AmP twitter updates

Twitter Updates

    archives of the funny

    Caption of the Day/PPOTD

    website of the month

    A.P.Project

     book of the month

    Our Lady of Guadalupe

     Pa•pist: n. A Catholic who is a strong advocate of the papacy.

     

     "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." - Ephesians 5:11

    AmP 2.0 features

    recent posts

     

    comments

    AmP videos

     

    AddThis Feed Button

    facebook

    subscribe

    AddThis Feed Button

    bookmark

     

    email updates


    AmP Countdown: Time left to demand that Congress make health care reform pro-life: 2009-11-07 18:00:00 GMT-05:00


    Friday, November 13, 2009

    Honor Roll: Bishops who supported traditional marriage in Maine

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

    Tim Drake at NCRegister has the numbers of the top dioceses which supported the Maine efforts financially {and I have added the names of the cardinal or arch/bishop in each diocese}:
    Maine released its campaign finance filings, showing contributors to the Diocese of Portland’s successful effort to prevent the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”
    According to the campaign finance records, nearly five dozen dioceses and bishops made financial contributions to the effort. Among the largest donations were $50,000 donations from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Diocese of Phoenix. 
    Here is the list of the Top 12 Dioceses That Contributed to Support Marriage:
    Phoenix         $50,000 - Bishop Thomas Olmsted
    Philadelphia     $50,000 - Justin Cardinal Rigali
    St. Louis         $10,000 - Archbishop Robert Carlson
    Kansas City, Kan.  $10,000 - Archbishop Joseph Naumann
    Newark         $10,000 - Archbishop John Myers
    Providence       $10,000 - Bishop Thomas Tobin
    Youngstown     $10,000 - Bishop George Murry
    Fall River         $5,000 - Bishop George Coleman
    Rockford         $5,000 - Bishop Thomas Doran
    Crookston       $5,000 - Bishop Michael Hoeppner
    Pittsburgh         $5,000 - Bishop David Zubik
    Arlington         $5,000 - Bishop Paul Loverde
    To see the entire list of campaign contributors, visit here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Labels: , , , , ,

    Tuesday, November 10, 2009

    Fireworks: Bishop Tobin escalates episcopal correction of Rep. Kennedy

    Congressman Kennedy picked the wrong Bishop to mess with.

    The back-and-forth between Congressman Patrick Kennedy and Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, RI has been interesting to watch, especially because Kennedy has attempted to defend himself with every old, tired argument in the liberal playbook.

    Bishop Tobin's most recent round, however, published in the Rhode Island Catholic newspaper, is a grand slam.

    Because I'm a spoiler, I'm going to quote the last part of Bishop Tobin's public letter to Kennedy - but you should take the time and read the whole thing:
    "Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

    Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so."
    Next step: official censure or excommunication. Rep. Kennedy has now been publicly rebuked and invited to convert and offer repentance.

    Mr. Kennedy, stop while you're behind. Repent, and be reconciled. You're out of other options.

    Unfortunately, at this point, Mr. Kennedy has broken off his planned meeting with Bishop Tobin. Whatever Kennedy may be thinking, that's not the right way to set things right.

    Labels: , , ,

    Friday, October 30, 2009

    Commentary: On Bart Stupak's Collapse

    Bart, what happened?!

    Earlier this week I was able to write about you standing up to Nancy Pelosi and fighting for pro-life amendments.

    But yesterday a YouTube video of you surfaced which revealed that you intend to vote for Pelosi's pro-abortion health care bill even if all your amendments fail!

    Now you are writing editorials which have you saying:

    "I have not made unreasonable demands. I have simply asked that there be a straight up-or-down vote on my amendment reflective of current laws. If we had a clean vote on this amendment and lost, I could accept that. My pro-life colleagues and I simply want, and deserve, a chance to vote our conscience."
    But Bart, you have had chances to offer pro-life amendments. And they have been voted down. Now you are going to give up and accept this pro-abortion bill?

    What happened to the Bart about whom it was written, and who said when interviewed:
    However, the Michigan Democrat said he will not be backing down: "I'm comfortable with where I'm at. This is who I am. It's reflective of my district. If it costs me my seat, so be it." {source.}
    How much things have changed in a matter of days. Do you really think anyone will believe your claim that your conscience is only requiring you to offer and vote on amendments, and that if they get defeated, your conscience is fine with voting for the pro-abortion bill?

    I guess you do, but it sure puts the other pro-life Democrats in a lurch, a big one. Pelosi is once again getting her way, picking off the leaders of those representatives who are against her. Your vote is ultimately the only thing you have that she needs from you, and saying your amendments don't matter when it comes time to vote - well, you don't have a future in poker. Let's put it that way.

    ===

    Because this whole situation is complicated, I'll finish simply:
    1. The lack of pro-life amendments in PelosiCare ought to be a deal-breaker for you. Don't let Pelosi strong-arm you into compromising your conscience, and your constituents. Frankly, if you vote for this, you'll probably lose your seat anyway. I'll help.
    2. Stupak's amendment, whatever Stupak's personal philosophy about voting, is still GOOD. Just because he's having 11th-hour second-thoughts doesn't mean Catholics ought not still rally around his pro-life amendment, or any pro-life amendment that gets offered.

    At this point, we'll see if pro-life amendments are even given a chance. That looks doubtful in itself.

    Oh, and Hon. Stupak, it's not too late to change your mind again. The vote hasn't happened ... yet.

    Labels: , , ,

    Claim: Pro-Life Democrats can still defeat pro-abortion "PelosiCare" bill

    Personally, I have next to no confidence that this coalition will actually stand strong and not end up crumbling and voting for PelosiCare:
    "Democrats for Life of America claims to have 40 congressmen who will vote against the House health care reform legislation if taxpayer funded abortion language is not removed from the bill, the organization announced on Thursday.

    The 40 vote coalition concerns the refusal of the House leadership to include language that would prevent abortions from being paid for in any new health care reform scheme. If Hyde Amendment-type language were inserted into the bill, Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) says, taxpayer funded abortions in appropriations bills would be prevented.

    Several attempts to insert such language have been unsuccessful in committee.

    "I want to be clear, pro-life Democrats want to help pass health care reform but our coalition can in no- way support reform that includes tax payer funded abortions. If the leadership will remove that language, we feel confident that we can deliver enough votes to help put this much needed reform over the top in the House," Kristen Day, DFLA Executive Director, said in a statement.

    “We believe in a big-tent Democratic Party, but to not allow Hyde language to be included in health care reform would force some pro-choice and pro-life Democrats to vote against health care reform. If we add this language, we believe we can help Speaker Pelosi get the votes to pass this legislation.” (CNA)
    I will be blogging next on what I sald have to describe as "Bart Stupak's collapse."

    Labels: , , ,

    Wednesday, October 28, 2009

    How many bishops support the current health care reform? None of them.

    Over a month ago, I started compiling a list of bishops who have written or spoken about the current health care reform proposals being debated in Congress. This list quickly grew to 44 bishops.

    Earlier this month, I copied the letter published by two key bishops and the top pro-life Cardinal in America (all of whom chair separate committees for the USCCB) who promised they must "oppose the health care bill vigorously" if crucial aspects of it were not changed. Well, it hasn't changed.

    Today, Marcel at Aggie Catholics alerted me to a new statement of the combined Texas Bishops just released yesterday which repeats that same USCCB language about "opposing [the health care bill] vigorously."

    The message of all these bishops is clear: "Yes we want reform, but we don't want this."

    That's a clear message to politicians in Washington DC, especially President Obama and Catholic politicians: "Change the health care reform bill, or Catholics will have no choice but to vigorously oppose it."

    Make no mistake, we are in the end game for health care reform right now. And right now, the health care bill is unacceptable to Catholics. Furthermore, the track record during this entire debate has been to downplay, ignore, or lie about the life issues that matter most to Catholics.

    Therefore, if it comes down to a yes-or-no vote now, the only acceptable vote is a NO vote.

    I'd like to see someone try to disagree with my claim. How can a Catholic politician vote for a bill which the combined US bishops say they must "vigorously oppose", without defying the clear practical teaching of the US bishops? 

    Of course, plenty of politicians will do just that, because they have established a career of voting for things which the bishops oppose, but I want the record to be very clear about what they are doing on this most-important-of-issues. 

    I don't mean to be authoritative, I mean to be very clear about what I am claiming. 

    Labels: , , ,

    Monday, October 19, 2009

    Outrageous: Liberal Catholics trying to lay health care reform blame on US bishops

    Hold on to your hats -I'm going to try to make something very complicated, well, a little less complicated.

    This is about the ongoing struggle between democrats (and their friends) who want health care reform to include money for abortion, and pro-life Catholics who don't want money for abortions to be included in health care reform.

    Here is a list of the most important players in this fight:
    1) Cardinal Justin Rigali, head of the US Bishops' pro-life committee, and those who work for him
    2) The leaders of the democrat party who are crafting health care legislation, and are eager to appease their pro-abortion supporter
    3) Amy Sullivan (writing in TIME Magazine) and other media-type individuals (who falsely claim to present a "Catholic" perspective on health-care reform, like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good) trying to give cover to the democrats and malign the pro-life activities of Cardinal Rigali and other pro-life Catholics

    The latest salvo in this ongoing fight comes from Amy Sullivan, who wrote in TIME Magazine this weekend claiming that the US Bishops have been sending mixed and confused messages to democrats in Congress, making it impossible for democrats to honor the Bishops' demands that money not go to abortions in health care reform.

    She claims that democrats in Congress were taken by surprise when Cardinal Rigali wrote this on October 8th:
    "However, we [bishops] remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously."
    In fact, it is more accurate to say that Cardinal Rigali had seen through the democrat-sponsored Capps amendment as being nothing more than a shell game to sneak abortion funding into health care reform anyway, and so he wrote the above sentences with a clear message for the democrats in Congress: "enough is enough."

    Eliminating money for abortion in health care reform would be as simple as approving any of the multiple pro-life amendments (such as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) which have already been offered. But no - democrats have voted down every single pro-life amendment which has been offered during the long course of these deliberations.

    Which leaves us with a very cold, obvious fact: the reason there is abortion funding in the current health care reform proposals is because democrats put it there, and have repeatedly kept it there.

    Sorry, Amy, you can't blame the bishops for this one.

    If you are interested in this topic, do also read what Deal Hudson and Steven Ertelt have written. Deal Hudson takes a look at what may be happening internally at the USCCB during these negotiations, while Steven Ertelt has an expert source briefing us on what has been happening politically in Congress.

    Labels: , , , , ,

    Friday, October 16, 2009

    Silly: NCR's "simple fact" about marriage is neither simple, nor a fact

    My father Canon Lawyer Ed Peters writes a brief comment on National Catholic Reporter's recent editorial staff article on the US Bishops' new Pastoral Letter on Marriage. The bottom line:
    "... advice from the National Catholic Reporter on how to improve pastoral letters on marriage might be read for possible amusement value, but not for anything that requires theological, canonical, and/or historical accuracy."
    Silly NCR editors - theology is for theologians!

    Labels: , , ,

    Tuesday, October 13, 2009

    Report: Catholic University's liturgical abuse prompts vandalism, possible hate-crime charges

    The University of Detroit Mercy is "a Catholic university in the Jesuit and Mercy traditions."

    This is educational institutional code for "Catholic-but-dont-hold-that-against-us-we-really-dont-believe-this-silly-stuff."

    In response, one zealous student made a stupid attempt to thwart a case of inevitable (grave) liturgical abuse, and may get charged with a hate crime as a result:
    A UDM student reportedly stole four medallions depicting various world religions in an attempt to deny their recognition in the Sept. 24 Celebrate Spirit service, the university's opening {Mass}.

    The student, who has not been publicly identified, entered Gesu Church between 7 and 9 a.m., according to the UDM Department of Public Safety.

    The suspect stole the medallions representing Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism and disposed of them, officials said.

    The medallions have not been recovered. The medallions representing Christianity and Judaism were still in place. (Source - The Varsity News)
    The UDM website helpfully explains this "Procession of Medallions of Major World Religions":

    * the Star of David (Judaism),
    * the cross (Christianity),
    * and the Star and Crescent (Islam) represent the three sister-communities who trace the origins of their faith to Abraham.
    * The Yin-yang symbol (Confucianism),
    * the Dharma Wheel (Buddhism),
    * and the Om (Hinduism) represent the great religions of the East.

