's happening!}

I've been burned by promoting these sorts of appearances before, but from what I know about Doug Kmiec, he won't back down after promising to appear. I hope to listen-in as it should be extremely interesting:

In March of this year, Catholic legal scholar Doug Kmiec shocked the Catholic world by endorsing Barak Obama for President. This longtime pro-life, pro-family leader has gone on to advise on the Democratic Party platform, conduct numerous interviews in support of Obama, and has even released a book today on the Catholic case for Obama. He joins Al Kresta this afternoon in his first debate with a fellow Catholic since his endorsement. He will face off with long-time Catholic leader and McCain supporter Deal Hudson, on whether a Catholic can, in good conscience, cast a vote for Barak Obama.

Kmiec / Hudson, only on Kresta in the Afternoon. 4:15 – 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Live audio stream at http://www.avemariaradio.net/.

Ph/t: Carl Olson of Insight Scoop.

Commentary: Abortion and the New Democratic Platform

Michael Sean Winters of the America Magazine election blog has an interesting post today entitled "Note to Dems: Shut Up!"

I agree in substance with his first part:

First, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi demonstrated that she wasn’t paying attention during theology classes when she matriculated at Trinity College. Now, Sen. Joe Biden has managed to wade into the treacherous waters of making pronouncements on what the Church does, and does not, teach about when human life begins. The Democrats’ vice-presidential candidate, who has a mixed record on pro-life issues, went further than he needed to go on "Meet the Press" yesterday, mentioning Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica as if he were an expert, but quickly demonstrating that he is no theologian.

Note to Democratic candidates: You are not running to become theologian-in-chief.

I want to believe, but remain wary, of his next claim:

And, in the event, the platform you just adopted has something genuinely new and important to say about abortion, and theological speculation is just going to step on that platform.

The Democrats, for the first time, called for policies that will reduce the number of abortions by preventing crisis pregnancies in the first place and by providing assistance to women facing crisis pregnancies so that they can carry their child to term. The GOP removed similar language from their platform, keeping their traditional but so far unsuccessful call for overturning Roe v. Wade.

Winters' sets out perhaps the best argument the DNC has going for them right now when it comes to attacting pro-life voters (otherwise known as "practicing Catholics"). But let's follow the strands.

Steve Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, agrees and disagrees with Winters:

The Obama campaign had been arguing that the candidate was charting a third-way approach to abortion: supporting abortion rights but promoting policies that would reduce the number of abortions.

Pro-life liberals were therefore deeply disappointed to hear that after the Palin announcement, the Democrats started running a radio ad [MP3 file] about abortion that made no mention of abortion reduction, instead just stating the Democrats' support for abortion rights. "Unless the Obama campaign will stop emphasizing abortion rights and strongly address the major common cause issues with a spirited vision and practical details, the Republicans can continue to scoop up a ton of votes," said Joel Hunter, a moderate evangelical who gave a benediction at the Democratic convention.

Waldman goes on to claim that Biden and Obama are both re-adjusting their language:

This Sunday, the Democratic ticket seemed to emphasize a new approach. On Meet the Press, Joe Biden went farther than the platform or Obama had gone before: "what we're going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care, the assistance and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children."

A Democratic candidate pledging to "reduce considerably the amount of abortions" -- that's the phrase that pro-life liberals have been yearning for.

On This Week with George Stephanopolous, Obama returned to talking about abortion reduction (and also clarified his above-my-paygrade gaffe [watch video]). He said his paygrade line was "too flip" and that "as a Christian I have a lot of humility about understanding about when does the soul enter. All I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions."

Now I wish these words could be taken at their face value (would that the democrat party did become truly pro-life!), but the simple fact of the matter is that Biden receives a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Committee, and Obama was "Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007." Have they had a change of heart since they earned these ratings?

In 2007, Obama promised NARAL that his first act as President would be to "sign the Freedom of Choice Act." On the 35th Anniversary of Roe V. Wade, Barack Obama on his campaign website still says:

"Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it's never been more important to protect a woman's right to choose...With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women's fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election."

"Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

"When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president."

And where does Joe Biden stand on this issue? He co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act in the 102nd and 103rd congresses. "FOCA would overturn hundreds of state laws on the books that limit abortion."

Here's what I'm seeing: when Obama or Biden (or Pelosi, for that matter) are addressing a general audience, they talk about wishing to bring down the number of abortions, provide alternatives, etc. They also "helpfully" suggest expanding access to contraceptives, but we'll leave that aside for now.

