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

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

Bishop Tobin recently granted an interview to the Providence Journal:

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

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

Josh further tells us:

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

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

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

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

I totally agree.

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

Commentary: Bishop Sample prevents Bishop Gumbleton from appearing in his diocese

This is a sad, but encouraging story. It is certainly important.

It is sad because a young orthodox bishop had to tell an older, heterodox bishop to stay out of his diocese.

It is encouraging because the young orthodox bishop did this for all of the right reasons, in exactly the appropriate way.

Here is the statement of Bishop Sample of Marquette MI on the unwelcome attempted activities of Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, retired auxiliary of Detroit, in his diocese.

I am exerpting only a part of Bishop Sample's message, so I urge you to read all of it for context (I will bold the important parts):

There is a common courtesy usually observed between bishops whereby when one bishop wishes to enter into another bishop’s diocese to minister or make a public speech or appearance, he informs the local bishop ahead of time and seeks his approval. Only on October 9 did I receive any communication from Bishop Gumbleton, after this situation had already become public.

As the Bishop of the Diocese of Marquette, I am the chief shepherd and teacher of the Catholic faithful of the Upper Peninsula entrusted to my pastoral care. As such I am charged with the grave responsibility to keep clearly before my people the teachings of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals. Given Bishop Gumbleton’s very public position on certain important matters of Catholic teaching, specifically with regard to homosexuality and the ordination of women to the priesthood, it was my judgment that his presence in Marquette would not be helpful to me in fulfilling my responsibility.

I realize that these were not the topics upon which Bishop Gumbleton was planning to speak. However, I was concerned about his well-known and public stature and position on these issues and my inability to keep these matters from coming up in discussion. In order that no one becomes confused, everyone under my pastoral care must receive clear teaching on these important doctrines.

I offer my prayers for Bishop Gumbleton and for all those who have been negatively affected by this unfortunate situation.”

And that's all there is to it. Bishop Sample is the head of his diocese, and when it comes to matters of public scandal - as he judged it would become if he allowed Bishop Gumbleton a pulpit in his diocese - there's nothing else to be said.

Of course, the organization which invited Gumbleton is saying plenty to the press - let's take a look:

Members of the Citizens for Peace and Social Justice group said they are appalled, sad and frustrated over a decision by Bishop Alexander Sample of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Marquette to deny a Detroit bishop permission to speak publicly in Marquette this weekend.

"We're really confused about it," said Darlene Dreisbach, a member of the Marquette peace organization. "Doesn't that seem like the Middle Ages?"

"Yesterday afternoon [Bishop Gumbleton] called us and said he received a letter from Bishop Sample to not speak publicly," Dreisbach said. "He was not told why." {Given Bishop Sample's statement above, it seems very clear that he provided Bishop Gumbleton with a very definite reason why.}

"I don't know how one bishop can deny civil rights," Dreisbach said, adding that she now has to cancel every event planned for Gumbleton's visit. {Unfortunately, this individual confuses civil rights with the right of a bishop to prevent confusion being spread about what the Church teaches in his own diocese by a fellow bishop.}

Let's be clear about the timeline. Sample was evidently aware of Gumbleton's invitation, and had sent him notice that he was not allowed in the diocese. Gumbleton did not give Sample the curtesy of a response until the same day as the story was in the local news.

You know who else is defending Gumbleton? Gay bloggers, including one who used to work for Pax Christi USA while Gumbleton was heavily associated with it, who writes:

Bishop Sample is a damn fool -- running a Catholic gestapo in charge of policing who comes in and out of his diocese lest folks hear a thing or two about equal rights.

Sadly, this isn't the first time Bishop Gumbleton has been told to keep out from a Catholic diocese. Tucson, Arizona's Bishop, Gerald Kicanas, also wouldn't allow Bishop Gumbleton to travel to his diocese to talk about peace and justice issues.

Apparently, censorship is more important to the Catholic Church than championing the cause of peace.

I'm waiting for the editors of the National Catholic Reporter to rush to Bishop Gumbleton's aid as well. After all, NCR gives a weekly pulpit to Bishop Gumbleton in their newspaper.

Oh that's right, the NCR editors are too busy suggesting that the bishops should re-write their upcomming pastoral letter on marriage so that they describe "cohabition" in a "more positive light."

Maybe we can get National Catholic Reporter editions out of the diocese of Marquette too while we are at it?

Ph/T: Jeff Miller.

Archbishop Chaput on Fr. Jenkins, in particular

Light in the darkness:

"There was no excuse – none, except intellectual vanity – for the university to persist in its course. And Father Jenkins compounded a bad original decision with evasive and disingenuous explanations to subsequently justify it.

... Father Jenkins' explanations, and President Obama’s honorary degree, are a fitting national bookend to a quarter century of softening Catholic witness in Catholic higher education. Together, they've given the next generation of Catholic leadership all the excuses they need to baptize their personal conveniences and ignore what it really demands to be "Catholic" in the public square."

Dynamite line:

"We also have the duty to oppose [Obama] when he's wrong on foundational issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research and similar matters. And we also have the duty to avoid prostituting our Catholic identity by appeals to phony dialogue that mask an abdication of our moral witness."

The entire statement is of this quality and clarity.

Round-up: *77* Bishops have responded to Notre Dame's Obama invitation

Catherine Harmon at Catholic World Report started this list, and I have continued it:

Bishops’ statements on Notre Dame’s invitation to Barack Obama:

1. Bishop John D’Arcy, Fort Wayne-South Bend
2. Cardinal Francis George, Chicago
3. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Galveston-Houston
4. Archbishop Timothy Dolan, Milwaukee (--> NYC)
5. Archbishop John Nienstedt, St. Paul-Minneapolis
6. Archbishop Eusebius Beltran, Oklahoma City
7. Bishop Edward Slattery, Tulsa
8. Archbishop John Myers, Newark
9. Archbishop Alfred Hughs, New Orleans
10. Bishop Joseph Martino, Scranton
11. and Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty, Scranton
12. Bishop Thomas Doran, Rockford, Ill.
13. Bishop Thomas Olmsted, Phoenix
14. Bishop Gregory Aymond, Austin
15. Bishop Robert Lynch, St. Petersburg
16. Bishop R. Walker Nickless, Sioux City
17. Bishop Kevin Rhoades, Harrisburg, Pa.
18. Bishop William E. Lori, Bridgeport, CT
19. Bishop Robert Morlino, Madison WI
20. Bishop George Murry, S.J., Youngstown, OH
21. Bishop William Higi, Lafayette, IN
22. Bishop Anthony Taylor of Little Rock, AR
23. Archbishop Jose Gomez, San Antonio, TX
24. and Auxiliary Bishop Oscar Cantu
25. Bishiop Jerome Listecki, La Crosse, WI
26. Archbishop Edwin O'Brien, Baltimore MD
27. Bishop Alex Sample, Marquette MI
28. Archbishop Daniel Buechlein, Indianapolis
29. Bishop Robert Baker, Birmingham AL
30. Bishop Samuel Aquila, Fargo ND
31. Bishop Gerald Barbarito, Palm Beach FL
32. Bishop Fabian Brukeswitz, Lincoln NE
33. Bishop Richard Stika, Knoxville TN
34. Bishop Robert Finn, Kansas City
35. Bishop Joseph Latino, Jackson MS
36. Bishop Leonard Blair, Toledo OH
37. Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger, Evansville IN
38. Bishop George Lucas, Springfield IL
39. Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk, Cincinnati OH
40. Bishop Thomas Wenski, Orlando FL
41. Bishop Robert Vasa, Baker OR
42. Bishop Paul Coakley, Salina KS
43. Bishop John Le Voir, New Ulm MN
44. Bishop Victor Galeone, St. Augustine FL
45. Bishop David Zubik, Pittsburgh PA
46. Bishop Paul Loverde, Arlington VA
47. Archbishop Joseph Naumann, Kansas City, KS
48. Bishop Peter Jugis of Charlotte, NC
49. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Center, NY
50. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, CO (as first reported by AmP here).
51. Bishop Glen Provost of Lake Charles LA
52. Bishop Joseph Galante of Camden, NJ
53. Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia, PA
54. Bishop John McCormack of Manchester, NH
55. Archbishop Doland Wuerl of Washington, DC (somewhat)
56. Bishop Bernard Harrington of Winona, MN
57. Bishop Michael Warfel of Great Falls-Billings, MT
58. Bishop Michael Jackels of Wichita, KS
59. Bishop James Johnson of Springfield - Cape Girardeau, MO
60. Bishop Edward Cullen of Allentown, PA (diocesan newspaper)
61. (Aux.) Bishop Roger Gries of Cleveland, OH (highschool address)
62. Bishop Robert Hermann, apostolic administrator of St. Louis, MO
63. Bishop David Ricken of Green Bay, WI
64. Bishop Remundo Pena of Brownsville, TX
65. Bishop George Thomas of Helena, MT
66. Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston, MA at Boston College Law School
67. Bishop John Gaydos of Jefferson City (in the Catholic Missourian)
68. Bishop Lawrence Brandt of Greensburg, PA
69. Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, NY
70. Bishop Joseph of Altoona-Johnstown, PA
71. Bishop Frank DeWane of Venice, FL
72. Bishop Frederick Campbell of Columbus, OH
73. Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit, MI
74. Archbishop Robert Carlson of St. Louis, MI
75. Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, CO (Catholic Herald)
76. (Auxiliary) Bishop James Conley of Denver, CO (personal letter)
77. Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, PA

Feel free to send me the names of arch/bishops I have missed!

Please send tips by email (I don't always have the time to check the comment box).

Life Site News also has an updating list of bishops (including emeritii).

Report: 2009 National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

This morning I attended the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. You can read my Twitter play-by-play here. And yes that's me with Archbishop Burke and Justin Aquila of the Susan B. Anthony List.

I was very impressed by Abp. Burke's keynote address. The audience liked it too - they were constantly interrupting it with applause and standing ovations. In fact at times it was difficult for him to work in a complete sentence.

One comment of Abp. Burke's in particular, where he called Notre Dame's decision a "source of the greatest scandal", was greeted with thunderous and prolonged applause.

But apart from the "radioactive lines" and headline-grabbing soundbites, I think Abp. Burke has provided Catholics in America with a comprehensive manifesto for action in the coming year. I think his speech will have wide, beneficial consequences, or at least I pray that it does.

I will provide a link to the text as soon as it is officially released.

update: EWTN will be broadcasting the entire prayer breakfast at 1 p.m., Sunday, May 10; 5 a.m., Monday, May 11; and 9 a.m., Saturday, May 16.

update 2: Life Site News has the full text on their website.

[photo credit: David Cory.]

Cardinal Rigali:"The truth is the opposite" in response to Doug Kmiec column in CNS

It was news to me that Kmiec even had a regular column at the Catholic News Service.

Jack Smith at the Catholic Key blog says I'm not alone in having missed this embarassing collaboration:

"Many are surprised to find that Doug Kmiec has a regular column for the bishops' Catholic News Service. He has had one for quite some time and for quite some time it was the best column available at CNS.

Then Kmiec's original candidate for president, Mitt Romney, failed and the rest of Kmiec and his column's history has been a spectacle of descent into self-absorption and shameless apologetic for President Obama's anti-life policies."

And now he's got himself into real trouble:

"Apparently [Kmiec] went too far last week with his column titled, and I'm not kidding, "New ethically sensitive stem-cell guidance from the Obama administration". Cardinal Rigali as head of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities has responded with his own column this week."