    All faiths recognize the reality of the transcendent and attempt to engage believers with Ultimate Reality. The medallions are a sign of welcome to every expression of Spirit in this celebration as we move together through this coming academic year.
    (The UDM website also explains what the "Liturgy of the Eucharist" is, for those of us who need sensitivity training:

    The word "eucharist" comes from the Greek word for "thanksgiving." The gathered community first brings forward bread, the staff of life, and wine, a festive drink. We place these symbols of our life and joy into the hands of the priest, a chosen representative of this community and of the larger Church. He calls down the power of the Holy Spirit over the gifts, recalling the story of Jesus' own gift to us and asking that God transform them. Then with Jesus and the community he gives thanks to God. Our great "Amen" at the end is the sign of our acceptance of all that we have said and done together.)

    And yes, for attempting to interfere with these great "signs of welcome" and "signs of our acceptance", the student may very well be charged with a hate crime. Too bad this young student isn't eligible for welcoming or acceptance, apparently.
    Oh well, I guess he missed his chance.

    The local Jesuit campus minister helpfully provides tus with the moral of the story:
    "It's a sad thing that happened, and it illustrates how one person's inability to accept others can affect a whole community," said the Rev. Gary Wright, S.J., of Campus Ministry.
    That's funny, becuase now I'm confused ... I thought the 2009 theme of the Celebrate Spirit! 2009 opening liturgy was what is written on the UDM website:

    "As a result of this year's Celebrate Spirit, we hope that the UDM community will be more aware of the gift of creation, more moved to praise and thank God for it, and more empowered to take action to care for it. In the light of current social awareness and scientific understanding, we hope that all who participate will see environmental concern as more than a political position, more than a practical survival strategy. Rather it is a deep and necessary response flowing from our faith traditions, spiritualities, and ethical principles."
    I guess environmentalism also has a vital role to play in UDM's "Catholic Mass."

    Which is UDM code for "Interfaith-ecumenical-faith-healing-celebration-event-community-growing-environmentally-sustainable-equality-promoting-difference-negating-positive-thinking-hey-whatever-just-show-up-please-and-bring-a-side-dish-or-something-gathering."

    Labels: , , , ,

    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.

    Labels: , ,

    Life: New York Times prints photos of abortion victims

    An important event happened over the weekend in the pro-life movement:

    On Saturday, the New York Times included a front-page, above-the-fold news story that presents a strangely fair portrayal of pro-life advocates who engage in street activism.

    Meanwhile, the Times' Photography, Video, and Visual Journalism online section features a photo montage showing the pictures of babies who died in abortions {warning, leads to graphic material}. {Accompanying video report here - also includes graphic images.}

    Monica Migliorino Miller, a Michigan pro-life advocate and professor at Madonna University, has taken so many pictures of babies killed in abortions she is regarded as an expert of sorts.

    She told LifeNews.com over the weekend that the Times show and online pictorial is "nearly unprecedented in 37 years of legalized abortion."

    "Perhaps for the first time in the history of the pro-life movement a nationally recognized paper -- or any newspaper for that matter -- has deliberately printed photos of actual abortion victims," Miller said.

    Miller talked about the genesis of the news report and online photo spread [here].

    Miller encourages pro-life advocates to comment on the Times story and to thank the newspaper for running the photos online.

    Monica Miller is extremely well known in the Michigan right-to-life movement.

    She is also of the 88 people currently being sued by Notre Dame University for peaceful demonstrations on their campus leading up to the appearance of President Obama earlier this year.

    I know many people disagree with the pro-life use of images which show the remains of aborted unborn children. Nonetheless, most of us have seen them, at this point. And I don't think we should look past the fact that, having seen them, we can choose not to use them, but many people who are "pro-choice", have never seen them.

    I think anyone who votes to protect or promote abortion, especially late-term abortion, should have the opportunity of seeing what they are voting for.

    Labels: , , ,

    Friday, October 09, 2009

    Kennedy Funeral Redux: Finding sanity in the shouting

    An Irish priest, Fr. Gerald Moloney, went on a rant against my father, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters (and others), about the Kennedy funeral. My father responds here. Don't mess with my dad, Father. It never goes well.

    Labels: ,

    Wednesday, September 23, 2009

    Video: Cardinal Mahoney tries to dodge abortion in health care question

    From CNSNews.com's Edwin Mora, an incredible video interview recorded yesterday:



    Let's look at what Mahoney said when asked if he agreed with Cardinal Rigali that abortion funding is in the health care reform proposal being drafted in the House of Representatives:
    “This is way beyond my field. My field is immigration. I really haven’t kept up on that, and I spend all my time on this other. You have to get somebody who spends time on that.”

    When asked whether he believed abortion should be funded under the health care bill, Cardinal Mahony said: “No, but that’s what the president said, too, so.”
    My initial thoughts:
    • I'm waiting for liberal Catholics to condemn Mahoney's response as inadequate because he basically claims to be a "single issue" Catholic bishop. "My field is immigration"? Excuse me? Since when does focusing on one issue get a bishop off the hook of being informed about other issues? *crickets*
    • "This is way beyond my field"? Sounds like the infamous "This is above my pay grade" response which Obama gave at one point to a similar question (and even he later admitted this was a flippant answer).
    • Is Mahony so oblivious to current events that he is unaware of the actions taken by Cardinal Rigali, of the warnings issued by over forty US bishops, of the numerous reports in mainstream media outlets that confirm this simple fact that abortion funding exists in the House version of health care reform?
    • Finally, Mahony pulls the rug out from underneath his own feet when he says "No, but that’s what the president said, too, so." ... what?! I thought Mahony said he was uninformed? And yet he is evidently informed about what Obama has said. So, Mahony knows what Obama has said about abortion, but not what the US Bishops have said.
    Absolutely incredible.

    Labels: , , , , ,

    Catholic Medical Association comes out strongly against ObamaCare

    While I was in Orlando I was privledged to meet several members of the Catholic Medical Association.

    I am thrilled to see they have come out vocally against Obamacare because of its deep, particular flaws, and have also cautioned against any proposal which involves a government takeover of the private medical profession.

    They have released a 3-page open letter to "Catholics and Catholic organizations", and - because I realize people tend to be daunted by larger documents - I'm excerpting the conclusion here:
    "We must ensure that well-intentioned efforts to bring about “change” are not exploited to create a federally controlled system that promises health care for all, but creates an oppressive bureaucracy hostile to human life and to the integrity of the patient physician relationship. It would be better to forgo long-needed changes in health-care financing and delivery in the short-term if these would lead to a long-term, systemic policy regime that is inimical to respect for life, religious freedom, and the goods served by the principle of subsidiarity. Rather than accept such an outcome, we should take the time required to implement reform measures that are sound in both principled and practical terms."
    The entire letter can be read here (PDF) through the CMA website. They have created a new section of their website dedicated to health care reform which I would urge you to visit.

    This is a brave move by the Catholic Medical Association. Having met several of their members, I believe they are sincere Catholics who genuinely want to practice their profession according to their Catholic principles.

    Labels: , , , , ,

    Wednesday, September 09, 2009

    "On Satisfying the Requirements for a Catholic Funeral"

    Several folks have asked that I post this commentary by Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro Carámbula, Doctor of Dogmatic Theology and head of the Rome office of Human Life International.

    It is in regards to the Catholic funeral that Ted Kennedy received in Boston.

    My father, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters - no defender of Mr. Kennedy's public record and example - disagrees with Msgr. Ignacio. 

    update: My father doubles-down and *really* disagrees with Msgr. Ignacio.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Wednesday, September 02, 2009

    Text: Letter from US Legion Territorial Directors to members

    This letter is being widely distributed among members of the Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi in the United States. It bears the names of Fr. Scott Reilly LC, Territorial director for the Atlanta territory, and Fr. Julio Marti LC, Territorial director for the New York territory. I'm posting it below for discussion.

    My complete coverage of the Legion scandal is here. Recent coverage includes:
    Here it is embedded:

    And here it is for download and viewing in a separate window.

    Labels: , , ,

    Wednesday, August 12, 2009

    Claim: Legion founder Maciel had multiple children; other details emerging

    For some time, I have refrained from reporting on the ongoing saga of the Legionaries of Christ out of deference for the canonical visitation which is taking place.
    AmP was the first major blog to report the scandal of Maciel having a biological child, and became a hub for accurate reporting on the story in the tumultuous weeks that followed.
    However, because the most recent round of news changes the situation dramatically, I will report on it as well. The conclusions of the apostolic visit cannot be expected for some time, but individuals who are still in the Legion or Regnum Christi deserve to know what is happening now.
    Multiple stories from Mexico report that three additional individuals claiming to be children of Fr. Maciel are suing the Legion of Christ for inheritance rights. It appears the original daughter of Maciel, and her mother, were supported by Legion money (i.e. money contributed by Catholic faithful for supporting Fr. Maciel's work). 

    The mother claims she was a minor when her relationship with Fr. Maciel began. And it appears that "highly placed officials" in the Legion knew of this situation and where complicit in it. Details beyond this are sketchy, but it appears probable now that there are even more children than the ones mentioned (the most frequent number I hear is six total). 
    If you are interested in the details, two ex-LC blogs provide them: Life-after-RC and Ex LC Blog.
    These new allegations suggest several conclusions:
    • Fr. Maciel was an extraordinary, calculating fraud and he ought to be acknowledged as such by the leaders of the Legion and Regnum Christi alike
    • The breadth of Fr. Maciel's crimes makes it nearly impossible that other members of the Legion did not know of them, and they ought to be brought to justice
    • The serious financial infraction of misusing lay resources (money, property, etc) for the upkeep of Fr. Maciel's mistress and his other escapades demands restitution
    • The ongoing revelations about Fr. Maciel and his enablers requires an intense examination, person-by-person, of those still charged with the movement's leadership
    In the face of these conclusions, the choice made by increasing numbers of Legionary and Regnum Christi members - to simply leave the order and begin anew - to my mind, is the most prudent way to respond. Most of these individuals have left quietly, and I have no desire to point them out, but it is happening and I have not yet heard of anyone regretting that decision. Life in the Church, after all, can always be wonderful, even outside a movement.
    For both those who decide to stay in the Legion/Regnum Christi and for those who have left, I would firmly admonish them to assist in every way possible with the ongoing apostolic visitation. 
    There have been some scattered reports of Legion/Regnum Christi members attempting to thwart the visitation (I do not necessarily give credence to these reports), but obviously the primary obedience of any faithful Catholic is to the Holy See and its elected representatives (Christ speaks through His vicar the pope, not Fr. Maciel). For LC/RC in the United States and Canada the representative of the Holy Father is Archbishop Charles Chaput.
    To contact Abp. Chaput, send an email with the subject line "PRIVATE" to "shepherd [at] archden.org" (without the brackets and spaces). Emails ought to be VERY SHORT and to the point. Every email will be read eventually.
    For those of us outside the Legion and Regnum Christi, let us continue to pray for all the members, and if we personally know anyone who has been or is a member, let us charitably reach out to them if they welcome it. Oremus pro invicem.
    [photo credit: chamorros1976]

    Labels: , , ,

    Thursday, August 06, 2009

    Why are Catholic organizations supporting Obamacare? Follow the money.

    [update 3 - in fairness, please also scroll to the bottom and see the links supplied.]

    Last week I was scratching my head trying to figure out the reasons why Catholic organizations (such as Catholic Charities USA, The Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and the Catholic Health Association) are "rushing anti-life health care reform".

    One of the reasons I'd like to be able to rule out very quickly is that they are doing so out of self-interest, because they have significant financial stakes in this debate.

    It becomes hard to rule this possibility out when I find out that Catholic Charities just received $100,000,000 in government money on July 20th - it's first federal contract ever:
    Catholic Charities USA has received a five-year, 100 million dollar federal contract to aid in disaster relief throughout the United States. The contract is the charity’s first ever federal contract.

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its Administration for Children and Families (ACF) section awarded the contract to Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA), a 100-year-old service organization.

    The contract allows HHS to issue task orders to the agency for aid in connection with a specific disaster. The agreement became effective on July 20, a Monday CCUSA press release says. (CNA)
    It becomes still more difficult to rule out this troubling possibility when I discover - through Jack Smith's original and incisive reporting - what sort of organization, and compensation, obtains over at the Catholic Health Association:
    CHA does not represent patients or the poor. Their board is composed of, and Sister Carol represents, the very highly compensated chief executives of large health care conglomerates throughout the country. Lay-led corporations such as San Francisco-based Catholic Healthcare West and St. Louis-based Ascension Health run dozens of hospitals across numerous states which at one time were directly operated by religious orders.