When, however, Obama or Biden have a pro-choice audience, they are unabashed in their support for abortion-on-demand. (Can you imagine, for instance, Barack Obama or Joe Biden telling Planned Parenthood - which receives huge amounts of federal funding - that they should begin encouraging their patients to carry their children to term?)

Nor is this double-talk confined to the democrat higher ups (though even their practice of it should give us pause), the specter of Roe v. Wade being repealed is regularly used, up and down the party line, to intimidate people - and women especially - into voting for a democratic candidate. I showcased a classic example of these scare tactics a week or so ago at the DNC convention itself.

Back to my main point: in order to truly make a case before the entire American people that the DNC has changed its views on abortion, their Presidential candidate must be willing to repudiate the support of radical pro-abortion lobbies and interests. If he cannot do that, then this change in the DNC platform remains a classical case of politicians and political party wanting to have it both ways.

Sadly, it's all the same for the present and future victims of abortion.

Pictures: US Weeky's double standard (Palin v. Obama)

For today's example in objective, non-editorializing popular journalism, I give you:

Exhibit A: "Barack Obama. He loves his wife. She calls him "my rock." Isn't their wedding picture cute? There's nothing much else to say, folks, because it's all good - just like him!"

Exhibit B: "Sarah Palin. She lies. She's immersed in scandals. She's having babies like crazy. Her daughter doesn't know how to use birth control. She fires her sister's ex-husbands. Need we say more?"

The backlash has reached 10,000 boycotters, and US Weekly is feeling the hit.

More than sickeningly embarassing.

Related: Women shifting to McCain according to Rasmussen

Hadley Arkes on "Kmiec Agonistes"

Hadley Arkes scratches his head about Douglas Kmiec's support of Barack Obama, and makes many excellent points along the way. Kmiec, it should be remembered, once had a sterling pro-life reputation.

I'm not going to pull an excerpt out from the text because I think the whole article deserves to be read.

(And by the bye, can someone answer me why an astute list of contributors couldn't come up with anything more inventive than "The Catholic Thing" for their title? It isn't even strictly accurate... Okay, I've done.)

Flashback: A democrat explains faith & abortion

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

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

Give this statement a read and see what you think:

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

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

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

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

John-Henry Weston editorializes:

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

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

The Biden Rundown

Obama has announced his running mate:

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

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

In another report, the radioactive phrase about Biden appears:

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

Biden, according to the public record, is also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Read on.]

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

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

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

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

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

Now what a naive, narrow observation to make.

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

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

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

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

What are your thoughts? Open thread time...

update, day 2 reactions:

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

Update: Obama and the Born Alive Protection Act

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

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

...

Dawn Eden has also been covering the story intensely.

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

Zogby poll: Obama losing ground among Catholics

The numbers from the latest Zogby poll:

Support among Catholics in July: 47%

Support among Catholics in August: 36%

Change: -11%

Ph/t: InsideCatholic.

"The Case Against Barack Obama" booksigning

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

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

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

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

Update: CNA talks about Freddoso and his book today.

How long can Obama ignore it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A link depository:

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

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

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

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

[Michelle Malkin even picked this story up.]

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

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

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

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

Reports: 3 of 6 VP-candidates are Catholic, 3 of 3 are pro-abortion

With veep-announcements for both Republicans and Democrats expected soon, CNA reports on the short-list of candidates, and finds all of them on the Democrat side to be pro-choice Catholics.

But first, on the Republican side:

Presumptive Republican nominee and Arizona Sen. John McCain will reportedly announce his running mate pick on August 29, his 72nd birthday, at a rally in Dayton, Ohio, UPI reports.

His leading choices reportedly include former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

"McCain views this as the one decision that he has total, utter, non-negotiable control over," one campaign official told the Washington publication Politico.

Pawlenty was raised Catholic but now attends an evangelical Protestant church.

McCain recently said that he would not rule out a running mate favorable to abortion rights. Romney had a pro-abortion record as governor but professes to have become pro-life.

And now, on the Democrat side:

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is also expected to announce his running mate choice soon, amNewYork reports. amNewYork lists possible choices as Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, and Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed.

amNewYork describes Gov. Kaine as a “religious Catholic” and Sen. Reed as a “devout Catholic.”

Sen. Biden, too, is reportedly Catholic, yet all three Catholic Democratic contenders are supportive of abortion rights.

The AP (and others) include Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius in that short list. I would be shocked if Obama chose her, considering the run-in she's already had with local Bishop Neumann (and other reasons).