Cardinal Rigali begins (read the full article HERE):

"Law professor Douglas Kmiec states in an opinion piece distributed by Catholic News Service that the new policy is “ethically sensitive” and in important respects “more strict” than President George W. Bush’s policy that preceded it.

The truth is the opposite."

Note two things: 1} Cardinal Rigali points out that our own Catholic News Service assisted in disseminating Kmiec's writing (ouch!). 2} Cardinal Rigali could not be "punchier" in his flat disagreement with Kmiec:

"Kmiec says the new guidelines are limited to embryos created for fertility treatment that “would have been discarded if not devoted to medical research.”

That is also not true."

Double "punchier" ouch!

Cardinal Rigali actually published his response in CNS as well. LifeSite's Kathleen Gilbert caught up with him recently and interviewed him about the Notre Dame siutation, which he says "evades common sense".

Commentary: What Bishop D'Arcy's Statement Means

Now that you've had a chance to read Bishop D'Arcy's statement, here are some reasons why it represents an extremely significant development in the Notre Dame situation.

1. Bishop D'Arcy makes it clear that Fr. Jenkins completely brought this on himself. Jenkins failed to notify D'Arcy of the invitation until after it had been issued (therefore Jenkins never sought approval or advice from his own local bishop), he attempted to engage Bishop Olmsted in canonical debate, involved D'Arcy in this debate by cc'ing him in on the letter (deciding too late to include D'Arcy in the process) and has asked for D'Arcy's response. At the same time, Jenkins took his arguments to the Notre Dame board of trustees and saw to it that they were published on the national scene, essentially putting D'Arcy in a position to where he had to respond.
2. D'Arcy has shared his letter with other bishops. While acting on his own authority, he is not alone in his opinions (indeed, 42 bishops have spoken out so far), among bishops or the faithful.
3. D'Arcy's language is definitive: "the meaning of the sentence ... is clear" "the statements which Father Jenkins has made ... are simply wrong." "I consider [the matter] closed." "The failure to consult the local bishop ... the lawgiver in the diocese, is a serious mistake." In other words, there is no room for authentic debate on this topic. The only response Fr. Jenkins is being invited to is obedience and reparation.
4. D'Arcy wastes no time pointing how pathetically poor the defense offered by Fr. Jenkins is in reality. Fr. Jenkins, implies D'Arcy, has completely ignored "fundamental, canonical and theological principal[s]"; has failed to consult with "any competent canonist with knowledge of the tradition and love for Christ’s church", to say nothing about how Fr. Jenkin's negligently bypassed the local bishop's "pastoral responsibility to teach" which is "central to the university’s relationship to the church." (this last point is a biggie, I think.)
5. Finally, this line of D'Arcy's should send a chill up Fr. Jenkin's spine: "I, like many others, will await to see what the follow up is on this issue between Notre Dame and President Obama." D'Arcy continues with this straightforward and urgent demand: "Notre Dame and Father Jenkins must do their part if this [substantial and true, and not illusory] healing is to take place." Fr. Jenkins is being held to his word.

Indeed, I could go on, but I think the picture is becoming clear: the ball is in Fr. Jenkin's court.

It's time to fly back to South Bend and face the music.

Breaking: Bishop D'Arcy says Jenkins "simply wrong" about Obama invitation defense

You can only push a good bishop so far, you can only stretch the truth so much (underlining mine):

My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Recently, Father John Jenkins, CSC, in a letter of response to Bishop Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix, who had written him, critical of the decision to invite President Obama to speak and receive an honorary degree of law at Notre Dame, indicated that it was his conviction that the statement “Catholics in Political Life” (USCCB) did not apply in this matter. Father Jenkins kindly sent me a copy of his letter, and also at a later meeting, asked for a response.

In an April 15th letter to Father Jenkins, I responded to his letter.

Now the points made in his letter have been sent by Father Jenkins to the members of the Notre Dame Board of Trustees and have been publicized nationally, as well as locally in the South Bend Tribune. Since the matter is now public, it is my duty as the bishop of this diocese to respond and correct. I take up this responsibility with some sadness, but also with the conviction that if I did not do so, I would be remiss in my pastoral responsibility.

Rather than share my full letter, which I have shared with some in church leadership, I prefer to present some of the key points.

[For Bishop D'Arcy's six devestating points, click here. He continues:]

In my letter, I have also asked Father Jenkins to correct, and if possible, withdraw the erroneous talking points, which appeared in the South Bend Tribune and in other media outlets across the country. The statements which Father Jenkins has made are simply wrong and give a flawed justification for his actions.

I consider it now settled — that the USCCB document, “Catholics in Public Life,” does indeed apply in this matter.

The failure to consult the local bishop who, whatever his unworthiness, is the teacher and lawgiver in the diocese, is a serious mistake. Proper consultation could have prevented an action, which has caused such painful division between Notre Dame and many bishops — and a large number of the faithful.

That division must be addressed through prayer and action, and I pledge to work with Father Jenkins and all at Notre Dame to heal the terrible breach, which has taken place between Notre Dame and the church. It cannot be allowed to continue.
I ask all to pray that this healing will take place in a way that is substantial and true, and not illusory. Notre Dame and Father Jenkins must do their part if this healing is to take place. I will do my part.

Sincerely yours in our Lord,
Most Reverend
John M. D’Arcy

Read my comments here.

(and once again, AmP Twitter carried this story a full hour ago.)

Papist Quote of the Day

Bishop Robert Finn:

"We are at war. Harsh as this may sound it is true – but it is not new. This war to which I refer did not begin in just the last several months, although new battles are underway – and they bring an intensity and urgency to our efforts that may rival any time in the past."

Video: Bishop D'Arcy on Notre Dame's Obama invitation

Here it is:

Explained:

When Notre Dame University, an iconic catholic institution, invited President Barack Obama to be the commencement speaker and to receive an honorary law degree on May 17, it was news to Bishop John D'Arcy, whose diocese includes Notre Dame.

The presidential invite and the bishop's subsequent decision not to attend the graduation ceremony has generated an overwhelming response from all over the world.

The bishop issued a statement, but has refused all interviews, until now.

Update: Iowa Catholic Conf. of Bishops release statement on homosexual marriage

Sent to me by an AmP seminarian reader:

We, the Roman Catholic Bishops of Iowa, strongly disagree with the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court which strikes down Iowa’s law defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. This decision rejects the wisdom of thousands of years of human history. It implements a novel understanding of marriage, which will grievously harm families and children. (More.)

Last week an Iowa Court approved same-sex "marriage."

Bishop Loverde personally delivers 200k pro-life postcards to Congress

This is something I love to see: a bishop going the extra mile, even if it means going outside the box.

Or in this case, a bishop going a few miles, across the Potomac!

Diocese of Arlington Director of Communications Joelle Santolla explains:

This Thursday Bishop Loverde delivered our anti-FOCA postcards by hand to the offices of Senators Webb and Warner.

He was told how much weight comes with a personal visit to a lawmaker, and knowing how detrimental FOCA and its other iterations would be, he wanted to have a chance to speak directly with our representatives to convey the seriousness of these issues ... taking with him nearly 200,000 post cards [pictured left].

He ended up talking about FOCA, the Conscience Clause and abortion (he met with Sen. James Webb and spoke with a policy representative from Warner’s office as well).

The Arlington Catholic Herald has a full article on the story. [photo credit: Dave Borowski]

Bishop Loverde has given us a fine example of using one's episcopal station to help the plight of the unborn.

update - a few more details from Joelle:

Sister Clare Hunter, who accompanied the Bishop, said that both offices were very welcoming and respectful of Bishop Loverde, and both extended the invitation to return for further discussion.

Bishop said, "These visits make absolutely clear our grave concerns about these issues and our firm and committed determination to protect life from conception to natural death. I welcome future opportunities to make our position clear and, in fact, will seek them out."

Breaking: Cardinal George says Notre Dame Obama invite "Extreme Embarassment"

Personally unable to do anything - maybe. Personally unable to say anything? Nope:

Speaking as the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, this weekend Cardinal Francis George of Chicago said that the University of Notre Dame's decision to host and honor President Obama at their commencement ceremony this year was an "extreme embarrassment" to Catholics.

"Whatever else is clear, it is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation," George told the crowd at a conference Saturday on the Vatican document Dignitas Personae. The conference was hosted by the Chicago archdiocese's Respect Life office and Office for Evangelization at the Marriott O'Hare hotel.

In a video obtained by LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) today, Cardinal George prefaced his remarks by noting that as USCCB president he does not have jurisdiction or authority over other bishops, but nonetheless has "some moral authority, without any kind of jurisdiction or any sort of real authority."

"As president of the U.S. bishops' conference I have to precisely speak for the bishops and not in my own name, as I could as Archbishop of Chicago," he added. (LifeSite)

In related news:

• Head of Holy Cross order asks Obama to rethink position on abortion (!)
• Bishop Walker of Sioux City, IA is in "surprise and anger"
• Bishop Rhoades of Harrisburg, PA weighs in as well

Sorry for the scant commentary. I am in-between things at the moment.

Cardinal DiNardo says ND decision "requires charitable but vigorous critique"

This happened on Friday aftrenoon but I only had time to note it on AmP Twitter (see why you should follow me?).

Here is Cardinal DiNardo's full message in the Catholic Herald (underlining and bold mine):

In light of what I wrote above, I want to venture a comment on the recently released statement of the University of Notre Dame; that statement noted that the President has accepted an invitation to give the Commencement Address this year as well as receive an Honorary Law Degree. The news release then outlines the fact that a number of other Presidents have given the Commencement Address at Notre Dame and have thus highlighted, in effect, the university’s importance. I find the invitation very disappointing. Though I can understand the desire by a university to have the prestige of a commencement address by the President of the United States, the fundamental moral issue of the inestimable worth of the human person from conception to natural death is a principle that soaks all our lives as Catholics, and all our efforts at formation, especially education at Catholic places of higher learning. The President has made clear by word and deed that he will promote abortion and will remove even those limited sanctions that control this act of violence against the human person. The Bishops of the United States published a document a few years ago asking all Catholic universities to avoid giving a platform or an award to those politicians or public figures who promote the taking of unborn human life. Even given the dignity of Office of the President, this offer is still providing a platform and an award for a public figure who has been candid on his pro-abortion views. Particularly troubling is the Honorary Law Degree since it recognizes that the person is a “Teacher,” in this case of the Law. I think that this decision requires charitable but vigorous critique.

The petition, meanwhile, has surpassed 200,000 signers. Other developments of note:

• Rush Limbaugh spoke about the situation on his program on Friday. Here's the transcript.
• A CUA editorial bemoans: "We fear that thanks to a deaf administration which cannot see past its own narrow and constricting interpretation of a complex Catholic dogma, no similar day will dawn at this University. No hope lies on the horizon of a free exchange of ideas. And yet hope remains, just out of sight for every freethinking student here." [Oh please.]
• LifeNews: "ND President's Religious Superior Says Jenkins "Fulfilling Responsibilities" of President"

If you've already signed the petition, and want to do more, consider donating to Project Sycamore - "protecting the Catholic identity of Notre Dame". They have separate finances, and a proven track record of defending the Catholic identity of alma mater. See their "Notre Dame fund to protect human life."

Talk about a watershed moment.

update - you have to love Damian Thomspon: "This guy is awesome."

update 2 - AmP reader Jim clarifies about Project Sycamore/ND Fund to Protect Human Life:

"...it is my understanding that they are completely independent of each other. The former is an external alumni-led initiative. The latter is an on-campus initiative of the University's Center for Ethics & Culture.