    The executives at these companies are compensated as you'd expect the heads of large corporations to be compensated. In the last year figures are available, the head of Ascension Health made $1,756,790 plus $599,744 in deferred compensation and benefits. Catholic Health East's top exec made $1,185,000 plus $693,000 in deferred compensation and benefits. Both execs are on the board of CHA, where they are joined by numerous execs from similar health systems.

    But the biggest fish is Lloyd Dean, former Chair and current Speaker of Membership Assembly on the Board of Trustees at CHA. Dean is head of Catholic Healthcare West with 41 hospitals and clinics in California, Nevada and Arizona.

    In 2006, the last year figures are available, Dean made $4,001,892 and the Chronicle of Philanthropy named him the second highest paid non-profit executive in the United States. Dean's compensation, according the the Chronicle of Philanthropy, is based in part on "improvements in the organization's finances". As well it should be. Dean also has made gobs in his position on other boards, including Wells Fargo & Co. Dean is non-Catholic and a donor to both the DNC and the Obama campaign.

    This is not to begrudge these executives their salaries. It is only to point out that it is their interest that Sister Carol serves. And she serves them very much as a peer.
    Democrats have been claiming that the resistance to their proposed health care reform plan is being organized by well-funded insurance organizations. Well, here are some well-funded trade associations who seem very interested in seeing the democrat proposal come to fruition.

    So why is no one talking about that?

    In a related vein, I was pleased to see that the Knights of Columbus are taking the right sort of action:
    Delegates to the 127th annual convention of the Knights of Columbus Aug.6 adopted a resolution declaring opposition to “any health care reform legislation that does not explicitly exclude abortion coverage for any health insurance plan, public or private.”

    On Tuesday in his annual report to the convention, Supreme Knight Carl Anderson had sounded a similar note, saying, “Health care reform must be abortion free.”
    The resolution on Defending the Right to Life also called on “legislators everywhere to adopt legislation protecting the religious conscience rights of doctors, nurses and other medical professionals, guaranteeing their right to refuse to participate in abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide or any other practice that is destructive of innocent human life or that conflicts with their sincerely-held religious beliefs.”
    The resolution reaffirmed the commitment of the 1.78 million member Knights of Columbus “to unconditional support for the right to life and full protection in law for every human being from conception to natural death.”
    That sounds much closer to an authentically Catholic starting point for health care reform.

    update 2: I am being made aware of statements by these organizations which commit themselves to supporting only pro-life legislation. That's excellent, but what we have in our hands right now is anti-life legislation, and I believe many Catholics believe that, in supporting Obamacare, they are following the advice of these Catholic organizations.

    So clearly we have some communication issues to straighten out over the next month.

    I will be posting more on this topic soon.

    update 3: here are statements from Catholic Charities and St. Vincent De Paul (PDF)

    The latest letter (July 30th PDF) from the Catholic Health Association's Advocacy wing is woefully-inadequate. We should focus our demands on CHA for them to clarify their position immediately.

    Labels: , ,

    Wednesday, August 05, 2009

    AP claims government insurance "would allow coverage for abortion"

    Yesterday I pointed out a very simple way to answer the abortion-in-health-care question.

    Today, the AP takes a long look at the complicated situation, and arrives at the same conclusion.

    If you're looking for the cliffsnotes version: the government proposals will allow abortion coverage.

    Labels: , , ,

    Tuesday, August 04, 2009

    Naming names in the ongoing abortion-in-health-care debate

    It should be a simple question - what is the status of abortion in the health care debate?

    I work in DC politics, and even I'm confused. 

    But I'll try to provide some clarity.

    The committee scramble that took place last friday before the House of Representatives went into its August recess came down decidedly against the side of life, as the National Catholic Register points out:
    Some pro-life Democrats joined with Republicans serving on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to amend the bill to prohibit funding for abortion services except in cases where a woman’s life is in danger or her pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

    But that amendment was reversed later in the day, when the Democratic leadership successfully pressured a pair of Democrats on the committee to vote against the amendment during a second vote, sending it down to a 30-29 defeat.

    The narrow margin in favor of the abortion mandate is an opportunity for Catholics and other pro-life Americans. They can lobby Congressional Democrats en masse, warning them that they are risking the defeat of the entire health care reform initiative if they insist on its inclusion in a bill that many Americans already have grave doubts about for other reasons.

    ... if the bishops are backed by their Catholic flocks as they continue to fight against the provision in the health care reform bill, that could change as the bill continues to progress through Congress.
    I blogged about this committee back-and-forth the day it happened over at APP. The bad guy masterminds in this case were Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) and Chairmen Henry Waxman (D-CA, pictured above).

    Here is how the declared catholic members of the committee split:
    Catholics voting against the amendment (anti-life) were Representatives John Dingell (D) of Michigan, Edward Markey (D) of Massachusetts, Frank Pallone, Jr. (D) of New Jersey, Anna Eshoo (D) of California, Mike Doyle (D) of Pennsylvania, Charles Gonzalez (D) of Texas, Jerry McNerney (D) of California, and Peter Welch (D) of Vermont.

    The Catholics who voted for the amendment (pro-life) were Bart Stupak (D) of Michigan, Charlie Melancon (D) of Louisiana, George Radanovich (R) of California, John Sullivan (R) of Oklahoma, Tim Murphy (R) of Pennsylvania, Phil Gingrey (R) of Georgia, and Steve Scalise (R) of Louisiana.
    Catholics have a major say in who gets to be a member of congress. So it's good to get into the habit of having a pen and paper handy. This way we can make more informed decisions as the next election approaches.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Head of Catholic Church in UK criticizes online communities

    And the UK Tech Herald isn't at all happy to hear it:
    Breaking with its well-established tradition of remaining respectfully quiet on subjects that reach beyond the Bible, the good old Catholic Church has this week weighed in with its opinions on social networking. Surprisingly, the Church isn’t a fan and probably won’t be delivering bite-sized sermons on Twitter any time soon.

    More pointedly, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales has said social networking destinations such as Facebook, MySpace and Bebo place a focus on forging potentially delicate “transient relationships” that can cause suicidal tendencies when and if they fracture.

    The Church also said social networks place far too much emphasis and importance on how many friends a user can amass as opposed to the actual quality of any resulting friendships.

    The criticism of social networking, which was offered up by Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols in UK broadsheet The Sunday Telegraph, comes following the suicide of 15-year-old high school student Megan Gillan, who took a fatal overdose of painkillers after being bullied online through Bebo.
    The UK Tech Herald makes the (I think somewhat jerky move) of recommending readers join their Twitter and Facebook groups. Disagreeing with the criticism is one thing, but trying to be sneaky about promoting the opposite of what you think the Archbishop is recommending is not a very mature response.

    I think Archbishop Nichols has the right sense here - clearly technology can be used for good and bad purposes, and like any tool, must be used prudently. But the tone one uses to criticize these matters is important - and it's also important to be fairly-well informed about the technologies one is criticizing. Other catholics - lay and ordained - have of course embraced technology to do good things online, and goodness knows the internet benefits from our active presence!

    My simple rule of thumb is that our online activity should serve our "real" life. If we're spending time on Facebook catching up on what our faraway friends are doing, instead of spending time with the ones who are actual neighbors, that could be a problem, and an imbalance we need to address.

    So we should both take the good things that people see in online communities, and the sober advice of our ecclesiastical shepherds, and make an informed judgement call. 

    You know, like we should do with anything else (when we have legitimate options).

    Labels: , , ,

    Friday, July 31, 2009

    Publisher, editor fired over Canadian PM communion controversy

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

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

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

    Well, it looks like he did actually consume it, instead of pocketing it, and the publisher and editor cooked the story on the writers:
    "The publisher and editor of the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal are no longer with the paper after it was forced to apologize to Stephen Harper and two of its own reporters over a story about whether the prime minister took communion at the state funeral of former governor general Roméo LeBlanc.

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

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

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

    "Our reporters Rob Linke and Adam Huras, who wrote the story reporting on the funeral, did not include these statements in the version of the story that they wrote. In the editing process, these statements were added without the knowledge of the reporters and without any credible support for them." (CBC News)
    Let's still be clear, the Archbishop still shouldn't have given him Communion in the first place, he had no business accepting it, and the fact that the above story is headlined "Publisher, editor out over wafer story" tells you how far we still have to go when it comes to informed, respectful reporting of matters Catholic.

    Labels: , , ,

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

    update: the post below has been rendered meaningless by an 11th-hour move by Rep. Waxman (D-CA) which brought the amendment up for a second vote, and then defeated it by a one vote margin:
    An anti-abortion amendment to a sweeping health overhaul bill was voted down in a House committee late Thursday — a dramatic reversal just hours after the measure initially was approved.

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

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

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

    It was enough to take down the amendment on a 30-29 vote.
    See how dead set the Democrat leadership is on keeping abortion in this health care bill?

    ===

    original post....

    I typically don't post blogs in the evening, but this is important news which shouldn't wait till morning:
    Lawmakers have amended a sweeping health overhaul bill to ensure it does not require coverage of abortions.

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

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

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

    The measure was offered by Rep. Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, along with Republicans Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Roy Blunt of Missouri. (AP)
    What we should take from this:
    1. Despite the attempt by pro-abortion groups to hide the truth, abortion is in this health care plan until the point that it is explicitly excluded. That's why we needed an amendment to rule it out.
    2. We're not there yet. This measure still has to be approved in the full House and Senate. Keep sending in the emails, making the phone calls, and find ways of meeting with your representatives as they go back to their home districts in August.
    3. Removing abortion coverage is a big step, but the health care reform plan still has serious flaws which also need to be examined over the coming weeks.
    But that said, praise God that some measure of sanity has been introduced into our nation's health care debate. Our efforts are meeting some success ... now let's redouble them.

    Labels: , , , , ,

    Thursday, July 30, 2009

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

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

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

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

    This is not an isolated case. 

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

    More importantly, Steven Ertelt tells us (ph/t, ALL) that three large Catholic organizations are mobilizing on behalf of Obama-care: Catholic Charities USA, The Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and the Catholic Health Association (whose ad I mention above). More:
    The Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Catholic Charities USA sent out an action alert asking members to contact their legislators immediately.

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

    "Saint Vincent de Paul is partnering with Catholic Charities USA and the Catholic Health Association to amplify our collective voice to let Congress know that health care reform can not wait," that group says on its web site.
    Kathleen Gilbert once again turned in some excellent reporting, and got someone on the phone:
    When LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) described the healthcare plan's abortion mandate to Roger Playwin, the National Executive Director of the St. Vincent de Paul Society, he interrupted to say: "The bishops' office has advised us that that's not accurate. So I can't speak to it, because all I know is that the bishops' office has said that story is going around, but it's inaccurate. That's all I know."
    Um, no, Mr. Playwin, you are mimicking the abortion-lobby's talking points.

    LifeSiteNews has posted easy ways of contacting the various organizations

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

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

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

    Labels: , , ,

    Tuesday, July 28, 2009

    Priest at center of Medjugorje laicized by Holy See

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

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

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

    1. Fr. Tomislav Vlasic has fathered a child with a nun
    2. He has been uncooperative with Vatican investigation
    3. The six original seers have become very wealthy as a result of their "visions"
    4. Medjugorje has never been officially approved as an authentic apparition by the Holy See.

    Fr. Vladic has received some firm instructions from the Holy See:
    "The Pope has insisted that Father Vlasic observes a set of conditions on pain of excommunication which include a total ban on teaching Christian doctrine and giving spiritual direction.

    There is also an "absolute prohibition of releasing declarations on religious matters, especially regarding the phenomenon of Medjugorje"." - UK Telegraph
    Now, unfortunately I have had to rely on secondary sources to do this post. I prefer to go to primary sources, of course, but don't have the free time at present. If I find anyone with good analysis of this sad situation I'll post it. 

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

    Labels: , ,

    Friday, July 24, 2009

    Catholic Common Ground: Reject the DeLauro-Ryan bill

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

    What especially angers me is how the Catholic pro-life movement is treated by pro-abortion supporters of this bill. Just read what "Catholics for Choice" president Jon O'Brien wrote:
    "Not everybody agrees with the bill. The nation's 400 Catholic bishops have not signed on. However, we should remember that their 400 votes count for little when taken beside the nation's 67.5 million Catholics--the majority of whom will support the bill's provisions."
    Excuse me? Is this sort of argument supposed to appeal to me as a faithful Catholic?

