Update: Everything you never wanted to know about the health care debate

For those of you who just want to know what is going on in this new chapter of the health care debate, I'll summarize the two important points before filling-in the back story below:

1. The health care bill that was passed last Saturday wasn't as bad as it could have been, thanks in no small part to the vigorous efforts of Catholic bishops and faithful
2. ... but, this process has a long, long way to go. And we have to remain vigilant that the small concessions we have gained are not given up in the legislative rumble and tumble to come.

Now, all the confusing details....

Planned Parenthood, incensed that moderate Democrats joined Republicans in support the abortion-neutral Stupak amendment, are attempting to use their "strongest weapon - the White House." The Family Research Council is correct that the passage of the Stupak amendment was "a stunning rebuke of [the Planned Parenthood] agenda in an arena they traditionally dominate." It's no surprise they are trying to go over the heads in Congress now.

Pro-aborts love point out "fractures" in the pro-life community, but they are definitely engaging in some serious squabbling at this point. If anyone had any doubts about Rosa DeLauro's pro-abortion ideology, it's completely in the open now. Don't trust her "pro-life compromise" bills. The only thing she wants to compromise is the pro-life movement. 

And to encourage unity on our side, let's be clear - passing the Stupak amendment did not play into the hands of pro-abortion Democrats trying to pass their health care bill, as John McCormack explains.

President Obama, for his part, was asked yesterday about these recent developments, and his response was mostly worthless. On the one hand he said this is "a health care bill, not an abortion bill," but he also hinted that he thought changes needed to be made to the bill's current language - so who knows. 

Timothy Gibbs, his spokesman, certainly isn't any help in establishing the President's position on this issue. Once again, his attempts to gratify both pro-abortion and pro-life forces has resulted in his angering and frustrating both sides. But right now our side is faring slightly better.

Meanwhile, the most immediate danger is that the abortion-neutral Stupak amendment will be stripped in conference. In a letter to Nancy Pelosi, 41 Democrats demanded that she strip the abortion-neutral language before it passed out of the House. One democrat is "confident" and "working very hard" to ensure that the final bill is pro-abortion. Jack Smith at the Catholic Key argues that Pelosi does not have enough votes to pass the final bill.

As for the Senate - the next battlefield over health care, faces many of the abortion problems that plagued the House version of the bill. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska appears to be willing to take over the mantle of Bart Stupak and introduce an abortion-neutral amendment into the Senate version of health care.

Cardinal George of the US Bishops conference has promised to remain "vigilant and involved throughout this entire process." You can count on my watching it closely.

For those interested in the technical side of things, the National Right to Life Committee has good resources online, updated with frequency and detail. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luke 6:22.

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. 

Duh: PP President Cecile Richards in cozy with Obama

Barack and Cecile sitting in a tree, P-L-O-T-T-I-N-G. Seriously!

Barack and Cecile, you see, are buddies - they are, like, total BFFs (that means Best Friends Forever, if you're over 30).

Barack Obama is the President of the United States, and Cecile Richards is the president of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States. So they have a lot in common. They're both really important. Barack likes Cecile so much he puts his arm around her, which he doesn't do for many people. Cecile likes Barack and gets to wear his cute baby-doll rhinestone "Obama" t-shirts.

Barack invites Cecile over to the White House a lot. Like, more than once. They pretty much get to hang out and stuff all the time. It's kind of sick how much fun they get to have.

Cecile even gets to twitter little things like this afterwards:

"Just left the White House meeting on women's health care - they appreciate all the might(y) pp [planned parenthood] supporters speaking up for reform in the states!"

Cecile and Barack are cool like that. He really appreciates her. She said so. They both really want health care reform. They're really smart. I'm pretty sure Cecile is on Barack's Fave Five.

Cecile gets to heart Obama on Facebook, telling all her friends important stuff like this:

"Women need affordable health care that covers OUR needs ... Geez, we represent more than half the population here!"

Yeah Cecile, like duh.

Some folks totally make stuff up about them, like, that Cecile and Barack are such good friends because they do business together. Like how Planned Parenthood and all their supporters gave lots of cash to Obama and campaigned for him and stuff, and how he's all, like, giving them lots of money to Planned Parenthood whenever he can now that he won and gets to be a President, too.

But, I mean, can't friends help each other out?

Oh, and most the people who say that kind of stuff are just crazy pro-lifers who are jealous they aren't Barack's friends. Well - *news flash*, people - Barack can pick his own friends, and he decided to pick Cecile. So deal. Maybe if you tried changing and were cooler you could be his friend, too. So hey, try working on that. Okay bye.

(Oh those photos at the top? Yeeaah ... I didn't take them. Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood did. My bad!)

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.

How dare Rep. Ryan deny the pro-life activity of American Catholics and Christians?

Pro-abortion forces aren't stupid, they're calculating.

I've already discussed the DeLauro-Ryan bill, and why I think it needs to be urgently defeated. It is attempting to split the pro-life movement by claiming that those who do not support contraception are not truly pro-life.