But we'll see. It appears on the Democrat side that we can expect a repeat of the controversies which surrounded Catholic presidential candidate John Kerry and his reception of the Eucharist in 2004.

... oh yeah, he's also a (long-shot) veep candidate for Obama.

Report: Obama appears ready to announce running mate

I'll believe it when I see it, but the signs are lining up:

Senator Barack Obama has all but settled on his choice for a running mate and set an elaborate rollout plan for his decision, beginning with an early morning alert to supporters, perhaps as soon as Wednesday morning, aides said.

Obama's deliberations remain remarkably closely held. Aides said perhaps a half-dozen advisers were involved in the final discussions in an effort to enforce a command that Obama issued to staff members: that his decision not leak out until supporters are notified.

Obama had not notified his choice — or any of those not selected — of his decision as of late Monday, advisers said. Going into the final days, Obama was said to be focused mainly on three candidates: Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia and Senator Joseph Biden Jr. of Delaware.

Some Democrats said they still hoped that he would choose Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, or Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, who has been under steady consideration by Obama's campaign. (International Herald Tribune)

And we can expect McCain to quickly follow suit. As the article says, we shouldn't expect a game-changer pick, rather a safe, complementary choice.

But if he chooses a pro-choice Catholic - well, that could get interesting.

Video: Obama lies by calling pro-lifers ... liars

Obama's evidently has made the decision to dig in his heals about his voting record on the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act and the federal Born Alive bill. Here's the gist of the situation:

Obama claims the two bills are different. His campaign has long claimed the two bills are different. And watch what he had to say the most recent time he was asked about them:

Trouble is, the public-record documents reveal, without a doubt, that Obama is wrong: the two documents are the same (CNA provides more backstory).

And obviously, National Right to Life doesn't like being called a liar, so its Director has asked Obama to claim that his Born Alive votes are "forgeries" (or admit his error, I guess).

Now, because the objective evidence is squarely against Obama, only laziness or intentional-story-burying in the media can kill this embarrassing (and revealing) state of affairs.

The early word from the presses (tracked by Jill Stanek) seems to suggest that Obama's campaign is in a scramble to nip this situation in the bud by adding an additional level of legislative confusion - a point that Obama makes no reference to in his taped interview:

Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported "was not the bill that was presented at the state level."

His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law. (NY Sun)

And well they should be scrambling: Obama's cavalier/confident attitude about this situation is completely backfiring. All you need to do is re-watch this video clip and realize that he is, in fact, lying, and the enormous stupidity of his decision to try to stare down the NRL claims becomes evident, as Deal hudson points out.

Even worse for him: he is now on video stating, with complete surety, his position. His is the kind of categorical denial that unnecessarily required him to place his reputation and voting record on the line in an unqualified way. Therefore, either he is right, and the situation goes away, or he is wrong (actually the case), and he must now either admit to lying about these claims, or being ignorant of his own voting record while claiming to know his position inside and out, and - to top it all off - explain why he would go after NRL and others asking these (legitimated) questions by calling them liars.

I really don't see a way for him to survive a serious blow to his credibility ... except one thing:

Media silence.

And so the question remains: will Obama get away with calling NRL "liars," about something they in fact have correctly claimed, in no small part because he is relying on the media to not pursue the story further?

Video: Pro-Obama ad features Catholic theologian Lisa Cahill

AmP Reader Damian of Conservathink notes the inclusion of Catholic theologian Lisa Sowle Cahill in a pro-Obama ad which implictly criticizes John McCain's poor marriage record. This ad played on CNN (and possibly MSNBC) during Saturday's values forum.

Over at ultra-liberal haven Daily Kos, someone from the Matthew 25 Network - the team that put this ad together - claims it is "the first time clergy have appeared in a [television] commercial to speak out in support of a Democratic Presidential Candidate." It describes Cahill as "one of the biggest names in Theology Today. Lisa Cahill is a major voice for Catholic Women, and will be a great voice for Barack in the coming month."

Cahill made it onto the AmP radar last November when she "predictably [made] the case for continuing the status quo in regards to the USCCB's public instruction on voting, pro-abort politicians, receiving Communion, etc." Obviously, the USCCB did not follow her advice in their publication of Faithful Citizenship.

Well, Cahill is back in the public eye:

She is described in this video as a "Catholic theologian", or at least Boston College thinks so.

This is her script:

Cahill: "He understands the pressures families are under. And what it takes to help families thrive."