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

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

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

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

    ... let your member of Congress know that the Ryan/DeLauro bill cannot fulfill the promises in its title. The real abortion-reduction bill in Congress now is the Pregnant Women Support Act (S.1032, H.R.2035), which needs our support.
    I wrote earlier today about a chance to defund Planned Parenthood subsidies in the new Health and Human Services fund allocations. Faithful Catholics should also reject the Ryan/DeLauro bill as a deceptive ploy to give more money to big business abortion.

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

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

    Labels: , , , ,

    Thursday, July 23, 2009

    Update: President emails AMU over Fessio firing

    As an update to the story I covered on Tuesday, this email was sent by AMU President Nick Healy to current students, staff and faculty of Ave Maria University. It was not sent to alumni.
    As previously stated, Ave Maria University (AMU) is grateful to Fr. Fessio, S.J. for his past contributions to the university. We also recognize the strong personal convictions he holds and the respect he has earned in the Church.

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

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

    - Ave Maria University
    Local newspaper Naples Daily News reports, however, that the AMU board never formally voted Fessio out:
    "Ave Maria University’s board of trustees discussed firing the university’s theologian, the Rev. Joseph Fessio, at its June meeting but took no formal vote on the matter, the board’s chairman said Wednesday."
    On the campus reaction:
    "...with class out of session at the rural campus south of Immokalee, students and alumni are connecting on the social networking Web site Facebook and video sharing site YouTube to discuss Fessio’s fate — and what they should do about it."
    On other official reaction:
    "Chairman Michael Timmis would not say Wednesday whether the entire board agreed at the June meeting. He said the decision to fire Fessio was not something that required a board vote. Timmis would not cite a reason for Fessio’s firing.

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

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

    Dewane was named to the university’s board of trustees at the same June meeting where Fessio’s firing was broached but was not a member at the time, Timmis said Wednesday."
    On Fessio's plans:
    "As for Fessio, he said he doesn’t plan on exiling himself from Ave Maria University.

    He said Wednesday that, if administrators want him to, he is willing to continue to oversee the university’s fundraising and planning for a theater building on campus."
    So there you have it. Although I'm not sure what we have here.

    Labels: , ,

    Tuesday, July 21, 2009

    Abortion "common ground" = Dissent from Church teaching

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Labels: , , , ,

    Thursday, July 16, 2009

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

    I strongly disagree with the prudential opinion expressed by Bishop Howard Hubbard:
    "The US bishops have given their enthusiastic support to the Waxman-Markey bill, a piece of legislation designed to address climate change, which Republican opponents have characterized as entailing "the largest tax increase in American history."

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

    Bishop Howard Hubbard, who chairs the US bishops' committee on international justice and peace; and Ken Hackett, the president of Catholic Relief Services, welcomed the introduction of the Waxman-Markey bill." (CWNews)
    I work in politics now. I know this is a bad, bad bill. It has a negligible effect on the environment (even environmental groups have admitted this!), it stresses an already deeply-weekend economy with more taxes and bureaucracy, it will result in more domestic job losses, and - perhaps most outrageously of all - will result in American dollars being spent to build foreign infrastructure at the expense of American private enterprise (the bottom line keeping our progressively-more-top-heavy government running in the first place)!

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

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

    Labels: , ,

    Wednesday, July 15, 2009

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

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

    First what happened....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Labels: ,

    Tuesday, July 14, 2009

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

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

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

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

    Three more important points to realize:
    1. If left unchanged, this legislation would bring about the biggest expansion in abortion access since Roe v. Wade. The stats clearly show that whenever federal funds are made available for abortions, more abortions happen. It makes Obama's promise to reduce the number of abortions meaningless.
    2. A majority of Americans oppose the idea of making all Americans (including those who oppose abortions) pay for procedure. This is an unpopular, left-wing agenda position that the Democrats are sticking to right down the line.
    3. Democrats have thwarted several attempts by Republicans to include a clause saying abortions are to be excluded from the covered procedures. The Democrats, in other words, have had many chances to fix this and have categorically chosen to keep abortions under the umbrella of federal funding.
    Well, all of the above is too much for Michael Sean Winters, who writes:
    "... To be clear: I have never voted for a Republican in my life. My mother told me my right hand would wither and fall to the ground if I did. But, if the President or my representatives in Congress support federal funding for abortion in any way, shape or form, I will never vote for them again and I might risk my right hand in the next election by voting for their opponent.

    So, call your Senators and Representatives. Call the White House. Many of us pro-life Democrats have given the President the benefit of the doubt on the abortion issue because of his repeated commitment to trying to lower the abortion rate, a commitment he reiterated to Pope Benedict XVI last week. All the good will he has earned among Catholic swing voters, and all the arguments on his behalf progressive Catholics have mounted, all could be swept away if abortion is part of a federal option in health care. Politics is the art of compromise, but on this point, there can be none."
    I could use this as a selfish opportunity to point out that, on multiple occasions, I have exactly predicted that this would happen: that Obama and the Democrat leaders in congress are more chained to the liberal agenda (which necessarily includes unlimited access to abortion, at least according to the current model of Democrat preferment) than they are concerned about promoting an authentic culture of life. 

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

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

    Labels: , , , ,

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

    This couldn't happen to a nicer dissident group.

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

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

    SNAP has also seen a major decrease in revenue from $930,985 in annual income for 2006 to $437,407 in 2007 (the last year figures are available). The group which previously concentrated exclusively on abuse by Catholic priests has now branched out with new affiliates - SNAP Native American, SNAP Baptist, SNAP Orthodox, SNAP Presbyterian and SNAP Boy Scouts.
    Let me be very clear: I don't condone the hiding of predatory priests. But VOTF's tactic was to make the clergy sexual abuse scandal an opportunity for remaking the Catholic Church in their own image. True members of the Church serve it - they don't prey upon it when it has been weakened.

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

    Good riddance.

    Labels: , ,

    Friday, July 10, 2009

    More on the Canadian Prime Minister/Eucharist controversy

    "Canadian Papist" and AmP reader Matt with a useful comment:
    Hey, just wanted to throw you a line to let you know that the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) confirmed that the host was, in fact consumed. Also, in knowing the Archbishop of Moncton, who gave Prime Minister Harper the host, he really dropped the ball. He should be a lot more careful in giving out the Eucharist, as I'm certain Harper had no idea what was going on. 
    "Unfortunately, the camera did not stop long enough on the prime minister, but, as I told you, the prime minister is a Christian, and when he was offered communion by the priest, he accepted it and consumed it as well," Soudas said. 
    Soudas is his spokesman. Is it still wrong for Harper to consume it? Sure, but he didn't know better, and he can't be held responsible for his ignorance.
    My father, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters, focuses in his commentary on the ministerial obligation of protecting the Eucharist - and in this case - the Archbishop's woeful neglect of said obligation.

    Labels: , , ,

    Thursday, July 09, 2009

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

    With less than a day or so before Obama meets with Pope Benedict, interest is definitely picking up:
    The White House is saying that pro-abortion President Barack Obama and Pope Benedict XVI, the head of the Catholic Church, will have a "frank' talk on abortion when they meet on Friday. Obama is currently in Italy for the Group of Eight summit and the two will meet after the conference concludes.

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

    On subject like abortion where Obama is out of step with the pro-life teachings of the Catholic faith, Gibbs said "even if we don't see eye to eye on everything, there are steps that can be taken on a number of issues that will show progress, whether it's on something like unintended pregnancy or adoption." (LifeNews)
    'Cuz, ya know, it went so well when Cardinal George met with Obama and had a "frank" talk on the issue:
    [Cardinal George on meeting with Obama] "It's hard to disagree with him because he'll always tell you he agrees with you," he said. "Maybe that's political. I think he sincerely wants to agree with you. You have to say, again and again, 'No, Mr. President, we don't agree (on abortion).' But we can agree on a lot, and we do, and that's why there is so much hope. I think we have to pray for him every day."

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

    *crickets*

    Labels: , , ,

    On the Motu Proprio "Ecclesiae Unitatem"

    I've been remiss in reporting the motu proprio which Pope Benedict released yesterday, frankly because I don't quite understand yet what it is designed to do or how it will accomplish its goals.

    A good place to start, though, would be to poke through the comments at Rorate Caeli.

    One meme that is being circulated in the mainstream media is that this is Pope Benedict's way of "disciplining" the figures behind the embarrassing holocaust controversy from a few months back (embarrassing only in that the Vatican was not informed and prepared for it).

    I'm not sure if I quite buy that because Cardinal Hoyos was at the mandatory age of retirement anyway, and the organizational restructuring that the motu proprio calls for seems common sensical in its own right.

    So please, chime in and help me get this right in my head.

    Labels: , , ,

    Did Pope Benedict really call for a "One-World Government and New World Order"?!

    In my early reading of Cartitas in Veritate, I noted on the first day it was available that paragraph 67 would be "sure to generate some vigorous debate back-and-forth." And sure enough it did.

    John Henry Westen, however, argues that the pope speaks against such a reality, and not for it:
    Newspapers, blogs, talk-shows on radio and television are full of discussion over Pope Benedict XVI's supposed call for a "new world order" or a "one-world government." These ideas are, however, neither based in reality nor a clear reading of the Pope's latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, the release of which yesterday spawned the heated discussion.

    The Pope actually speaks directly against a one-world government, and, as would be expected from those who have read his previous writings, calls for massive reform of the United Nations. Confusion seems to have come from paragraph 67 of the encyclical, which has some choice pull-quotes which have spiced the pages of the world's news, from the New York Times to those of conspiracy theorist bloggers seeing the Pope as the Anti-Christ. [Read on.]

    Labels: , ,

    Wednesday, July 08, 2009

    "Rhetorical Strategy and Reality Reduction"

    I know I lamented in my previous post that certain groups of individuals produce problematic copy at a rate that far exceeds my freedom and ability to refute it, but I can take a stab at one or two as time provides.

    Michael Sean Winters always provides plenty of opportunities, like his short essay "legislative strategy and abortion reduction" published a couple days ago in the National Catholic Dissenter.

    It appears that liberal Catholics have all agreed among themselves in recent weeks that it's time for them to come out of the closet about supporting contraception, or at least the distribution of contraceptives when the alternative - supposedly - is pregnancies resulting in abortions.

    As brief backstory, there are currently two bills being discussed which focus on reducing abortion.

    Winters comes out - surprise, surprise - against the US bishops and supports the Ryan-DeLauro bill ("The Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act", which is bad) over the bill introduced by pro-life Democrats ( "The Pregnancy Women Support Act", which is good).

    Winters admits his Ryan-DeLauro bill "includes funding for contraception and extensive sex education." Now I bet, at this point, we are all somewhat aware of the sorts of things which are considered acceptable in public school sex ed. classes (Clearly, we need more lessons in pornography and masturbation in our highschools!). That last sentence in parentheses was sarcasm, by the way.

    I could point out Winters' sly rhetorical attempts to make the case for legislative pragmatism, to remind us that politics is the art of the possible, and recommend to us that compromise is the best path to progress, but really all his points boil down to the same thing - "give up your principles."

    I'll let him say that in his own words:
    "Compromise is not always a bad word and on the urgent matter of reducing the abortion rate, made more urgent by the economic downturn and consequent rise in the abortion rate, Catholics can in good conscience support a bill that is not their first preference but is still preferable to doing nothing."
    Why is this bill preferable to doing nothing? It floods the market with (more) contraceptives (which Winters apparently sees no problem with - sorry Pope Benedict and the Magisterum); the bill is far-and-out preferred by radical pro-abortion groups as a way to further their agenda (here's one example); and at the end of the day the bill is basically a massive money infusion for parasitic organizations like Planned Parenthood, who see abortion as darn good business.

    In the social encyclical Pope Benedict released this week, he says in Paragraph 28:
    One of the most striking aspects of development in the present day is the important question of respect for life, which cannot in any way be detached from questions concerning the development of peoples ... [and] questions connected with the acceptance of life, especially in cases where it is impeded in a variety of ways.

    Not only does the situation of poverty still provoke high rates of infant mortality in many regions, but some parts of the world still experience practices of demographic control, on the part of governments that often promote contraception and even go so far as to impose abortion.
    Now, I don't think I'm stretching the pope's words one jot when I claim that Pope Benedict thinks it's a bad idea for governments to promote contraception. Frankly, it's more than bad - it's evil. As in never-to-be-done evil.