Both are very worthy of donations! Especially the ND Fund to Protect Human Life which is working at the grassroots level on campus to change hearts and minds. "

Bishop Aymond on ND award: "does not live up to its Catholic identity"

Bishop Aymond of Austin, TX has added his episcopal voice to the debate over Notre Dame's invitation:

Statement regarding the University of Notre Dame

As was announced recently, the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind., is presenting President Barack Obama with an honorary degree and have asked him to give the commencement address.

I, along with many other Catholics, express great disappointment and sadness that a Catholic university would honor someone who is pro-choice and who holds many values contrary to our Catholic belief.

In the midst of such a sad situation, as Catholics we must continue to be pro-life and to proclaim with even greater strength the values of Christ and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

In my opinion, it is very clear that in this case the University of Notre Dame does not live up to its Catholic identity in giving this award and their leadership needs our prayerful support.

Ph/t: Aggie Catholics.

Bishop Olmsted tells Fr. Jenkins Obama invitation "public act of disobedience to US Bishops"

Here is a screen capture of the letter that the Bishop of Phoenix Thomas Olmsted sent to Notre Dame President Father Jenkins yesterday (on the Feast of the Annunciation) and has now permitted to be published today:

These are very strong words from Bishop Olmsted, especially these two lines:

"It is a public act of disobedience to the Bishops of the United States."

"I pray that you come to see the grave mistake of your decision, and the way it undercuts the Church's proclamation of the Gospel of Life in our day."

Mike Phelan, Director of Marriage and Respect Life for the Diocese of Phoenix, introduced the letter this way:

"Due to the fact that the invitation by Notre Dame’s president, Fr. John Jenkins, to President Barack Obama to give the commencement speech at Notre Dame’s May graduation is a public act causing widespread public scandal due to the US President’s clear support of policies which fail to protect and even attack innocent human life, Bishop Olmsted has given permission to release the attached email text publicly."

And now you have it, too. My comprehensive coverage of the Notre Dame scandal is available here.

Welcome, new readers, don't forget to follow my Twitter updates and join the AmP Facebook Fanpage.

Blowup in Madison: Bp. Morlino Dismisses Feminist Pastoral Associate

Madison, WI is what I'd call a "battleground diocese": a conservative Bishop overseeing a diverse Catholic community which includes a fierce strain of dissenting instigators.

The problem with being on the front lines, of course, is that you get attacked frequently. That's the case here.

Right now some dissidents are trying to claim that Ruth Kolpack, a pastoral associate at St. Thomas the Apostle Church in Beloit WI, is a martyr because Bishop Robert Morlino dismissed her.

The anti-hierarchical spin machine is in full-tilt right now, with National Catholic Reporter leading the charge.

Here's an example of a dissenting Catholic blog introducing a call to organize protests:

"Make Your Voice Heard: This is like what happen to the choir directors last year and why I stopped going to church the lying and not being truthful of the real reason of wanting to get rid of the more Liberal wing of the church. Anyway, I hope those who live near enough to make their voice heard will speak up in this woman’s defense." [errors in original]

Meanwhile, here's (what I understand to be) a staff memo from Call to Action:

Please write to the Papal Nuncio today! See address at right.

Support Ruth and the more than 30,000 other Catholic lay ministers in our country who can be fired at any time by a priest or bishop without due process!

We are pursuing options for Ruth but in the meantime, our canon lawyer has encouraged us to send hundreds of letters to the Papal Nuncio, the Vatican's Representative in the U.S. He keeps files of the letters he receives and passes the information along to the Vatican. In the long term, this raises the issue of church worker justice in the eyes of the Vatican. Please see the information at right for his address.

If you live in Wisconsin, please consider joining CTA/Madison at local protest vigils this weekend to show your support for Ruth and the thousands of men and women like her who give their lives to our church. (Local Catholic Reporter)

This sort of activity has a long history in Madison, as Fr. Z covered in October of last year.

So what's happening in this latest episode? Here's some local reporting:

The firing came in a meeting with Bishop Robert Morlino. Kolpack said Morlino asked her to renounce her master’s thesis, make a profession of faith and take a loyalty oath.

... Morlino was in Janesville on Saturday for an unrelated meeting. About 45 people came to meet him to protest the firing.
The protesters held placards that said “Hear Ruth out!” and “Who would Jesus fire?”
Morlino walked up to the group and offered to talk to them later in the day.
“You don’t know the whole story,” Morlino said.
“I’m certainly sorry we have division in the church, but there it is,” the bishop said. “… If anyone is willing to talk respectfully at 3:30, I’ll be there.”
Several people interrupted Morlino as he spoke, although there was no shouting.
“You weren’t respectful to her,” someone called out.
Kolpack was present but did not participate in the protest.

...Kolpack said her thesis discussed the evil that can come of blind obedience. She said she can understand how that could be a red flag for the bishop.
“But if he would’ve read the whole paper, he would’ve understood it... he didn’t give it a chance,” she said.
The thesis also criticizes the church’s language of worship, which refers to God with words such as “he” or “Father.”
Kolpack said that’s harmful.
“I’m concerned about women, about young girls, who grow up in a patriarchal, male-dominated society. What does it do to their self-esteem?” she said.
Kolpack said she came to these beliefs as she studied feminist and liberation theology at St. Francis Seminary, where she earned her master’s degree in divinity in 2003. She said that 2003 thesis was never a problem, until now.

...Kolpack responded: “The pope speaks infallibly in matters of faith and morals. Bishop Morlino is not infallible. … The Holy Spirit speaks through everyone.”
As a representative of the church, if he would publicly display disregard for church teachings, that would be grounds for dismissal, King said.
Morlino did meet with protesters for about 15 minutes but said he could not get into personnel matters, protester Jim Andrews said.
Morlino said the issue was less about the thesis and more about “a certain mentality in the way of teaching,” Andrews said.
Morlino did agree to meet with St. Thomas parishioners at some future date, Andrews said. (GazetteXtra) [More from Beliot Daily News]

I think it's pretty clear that we don't know the whole story yet. The diocese is claiming her civil and canonical rights were not violated:

"You can be assured that the canonical and civil rights of each individual have been upheld absolutely. The Church takes this very seriously. I cannot make statements regarding Ms. Kolpack [director of communications of the Diocese], as they could injure her good reputation. The statement went on to say that church personnel "must uphold the faith and morals of the church" ... through what they publicly teach and claim to believe, what they associate themselves with, and by their actions."

Scanning the National Catholic Reporter coverage, here is one perhaps revealing paragraph:

"She's been through four priests, and we always knew she would be there. She's the heart and soul behind everything that goes on. Our priest is only 40 percent, so she was responsible for sacramental work as well. People converted and were brought back to the Catholic faith were crying because their friend was dismissed. Five- and six-year-olds were crying because they lost their teacher."

First of all, she better not have been doing "sacramental work" (according to the technical terminology). Something like that ought to get you fired. Second, as you can see from this excerpt, NCR is playing up the "sob story" card big-time. I mean, crying five-year-olds?!

My primary observation at this point is one of reactions. I think one's reaction in these situations should be to support the bishop's decision while charitable enquiring into his thinking. As the reporting points out, Morlino is perfectly willing to discuss it with them.

The reaction of these Madison dissenters, however, is to blow up and plan mass protests.

... which makes me think that this is all they really wanted to do in the first place.

Video: Bishop Martino Breaks On-Camera Silence

Whispers calls Bishop Joseph Martino the "nation's most controversial prelate". He's certainly making headlines, simply for speaking out in defense of life and exercising his authority as a successor to the Apostles. And now, he's done a short on-camera interview with a local station.

I think it's unfortunate where they cut-off his response. Let's face it - it's never good to end with mentioning Nazis, however apt the comparison may be. One begins to understand why he's avoided on-camera.

Nonetheless, video conveys more about a personality that the written word can get across. That's one of the reasons why I post multimedia content for a story I'm covering, at least whenever I can find it.

More Martino Gutsiness in PA

I'm pressed for time today, but Diane is covering the latest acts of bishop Joseph Martino in Scranton.

Irish group answers Bp. Martino's firm demand to not honor pro-aborts

Oh boy, this one is a doozy.

I missed it in the hubbub of last week, but it deserves attention still:

"In a letter to the heads of three local Irish-American organizations, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Scranton has threatened to close St. Peter’s Cathedral during St. Patrick’s Day celebrations if the groups feature elected officials who support abortion rights at their annual events.

The letter, which was signed by Auxiliary Bishop John M. Dougherty, reports that Bishop Joseph F. Martino is “determined to prevent scandal,” which would be caused if the organizations “in any way” should “honor pro-abortion officials” by giving them parade or dais positions or opportunities to speak and “the Catholic Church is seen to be involved in this honoring.”

In direct terms, the letter reiterates the bishop’s publicly stated position that elected officials who vote to support abortion rights will be denied Holy Communion if they attempt to receive the sacrament in the diocese, including at St. Patrick’s Day Masses. The closing of St. Peter’s Cathedral is offered as an additional measure to prevent the honoring of such officials." (Scranton Times-Tribune)

Here is a PDF file of the letter. LifeSiteNews also has coverage, as does CNA.

What brought this about? Deal Hudson explains: "Being Irish has for far too long been the trump card played on St. Patrick's Day to honor the worst Catholic politicians in the business. Let's hope Bishop Martino's example is followed nationwide and groups like the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick will take notice. "

Ironic, considering how uncompromising St. Patrick was in our accounts of his ministry in Ireland.

The St. Patrick's Parade Association appears eager to play ball with Bishop Martino:

"We are fully supporting the bishop’s position,” Harrity said.

Harrity said he could not recall the association ever giving an honorary parade position to a politician who supported abortion rights.

“We support the bishop,” Harrity said. “We feel there would be no problem. Given our past history, that (choosing a pro-choice politician) is not going to come to fruition.” (Citizen's Voice)

I'm happy this didn't blow up into the huge to-do it could have easily become.

What a gutsy move from Bishop Martino.

Life Teen Founder Excommunicated

Fr. Dale Fushek, best known for being one of the founders of "Life Teen", has finally been excommunicated.

From the Diocese of Phoenix website:

December 15, 2008-The Most Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix, has issued a Decree of Excommunication to Reverend Monsignor Dale Fushek and Reverend Mark Dippre.

Fushek and Dippre have incurred the censure of excommunication because they have chosen to be in schism with the Catholic Church by establishing and leading an opposing ecclesial community known to the public as the Praise and Worship Center. Both priests have consistently refused to comply with explicit directions by Bishop Olmsted to discontinue engaging in public ministry. The excommunications were incurred after repeated offers of reconciliation were ignored. The decree of excommunication by Bishop Olmsted declares the censure that Fushek and Dippre, as ordained priests, have brought upon themselves. The purpose of these sanctions is to reconcile both men with the Catholic Church and to preserve the integrity and unity of the Diocese.

... Bishop Olmsted continues to express his grave concern for Catholics who may be misled or confused by the actions of Dale Fushek and Mark Dippre. The Diocese of Phoenix does not endorse the actions of these excommunicated priests and we encourage Catholics to refrain from attending or supporting the Praise and Worship Center. We remind Catholics that the ultimate form of praise and worship is and always will be the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and we urge them to keep the Mass as the center of their lives. There is no substitution for the graces received at Mass and no prayer more edifying.