Unfortunately, one of Obama's solution to the pressures families are under ... is to abort their offspring, even through partial birth abortion.

Matthew 25, meanwhile, promises "In the coming months you will see more ads spots in various formates on Torture, the Poverty, the AIDS crisis, and the Environment from us."

... and yet no mention of moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research.

Ph/t: Hot Air, which asks:

Exit question: Which opportunistic reversal is more shameless? Democrats suddenly deciding that infidelity is a serious electoral issue or Democrats suddenly deciding that no, on second thought, military experience isn’t essential in a commander-in-chief?

Now that's a new take on Obama's "new politics."

And do note that this video is an example of Obama's outreach efforts to Catholics and other Christians. Does it strike you as genuine?

nota bene: Obama's prime vice presidential candidate is a pro-abortion Catholic - Tim Kaine.

A quick political check-up

On the one hand:
"McCain has not ruled out pro-choice running mate"

On the other hand:
"Evidence shows Obama misrepresents his opposition to Born-Alive Infants Protection Act"

Meanwhile, Obama's people are quick to issue a 40-page rebuttal of The Obama Nation (by all accounts, a screed), and yet they are remaining strangly silent about David Freddoso's new book, The Case Against Barack Obama, which is quickly climbing the Amazon.com charts (#11 as of this posting).

Why the silence? Having read the book, I'd say "because it's hard to rebut the truth."

Video: "The first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

The real Obama:

Of course, don't expect to learn about this from CNN.

Related: A Catholic case against Barack by Pat Buchanan

Also related: Americans United for Life announces available funding for voter guides

"Sen. McCain holds private meeting with Archbishop Chaput"

Scant little details:

Senator John McCain is paying his second visit to Colorado in less than a week and on this trip he is taking time to meet privately with Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver.

At 9:30 on Wednesday morning, John McCain and his wife Cindy met with Denver’s Archbishop Charles Chaput. The archbishop described the meeting as private and told CNA that no comment would be forthcoming. (CNA)

Off the top of my head, Abp. Chaput has been an active supporter of immigrants' rights (where he would find common ground with McCain), and also Abp. Chaput has a forthcoming book on Catholic faith and voting (which Inside Catholic mentioned will be published "well in time for November's election").

Most to the point, I think, with Abp. Burke out of the country, Abp. Chaput is the most notable bishop who "strongly implied in 2004 that voting for a pro-choice candidate was a serious sin" (this blogger's words, not mine).

Abp. Chaput has, for instance, called out the group "Roman Catholics for Obama '08" and demanded they ask Obama to "become pro-life, instead of overlooking his support for abortion in favor of other issues of concern to Catholics" (derivative source: CNA).

More than a throwaway meeting, this sit down of McCain and Abp. Chaput.

Israel paper publishes Obama's private note placed in Western Wall

An outrageous stunt:

Daily newspaper Maariv published the contents of the note to G-d which Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama placed in the Kotel Thursday. The paper claims a yeshiva student took the note out of the crack in the Kotel which Obama placed it in, as is done traditionally in the belief that G-d will receive the writer's wishes.

... Notes to the Kotel are considered extremely personal and never, in recent memory, has one been published against the wishes of the person who placed it.

The LA Times has a scan of the text:

It reads: "Lord - Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair [edited]. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will."

I have to say, if the note is genuine - it's a good note.

The surprivising Rabbi is very angry, and understandably so:

The rabbi who supervises Jerusalem's Western Wall [Wikipedia entry] condemned the removal of a prayer note purportedly written by Sen. Barack Obama, saying the action was "sacrilegious."

The U.S. presidential candidate visited the holy site early Thursday and placed a note in the cracks of the wall -- a custom of visitors.

The note was subsequently removed from the wall, according to the Israeli newspaper, Ma'ariv, which printed what it said were the contents of the prayer.
Ma'ariv said a seminary student gave the note to the newspaper.

Obama's senior strategist Robert Gibbs told CNN, "We haven't confirmed nor denied" that the note is from the Illinois senator.

"This sacrilegious action deserves sharp condemnation and represents a desecration of the holy site," said Rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz, who supervises the Western Wall, in a statement.

He said notes are supposed to be removed twice a year, on the eve of Jewish New Year and Passover, and placed in a repository under supervision "to keep them hidden from human eyes."

"Notes which are placed in the Western Wall are between the person and his Maker; Heaven forbid that one should read them or use them in any way," Rabinowitz said.