    Winters thinks its preferable for Catholics to support a bill that allows the government to promote contraception than for them to do nothing. And he doesn't even seem to admit the possibility that Catholics and other pro-lifers, standing strong, could lobby behind a far-better bill that doesn't have the same flaws I mention above.

    I disagree with him on both counts, and I would argue that I have the Pope and the bishops on my side. 

    What exactly does Winters have on his?

    Labels: , , , , ,

    Jack Smith on America Mag's calumny

    Seriously, enough is enough:
    A number of recent editorials by Catholic Obama partisans have sought to discredit the U.S. Bishops and the pro-life movement as a whole by grossly misappropriating the words of Kansas City – St. Joseph Bishop Robert W. Finn.

    Sometimes with attribution, sometimes without, but never in context, they have ripped four words, “We are at war,” from a 3,981 word address Bishop Finn made to a pro-life convention April 18, and given it meaning and context of their own making.

    None have been so egregious as the Jesuit editors of America. This week’s Current Comment editorial in America disgraces the paper and the Society. It is vicious calumny in service to wicked ends. [Read on.]
    It's almost exhausting to keep up with everything they write. I wish I was paid to dissent and dissemble.

    Labels: , ,

    Wednesday, July 01, 2009

    Breaking: Abp. Chaput, other Legion visitors appointed by Vatican (full details added)

    Sandro Magister reports - an extremely reliable source:
    Last March, the announcement; July 15th, the go-ahead. The apostolic visitors of the Legion of Christ will interview the priests and religious of the congregation founded by the Mexican priest Marcial Maciel Degollado, in shock because of the admitted evil conduct of their very own founder, sanctioned in 2006 for sexual abuse, and now, a year after his death, discovered to have had a lover and a daughter in Spain.
    The long-awaited names:
    – Ricardo Watti Urquidi, Bishop of Tepic, Mexico, in charge of Mexico and Central America, where the Legion has 44 houses, 250 priests and 115-120 religious seminarians; (bottom right)

    Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, in charge of the United States and Canada, where the Legion has 24 houses, 130 priests and 260 religious seminarians; (bottom left)

    – Giuseppe Versaldi, Bishop of Alessandria, in charge of Italy, Israel, the Philippines, and South Korea, where the Legion has 16 houses, 200 priests and 420 religious seminarians. (in Italy 13, 168 and 418 respectively); (upper middle)

    – Ricardo Ezzati Andrello, Archbishop of Concepción, Chile, in charge of Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Brazil and Venezuela, where the Legion has 20 houses, 122 priests and 122 religious seminarians; (upper right)

    – Ricardo Blázquez Pérez, Bishop of Bilbao, Spain, in charge of Spain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, Holland, Poland, Austria and Hungary, where the Legion has 20 houses, 105 priest, and 160 religious seminarians. (upper left)
    More details:
    The investiture of the five visitors took place on Saturday morning, June 27th in the Vatican, at a meeting with Cardinals Tarcisio Bertone, William J. Levada, Franc Rodé and Stanislaw Rylko. The five were give a letter containing the conclusions for the investigation of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith which lead to Maciel’s being sanctioned in 2006. Each prelate was given a travel budget of 10,000 Euros.
    They are to submit their first report to the Vatican by fall of this year.

    update: these rumors have been percolating in Spanish-language press for some time, in El Universal on June 27, and June 28, and InfoCatolica (picking up on Magister's piece) today. 

    I would say that it is unqualified good news that Archbishop Chaput has been chosen to oversee the Legion visitation in the United States. AmP readers who have been following this story will remember that I reported back in early May that Abp. Chaput would be the Vatican pick. His personal experience of formation in religious life especially qualifies him to examine Legion policy.
    Two things to watch for: finances. The Hartford Courant recently posted an article on the relatives of a deceased woman challenging the donation of her estate (upwards of $7.5 million) to the Legion in the U.S. 
    Second: defections. I'm tracking numerous reports of individual (and groups of) priests, seminarians and consecrated people actively seeking ways to the leave the Legion and incorporate into dioceses, seminaries and other Catholic institutions. More of these will happen depending on what the Vatican investigation reveals.
    Neither of these situations is being helped (from the Legion side of things) by new details which have emerged about Maciel's not double life, but "triple." Especially concerning is the insistence of these sources that current leaders in the movement were aware of Maciel's sins before they leaked to the public or lower members within the Legion.

    update 2: I should be clear that I do not agree with everything claimed in the link above ("new details which have emerged about Maciel's not double life, but "triple""), but merely with the claims that Maciel used Legion money to fund his affair(s?) and that this activity was known to associates who still hold active roles in the movement.

    update 3: CNA confirms/clarifies: "Sources at the Holy See confirmed to CNA the accuracy of Magister’s report and said a public announcement would be made on July 15. Sources also said that contrary to the article, Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko was not present at the meeting."

    My exhaustive coverage of this story, as the first large Catholic internet portal to break the news, can be found here.

    Labels: , ,

    Monday, June 29, 2009

    Cardinal O'Malley forces Caritas to make the right call

    The news broke last week, but I was traveling at the time. It appears to be good news. 

    Michael Paulson of the Boston Globe reports:
    Caritas Christi Health Care, the financially challenged Catholic hospital system founded by the Archdiocese of Boston, is abruptly ending its joint venture with a Missouri-based health insurer at the insistence of Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley, who has decided that the relationship represented too much of an entanglement between Catholic hospitals and abortion providers.

    The dramatic development, just days before the joint venture was scheduled to start providing care to low-income residents as part of the state's efforts to establish near universal health coverage here, is a vindication of sorts for a variety of very conservative Catholic critics of the cardinal, who have been arguing angrily and loudly that it would be "evil" for Caritas to partner with a health provider that covers abortion services.

    The development is also a setback for Caritas, because it represents the undoing of one of the most significant steps its new chief executive, Dr. Ralph de la Torre, had announced as part of his efforts to turn around the hospital system's finances. It was not immediately clear last night what the financial impact of the change is on Caritas, but the decision is a stark and public reminder from O'Malley to de la Torre and the general public that moral concerns will trump monetary concerns at the Catholic hospitals.
    I don't quite agree with the tone of the above treatment. I am somewhat aware of the criticisms Cardinal O'Malley has been receiving during this process, but just because some people have been too vigorous in their approach does not mean that the fundamental motivation of others is not a good one. It's in fact a Catholic one: we won't allow our hospitals to become accessories to abortions. Period.

    AmP has been following the Caritas Christi situation for some time. First on March 12: "What is Caritas Christi up to?" and "An update on Caritas-Centene". Then on May 26: "Will the Boston Archdiocese really allow abortion referrals?" And finally on June 9: "Boston Archdiocese-affiliate health-care to offer abortion coverage" (when it looked like the deal would go through). On June 11th there was a report that Caritas was trying to work out a deal that would address the stated concerns about abortion referrals. Phil Lawler also wrote an in-depth history of the situation which is very helpful if you want more details.

    At this point, I think two things are necessary: First, support of Cardinal O'Malley, who I believe is trying his best to do the right thing in a difficult situation. Second, vigilance about the details of the new plan, many of which are given in Paulson's full article treatment in the Boston Globe. There is some concern that Catholic involvement with abortions will still find its way in to the new operating procedures. The case of Caritas Christi is, sadly, the first instance of what is sure to become a more widespread problem as the health care industry reorganizes, often times collapsing Catholic and secular hospitals in with one another.

    If anyone has incisive analysis of the current state of affairs, as well as action items and ideas for how the Catholic community can assist in working out an acceptable solution, I'll be happy to take a look and perhaps present them on AmP.

    Labels: , ,

    L'Osservatore Romano issues fawning tribute to Michael Jackson?

    What the heck is going on with L'Osservatore Romano these days? Who is commissioning these embarrassing articles, and who is allowing them to go to print?! 

    Zenit reports on the latest debacle:
    Michael Jackson will never die "in the imagination of [his] fans," the Vatican's semi-official newspaper said after news spread of the pop star's death.

    Marcello Filotei wrote this Friday in L'Osservatore Romano, comparing the death of the 50-year-old "King of Pop" to that of Elvis Presley.

    Jackson died Friday of cardiac arrest at a Los Angelus hospital.

    Noting how Jackson was a "child prodigy" with an "extraordinary soul voice," Filotei acknowledged the pop star's many successes, such as his megahit 1982 album "Thriller," "known even by those unfamiliar with this genre of music." The album continues to rank as the best-selling album of all time.

    The writer acknowledged elements of the singer's life that drew wide criticism, such as his many plastic surgeries that changed his appearance radically, his increasingly pale complexion, and the allegations of pedophilia in 1993 and 2005. Jackson settled out of court in 1993, and was found not guilty of all charges in 2005.

    "But no accusation, however serious or shameful, is enough to tarnish his myth among his millions of fans throughout the entire world," wrote Filotei.
    Imagine how strange it would be to see such an editorial in your parish newspaper. Well, the above piece is appearing in the "parish newspaper" of the universal Church. That last line of Filotei's, in particular, sends the wrong message by falling into the current hysterical, cult-of-personality ethos that Jackson's death has inspired among many.

    Jackson, it should be noted, from all outside accounts, lived a tortured existence and the circumstances of his death should prompt an outpouring of fervent prayers for his soul, not these gushing, hollywood-esque bon mots about how his "myth" will survive "serious and shameful" accusations. All the artistic success in the world, we must realize, is a basket of straw if your personal life was a spiritual, human wreck.

    I really dig Michael Jackson's music, but as a Catholic, I don't have to buy into the myth that great art makes a great man. Michael Jackson's best chance to "never die" is the mercy of Christ, not his best-selling record.

    Labels: , ,

    Monday, June 22, 2009

    Huh? CNS fails to fairly report USCCB's "support D'Arcy" statement

    Something important happened at the US bishops' combined meeting last week, which we are just hearing about today: "the USCCB expressed their solidarity for Bishop John M. D’Arcy ... in particular for his care and concern for the University of Notre Dame, which resides in his diocese."

    It's an important move because there had previously been a calculated attempt by some liberal Catholics to discredit the dozens and dozens of bishops who spoke out about the Notre Dame scandal, claiming in effect that these vocal bishops represented a "minority" position, out of step with the "majority" of US bishops.

    The USCCB released this statement of support:
    "The bishops of the United States express our appreciation and support for our brother bishop, the Most Reverend John D'Arcy. We affirm his pastoral concern for Notre Dame University, his solicitude for its Catholic identity, and his loving care for all those the Lord has given him to sanctify, to teach and to shepherd."
    Now, how do you think Catholic News Service - the USCCB's own news agency, reported this story?

    First, with out-dated numbers: "More than 50 bishops voiced their disapproval of Notre Dame's invitation to Obama and decision to give him an honorary degree." 

    In fact, my list (when I stopped counting) had 75+ bishops named. These are not obscure or new numbers, and I wasn't the only one to compile such a list. This is lazy reporting by the CNS author, Nancy Frazier O'Brien. And it's convenient that the number she decides upon is, oh, about 40% of the actual number (by my conservative standards - I only counted active US bishops, for instance).

    Second, with dissenting, minority views: "But two bishops interviewed at the San Antonio meeting by the National Catholic Reporter said they see a need for dialogue with U.S. Catholic university presidents about this issue and left open the possibility of revisions to "Catholics in Political Life."

    Isn't it fascinating how, when a "minority" of bishops take a position against Notre Dame's invitation, they are dismissed as a minority, but when the majority of US bishops (or at least, the public voice of the bishops in committee) take a position for Bishop D'Arcy, it is then the minority position that is given space and even the last word (seriously - two bishops?! And in the National Catholic Reporter? This is our her go-to source for information!).

    Really, it's impossible to win with rules of engagement like this, especially when Catholic News Service seems to have more of an affinity with the National Catholic Reporter than the US Bishops executive committee.

    Third, just to really drive this point home, O'Brien says: "The statement made no direct reference ... to a recent call by the board of directors of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) for the bishops to revisit their 2004 statement, "Catholics in Political Life."

    That was an attempt by liberal Catholics to simply change the 2004 statement and so avoid the (legitimate) conclusion made by D'Arcy that Notre Dame and (hence, by inference) many other Catholic institutions are currently operating in violation of what it says.

    But back to the point: O'Brien has full awareness of this challenge made by the ACCU, and feels free to make negative points about what statements don't say or respond to, and yet ... she does not bring up the context I mention above, namely, that liberal Catholics have been attempting to marginalize the vocal opposition of dozens of bishops to the Notre Dame invitation. Therefore, in the full picture, the bishops are responding against this attempt to marginalize Bishop D'Arcy by releasing a statement in support of him. Why support Bishop D'Arcy, in other words, unless he was in fact being attacked by some?