Marcel has a reaction statement from the current president of Life Teen, Randy Raus, making the point that Fr. Fushek's involvement with Life Teen is long over:

This excommunication is not connected in any way with the ministry of Life Teen, as all of the actions that led to this occurred after Rev. Dale Fushek’s involvement with our ministry. Further, I want to make it clear that Life Teen is in no way associated with his new venture.

Even though it has been almost four years since he has been directly involved with the movement of Life Teen, the media continues to associate Rev. Dale Fushek with Life Teen. While we continue to pray for Rev. Dale Fushek, the movement of Life Teen is in full support of Bishop Olmsted and Diocese of Phoenix in this matter.

Fr. Fushek (wiki entry) has been very bad news for a long time. In 2005 he was indicted for sexually-related misdemeanor charges. The one-time vicar general of the diocese was accused of sexually abusing a teen, and costing the diocese a $100,000 settlement. I commented on this developing story briefly back in January.

Well, good riddance.

Bishop on FOCA: "You can go take a Flying Leap"

Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington, VA, when asked about FOCA and Catholic hospital closures:

Bishop Paul Loverde of the Roman Catholic diocese of Arlington, Va., said last week that if the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) should become law and a Catholic hospital in his diocese is forced to provide abortions, he would refuse to let the hospital comply, but he would also not close the institution.

Though there are no Catholic hospitals in his diocese, the bishop nevertheless was defiant: "I would say, 'Yeah, I'm not going to close the hospital, you're going to arrest me, go right ahead. You'll have to drag me out, go right ahead. I'm not closing this hospital, we will not perform abortions, and you can go take a flying leap." (CNS)

Ph/t: Margaret Cabaniss of Inside Catholic.

Cardinal DiNardo leads procession from PP to death row

Not a coincidence:

Saying they want to promote the sanctity of life, several hundred people traveled to Huntsville Monday morning. The group was made up mostly of Catholics, including one very prominent one - Cardinal Daniel DiNardo.

They said their protest was to call attention to the value of life, whether unborn or condemned, which is why the group ended their procession at TDCJ's death row.

The prayers were as constant as the step. The procession moved forward at a steady clip as over 300 people walked quietly through the heart of Huntsville from the Planned Parenthood offices traveling north of the Walls Unit. It was a chance, many say, to protest against abortion and state executions of convicted criminals. (ABC 13)

And on a related note, Corpus Christi is refusing to give money to Planned Parenthood (at least for now). Would that other cities would follow its lead.

Ph/t: Dawn.

Text/Commentary: Cardinal George's letter to President-elect Obama

You can read the text here.

My pull quotes:

[On Roe v. Wade:] Legal protection for those members of the human family waiting to be born in this country was removed when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973. This was bad law. The danger the Bishops see at this moment is that a bad court decision will be enshrined in bad legislation that is more radical than the 1973 Supreme Court decision itself.

[On FOCA:] "It would be an evil law that would further divide our country, and the Church should be intent on opposing evil."

[On the election, etc.:] "The recent election was principally decided out of concern for the economy, for the loss of jobs and homes and financial security for families, here and around the world. If the election is misinterpreted ideologically as a referendum on abortion, the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis will be impossible to achieve.

Abortion kills not only unborn children; it destroys constitutional order and the common good, which is assured only when the life of every human being is legally protected.

Aggressively pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion."

What's especially significant about this? Cardinal George is speaking not just personally, nor as the Archbishop of Chicago, but as the President of the gathered American bishops:

"On this issue, the legal protection of the unborn, the bishops are of one mind with Catholics and others of good will ... The bishops are single-minded because they are, first of all, single-hearted."

"This statement is written at the request and direction of all the Bishops...."

Okay, moment of truth time: when dozens of individual bishops were making these same points during the election, they were dismissed as a "minority" or "mavericks" by their liberal critics. Now will those same critics who disagreed with these brave bishops admit that their alternative position is NOW a minority one?

In other words, here is the contradiction. When bishops said something they didn't like they would dismiss them as "fringe" or "extreme", now that the combined bishops are, as a body, saying the same things as were said before by a few, will they continue to refer to the position taken by all the bishops in similar terms?

Tick, tock, tock.

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!

It bears repeating: Bishops who speak, speak this way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On supporting one another in pursuit of the good and true

Doing the right thing often isn't easy.

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

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

Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, on Comending the Bishops:

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

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

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

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

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

What they said.

On the lies that pro-Obama Catholics tell

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

First, a writer:

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

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

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

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

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

Second, a bishop:

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

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

The video:



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

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

Bishop Finn on becoming the "Church militant" again

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does Bishop Finn take his coffee?

Extra bold.

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

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

Here's how she actually put it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cardinal Egan Objects to Award for Breyer

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

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

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

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

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

Listed: Bishops who have spoken out for life

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

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

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

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

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

Have you any doubt that it is a human being?

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

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

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

Farther in:

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

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

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

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

Individual bishops vs. the USCCB?

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

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

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

[Read more of Steve's post.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, who should feel lonely now?

On Keeping/Kicking Kmiec Out

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decide in Faith: A Presidential Forum

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

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

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

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

The Martino Event - Complete Coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rocco notes:

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

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

Initial reactions (as reported by the WI):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shepstone, the panelist, was one who left.

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

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

Wow.

Okay, two things happening here:

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

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

update: a third account.

Breaking: US Bishops set the record straight in today's statement

This is a breaking story - check back for updates.

Thank God for our bishops. They have just released a press release on the USCCB website:

Legal Protection for Unborn, Support for Mothers Both Needed, Say Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy

WASHINGTON—"Our faith requires us to oppose abortion on demand and to provide help to mothers facing challenging pregnancies," Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia and Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., said in an October 21 statement. The bishops urged Catholics to study the teaching of the Church, rather than rely on statements and materials from outside groups and individuals.

[Read it here in PDF] [Summary here.]

I had just finished writing this essay in which I sounded the call for an organized response to the recent arguments put forward by pro-Obama Catholics when I discovered the above press release from the US bishops waiting in my inbox, doing exactly what I was hoping for. Now it's up to us to spread their message.

Okay, what are they saying?

• Catholics are not to blindly follow the advice of "outside groups and individuals."

Okay, what are these outside groups and individuals saying?

• The argument that "the Church should accept the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision on abortion as a 'permanent fixture of constitutional law' and should concede that the only way to reduce abortions is to provide more government support for pregnant women is wrong.

Also wrong:

• "The Church's efforts against abortion should focus solely on restoring recognition for unborn children's human rights and that proposals to provide social and economic support for pregnant women distract from that effort."

The first argument is one used by Democrats, the second argument is a straw man constructed by Democrats about those who refuse to vote for Barack Obama and other pro-choice politicians.

I fully agree with the bishops that the second error is to be rejected - will Democrat Catholics now fully agree that the first argument is in error? Are you listening, Nicholas Cafardi? Doug Kmiec? Catholics United? Lisa Sowle Cahill? Because these are the Catholics who have been pushing this argument. By stark contrast, I have not seen anyone seriously claim that the legislative solution is the only one to be pursued. (Okay folks, I'm waiting.)

The Catholic argument for voting Democrat (or, specifically, for a pro-choice politician) has boiled down to "get over Roe" and "pursue alternatives like funding health care". The bishops respond:

The bishops added that legalizing abortion had greatly increased annual abortions in the United States. "The law is a teacher, and Roe taught many women, physicians and others that abortion is an acceptable answer to a wide range of problems."

Clarification 2: FOCA is on the horizon.

The American bishops are coming to terms with the reality of an Obama presidency, and a Democrat-controlled Senate and House that could pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which will in one fell swoop erase all the progress that has taken place against Roe since it was passed. Here is what they say:

By the same token, even the limited pro-life laws allowed by the Court since Roe have been shown to reduce abortions substantially, leading to a steady decline in the abortion rate since 1980. Bans on public funding, laws requiring informed consent for women and parental involvement for minors, and other modest and widely supported laws have saved millions of lives. Laws made possible by reversing Roe would save many more. On the other hand, this progress could be lost through a key pro-abortion proposal, the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which supporters say would knock down hundreds of current pro-life laws and forbid any public program to “discriminate” against abortion in providing services to women.

This statement challenges the canard which holds that legislative actions have been ineffectual in driving down the incidence of abortion. Of course restrictions act to restrict abortions.

Who is getting slapped on the wrist more?

While this statement is a critique of some elements of the republican and democrat solution to the problem of abortion, I submit that it is more a critique of the democrat solution for these reasons:

• It talks about abortion as a non-negotiable front-and-center moral issue. Part of the argument for voting for democrat/pro-choice politicians seeks to marginalize the importance of this issue. Sorry, you can't ignore abortion and claim to be practicing the social teaching of the Catholic Church.
• It is issued not only by the chairman of Pro-Life activities, but also the chairman on "Domestic Justice and Human development." One cannot have either true justice or achieve authentic human development without an especial care for the unborn.
• It spends a lengthy amount of time talking about FOCA, a democrat-sponsored bill that will, following this statement, increase the number of abortions in America and also strike a serious blow to the cause of addressing the social justice issue of our time.

Finally, and most importantly:

• Republicans do commit themselves to caring for women experiencing crisis pregnancies. By the same token, the idea that reversing Roe is the only goal of pro-life activity is not a republican position (read their platform). However, democrats do say that Roe is a non-negotiable and do actively attempt to repeal the restrictions that have slowly been put on it through conservative efforts (again, read their platform).

This statement is a therefore, I submit, confirmation of my thesis that Catholics in the republican party must strive to see that their principles are better translated into practice, but Catholics in the democratic party must seriously address the errors in principle which the democrats have claimed on the issue of unborn human life, while simultaneously addressing the mistaken practices of the party which do not adequately defend unborn human life.

To put it simply: for Republicans, being Catholic on the issue of abortion involves following through on their rhetoric. For Democrats, being Catholic on the issue of abortion involves reversing their rhetoric and changing course on a whole range of legislative proposals they have planned.

With Biden as VP, Deleware comments significant after November

IF Senator Biden becomes the Vice-President of the United States then his recent comments about his views on abortion as a Catholic will have a bearing on the discussions at the upcoming meeting of the American bishops.

Just a little observation. The fact that the interview is old does not matter because Biden has never retracted his comments or clarified that they do not coincide with Church teaching. He's on record, out of communion.

A corroborating view.

"Save our Children!" says Bishop Robert Hermann

The Archdiocesan Administrator who is running St. Louis until a replacement can be found for its previous shepherd Abp. Raymond Burke ... has issued an extraordinary exhortation to the Catholics under his care:

"Save our children! More than anything else, this election is about saving our children or killing our children. This life issue is the overriding issue facing each of us in this coming election. All other issues, including the economy, have to take second place to the issue of life."

... Save our children! How can a so-called good Catholic vote for a candidate that supports laws that take the life of innocent children, when there is an alternative? If there were two candidates who supported abortion, but not equally, we would have the obligation to mitigate the evil by voting for the less-permissive candidate.

... Save our children! How can a so-called good Catholic vote for a candidate that supports laws that justify the killing of a child that survived a botched abortion? How can such a so-called good Catholic receive the Holy Eucharist?

... Save our children! I have no doubt that there may be some so-called good Catholics who are reading this column and who may be really angry about now. I ask the question "Why would such a person be angry?" If we do good deeds, then our conscience is at peace. If we do evil deeds, then our conscience bothers us. It is my hope that this column will lead some of our so-called good Catholics to study the Catholic Catechism.