CNN's Sasha Johnson, who was a part of a pool of journalists who accompanied Obama to the wall, said when reporters asked Obama what he wrote, he declined to share the contents of his prayer. (CNN)

If only the same respect were widely given to the seal of confession as is being shown to the Western Wall.

Obama's director of Catholic outreach dodges Catholic radio

Nick Thomm, who recently facilitated my appearance on Al Kresta's program, was recently given the run around by the director of "Catholic Outreach for Obama":

Mark Linton, director of Catholic Outreach for the Obama Campaign, refused to appear on a Catholic radio show to explain Obama’s views regarding abortion and address his accusations of supporting infanticide.

...

After successfully contacting Hudson, Thomm was unable to find a contact number for Linton on the party’s website. When he contacted Obama’s Senate office, he told that they couldn’t give out Linton’s phone number and that he would have to send Linton an email.

After sending Linton an email on Monday afternoon and another Tuesday morning, Thomm called Senator Obama’s office once again to try and reach Linton in time for Kresta’s 4 p.m. (ET) radio show.

Thomm explained that when he called Obama’s senate office he told the Obama staffer, “we have no choice but to think that he’s trying dodge us. He’s supposed to be a National Catholic Outreach coordinator and we’re a Catholic radio show, so who’s he doing outreach to?” (CNA)

Meanwhile, McCain's folks are actively courting the Catholic vote:

John McCain is preparing to ramp up his efforts to reach out to Catholic voters with a “very, very aggressive” campaign, spearheaded by his newly created Catholic Outreach Coalition.

Frank Donatelli, the Deputy Chairman of the Republican National Committee, spoke to reporters and Catholic media on a conference call this morning about the efforts that the McCain campaign is planning to reach Catholic voters.

Donatelli described the Catholic Outreach Coalition, chaired by Sen. Sam Brownback and Frank Keating, as “first-rate” and said that it will be “very well-funded.” (CNA)

Why the disparity? Why does the McCain campaign seem so much more "at home" talking to Catholics about the issues that matter most? And why does Obama's supposed appeal among religious voters seemingly falter when it comes to Catholics? And finally, why do Obama's defenders rarely, if ever, consent to debating their candidate's positions in a free public forum?

And finally, why isn't the answer to all these questions "because Obama's platform is less acceptable to Catholics than McCain's platform, and Obama's people know it."?

Okay, have at it.

Religion and Politics: the big (and changing?) picture

Plenty happening here, and quickly. Again, too much to go into at this point, but here's what I'm reading:

First off, Obama is off to a 15% lead in recent polling.

David Gibson, meanwhile, sees in recent data a shift by Catholics away from the Republican party.

CNA takes a look at the numbers on its own.

On the major networks, commentators are making their play, and hard. Matthew Balan at News Busters takes a look at a few of these episodes, most of which I actually managed to catch live as I was travelling today.

Now if I could just get an uninterrupted space of time to reflect on all this. Help me out and start us out.

Obama, Dobson, Catholics & Evangelicals: a recap

With a scant four months to go before the presidential election, things are popping into high gear.

First off, Dobson rips Obama for intentionally distorting Scripture.

Deacon Fournier looks at what's happening, and has some good stuff to say.

Frank Schaeffer, meanwhile, surveys the situation from a polar-opposite perspective.

William McGurn, however, gets closer to the real heart of the issue in the WSJ.

With stories like this likely to proliferate and grow, I'm going to hold off throwing my two cents into the ring until I've had a bit of time to do the homework. This won't be the last story on these topics, to be sure.

Did Obama define sin as "being out of alignment with my values."

I've seen some folks pass along the claim that Obama said the following:

Interviewer: Do you believe in sin?
OBAMA: Yes.
Interviewer: What is sin?
OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.

Now if Obama said such a thing, it's an amazing claim. And I could see him saying something like that. I just find it troubling that the source for the quote is a bit hard to pin down.

The quote is claimed to come from an interview he gave in 2004 to religion reporter Cathleen Falsani at the Chicago Sun-Times. The reporter has posted the "uncut" version of the interview on her blog. It's not clear that the quotation above made it into her original article or the book she later published - she does not claim it can be found in either. I wasn't able to find the article on the Sun-Times website, for instance. So that means it's only source I've been able verify is the personal website of the reporter.

Nonetheless, the above quote has already made it into Hot Air, and National Review Online blog not once, but twice. And now it's making its way around Catholic blogs.