    So who is left expressing a dissenting viewpoint at this point in the game? Well, two bishops, picked-up by the National Catholic Reporter ... and given selective play by O'Brien in the Catholic News Service.


    In an effort to be fair myself, CNS does plenty of good reporting - but it's frustrating to see how often it really drops the ball on some of the most important current stories, especially ones that involve Catholic interaction with the culture-at-large. I'm not asking that we all think the same on these issues, I'm asking that more than one way of thinking be fairly presented to the readers of CNS.

    Labels: , , ,

    Friday, May 29, 2009

    "Christopher West’s Work is 'Completely Sound' says Dr. Janet Smith"

    More on the ongoing debate I have covered here and here, from Dr. Janet Smith:
    Christopher West’s interview on ABC’s Nightline has sparked some terrific discussion on the Internet. An impressive amount of the interaction is intelligent and illuminating, even some of that which is seriously wrong. One of the better responses is that by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers and the follow-up comments to his blog.

    Here, I want to offer a brief, partial, response to Prof. David Schindler’s assessment of West’s work. The fact that Nightline got a lot wrong about West’s work is not surprising. In fact, it is surprising how much it got right. Those of us who work with the media know that potential martyrdom awaits us at the hands of an editor. West has likely been suffering a kind of crucifixion over the past week. What is puzzling is that an influential scholar chose this moment to issue a sweeping, negative critique of West in such a public forum. I have great respect for the work and thought of Schindler and realize that it must be difficult to be on the receiving end of criticisms of the work of one of their most high profile graduates. I wish, however, he had found another occasion to express his reservations about West’s work. (Catholic Exchange)

    Labels: , ,

    Monday, May 25, 2009

    More on West: Schindler says his credibility "a problem for the Church"

    Last week's post on West generated 250+ comments. Clearly this topic is on AmP readers' minds.

    I was sent this a couple days ago and think it might move the debate forward:
    "David L. Schindler, provost and dean of the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at Catholic University of America, has written a response to what he says are fundamental errors in Christopher West's interpretation of Pope John Paul II's theology of the body."
    For those who want to inform themselves about this issue thoroughly, do read the whole text.

    Labels: , , ,

    Tuesday, May 12, 2009

    Abp. Burke: Catholics "could not have voted for [Obama] with a clear conscience"

    Quote of the Day from Kathryn Jean Lopez's interview with Archbishop Raymond Burke. Pay close attention:
    LOPEZ: You seemed to make very clear that Catholic voters collaborated with evil when they voted for Obama. If you’re Catholic and did, do you have to confess this now that Mexico City, embryo-destructive funding, among other things, have happened?
    ARCHBISHOP BURKE: If a Catholic knowingly and deliberately votes for a person who is in favor of the most grievous violations of the natural moral law, then he has formally cooperated in a grave evil and must confess his serious sin. Since President Obama clearly announced, during the election campaign, his anti-life and anti-family agenda, a Catholic who knew his agenda regarding, for example, procured abortion, embryonic-stem-cell research, and same-sex marriage, could not have voted for him with a clear conscience.
    Archbishop Burke minces no words: in his estimation, a Catholic who voted for Obama could not have done so with a clear conscience.
    Note also how Archbishop Burke evaluates Obama as not only anti-life, but also anti-family because of his positions on same-sex marriage.
    On a related note, Fr. James Schall, SJ unpacks Archbishop Burke's keynote address which he gave last Friday at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Friday, May 08, 2009

    Fr. Cutie exposed by Mexican tabloids, scandalizes the Church

    This story broke earlier this week but I only cover it now to point out the predictable feeding-frenzy occurring in the mainstream media.

    Yes, Fr. Cutie (really, the irony) messed-up big time:
    "Before God - full of love and mercy - I ask for the forgiveness of those who may be hurt or saddened by my actions. Since I entered the seminary at the age of 18, the priesthood has brought me great joy. The commitment that I made to serve God will remain intact. I am grateful for the love and support I have received today from so many in our community, especially my parishioners and the supporters of the radio stations who have demonstrated great compassion and understanding toward me as a human being. I ask for your continued prayers and support."
    What his Archbishop had to say:
    "I am deeply saddened by the news surrounding Father Alberto Cutié. I apologize on behalf of the Church in Miami to the parishioners of Saint Francis de Sales Parish, where he serves as administrator, to the listeners and supporters of Radio Paz and Radio Peace, and to the entire Archdiocese.

    Father Cutié made a promise of celibacy and all priests are expected to fulfill that promise with the help of God.

    Father Cutié's actions cannot be condoned despite the good works he has done as a priest. I ask for everyone's prayers at this time. Scandals such as this offer an occasion for the Church on all levels to examine our consciences regarding the integrity of our commitments to the Lord and to his Church."
    What ... the mainstream media had to say:


    Oh please, like we didn't see that suggestion coming. But, of course, the answer to violating the vows of celibacy ... is to observe the vows of celibacy. Not to toss them out! That's why the public improprieties of Fr. Cutie constitute such a grave scandal - they diminish the witness of the Church to the world.

    Yes, we ought to pray for Fr. Cutie, but let's also re-double our prayers for the noble young men (and women) who are faithfully living lives of celibacy as they study to become priests (and professed women religious).

    Let us also pray for those who have already taken on the vow of celibacy that they remain faithful to it and thereby provide the world with a wonderful (and so needed) witness!

    [photo: UK Daily Mail]

    Labels: , ,

    Thursday, May 07, 2009

    Albacete: on Abortion/Torture, Catholic Church "only coherent position in debate"

    Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete is a priest-scientist and one of the leaders of the movement Communion and Liberation in the United States.

    In his column of yesterday, Msgr. Albacete makes an excellent point which I think is very topical to several ongoing AmP debates:

    "The only coherent position in the debate about these two issues [of abortion and torture] is that of the Catholic Church. On the one hand, religious conservatives tend to be more open to the possibility of approving torture in special circumstances, while the secularists concede no such possibility of compromise. Only those who embrace the position of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church condemn equally both abortion and torture in all cases. Other Catholics (many serving in Congress and in the Obama Administration) follow the secularist arguments condemning torture but defending abortion rights. The President, who professes an abstract "middle ground" on abortion, unequivocally condemns torture in all circumstances.

    ... For the Catholic Church, faith is the origin of the moral judgment, but faith is not separate from reason. It can and should be verified by a rightly understood reason in all human beings. The Catholic Bishops are still searching for effective ways to make this argument.

    I take that line as a commission: let us help the bishops discover effective ways to make this argument in the public forum, with confidence and charity. I think we typically have more trouble with the former.

    {update: I knew this would be to open another can of worms. So let me clarify:

    What I specifically agree with in this article is this: Those who think torture is intrinsically wrong evacuate their justification of tolerating abortion when they seek to universally outlaw torture.

    In other words, how can Obama (and secularists) "unequivocally condemn torture in all circumstances" and yet posit an "abstract 'middle ground' on abortion" which tolerates its practice (and even expands access to it)?

    The only way I can see reconciling the two positions is to frankly acknowledge that Obama and secularists don't really think abortion is wrong. Because if they did, they would treat it like torture and universally outlaw it.

    I'm surprised to have to make this point, but it's amazing how often one will still hear something like: "Obama agrees with us that abortion is a tragedy, but he just can't see a way of preventing a woman from choosing it."

    That's what I was going for. I think the torture debate is important, but let's not miss how it provides a devastating contrast when it comes to our ongoing debate about the fundamental right to life of our citizens.}

    Labels: , , ,

    Saturday, May 02, 2009

    L'Osservatore Romano's baffling take on Obama, and Winters' misleading take

    George Neumayr writing for Catholic World Report:

    "L’Osservatore Romano’s sympathetic front-page editorial by Giuseppe Fiorentino about Barack Obama’s first 100 days is baffling (full text available here). On every contested issue related to the natural moral law, Obama is advancing dangerous policies. Yet this editorial blithely says that even “on ethical issues…Obama doesn’t seem to have confirmed the radical changes he had aired.”

    Yes, he has. [find out how here.]

    ... It is more than a little disturbing that an editorial as ignorant as this one could appear in the Pope’s newspaper. At the very moment orthodox Catholics in America are reeling from Notre Dame's honoring of Obama, they wake up to find this editorial softpedaling his record. Et tu, L'Osservatore Romano?"

    On a related issue, I've been accused at times of having a political bias which effects my reporting of Catholic news, and especially Obama news. "Liberal" Catholics will often accuse "conservative" Catholics of loving the GOP more than the Catholic Church, or at least paying attention to the former more when it comes to political issues.
    What I always try to bring the discussion back to, when accused of this, are the facts of reality: what a given politician is actually saying and doing. This is an objective measure which I hope guides my reporting and should guide all of our critical thinking on these issues. Otherwise how are we to apply the teachings of the Church when we cannot even accurately assess the record of the person we are examining?
    Michael Sean Winters is particularly guilty of unfairly condemning "conservative" Catholics as partisan, when in fact they are trying to be faithful. I find this deeply ironic, considering, as I've pointed out several times before, and will now point out again below, Winters' own reading of current issues is more often guided by political/ideological affiliation than the reality of what, well, a given politician has actually said and done.
    For instance, see what Jack Smith of The Catholic Key blog (run by the staff of the newspaper for the Diocese of Kansas City) said yesterday about Winters' claims.
    I'm not going to quote him because it is the volume of details that Smith reveals which matters most here (as in the Neumayr article above). In other words, taking the time to do the research and the background reading is important, because otherwise we'll be taken in by what the "experts" are trying to make us believe. Or, for that matter, what Winters wants us to believe.

    Labels: , , ,

    Wednesday, April 22, 2009

    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.

    Labels: , , , ,

    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.)

    Labels: , , , ,

    Tuesday, April 21, 2009

    Report: ND President Jenkins in DC meeting with Obama (+analysis)

    Joseph Lawler writing for AmSpec passes along a fascinating report:
    "At Off the Record, Phil Lawler (my dad) is passing along a report that he has from a reliable source: ND President Fr. John Jenkins is in Washington, D.C. today for an unannounced meeting at the White House. This is still merely a rumor, but indeed FlightAware shows the ND jet flying to Dulles this morning."
    Joe goes on to note that, despite the criticism of 42 bishops (and counting), Fr. Jenkins is digging in his heels, claiming he and others are "tremendously proud" to honor Obama (source).
    As for the backlash to the announcement of Obama's invitation, which has included over 325,000 individuals signing a petition protest, Jenkins says: "it's unfortunate that the great event of President Obama coming to this campus has been a little clouded by that controversy."
    ... a little clouded?! This is easily the biggest scandal to hit Notre Dame in years, if not in its long history. To say the event has been "a little clouded" is simply a sentence out of la-la land.
    Whatever Fr. Jenkins is saying in public, it's clear that internally Notre Dame is in severe conflict - this is quickly becoming an identity crisis for the institution, a struggle for the soul and reputation of the university. And Fr. Jenkin's fiddling isn't helping put out any of the fires.
    And, surprise-surprise, I think it's going to get worse. I've been alerted to at least one other significant detail of the visit in particular which, if confirmed, will further strain the situation. Let's call it the "georgetown policy."
    So if Fr. Jenkins is in DC to meet with Obama, what are they doing? My guess would be damage control. They are probably putting their heads together and trying to figure out some solution to what is fast becoming a watershed moment in the relations between the Obama administration and Catholic America.
    Let's hope, work and pray for a peaceful (and satisfying) abatement to the waters.
    Towards that end, we should recall that the top-down decision making pursued so far by Obama/Jenkins simply isn't working. Fr. Jenkins owes Notre Dame - and Obama owes American Catholics - a just solution which respects the contributions and concerns of those 42 bishops and 325,000 signers.
    update: Notre Dame's student newspaper is claiming that the University spokesman is denying reports that Fr. Jenkins met Obama in Washington today. Can anyone lend clarity pro/con?
    update 2: Why Fr. Jenkins is in DC (according to one source).

    Labels: , , , , ,

    Monday, April 20, 2009

    Cardinal Pell says "Choice, not condoms, make the difference with AIDS"

    Choice is only a bad thing when we abuse it for bad decisions (for instance, when we choose abortion).

    "Choice, not condoms, will make the difference with AIDS" is a good way of re-framing the question, according to Cardinal Pell. Because a mountain of rubber won't solve the world's problems (my words).