... Save our children! Some of our so-called good Catholics may have hardened their hearts against the real understanding of induced abortions, that they can no longer see that this involves the destruction of our children. "If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts!"

... Save our children! Supporting induced abortions is not the greatest sin in the world. A greater sin is the refusal to repent of such a serious crime or the denial that this involves the killing of innocent children.

... Save our children! I have used this terminology again and again penetrate the defenses of anyone who in the past may have put personal, economic or political interests above the issue of saving our children. The right to life is our most fundamental right, and to defend this right on behalf of the most vulnerable is a great privilege and is worth giving one’s life for. Policemen and firemen always risk their lives to save human life. Why should we not risk our own reputation to save our children?"

[Read his entire column.]

His spiritual exhortation? Pray. the. rosary.

Support Our Brave Bishops

Today I describe the courageous column penned by Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St Joseph.

Yesterday I spoke about the clear teaching issued by the Bishops of Dallas and Fort Worth, and noted in that post the local reaction has been very harsh from some quarters. I now have on-the-ground reports of a protest taking placeat their pastoral center yesterday, for instance.

Well, there's is not the only voice of the faithful in the Church. Many Catholics approve and support of the recent statements issued by our shephers.

I would urge AmP readers to take a moment and thank them personally by phone or email.

Here is their contact information:

• Bishop Farrell of Dallas: bishopfarrell@cathdal.org or 214-528-2240
• Bishop Vann of Fort Worth: dws@fwdioc.org or 817-560-3300
• Bishop Finn of Kansas City-St Joseph: Montes@diocesekcsj.org or 816-756-1858, ext. 221 (secretary)

Thank you. It is a work of true solidarity to support our bishops when they take unpopular stands on behalf of the unborn, and here we have the opportunity of joining in their noble work.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My conclusion:

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

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

What do you say?

"How the Bishops Found Their Voice"

Austin Ruse over at The Catholic Thing:

What a difference four years make. In 2004 a small number of bishops publicly criticized the pro-abortion position of the Democrat running for president. This election year, they have grown to a large and lusty choir taking strong public stands against the pro-abortion politics of the Democratic ticket and their loudest supporters. Why such a difference from 2004 to now?

[Find out.]

NY state bishops say right to life outweighs other issues in voting

I blogged about this statement when it was released yesterday. I think it is extremely significant. CNA summarizes in a helpful way, and excerpts the "radioactive" passages:

The document [issued by the bishops of NY] “Our Cherished Right, Our Solemn Duty,” states that there are many important issues such as the right to life, issues of war and peace, the education of children and how we treat the poor and vulnerable. While all must be considered, “not every issue is of equal moral gravity.”

“The inalienable right to life of every innocent human person outweighs other concerns where Catholics may use prudential judgment, such as how best to meet the needs of the poor or to increase access to health care for all,” the New York bishops’ document says.

“The right to life is the right through which all others flow. To the extent candidates reject this fundamental right by supporting an objective evil, such as legal abortion, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research, Catholics should consider them less acceptable for public office.”

Sure, to most readers of AmP, this might seem like common sense. But in the wider discourse of Catholics, it is distinctly uncommon sense (sadly). But this is what the bishops are telling us. What response do they (we) have?

NY bishops' voting guide: abortion outweighs health care, Roe & FOCA crucial

I think this statement released yesterday by the NY bishops conference is very important because it responds to the recently-popularized argument that some pro-choice candidates could actually reduce abortions through their other policies - such as poverty reduction and health care - and thus Catholics could vote for them.

As a faithful Catholic, I think both these policies hold great merit, but if pursuing them means electing someone who will allow and promote the destruction of unborn life along the way, then it is an evil means and cannot be chosen. Catholics are more than utilitarians. And killing some children so that others may have a higher quality of life is the most brutal of utilities.

For a summary of what the New York bishops say, see LifeNews.

For their full original document, click here (recommended).

An excerpt from the statement (underlining mine):

It is the rare candidate who will agree with the Church on every issue. But as the U.S. Bishops’ recent document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship makes clear, not every issue is of equal moral gravity. The inalienable right to life of every innocent human person outweighs other concerns where Catholics may use prudential judgment, such as how best to meet the needs of the poor or to increase access to health care for all.

Did you catch that? The right to life outweighs other concerns, such as universal health care. Universal health care and meeting the needs of the poor is important, but both are logically secondary to having life in the first place. You have to be alive to be poor or need health care. The unborn are the poorest and the most in need of "health care."

The very first "important questions for political candidates" posed by the NY bishops:

• Do you agree with the need to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, which struck down all state laws criminalizing abortion and established a woman’s “right” to abort her unborn child in the womb?
• Do you oppose the state’s “Reproductive Health & Privacy Protection Act” or the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” which both go beyond Roe v. Wade, guaranteeing a fundamental right to abortion with no restrictions or regulations?

The clear teaching of the NY bishops here is that Roe cannot be tolerated by Catholics in good conscience. We cannot give up the fight to tear down unjust and immoral laws. Furthermore, any candidate who actively supports guaranteeing the right to abortion through FOCA, is actively abetting the murder of children.

Simply put, one cannot reduce abortions by promoting them. One cannot vote for someone who will promote abortions and convince oneself honestly that he or she has the best good of unborn children at heart.

Archbishop calls Catholic Gov's decision to host pro-abortion fundraiser a "scandal"

Oregon Catholics especially - listen up!

Your Archbishop is asking you to take action:

Archbishop John Vlazny is criticizing Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a Catholic, for playing host to an abortion rights fundraiser Friday night in Portland. Vlazny, head of the Archdiocese of Portland, said it's an embarrassment and a scandal for Catholics that Kulongoski is hosting the event two days before the church conducts its annual "Respect Life" mass in Portland to show opposition to abortion.

"For a Catholic governor to host an event of this sort seems a deliberate dissent from the teachings of the church," Vlazny said in a statement today. Kulongoski is a longtime supporter of a woman's right to choose an abortion. (AP)

"deliberate dissent"? Those aren't empty words. Those can be a precursor to canonical penalties.

You can read the Archbishop's full statement here.

Back to the AP account - condescension is the response from the governor's spokesperson:

"The archbishop is the governor's pastor, and he has only respect and admiration for the archbishop," Kulongoski spokeswoman Anna Richter Taylor said. "They obviously disagree on the issue of choice."

AP boilerplate:

Kulongoski isn't the first Catholic politician who's taken heat from church leaders over a pro-abortion rights stance.

Most bishops who have spoken about Communion and the responsibility of Catholic politicians have done so in general terms without naming names.

That's been the case in Oregon, where Vlazny has, without naming any specific politicians, said that Catholic officeholders who disagree with church teachings should refrain from receiving Communion.

The archbishop hasn't refused Kulongoski permission to receive communion, archdiocese spokesman Bud Bunce said.

.... because once you already vote for state funding of abortion, how much worse is it really to personally show up at the fundraisers? Kulongoski is already supporting a grave moral evil publically, now he is also doing so personally.

Lack of public reaction? Maybe we can change that....

However, Vlazny today called abortion a "grave evil," and urged Catholics to contact Kulongoski's office about Friday's fundraiser "to remind him of the demands of personal integrity as a member of our faith community in the exercise of his office."

The governor's office hadn't gotten any phone calls as of this afternoon, Richter Taylor said.

The number is 503.378.4582. *hint hint*.

Local Catholics are also encouraged to attend Mass at St. Mary's Cathedral at 5:30PM the evening of this event (Friday, October 3rd).

Related: "Archbp. Vlazny rebukes Catholic pro-abortion Gov. Kulongoski (D-OR)"

Abp. Hughs v. Rep. LaBruzzo

Outrageous:

Archbishop of New Orleans Alfred C. Hughes has criticized a Louisiana lawmaker’s proposal to pay poor women to sterilize themselves, calling it “seriously wrong,” “blatantly anti-life,” and a “form of eugenics.”

Louisiana’s Rep. John LaBruzzo, a Republican from Metairie, last week said he is studying a plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have their Fallopian tubes tied.

His proposal would also cover other forms of birth control, such as vasectomies for men, and could also encourage tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children, the Times-Picayune reports. (CNA)

Brave Bishop Soto

The first headlines I read:

• "Bishop Soto stuns national homosexual ministries conference"
• "At least five members of the audience walked out"
• "It is sinful"

So what did Bishop Jaimi Soto, the coadjutor bishop of Sacramento, do that was so bad?

He simply stated Church teaching.

Rod Dreher introduces the situation succinctly:

"Bill Cork brings us a real Daniel-in-the-lion's-den story about a Catholic bishop acting like a Catholic bishop should. The occasion was the annual meeting of the National Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries, an organization whose existence is, shall we say, at cross-purposes with Catholic teaching on sexuality. California Catholic Daily reports that there were concerns among orthodox Catholics that when Sacramento Coadjutor Bishop Jaime Soto agreed to speak to the group, he would somehow legitimate them -- but that's not what happened."

"Surprised by truth! Good for Bishop Soto, not only for having the courage to speak Catholic truth to this group, but for having the grace to stick around and listen. Both were acts of charity and witness. It's rather telling that a board member of the heterodox organization was shocked and scandalized that a bishop showed up and taught what the Church teaches. As a Catholic priest friend writes this morning, "One has to ask why it is that so many dioceses have gay and lesbian ministers who are dissenters from Church teaching." Yes, one does."

Bill Cork:

The National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries met in San Diego last week and got a surprise: Bishop Jaime Soto, coadjutor bishop of Sacramento, “courageously but gently” reminded them of Christian teaching on human sexuality.

“Sexual relations between people of the same sex can be alluring for omosexuals, but it deviates from the true meaning of the act and distracts them from the true nature of love to which God has called us all,” Bishop Soto said. “For this reason, it is sinful. Married love is a beautiful, heroic expression of faithful, life-giving, life-creating love. It should not be accommodated and manipulated for those who would believe that they can and have a right to mimic its unique expression.”

Some walked out. Most sat in silence. A tiny few applauded. Afterwards, there was time for response and questions. 80% expressed their disappointment with Soto.

You can read the full text of the bishops comments here. Extensive CNA summary here.

I profiled Bishop Soto briefly back in October 2007 when he "escap[ed] out from Bishop Tod Brown."

Not giving an inch to reporters who err about church teaching

When I read this NYT article last week ("Abortion Issue Again Dividing Catholic Votes"), I remember this paragraph being particularly lacking:

"After the 2004 election, progressive Catholics started to organize and appeared to win some victories. In 2006, the bishops’ conference all but banned outside voter guides from parishes. And last fall, the bishops revised their official statement on voting priorities to explicitly allow Catholics to vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights if they do so for other reasons. And it also allowed for differences of opinion about how to apply church principles. The statement appeared to leave room for Democrats to argue that social programs were an effective way to reduce abortion rates, an idea the party recently incorporated into its platform." (underlining mine)

That Catholics may vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights simply "for other reasons" is simply untrue. In fact, they may only do so under certain circumstances, for truly grave moral reasons. In fact, the clear move in recent voting guides has been towards placing a greater emphasis on the gravity with which one must decide to vote for a pro-abort politician, not the reverse (as the article claims).

Today the NYT published a letter to the editor penned by Bishops William Murphy and Nicholas DiMarzio:

Actually, the bishops said candidates who promote fundamental moral evils such as abortion are cooperating in a grave evil, and Catholics may never vote for them to advance those evils.