I'd just feel better if someone had actually seen it in print before we spend too much time on it. Again, I'm not claiming Obama didn't say it, or wouldn't, I'm just saying it feels a bit too easy (considering what a short, easy line it is to pick apart).

But who knows, maybe it is.

Obama, Cardinal George, and the Pfleger Situation

After my brief blogging hiatus, it didn't take long to realize that the controversy surrounding Fr. Michael Pfleger and his political remarks constituted the big story over the weekend.

A plus side to covering the story late - time yields perspective and has allowed the dust to settle.

But first, a quick recap: Fr. Pfleger is a well-known activist priest, the pastor of St. Sabina's parish (or "faith community", as it calls itself) in Chicago since 1981. He recently achieved notoriety by criticizing Hillary Clinton at Barack Obama's former church (Rev. Jeremiah Wright):

Pfleger mimicked Clinton while delivering a guest sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ two Sundays ago. During the sermon, Pfleger, who is white, mocked Clinton for getting choked up on camera before the New Hampshire primary in January.

“When Hillary was crying … I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought ‘This is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white. And this is mine’,” he said, shouting at times. “Then out of nowhere came, ‘Hey I’m Barack Obama’. And she said, ‘Oh damn! Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!’”

After that, he simulated Clinton crying and said: “She wasn’t the only one crying. There was a whole lot of white people crying … I’m sorry. I don’t wanna get you in any more trouble. The live streaming just went out again.” (FOX)

Then he got into more trouble later by saying "America is the Greatest Sin Against God":

It is clear, however, that he inadvertently said "America" when he meant to say "Racism" (just watch the whole video). Nonetheless, he's also on record defending Jeremiah Wright, etc.:

I don't want to get too far off topic (in Fr. Pfleger's defense, read his letter of apology).

These two videos I think reveal enough about this priest's priorities and imbalances to inform what actually interests me: a) how Cardinal George has handled the situation, b) how Obama has reacted, and c) how various commentators are reacting.

A: Cardinal George has issued a statement today on the Archdiocese of Chicago website:

To put recent events in some perspective, I have asked Father Michael Pfleger, Pastor of St. Sabina’s Parish, to step back from his obligations there and take leave for a couple of weeks from his pastoral duties, effective today. Fr. Pfleger does not believe this to be the right step at this time. While respecting his disagreement, I have nevertheless asked him to use this opportunity to reflect on his recent statements and actions in the light of the Church’s regulations for all Catholic priests. I hope that this period will also be a time away from the public spotlight and for rest and attention to family concerns.

I hope also that the life of St. Sabina’s parish may continue in uninterrupted fashion. Fr. William Vanecko, Pastor of St. Kilian’s parish, will be temporary administrator of St. Sabina’s and will assure the full complement of ministerial services during this period. I ask the members of St. Sabina’s parish to cooperate with him and to keep him and Fr. Pfleger in their prayers. They are in mine.

While obviously diplomatic, I don't think you can find much fault with the statement. It serves the immediate purpose of neutralizing (or attempting to neutralize) Fr. Pfleger.

Rocco tracks some of the back story that led up to this statement being issued:

After apologizing for the offense caused by his Trinity sermon (fullvideo) during Sunday's Mass at the parish, Pfleger launched into another sermon (audio) saying that if YouTube existed at the time of the crucifixion, it would've ignored the resurrection.

CNS also publishes more words from Cardinal George on the matter. The Cardinal is being watched especially closely in how he handles this matter because he is currently the President of the USCCB. (Incidentally, last Thursday the Cardinal ordained two priests, with beautiful pictures posted at NLM.)

Jill Stanek notes that Fr. Fleger and Cardinal George had a showdown in 2002, "when the Archbishop blinked first." Even in 2002, Fr. Fleger was described by the Chicago Sun-Times as a priest who "has a long habit of rebellion."

If you want an example of the damage caused when problem priests are allowed to persist, you've got a classic case right here it seems. All the articles and links for that are available here.

B: Obama himself has a long history with Fr. Pfleger:

.... Obama's relationship with Pfleger -- who is the priest at a different, Catholic, church -- spans decades.

In September, the Obama campaign brought Pfleger to Iowa to host one of several interfaith forums for the campaign. Pfleger has given money to Obama's campaigns and Obama as a state legislator directed at least $225,000 towards social programs at St. Sabina's, according to the Chicago Tribune. Pfleger appears to have been scrubbed from the Obama campaign's page that features the testimony of faith leaders, but you can see the cached version