    Curing disease is a wonderful thing. But converting hearts and lives? Now that's even better.

    Labels: , ,

    Tuesday, April 07, 2009

    CUA Law's Commencement Speaker Approves of ND's Obama Invitation

    Selective dissonance?
    Catholic University of America President Rev. David M. O’Connell thinks that Notre Dame made a mistake by inviting President Barack Obama to deliver a speak at commencement exercises next month.

    Mark Shields, the political columnist who will be addressing graduates as commencement speaker at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law next month, disagrees.

    Shield’s syndicated column, published after the University announced him as speaker, goes against the stated opinions of O’Connell and several members of the board of trustees, including chairman Bishop William E. Lori.

    “As a proud graduate of Notre Dame and, frankly, as an admirer of Father Jenkins, I am not a disinterested bystander in this controversy,” writes Shields. “My university likes to think of itself, not immodestly, as the place where the Catholic Church does its thinking. But the current rhubarb is already conspicuous for generating — mostly off the campus — more heat than light.”

    “The reality is that Roe v. Wade is not going to be overthrown,” he continued. (CUA student-run Tower blog)
    Yes, defeatism is generally a feature of enlightened discourse.

    /sarcasm.

    Labels: ,

    Monday, April 06, 2009

    Video: Hadley Arkes debates Doug Kmiec

    From Moral Accountability:

    The Matthew J. Ryan Center at Villanova University has posted the video recordings of the Cicero Podium Debate between Professor Hadley Arkes (Amherst College) and Professor Douglas Kmiec (Pepperdine Law School). This event took place on February 13, 2009.

    Part I:


    Part II:

    I hope to have a chance to watch some of it later this evening.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Tuesday, March 31, 2009

    Between Wuerl and Burke, who is right on Communion?

    My father Canon Lawyer Ed Peters attempts an adjudication:

    I often tell my students, the answer to a canonical question is seldom found in a single canon.

    Two prominent American prelates, Abp. Donald Wuerl of Washington DC and Abp. Raymond Burke of the Apostolic Signatura, are the lead figures in a significant disagreement over admitting certain pro-abortion Catholic politicians to holy Communion.

    Wuerl basically believes that, under Canon 916, Catholics, including pro-abortion politicians, should determine their own eligibility for reception of Communion.

    Burke argues that, beyond Canon 916, Canon 915 requires ministers of holy Communion to withhold the Eucharist from some pro-abortion politicians if they don't refrain from approaching on their own.

    Both sides can't be right, and I suspect that the more compelling case is made by reading the two canons together instead of reading one to the exclusion of the other.

    He sorts it out here.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Former Mayor Williams withdraws application after "Internet blogs" voice cocern

    A gratifying, but odd, Associated Press update (underlining mine):
    "Former Mayor Anthony Williams withdrew his application to join the Order of Malta after members of the Catholic service society complained he shouldn't be allowed to join because he supports abortion rights and protections for gay unions. Williams's critics used Internet blogs to voice their concerns, but order president Noreen Falcone said anonymous postings with incomplete information were unfair to Williams and his sponsors."
    1) Yes ... I was one of those critical blogs.
    2) Yes ... Williams was totally unacceptable.
    3) ... Has anyone heard of a non-Internet blog?!
    4) ... well, of course anonymous postings are going to contain misinformation. But what about the on-the-record bloggers? Where they wrong, too? Obviously not. So be willing to take one on the chin when you deserve it.

    Labels: , ,

    Ruse: "Randall Terry Is Not the Spokesman for Catholic Orthodoxy"

    Randall Terry is a bit persona non grata on AmP after setting-up Archbishop Burke last week.

    Austin Ruse attempts to separate good from bad when it comes to this divisive character:

    First things first: Randall Terry is a very talented guy. I am told he is a riveting speaker. He is utterly fearless. And he has a remarkable ability to project himself and his convictions into the mainstream press.

    ... [but] Randall Terry cannot be allowed to represent himself as the voice of Catholic orthodoxy. The press in its essential anti-Catholicism would much rather quote someone like Randall Terry than more responsible people like George Weigel or George Rutler or Michael Novak or Robert Royal or Jody Bottum or any one of dozens of important voices. The press love it that the P.T. Barnum of the pro-life movement is now front and center in defending the Catholic Church. (CNA)

    Labels: ,

    Monday, March 30, 2009

    "Condoms sometimes needed, Portuguese bishop says"

    Dissent?
    A Portuguese bishop has said that people with AIDS must use condoms to prevent the spread of the disease, apparently contradicting Pope Benedict XVI, who said the distribution of condoms could endanger public health.

    Speaking to journalists, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Porto Manuel Clemente said condoms in such cases are "not only recommendable, they can be ethically obligatory."

    ... He added that the people giving the pope advice "should be more learned." (AP)

    Labels: ,

    Thursday, March 26, 2009

    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.

    Labels: , , , , ,

    Flash: Abp. Burke clarifies he was misled about Communion interview agenda

    I was worried about something like this happening. Looks like Randall Terry lied to Archbishop Burke about how his interview would be used, and Burke has issued a statement today to clarify:
    ROME, Italy - In response to the March 25, 2009 press conference of Mr. Randall Terry in Washington, D.C., the Most Reverend Raymond L. Burke, Archbishop Emeritus of Saint Louis and Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, issued the following statement:

    “Recently, Mr. Randall Terry and some of his associates visited me in Rome and asked to videotape an interview with me to share with pro-life workers for the purpose of their encouragement. The interview was conducted on March 2, 2009.

    “Sadly, Mr. Terry has used the videotape for another purpose which I find most objectionable.

    “First, Mr. Terry issued a media advisory which gave the impression that I would be physically present at the press conference during which he played the videotape, when, in fact, I was in Rome.

    “Second, I was never informed that the videotape would become part of a press conference.

    “Third, I gave the interview as a Bishop from the United States to encourage those engaged in the respect life apostolate, not as the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.

    “Fourth, I was never informed that the videotape would be used as part of a campaign of severe criticism of certain fellow bishops regarding the application of Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law.

    “If I had known what the true purpose of the interview was, I would never have agreed to participate in it.

    “I am deeply sorry for the confusion and hurt which the wrong use of the videotape has caused to anyone, particularly, to my brother bishops.”
    Once again, this situation could have been avoided if Abp. Burke's assistants had done their homework. (News flash, people: USE GOOGLE.) After all, Terry advertised this DC press conference several days in advance ... and yet no one in Rome apparently took notice of the things Terry was claiming (Second news flash, people: USE GOOGLE to keep tabs on what the media is saying about your boss). Rome shouldn't be the last one to know.

    I was surprised that Abp. Burke had consented to giving Terry an interview, but I naively presumed that Abp. Burke knew what he was getting into, and was aware of Terry's hardcore approach to pro-life activism.

    That said, Abp. Burke is not taking back his words. He is taking back the way they were used by Terry.

    update: Michael Sean Winters pounces on the opportunity to snipe Abp. Burke: "... the Archbishop does not retract the statements he made in the interview but he does voice regret at the way the interview is being used. That is what passes, in this age of moral relativism, for an apology."

    No sir, yours is what passes, in this age of liberal journalism, for an attack.

    Ph/t: Whispers.

    Labels: , , , , ,

    Wednesday, March 25, 2009

    Front-group Catholics United slips into attacking Bishop D'Arcy

    I have zero patience for Catholics United.
    It's a front organization that abuses the name "Catholic" for anti-life interests, and is moreover funded by pro-abortion advocates like the billionaire George Soros, as others have exposed.

    So I wasn't surprised to find out that their executive director Chris Korzen issued a press release today welcoming ND's decision to invite Obama.
    It's not hard for Catholics United to think of ways to criticize orthodox Catholics of exploiting the faith for political ends ... because that's exactly what Korzen and company do. The difference is Korzen and co. (falsely and hypocritically) claim the other side is doing it.
    So how do you prove which side is disingenuous? Simple enough: you wait for one side to slip.
    And Korzen and co. just did.
    Here's some of what he said:

    As a Catholic, I am deeply disappointed by the knee-jerk opposition to Notre Dame’s decision to confer an honorary degree on President Obama and invite him to give the 2009 commencement address. President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame will be nothing short of an honor for all Catholics.

    Attacking Notre Dame is simply disingenuous and reflects a larger pattern of manipulation of the Catholic faith for political advantage.

    Regrettably, the individuals leading the charge against Notre Dame are partisan operatives who routinely use a single-issue analysis to divorce the Catholic faith from its longstanding commitment to social justice and the sanctity of all human life.

    Dan Gilgoff of US News & World Report thinks Korzen and co. were unprepared for the ND backlash, and (my take:) in their rush to inject their unique style of rhetorical-spin into the debate, made a misstep. Gilgoff asks:

    The White House and liberal Catholic groups appear to have been caught off guard by the furor over President Obama's forthcoming appearance at Notre Dame. Catholics United, a progressive Catholic group with close ties to the White House, has just released a defense of Notre Dame and Obama's appearance there.

    ... [but did Korzen mean to] include the Catholic bishop of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, who has blasted Notre Dame for hosting Obama [as a "partisan operative"]?

    Until now, the new breed of progressive Catholic groups has been careful to avoid attacking the Catholic hierarchy, lest it appear that they're at odds with their own church. On Notre Dame, it looks like they're coming into conflict with church officials. Another sign of an action plan developed hurriedly, at the last-minute?

    Actually, this is not the first time Catholics United has run afoul of the clear teaching of the Catholic hierarchy, especially on life issues. Alternately, having helped deliver the Catholic vote to Obama in last November's election, complacency might have brought with it sloppiness. Lying, after all, takes longer than truth-telling.

    Nevertheless I would submit that duplicity on the scale practiced by Korzen and co. simply cannot stand up to sustained scrutiny. So yes, please Chris, continue sending out those press releases.

    (And for once, perhaps Doug Kmiec made the smart move and decided to remain silent on this one.)

    Labels: , , , ,

    Tuesday, March 24, 2009

    Archbishop of Toronto calls for Legion overhaul, "may be wise for some to leave"

    Sent in by a reader:

    Tonight’s episode of Catholic Focus explores two controversial topics in a riveting and candid interview with the Archbishop of Toronto. Catholic Focus: State of the Church features Archbishop Thomas Collins speaking openly about the Bishops Richard Williamson fiasco, the Vatican’s need to overview its communications strategy and the prospects of dialogue with the Society of St. Pius X.

    Then the conversation moves into the recent revelations about Fr. Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ who fathered an illegitimate child, misappropriated funds and appears to have some culpability in earlier claims of sexual abuse of young seminarians.

    Archbishop Collins is forthright and persuasive in the interview, calling for an overhaul of the Legionaires and frankly admitting it may be wise for some priests and seminarians to leave the order.

    Catholic Focus: State of the Church airs Tuesday, March 24th at 7pm and 11pm ET, with an encore presentation Saturday, March 28th at the same times.

    [Source: Salt & Light Blog.]

    I'll be unavailable to watch but hopefully someone else can provide us with a transcript.

    update: on the Salt and Light TV website you can watch a live stream of their programming.

    The episode will also be archived for viewing in the Catholic Focus section of their website by Thursday.

    Labels: ,

    Monday, March 23, 2009

    Fr. Jenkins responds to criticism

    In a Notre Dame Observer interview:
    Jenkins made clear the University is not honoring the president for his stances on these issues, but for his leadership.

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

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

    Labels: , , , ,

    ND to also give Mary Ann Glendon Laetare Medal

    Take with one hand, wink with the other (underlining mine):
    Mary Ann Glendon, former U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, will receive the University of Notre Dame’s 2009 Laetare Medal. She will receive the medal, the oldest and most prestigious honor given to American Catholics, during the University’s 164th University Commencement ceremony May 17 (Sunday).

    “Both as a public intellectual and as a diplomat, Mary Ann Glendon has impressively served our Church and our country,” said Notre Dame’s president, Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C. “She is an articulate and compelling expositor of Catholic social teaching who exemplifies our University’s most cherished values and deserves its highest praise.” (ND Press Release)
    It's going to be an interesting stage up there with Obama. Having served on the President's Council for Bioethics, Glendon probably won't claim abortion is above her pay grade. Ironic of Fr. Jenkin's to say that Catholic social teaching is Notre Dame's "most cherished value."

    Labels: , , ,

    Ralph McInerny: " Notre Dame has forfeited its right to call itself a Catholic university"

    I've said before that I think The Catholic Thing is one of the best-kept Catholic secrets on the Internet. Today they have published one of their most important pieces to date, an essay by the renowned Ralph McInerny, who has been a member of the Notre Dame faculty for over 50 years.