A Catholic voter’s decision to support a candidate despite that gravely immoral position “would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”

This standard of “grave moral reasons” is a very high standard to meet. The bishops added that “a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.”

Keep it up. Keep. It. Up!

Ph/t: Whispers.

Updated: 12 (14) bishops have responded to Sen. Joe Biden

Here is the updated list of bishops who have responded to Sen. Joe Biden (in somewhat chronological order):

1. (Bishop Joseph Martino) of Scranton (Biden's hometown) in a local newspaper interview, before Biden made his Meet the Press comments, re-stating his earlier-held position
2. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, CO
3. Bishop James Conley, his auxiliary, joined him
4. Bishop Robeert Morlino of Madison devoted his Sunday homily to it (mp3 here)
5. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC
6. Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa, OK
7. Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, PA
8. Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, CT
9. Bishop Fran Malooly of Wilmington, DL (Biden's diocese)
10. Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo, ND
11. (Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin, TX linked to the USCCB in his Friday E-pistle)
12. Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, IA
13. Bishop Paul Coakley of Salina, KS in his newsletter
14. Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston, MA on his blog

{Last updated - September 14th. Please send me tips & corrections! Try checking your diocesan website.}

The number of bishops who have responded to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's comments is currently at 26.

Kansas City bishops find their voice, teach the truth unambiguously

On Wednesday, I made the case that the American bishops are at a cross-roads, where they have begun "waging an offensive (as opposed to defensive) war on behalf of unborn children in this country." Tonight, two American bishops have begun an all-out assault on the culture of death.

The Catholic Key (the offical blog of the diocesan newspaper) provides us with the joint pastoral statement "Our Moral Responsibility as Catholic Citizens" of Archbishop Joseph Naumann, the Archbishop of Kansas City in Kansas and Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph on the question ""Could a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports legalized abortion when there is a choice of another candidate who does not support abortion or any other intrinsically evil policy?"

The bishops cover their doctrinal bases, citing the normative documents in the social teaching traditional of the Church. I urge my readers to read the entire text, as I'm only excerpting the "radioactive" passages. After speaking of a wide range of moral matters that the Church intersts herself in for the best good of the human person in society, they come to the solid food of their statement.

First, they rule out voting for candidates that support intrinsically evil actions because one agrees with their anti-life stance (underlining mine):

There are, however, some issues that always involve doing evil, such as legalized abortion, the promotion of same-sex unions and ‘marriages,’ repression of religious liberty, as well as public policies permitting euthanasia, racial discrimination or destructive human embryonic stem cell research. A properly formed conscience must give such issues priority even over other matters with important moral dimensions. To vote for a candidate who supports these intrinsic evils because he or she supports these evils is to participate in a grave moral evil. It can never be justified.

Clearly such a decision-making process is gravely disordered.

But what about the situation where one is considering voting for a candidate who supports intrinsically evil acts not because one agrees with them:

In another circumstance, we may be confronted with a voting choice between two candidates who support abortion, though one may favor some limitations on it, or he or she may oppose public funding for abortion. In such cases, the appropriate judgment would be to select the candidate whose policies regarding this grave evil will do less harm. We have a responsibility to limit evil if it is not possible at the moment to eradicate it completely.

The same principle would be compelling to a conscientious voter who was confronted with two candidates who both supported same-sex unions, but one opposed abortion and destructive embryonic research while the other was permissive in these regards. The voter, who himself or herself opposed these policies, would have insufficient moral justification voting for the more permissive candidate. However, he or she might justify resorting to a write-in vote or abstaining from voting at all in this case, because of a conscientious objection.

They then mention the all-important communique from Cardinal Ratzinger (before he became pope):

In 2004 a group of United States Bishops, acting on behalf of the USCCB and requesting counsel about the responsibilities of Catholic politicians and voters, received a memo from the office of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, which stated: “A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

And here they go, applying the cardinal's principles to the concrete situation confronting American catholic voters today (underlining mine):

Could a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports legalized abortion when there is a choice of another candidate who does not support abortion or any other intrinsically evil policy? Could a voter’s preference for the candidate’s positions on the pursuit of peace, economic policies benefiting the poor, support for universal health care, a more just immigration policy, etc. overcome a candidate’s support for legalized abortion? In such a case, the Catholic voter must ask and answer the question: What could possibly be a proportionate reason for the more than 45 million children killed by abortion in the past 35 years? Personally, we cannot conceive of such a proportionate reason.

They conclude with some excellent observations regarding the state of the Church in America at this juncture, and the incredible opportunity afforded to Catholics to shape public policy informed by the teachings of Christ, which ultimately have the best good of the human person at their source and heart.

Where does this leave us Catholics? It does not bind us, necessarily, on penalty of sin, to agree with the conclusion of these bishops. But it binds us, in our conscience, to be confident that our evaluation of the situation is more correct than theirs.

The bishops are not imposing a course of action upon us, they are proposing an approach that is illumined by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, directed by the tradition of the Church, and supported by their own hard-earned wisdom from being pastors of souls and guardians of ours.

Some readers might respond that I am "stacking the deck" too heavily in favor of agreeing with their position, and that I have not used such language in similar circumstances where bishops have spoken on other moral matters (and I have disagreed with their particular judgement).

This observation, while true to some degree, misses the fact that in this case the bishops argue that their description of the moral gravity concerned here trumps that of other moral issues. When other bishops, say, argue about immigration, health care, or a working wage, they never claim that such-and-such a specific issue holds a special place (this does not mean it can't still occupy an important one), but it seems nearly universal that when bishops speak out about abortion and other equal life issues that involve the life and death of human persons, they boldly and unequivocally state their case.

I believe we are called to as boldly, and as unequivocally, join them in taking a stand for the dignity and right to life of every human being from conception to natural death. This does not mean we can cease fighting other injustices in this world, it means that we must address the totality of issues, and like a house built on a rock, firm up the foundational life issues even as we seek to build up a culture of life, a house and world worthy of the children of God.

I end with the words of the above-mentioned bishops:

The number of Catholics and the percentage of Catholics in the United States have never been greater. There has never been a moment in our nation’s history when more Catholics served in elective office, presided in our courts or held other positions of power and authority. It would be wrong for us to use our numbers and influence to try to compel others to accept our religious and theological beliefs. However, it would be equally wrong for us to fail to be engaged in the greatest human rights struggle of our time, namely the need to protect the right to life of the weakest and most vulnerable.

We need committed Catholics in both major political parties to insist upon respect for the values they share with so many other people of faith and good will regarding the protection of the sanctity of human life, the upholding of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman as the foundation of family life, as well as the protection of religious liberty and conscience rights. It is particularly disturbing to witness the spectacle of Catholics in public life vocally upset with the Church for teaching what it has always taught on these moral issues for 2,000 years, but silent in objecting to the embrace, by either political party, of the cultural trends of the past few decades that are totally inconsistent with our nation’s history of defending the weakest and most vulnerable.

Okay, let's talk about it.

update: I've re-posted one of my above comments over at the Catholic Vote blog, which I'll be contributing to from time to time. My thanks to its organizers for the kind invitation.

Open thread: Kerry v. Biden

In recent decades, the American bishops have fought a defensive war against pro-abortion Catholic politicians, giving up one strategic position after another.

John Kerry battled them to a near-total defeat in 2004. But victory breeds indolence: pro-abort politicians could afford to push the boundaries because they had no reason to expect resistance, and they didn't have to be particularly smart or careful about how they waged their war of dissemination.

All that changed when Nancy Pelosi made her outrageous claims on Meet the Press - she pushed the American bishops so close to the brink that they finally took a stand and fought back. She had pushed too far, and had left her flank open for a counter-attack. Seeing their opening, a few brave bishops led the charge, and as these leaders emerged, others were quick to join them.

Like any rally, it gained strength and inertia, so that when Joe Biden attempted to re-draw the line and re-establish the boundaries (boundaries that had been secure and familiar to John Kerry), the American bishops didn't stop.

Want to see what I mean? Look at what John Kerry was saying unchallenged several years ago, and compare it to what Joe Biden said on Sunday. They're not so different. The difference is that the US Bishops, because of Pelosi, were already engaged actively in the debate when a pro-abort Catholic politician made the "I can't impose my personal belief" argument.

With the publication of yesterday's statement by the USCCB, the American Bishops, for the first time in years, are waging an offensive (as opposed to defensive) war on behalf of unborn children in this country.

May they be commended, and the Holy Spirit thanked.

Text: USCCB responds to Joe Biden

As I predicted last night, the US Bishops have published a response to Senator Joe Biden.

{update: the text is now available on the homepage of the USCCB website.}

Here it is (underlining mine):

BISHOPS RESPOND TO SENATOR BIDEN’S STATEMENTS REGARDING CHURCH TEACHING ON ABORTION

WASHINGTON - Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman, U.S. Bishops Committee on Doctrine, issued the following statement:

Recently we had a duty to clarify the Catholic Church’s constant teaching against abortion, to correct misrepresentations of that teaching by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on “Meet the Press” (see: here). On September 7, again on “Meet the Press,” Senator Joseph Biden made some statements about that teaching that also deserve a response.

Senator Biden did not claim that Catholic teaching allows or has ever allowed abortion. He said rightly that human life begins “at the moment of conception,” and that Catholics and others who recognize this should not be required by others to pay for abortions with their taxes.

However, the Senator’s claim that the beginning of human life is a “personal and private” matter of religious faith, one which cannot be “imposed” on others, does not reflect Catholic teaching. The Church teaches that the obligation to protect unborn human life rests on the answer to two questions, neither of which is private or specifically religious.

The first is a biological question: When does a new human life begin? When is there a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment? While ancient thinkers had little verifiable knowledge to help them answer this question, today embryology textbooks confirm that a new human life begins at conception (see www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact298.shtml). The Catholic Church does not teach this as a matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact.

The second is a moral question, with legal and political consequences: Which living members of the human species should be seen as having fundamental human rights, such as a right not to be killed? The Catholic Church’s answer is: Everybody. No human being should be treated as lacking human rights, and we have no business dividing humanity into those who are valuable enough to warrant protection and those who are not. Even this is not solely a Catholic teaching, but a principle of natural law accessible to all people of good will. The framers of the Declaration of Independence pointed to the same basic truth by speaking of inalienable rights, bestowed on all members of the human race not by any human power, but by their Creator. Those who hold a narrower and more exclusionary view have the burden of explaining why we should divide humanity into the moral “haves” and “have-nots,” and why their particular choice of where to draw that line can be sustained in a pluralistic society. Such views pose a serious threat to the dignity and rights of other poor and vulnerable members of the human family who need and deserve our respect and protection.

While in past centuries biological knowledge was often inaccurate, modern science leaves no excuse for anyone to deny the humanity of the unborn child. Protection of innocent human life is not an imposition of personal religious conviction but a demand of justice.

Masterful. My comments wouldn't really add anything.

Total number of bishops who have spoken (counting Abp. Wuerl's comments to his priests and Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa's statement - in both cases scroll down the page): 7:

• Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver
• Bishop James Conley of Denver
• Bishop Fran Malooly of Wilmington, DL (Biden's diocese)
• Cardinal Justin Rigali
• Bishop William Lori
• Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC
• Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa

update: The AP picked up the story, and Drudge linked to it.

Update: Biden skips Mass where new Bishop speak out against him

Once again, my low expectations are wonderfully surpassed.