    McInerny pulls absolutely no punches in this essay. In fact, it's one of the best modern examples of disdain being used in an appropriate way I have comes across. McInerny has disdain for the decision-makers at Notre Dame who have forfeited their Catholic identity and mission for secular acceptance:

    The University of Notre Dame has officially and with much self-satisfaction invited President Barack Obama to address its 2009 graduates and to receive an honorary law degree. Not to put too fine a point on it, this is a deliberate thumbing of the collective nose at the Roman Catholic Church to which Notre Dame purports to be faithful. Faithful? Tell it to Julian the Apostate.

    ... the invitation to Barack Obama is far from being the usual effort of the university to get into warm contact with the power figures of the day. It is an unequivocal abandonment of any pretense at being a Catholic university. And it is in sad continuity with decades of waffling that have led with seeming inevitability to it.

    ... ... now we have come to the point where the University of Notre Dame is publicly excluding itself from allegiance to and acceptance of one of the most fundamental of Christian moral truths, mentioned explicitly in the Didache and again and again over the centuries. Abortion is an essentially evil act, both from the viewpoint of natural morality and from the explicit teaching the Church. There is no way in which an individual, a politician or an institution can finesse that fact.

    By inviting Barack Obama as commencement speaker, Notre Dame is telling the nation that the teaching of the Catholic church on this fundamental matter can be ignored. Lip service may be paid to the teaching on abortion, but it is no impediment to upward mobility, to the truly vulgar lust to be welcomed into secular society, whether on the part of individuals or institutions.

    By inviting Barack Obama to be the 2009 commencement speaker, Notre Dame has forfeited its right to call itself a Catholic university. It invites an official rebuke. May it come.

    I am told we can expect other high-respected past and current members of the Notre Dame faculty to similarly strongly speak-out in the days ahead.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Sunday, March 22, 2009

    ND students submit letter asking Fr. Jenkins to challenge Obama

    Notre Dame student Patrick Brown, from the AmP comment threads:

    As a current student at the Our Lady's University, I can honestly say that many of us here are genuinely conflicted about Fr. Jenkins' decision to invite President Obama to speak at commencement this year.

    On the one hand, we must respect the office of President of the United States, and it is an honor for our beloved campus to host the leader of the free world.

    Of course, there is a substantial population, like myself, who can not and will not tolerate the Notre Dame imprimatur being given to someone whose views on the sanctity of life are so dramatically at odds with the position of the Church and the university.

    Myself and eight other students, with more co-signing literally by the hour, have submitted a letter to Fr. Jenkins, asking to make a public, vocal statement that the university strongly disapproves with the President's actions. I invite you to read it on our Web site here.

    God bless all of you who still wish the best for a university that was and hopefully will still remain one of the premier Catholic institutions in America.

    On Facebook, I have found three active groups reacting to the news of Obama's invitation, at 9PM EST:

    update: David Gibson makes that case that Notre Dame students follow the national voting trends:

    In a mock election before last year's real election, the Democratic ticket won 52.6 percent of the vote followed by the Republican ticket of Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin, which won 41.1 percent of the vote. A total of 2,692 undergraduates and graduate students voted.

    Only 7.7% of them chose abortion as their most important issue (41.5% chose the economy).

    So much for a discernibly distinctive Catholic character.

    My full coverage of this developing story is being compiled here.

    Labels: , , , , ,

    Friday, March 20, 2009

    Diogenes defends Bp. Morlino's firing of feminist pastoral assistant

    I covered this story as it was happening earlier in the week.

    Diogenes completely obliterates the NCR-style whining that went on in the wake of the bishop's decision.

    Or as he puts it: "How about a little reality therapy?"

    Ahhh... deep breaths. That's better.

    Labels:

    Thursday, March 19, 2009

    Text/Video: Cardinal Pell on the New English Mass Translation

    The UK Catholic Herald has "omnicoverage" today on the story I highlighted and commented on yesterday ("S. Africa protest over new Catholic Mass translation").

    Video of Cardinal Pell on the issue:



    Polished article: "'Nothing is being thrust upon anyone': Cardinal George Pell talks to Luke Coppen about the new English Mass translation, the SSPX and being a 'lightning rod' in the Church". {Also a full transcript of the interview.}

    And they're even on Twitter and Facebook.

    Folks, that's how it's done nowadays. Good show!

    Labels: , , , ,

    Secretariat of State responsible for post-editing of papal comments?

    So it seems. CNS blog explaining how what the pope said on the airplane ... well, changed, by the time his comments were published by the Vatican:

    Even allowing for translation differences, the pope didn’t speak of a “risk.” He said what he said.

    The Vatican made some other changes, too. For example, the pope said you couldn’t resolve the problem of AIDS only with money, explaining that assistance programs require a “soul” and spiritual help as well.

    But in the official Vatican version, “money” was, strangely, replaced by the phrase “advertising slogans.”

    Asked about the discrepancies, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said the tape is normally transcribed and then the text passes through the Secretariat of State for slight editing — to put it into good Italian if there are discontinuous expressions. But modifying the meaning of what the pope said is not supposed to be done, he said.

    Father Lombardi said he would have to verify what happened in this case and correct it if necessary.

    This, of course, is exactly what I predicted yesterday would happen.

    So why does the Secretariat of State get to oversee simple transcription tasks instead of the Vatican Press Office? Evidently because they like exercising editorial control over what the Pope says ... which I don't necessarily have a problem with in theory, but how it's being practiced now just makes a complete mess of things.

    Do the homework, please!

    Labels: , ,

    More on Condoms

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009

    Was Pope Benedict misquoted on condoms in Africa? Maybe not.

    Damian Thompson proposes that he was:

    The Vatican has just published its transcript of the Pope's comments about AIDS in Africa and it turns out he said that condoms risk making the problem worse.

    Maybe it doesn't make much difference, but the English-speaking press had the Pope saying that it "even aggravates the problems". Not quite the same resonance; not as headline-worthy.

    The CNS blog meanwhile reports on a clarification issued by Vatican spokesman Fr. Lombardi, this after CNS's own John Thavis claimed Pope Benedict to have said the distribution of condoms "only increases the problem of AIDS."
    ... now, this is not the end of the story. Here's why:
    The Vatican press office has royally flubbed its handling of these situations before.
    I remember breathing a sigh of relief last year during the pope's in-flight interview on his way to the United States that nothing went wrong, because things did go wrong in 2003 during the pope's in-flight interview on his way to Brazil. The Vatican press office's solution was to issue a toned-down version of the pope's remarks about Mexican lawmakers the next day.
    The Vatican press office might have decided to apply that same solution today. Especially since, from what I've seen, Fr. Lombardi has not specifically claimed that the mainstream media's reporting of the pope's words was in fact erroneous.
    One thing we can be sure about: because the Vatican has denied claims made by the mainstream media about what the pope actually said, you can bet that the mainstream media sources are going to go back to their audio/video recordings of the interview and double-check what he said.
    So be prepared - possibly - for an audio or video clip of the Pope, well, misspeaking.
    Then again, this could just be media bias. Time will tell. Stay tuned. And be aware of the history, too.
    update: Ruth Gledhill agrees about the comments (though I don't agree with her about condoms).

    Labels: , , , , , , , ,

    Papal comment on condoms and AIDS sparks criticism

    Back in October, when the Pope's visit to Africa was first announced, I predicted three things I believed would make their way into the mainstream media's talking points about the trip. I'll repeat my second prediction:
    • "The Church's prohibition against condoms is exacerbating the humanitarian crisis (false)"

    Sure enough, on the airplane to Africa yesterday, this was one of the first questions asked of the pope, if the Church's approach to HIV/AIDS is "unrealistic and ineffective". Here's how the pope responded:

    "It is my belief believe that the most effective presence on the front in the battle against HIV/AIDS is in fact the Catholic Church and her institutions. ... The problem of HIV/AIDS cannot be overcome with mere slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanisation of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with the suffering, a readiness - even through personal sacrifice - to stand by those who suffer".

    And now, the deluge of outcry which I predicted:

    Unfortunately I don't have the time at present to pursue the topic - hopefully I will later this evening.

    But here's my quick punch-list of facts that people always seem to miss on this issue:

    • In cases of rape, one can still "defend" oneself by using barrier-method contraception, so the Church isn't condemning exploited people to a deadly disease as well as sexual battery.
    • The Church's teaching on the immorality of contraception is not dictated by scientific claims that condoms don't actually prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS - it's far deeper.
    • The only people who listen to the Church's teaching against contraception are faithful, practicing Catholics, so one must wonder how much "progress" the Pope can be accused of holding back when just faithful, practicing Catholics are the ones listening to him.
    • Following the last point, it's pretty clear that the secularist solution of throwing condoms at the HIV/AIDS scourge isn't working, and that an alternative solution which addresses the fundamental anthropological and cultural causes of HIV/AIDS transmission is required. The secularist solution is simply more science and medical technology, which isn't enough. {update: The city I live in is some proof of that}

    George Pitcher at the UK Telegraph also mounts a defense, but again, I haven't had the chance to read it.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Tuesday, March 17, 2009

    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.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Monday, March 16, 2009

    Vatican backtracks on brazilian excommunications?

    There is now an attempt to explain the Church's reaction to this difficult situation (blogged before here):

    A senior Vatican official has criticized the excommunication of a Brazilian woman whose nine-year-old daughter had an abortion after being raped, as well as the medical team who performed it.

    ... "Unfortunately the credibility of our teaching took a blow as it appeared, in the eyes of many, to be insensitive, incomprehensible and lacking mercy."

    ... Brazilian bishops said Thursday the excommunication of the mother and doctors of the girl, who was pregnant with twins and allegedly raped by her stepfather, was wrong and would not be applied.

    The National Conference of Bishops of Brazil decided that the child's mother acted "under pressure from the doctors" who said the girl would die if she carried the babies to term.

    ... Dimas Lara Barbosa, the body's secretary-general, told reporters the mother therefore could not be excommunicated. "We must take the circumstances into consideration," he said.

    As for the doctors, there was no clear case that they should be expelled from the church either, he said, contrary to the position taken by Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, who announced the excommunications.

    Barbosa said only doctors who "systematically" conduct abortions are thrown out of the church. (Agence France-Presse)

    Explaining why the Church does something is never a bad idea. In the meantime, we'll have to see what happens. It's always better for the Church to be an active voice in the debate, otherwise the enemies of the Church will be happy to create their own narrative. And you can guess what that will look like - we've all seen it before.

    Labels: , , ,

    Friday, March 13, 2009

    Text: Pure Fashion Director Brenda Sharmon Responds

    Brenda Sharman, Pure Fashion National Director, responds to the discussion generated by my March 11 story, "Modesty back in fashion as economy worsens?":

    Hello to everyone who has commented on the Pure Fashion story in USA Today. I was notified that there was a discussion on the story and I'm happy to jump in and clarify a few points.

    Point #1. Jayne O'Donnell, the reporter with USA Today is a wonderful woman with a kind heart for young girls and I so appreciate her taking the time to write this story. It's been a pleasure to get to know her over the past 9 months. During that time we discussed the history of Pure Fashion, the fact that Pure Fashion started in Challenge clubs, and then developed into it's own Apostolate.

    Point #2. I never said or implied that we have broken away from Regnum Christi. Pure Fashion is a service of Regnum Christi and I too am a member of Regnum Christi. Regarding the choice of words in the USA Today article, I don't know why those words were chosen...but I'll bet that it was just a quick way to summarize that we grew out of Challenge clubs into our own program. It was obviously not the complete history spelled out, but there was no deceptive intent. Pure Fashion and I are proud to be affiliated with Regnum Christi. As of January 2009, we are now offering affiliation to Parishes, schools or Churches that would like to offer the program, so we expect a great deal of growth in the next few years and many more organizations outside of Regnum Christi who will be offering the formation program and the end of the year event...the modesty fashion show... Our culture needs as many programs as possible to support our teens in living lives of virtue!

    If anyone has questions about Pure Fashion, please feel free to e-mail me directly at brendasharman [at] purefashion.com . I have always been open, transparent and available to answer questions and will continue to do so. God bless you all... I've got to get back to work, there is a lot to do!

    Your Sister in Christ, Brenda.

    Labels: , , ,

    Monday, March 09, 2009

    Becket Fund President calls CT Bill "Doubly unconstitutional"

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

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

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

    Labels: , , , , ,