Reader John V notes that Biden, as I predicted, skipped town:

"Looks like you were right. [Biden] was in Wilmington yesterday, but had to go to Green Bay today."

And it's a good thing, too. I wouldn't have wanted to present myself for communion after this homily by Bishop Malooly:

... Mary’s mother, St. Anne, carried a very special life in her womb which serves as a vivid reminder that every life is special. We will continue to stress the constant teaching of the Church that each person must respect every life from conception to natural death. And we will continue to seek the intercession of Saint Thomas More for Statesmen, Politicians, Supreme Court Justices, Judges and Lawyers—that they may be courageous and effective in defending and promoting the sanctity of human life, the foundation of every human right, the foundation of our love for the poor.

While Bishop Fran Malooly does not name Joe Biden (or Nancy Pelosi) by name, anyone who has been keeping up on this story knows what's being said quite plainly.

Nor is the St. Thomas More reference a throw-away line, I would argue. In his new book on Catholic voting, Abp. Charles Chaput spends an entire section talking about the example of St. Thomas More.

Coincidence? Perhaps. But lest we forget, St. Thomas summed up his witness in one line before his martyrdom:

"I die the King's good servant - but God's first."

Episcopal collegiality in defense of the unborn

A perfect example of that in Bishop R. Walker Nickless' comments:

As saddened as I was to hear Ms. Pelosi make such indefensible, inaccurate statements about the Church’s teachings, I was greatly encouraged by the immediate response of my brother bishops.

I agree completely with the rebuke and rebuttal of Cardinal Egan and Archbishop Chaput. As your Bishop, I am responsible to our Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of all the souls of North-West Iowa. I can’t force anyone to believe the truth, nor would I use such force if I could, but my duty as Bishop requires that I, as my brother bishops have done, teach that truth by word and example as firmly and as clearly as humanly possible. These true and universal doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are the teachings of Christ.

Well said, your excellency.

Updated: American Bishops who have spoken against Pelosi

Here is the complete list of American bishops who have responded to Nancy Pelosi's comments so far:

1. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver was the first American bishop to respond
2. ... Bishop James Conley, his auxiliary, joined him
3. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington DC responded twice, first in a press release and second in a statement to The Hill. He has also appeared on Fox News, I am told.
4. Cardinal Justin Regali of Philadelphia, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, issued this statement through the USCCB website...
5. ... Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, joined him
6. Cardinal Edward Egan of New York publised a strongly worded statement of his own
7. Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo issued a letter correcting Pelosi's claims
8. Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh and...
9. ... Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs have chimed-in
10. Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio, CNA reports has added his voice ...
11. ... Bishop Oscar Cantu, his auxiliary bishop, has joined him
12. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville has published an extensive letter
13. Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa has a detailed response
14. Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas has joined the USCCB's efforts
15. Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin is on-board
16. Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston mentions the USCCB on his blog
17. Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando has written at length
18. Archbishop John Nienstedt of Saint Paul/Minneapolis challenges Pelosi's statement
19. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, President of the US Bishops, has weighed-in
20. Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, OR publishes in the Catholic Sentinel
21. Bishop Jerome Listecki of La Crosse, WI responds in a word document
22. Bishop Richard Lennon of Cleveland, OH will comment in his September 5th column (PDF)
23. Bishop Ralph Nickless of Sioux City, IA has one of the very best responses I've read
24. Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco has invited Pelosi to a "conversation"
25. Bishop Glen Provost, LA: "Catholic Church clear on when human life begins"
26. Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn: "Judging the Candidates"

{Last updated on September 10th.}

Notes:

• Previous #23 has been removed. Bishop Joseph Gossman of Raleigh, NC is actually the bishop emeritus, and the new bishop, Michael Burbidge has not, to my knowledge, made a personal statement.
• Previous #16 has also been removed, it was an erroneous duplication of current #13.
• #26 was added September 10th, although he published his column September 6th

Thank Archbishop Chaput for His Courage!

Fidelis has created an easy-to-sign public thank you letter:

From the press release:

Fidelis is urging Catholics and all people of good will to publicly thank Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput for his unwavering defense of Catholic teaching on the dignity of all human life, likening him to former Archbishop Joseph Rummel, who led the Archdiocese of New Orleans from 1935 to 1964 during a period of deep division over the civil rights of African Americans.

Fidelis President Brian Burch commented: “Like Archbishop Rummel, who stood up against the prevailing culture of his time to defend the intrinsic dignity of every human person, Archbishop Chaput has been a true prophetic witness in reminding public officials of their responsibility to defend all human life. Denver’s Archbishop has been a model of courage for which every citizen in America should be grateful.”

Archbishop Chaput's recently-published title, Render Unto Caesar, is the AmP book of the month.

Read previous AmP posts mentioning Archbishop Chaput right here.

Update: Tom Brokaw revives Pelosi-Gate

As noted by Fr. Z, in yesterday's Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw keeps the story in the spotlight:

GOV. PAWLENTY: I would also say on that, Tom, if I could, you never hear Barack Obama getting asked whether he would pick a pro-life candidate for his ticket ...or whether it was important to have a pro-choice candidate on the Democratic side. You notice that question never gets asked of the Democrats.

MR. BROKAW: In the governors race—as a matter of fact, Nancy Pelosi and I talked about this just last week, and she got in a lot of trouble with the Catholic Church because [s]he refused to say when life begins, and when I asked her about it, she then had her own explanation based on what she thought was church doctrine, and the church came after her. So we have put that on the table, I just want to get that on the record if I can.

Poor Mrs. Pelosi.

Video: Abp. Chaput appears on Fox News

update ... video:

Thanks to the readers who sent me links to the YouTube video.

Fr. Z has the audio, and summarizes:

Neil Cavuto of Fox News just interview[ed] the Archbishop of Denver, His Excellency Most Reverend Charles Chaput. He spoke about Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s serious errors about the beginning of human life made last Sunday on Meet The Press. He also clarified why pro-abortion Catholics are in serious error and should not receive Holy Communion.

Abp. Chaput continues to steal spotlight from DNC

The Washington Times reports:

In retrospect, maybe the Democrats should have included Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput in their convention activities after all.

The party was accused of deliberately snubbing the outspoken archbishop by failing to invite him to lead prayers or participate on its religion panels. Archbishop Chaput is the leader of Denver´s estimated 385,000 Catholics, the area´s largest religious denomination.

But Archbishop Chaput may have gotten the last laugh. Democrats are doing a slow burn over the archbishop´s headline-grabbing criticism of party bigwigs and his decision to schedule major events this week during the convention´s prime-time speeches.

Gosh, the DNC organizers must be so annoyed.

Here's what Abp. Chaput has been up to ...

• The DNC schedules Clinton and Biden to speak on Wednesday night?

On the same night: "Archbishop Chaput drew hundreds to a signing of his newest book, “Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life,” at a bookstore about 15 miles from the Pepsi Center."

• How about three nights ago, the debut night of the DNC rally?

"Archbishop Chaput led a pro-life rally and prayer march outside a Planned Parenthood office in north Denver that started at 7:30 MST, about the same time as Michelle Obama, wife of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, was speaking to the convention."

Now that's guts, and brains.

Bishops of Colorado Springs & Pittsburgh respond to Pelosi

First, Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh:

"On Sunday, August 24, on “Meet the Press,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stepped out of her political role and completely misrepresented the teaching of the Catholic Church in regard to abortion. She said that Church teaching condemning procured abortion is somehow new and therefore unsettled. She could not have been more wrong." [More.]

Second, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs:

In light of recent confusing statements by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi suggesting that Catholic teaching allows for procured abortion in certain circumstances, it is important for all Catholics to understand the teaching of the Church regarding abortion. [More as PDF file.]

Add them to the honor roll... (update, by which I mean this complete list of bishops who have spoken out).

update 2: Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo has also released a statement.

Show-Stopper: Cardinal Egan Speaks Truth to Pelosi

When Archbishop Chaput issued his strong statement against Pelosi, many were quick to hope that he would eventually replace Cardinal Egan as Archbishop of New York.

Reading this statement, however, I think Cardinal Egan is doing just fine when it comes to publicly responding to heresy. Judge for yourself (underlining mine):

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

A simply incredible statement.

I am reminded of the courageous words Cardinal Egan spoke to (republican) Rudolph Guiliani in April. When I covered that story, I commented:

The first public fruits of the pope's visit to America might well be giving the pastors of the Church the courage they needed to call out the wolves who have been attempting to masquerade as sheep in the American fold.

Today I'm happy to have my supposition - and prayer - confirmed again in a new setting.

Someone pinch me.

update: Reader Thomas helpfully opines:

Nancy Pelosi may turn out to be a useful idiot.

Her incredible statements have forced the issue to a point where all her ilk may be forced to at least rise to the level of basic honesty and say they are out of communion with the Church they professed to be members of.

I can't agree more.

update 2: Rush Limbaugh has apparently quoted Egan's statement on his radio show today.

When will Abp. Niederauer add his voice to the Pelosi counters?

It has been fascinating to watch how statements from bishops have followed step-by-step the questions (and outcries) raised by concerned Catholics in the wake of Pelosi's comments.

Basically, the Bishops know, as do the faithful, who should be saying something, and when.

Let me illustrate:

• First, it was "won't any bishop say anything?" Then Abp. Chaput issued his statement.
• Then it was "won't the USCCB say anything?" Then the USCCB issued its statement.
• Then it was "well, but will Wuerl say anything?" Then Abp. Wuerl issued his statement.

But one more shoe needs to drop...

• The last thing I've been hearing is "will Niederauer (Pelosi's home bishop) say anything?"

That remains to be seen... but with each statement being issued, the San Francisco silence grows louder.

update: Pelosi herself has noted her "regional" immunity when asked about receiving communion:

Pelosi, a Roman Catholic whose district includes most of San Francisco, said she has not encountered such difficulties in her church.

“I think some of it is regional,” she said, “It depends on the bishop of a certain region, and, fortunately for me, communion has not been withheld and I’m a regular communicant, so that would be a severe blow to me if that were the case.”

"Severe blow" for you politically or ... spiri-, you know what, - nevermind.

update 2: The Archdiocese of San Francisco has opted to re-print the USCCB statement. More here.

In Baltimore, Legionaries hand over documents to Archbishop O'Brien

The Baltimore Examiner gives us details on the latest development:

Warned by Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien that its closely held activities must become more transparent if they are to continue within the archdiocese, the controversial Catholic religious order Legionaries of Christ — and its lay counterpart, Regnum Christi — appears to have seen the light.

O’Brien, who in June was on the verge of barring the religious and lay orders’ operations within his 153-parish jurisdiction — including the group’s K-8 Woodmont Academy in Cooksville and its Crownsville family center — now tentatively supports the traditionalist congregation’s organizational and evangelical work.

“We had a meeting several weeks ago with three priests of the Legion, and they handed over a rather significant volume of information concerning membership and the programs that they run,” O’Brien told The Examiner...

... O’Brien, whose initial hand was stayed by Vatican intercession, wanted the information within a month, and he wanted semiannual updates of any changes.

Apparently, the hybrid evangelical group, which dates from the 1940s and now has 70,000 members, 700 priests and numerous schools, institutes and seminaries throughout the world, has complied completely.

So we are told to believe that O'Briens "initial hand was stayed by Vatican intercession"? That's just poor reporting - no source or verification, just a claim. Has anyone heard anything about a "Vatican intercession"?

It is good to see that the Legionaries are cooperating.

I previously blogged this story when it broke back in June.

John Allen on why Abp. Burke wasn't kicked upstairs

I agree:

Since news of St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke’s appointment as prefect of the Apostolic Signatura was announced June 27, I’ve received numerous telephone calls and e-mails, from both sides of the Atlantic, posing some version of the following question: Was this a case of what the Italians call promuovere per rimuovere … promoting someone in order to get rid of him?

... my hunch is that this is not a case of promuovere per rimuovere, but what one might call “promotion for multiple motives.” In no particular order, I suspect that at least the following four considerations were at work. [Read them.]

Flash: Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis assigned high-level post in Rome

The notification from today's Vatican news bulletin:

The Holy Father appointed Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke of Saint Louis, U.S.A., as prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.

This is big news. It is a gain for the universal church on the one hand, and a loss for the Church in America on the other. But that's just a start. (For previous coverage of stories related to Abp. Burke, click here).

Related links:

• CNS: Pope appoints U.S. Archbishop Burke to head Vatican's highest court
• St. Louis Catholic: Holy Father Tabs Archbishop Burke as Prefect of Apostolic Signatura
• STLToday: Burke leaving St. Louis for Rome; what’s next for the local Catholic church?
• AMDG: St Louis Loses Archbishop Burke to Rome
• AP: St. Louis Archbishop gets Vatican post

Update, more links:

• Whispers: The "Chief Justice": A St Louis Cardinal
• John Allen: Burke to head Vatican's supreme court
• Ed Peters: First thoughts on Abp. Burke's promotion to the Signatura

Update 2, more links and news:

• CNS: Pope appoints U.S. Archbishop Burke to head Vatican's highest court
• Whispers: More Burke (read the screed quoted from Fr. Thomas Reese)

Finally, at the Archdiocesan website, the following announcement:

he Archdiocesan College of Consultors―a seven-member board of advisors made up of priests of the Archdiocese of St. Louis―has elected the Most Rev. Robert J. Hermann, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, to serve as archdiocesan administrator.

In this role, Bishop Hermann will oversee the day-to-day operations of the archdiocese until the installation of a successor to Archbishop Raymond L. Burke.

You can also find a bevy of information (and video!) at the St. Louis Archdiocesan website about Abp. Burke's appointment, including a Q & A, the official news release (PDF), and his biography.

With all this St. Louis buzz in the air, I hope my readers will especially appreciate the exclusive post I have planned for tomorrow.... stay tuned!

[I'm trying to see if I can embed the video of the Archbishop below. If you don't see anything below, it didn't work, and you can find it right here (scroll down).]

8 abortion mills close since bishop began on-site prayer

I mentioned this earlier, and it has been bearing fruit:

The Catholic Pro-Life Committee, the Respect Life Ministry of the Catholic Diocese of Dallas, has reported that Aaron Women's Health Center, a late-term abortion facility in Dallas will be closing its doors on June 28. Aaron's was one of three abortion clinics in Texas authorized to perform late-term abortions on unborn babies older than 16 weeks gestation.

When Bishop Charles Grahmann began leading a monthly "Second Saturday Rosary" outside Dallas abortion clinics in 1990, there were 13 abortion clinics in the city. Seven clinics closed between 1990 and 2001, and after Aaron's closes there will remain only five freestanding abortion clinics in Dallas. The Catholic Pro-Life Committee and others have vowed to continue to pray and offer alternatives to abortion outside those remaining five clinics. (LifeSiteNews)

Leading by example, and grace through action.

Abp. Naumann of Kansas City bars pro-abort politician from communion

Rocco calls this the latest episode in the "communion wars".

While I don't have a catchier title to substitute, there is far more in play here, and it deserves attention.

CWNews gives us an excellent, concise summary of what has happened:

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City has announced that Governor Kathleen Sebelius should not receive Communion because of her support for legal abortion.

In a column appearing on May 9 in the archdiocesan newspaper, The Leaven, the archbishop said that Governor Sebelius has sent a "spiritually lethal message" by implying that she could remain a Catholic in good standing while supporting abortion on demand.

.... He reported that he had met with her "several times over many months to discuss with her the grave spiritual and moral consequences of her public actions." Because the governor has now rejected his pleas and her public stand constitutes a scandal to the faithful, the archbishop said that he has now directed her to refrain from receiving Communion.

And he shows her the clear way back into the fold:

The governor will be welcomed back to Communion, the archbishop wrote, if she acknowledges her error, goes to Confession, and makes "a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion."

You can read the Archbishop's full, original column here.

The Archbishop has the support of his fellow Kansas bishops [listed in his letter are Bishop Ron Gilmore (Dodge City), Bishop Paul Coakley (Salina) and Bishop Michael Jackels (Wichita)].

The Archbishop's action also places an additional burden of proof on other bishops around the United States who remain silent under similar circumstances.

Expert commentary available from Fr. Z and canonist Ed Peters. I have chosen not to repeat here the informative, helpful, and contextualizing comments which they make better than I could.

For another sign of hard, good decisions (finally) being made and carried into action by the competent authority, see "N.Y. bishop ends practice of Communion at celebration of the word" (CNS).

On second thought, maybe I do have a good phrase to describe these developments: "Fruits of the Papal Visit."

For instance, take a look at the opening words of the Archbishop's column:

On the day of my return (Monday, April 21) from the exhilarating experience of participating in Pope Benedict’s pastoral visit to the United States, I learned that Governor Kathleen Sebelius had vetoed the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act....

Pope Benedict's words put into immediate action. It's a beautiful thing.

Anyway .... an AmP Shout-Out to Archbishop Naumann!

Next, the reaction to the Archbishop's decision. Remember that any declaration on this topic immediately triggers a cascade of opposing reactions. This most recent episode is no different.

The original coverage from the Kansas City Star is neutral.

A KCS political blog publishes these three helpful tidbits:

Sebelius spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said the governor had not seen the [archbishop's] column, but said “receiving Communion has not been a problem in the past for her.”

... Speaking about the debate in 2004, Bishop Raymond J. Boland of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph told a Star columnist, “I don’t think I have any right to invade another person’s conscience when they come to me.”

... Forcing priests to refrain from giving the governor Communion would be one option, but one not being considered by the archbishop. Instead, he said he puts the burden on Sebelius to do the “right thing” and heal the fracture her actions have caused the church.

Commonweal focuses on political ramifications:

T he Kansan controversy could have implications for the presidential race. Gov. Sebelius has endorsed Barack Obama, who has Kansas roots, and is being mentioned here and there as a possible vice-presidential candidate. Her father, John Gilligan, was governor of swing-state Ohio in the 1970s, making them the only father-daughter governors in U.S. history. And she’s been successful in getting votes in a heavily Republican state. And she would conceivably help Obama by connecting with women and Catholics.

Political considerations such as those above, however, are purely secondary to the core issues involved with this pro-abortion governor and her bishop.

Related links:

• Kansas Archbishop Urges Pro-Abortion Gov. Sebelius to Skip Communion (LifeNews)
• KS Archbishop Tells Pro-Abortion Gov. Sebelius to Refrain from Communion and Amend Her Life (Operation Rescue, and notes Sebelius' connection with abortionist George Tiller)
• Catholic Kansas Gov. Sebelius Vetoes Restrictions on Late-Term Abortion (LifeSiteNewS): "Tiller has donated over $38,000 in political funding to Sebelius since 1994."
• Catholic archbishop raps Kansas governor (SperoNews)

Breaking: Cardinal Egan calls out Guiliani for papal Mass communion

This is the big story of the day. Read the report first, then scroll down for my comments and context.

Here are pictures of Rudolph Giuliani in line to receive communion at the papal Mass (credit: AP).

LifeSiteNews presents the situation accurately and briefly. It's worth your time:

The decision by several prominent pro-abortion politicians to publicly receive Holy Communion at papal Masses during the recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI, despite clear Church teaching that says that their reception of Communion would constitute a grave sacrilege, may have backfired. While at first it seemed like it would be business as usual, today Cardinal Edward Egan of New York issued a statement condemning the reception of Holy Communion by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

The Archdiocese informed LifeSiteNews.com that the issue is being brought forward publicly at this time "because it has become a public issue and a public question."

"The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God," said Egan. "Throughout my years as Archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses, and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind."

He continued, "Thus it was that I had an understanding with Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, when I became Archbishop of New York and he was serving as Mayor of New York, that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion."

"I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the Eucharist during the Papal visit here in New York," said Egan, "and I will be seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding."

Giuliani's response?

Responding to the matter in the press, Giuliani said that his faith "is a deeply personal matter and should remain confidential."

Catholic News Agency tells us:

Giuliani's spokeswoman, Sunny Mindel, responded to the cardinal's statement by saying that Giuliani is willing to meet with the cardinal but added that his faith "is a deeply personal matter and should remain confidential."

Carl Olson at the Ignatius Press blog has the response to that false defense:

Well, [Guilian's] "faith" might be a "deeply personal matter," but reception of the Eucharist is not just a "personal matter," but a public act of worship and a declaration that one is in right relationship with Jesus Christ and His Church.

Here is the full statement of Cardinal Egan:

“The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God. Throughout my years as Archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses, and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind. Thus it was that I had an understanding with Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, when I became Archbishop of New York and he was serving as Mayor of New York, that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion. I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the Eucharist during the Papal visit here in New York, and I will be seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding.”

Rocco at Whispers in the Loggia holds this up as a counter-example:

The move is a notable change of public tack by [Cardinal Egan]. In an early 2007 TV interview, when asked how he'd "come down" on public officials who defy church teaching -- Giuliani included -- Egan said that the politicos named were "all friends of mine."

"I wish them all the best, and they've been very good to us" the cardinal told WNBC's David Ushery.

Suffice it to say, compare and contrast.

I'm not sure if this interview response necessarily contradicts the statement he issued today. If anything, Cardinal Egan's tone of surprise and hurt would seem to imply that he sees Guilian's action as a violation of their previous understanding.

What provoked this move, we might ask?

John Allen noted back on April 20th that "At least three times during Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the United States, a prominent pro-choice Catholic politician has received communion during a papal Mass." (Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Rudolph Guiliani).

From this example, Allen concluded:

"While it would be a stretch to say that Benedict XVI authorized what happened, one can at least infer that the pope did not issue strict instructions to the contrary. The cumulative effect of these events will likely be to weaken the case that the Vatican wants the American bishops to take a stricter stance against communion for pro-choice Catholics in public life."

And yet, here we are, April 27th, and Cardinal Egan issues this unambiguous statement.

Bob Novak, in the interim, has been most vocal about the scandal the intervening silence caused:

In the aftermath of the U.S. visit by Pope Benedict XVI, traditional Catholics are asking a troublesome question: Did pro-choice politicians receiving Communion at the papal Masses indicate the pope had softened on the abortion question? The answer is no. On the contrary, it reflected disobedience to Benedict by the archbishops of New York and Washington.

And he was particularly harsh about the situation in New York:

In New York, Giuliani receiving Communion was even more remarkable. Unlike Pelosi and Kennedy, who attend Mass regularly, the former mayor says he goes to church only "occasionally," usually for holidays or funerals. Abortion aside, Giuliani's third marriage would make him ineligible for Communion because his second marriage was not annulled by the church. But Cardinal Egan is no more apt than Cardinal McCarrick was to offend the powerful, and Giuliani was invited to the Mass.

Novak published this Monday the 28th in the Washington Post. That same day Cardinal Egan published his statement. I don't know the timeline for sure, but it's possible Cardinal Egan was told in advance