The sponsor of that bill, Democrat Tim Ryan, was quoted earlier this week by Steven Waldman, the guy behind religion internet portal Belief.net.

[a brief tangent on Waldman....]

Steven Waldman introduces Tim Ryan as a "pro-life Democrat and author of the Ryan-DeLauro bill, which attempts to reduce the number of abortions in part through expanded use of contraception."

Reality check: Tim Ryan, as others have explained (see link to the DeLauro-Ryan bill above), isn't pro-life. Or rather, his "pro-life" solutions will actually increase the number of abortions.

I typically try to make arguments about abortion through reasoned argument. I rarely, if some have noticed, pull out the Papist bat. But here I need to: just how does Waldman, who runs a religion website, think he can promote contraception without alienating faithful Catholics, and make no mention that he's going against the teaching of the Church? Would he, say, talk about advocating blood transfusions for jehovah's witnesses without tripping over himself to mention that the leadership of that denomination opposes it? Nope, because even the religion editor knows that Catholic teaching is the one that he can get away with ignoring, with no argument. 

That's a double standard. Okay, tangent over ... time to get back to Ryan:]

Mind you I haven't even gotten to the Ryan quote that Waldman thinks it's so important his religious readers see. Here it is:

"The new fault line is not between pro-life and pro-choice people. It's within the pro-life community. The question now is: 'are you pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people's lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so.'"

Despite claiming to be pro-life, Ryan just insulted the pro-life movement in a reprehensible fashion. 

He creates a straw man argument for the pro-life, anti-contraception movement. Does he honestly believe pro-life, anti-contraception individuals (let's be honest, the majority of them are Catholics) simply "hope and wish" that abortion will go away?!

Reality check: there are hundreds of pro-life pregnancy centers which do not distribute contraception, but provide concrete care to pregnant women. There are thousands of pro-life individuals who work at these institutions. There is a massive network of Catholic hospitals in the Unites States that provide care to pregnant women, and they don't distribute contraception. There are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Catholics (and other Christians) in America that support these efforts through the contributions of their money, time and prayers. 

So how dare Rep. Ryan claim that those who do not distribute contraception are not doing something to actively reduce abortion and promote a culture of life in America where every human being - mother and unborn child - are cared for and valued?

And I haven't even touched the fact that throwing contraception at women at-risk of becoming pregnant isn't going to ultimately address the problem of abortion in this country.

But let's start with some common ground: those who don't distribute contraception are certainly doing more to improve the lives of pregnant woman and children than just "wishing" and "hoping."

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.

Lessons to be learned from a woman who sailed the "abortion boat"

Last October I was first made aware of the Dutch "abortion boat", a project of "Women on Waves" that attempted to spread awareness of abortion (and abortifacient pills) in countries that still have laws against these things.

Now I come to find out from a Netherlands news source that the "abortion boat" is putting down anchor for the last time. Steve Ertelt at LifeNews has a summary of an interview conducted with a member of the organization that ran the boat, Rebecca Gomperts.

I found snippets of the interview interesting. It's a rare chance to see an abortion advocate dis-engaged from the fight and speaking frankly about their opinion on what is happening.

"The abortion boat is a myth," says Gomperts. "There are people who think we provide practical help all over the world. Of course it's a pretty sight: a ship entering a harbour full of women saying: abortion is a right. And then there will always be people wanting to stop the boat. The result is a symbolic fight that speaks to the imagination." 

Insight: abortion advocates over-sell their accomplishments. In my first reporting of the story, I can't remember Women on Waves ever trying to dis-abuse people about their actual activities not including abortions.

... But in [Gomperts'] personal life there has been a drastic change. The woman who ten years ago said she had made a conscious decision to remain childless, is now the single mother of a three-year-old boy and a four-year-old girl. 

Insight: Life catches up to you. You can make yourself think almost anything you want, but as you grow older, some human desires can't be totally forever. She's a mother, even if it has changed her views.

"The other day I was giving a lecture at a school in the Bijlmer [a heavily immigrant part of Amsterdam, Ed.] I was shocked by the anti-abortion sentiment among young immigrant girls there. And the youth activities of the Evangelical broadcasting corporation draw tens of thousands of visitors. These are signs that lots of things are changing in our society. Opposition to abortion is growing." 

Insight: Good news, indeed. Some things ought never be taken for granted: abortion on demand is one of them. The world wasn't always this way, and it can change back, if people's hearts change.

Have you become more understanding towards your opponents over the years?

"If you believe that every life has to be protected I can imagine that you would be very passionate about that. Uncompromising. But it bothers me that they have no respect for people who think differently. Anti-abortion activists feel that everybody should act the way they think they should."

Insight: Does Gompert then believe every life ought not be protected? At least she is consistent, in a horrible sort of way. I don't see how I am supposed to respect the view that all innocent life ought not be protected.

And this most interesting of all....

Is a rapprochement even imaginable?

"No, I think it is impossible for proponents and opponents of abortion to ever come together. We're talking about two entirely different philosophies here. There is no room for discussion. To me, the fact that they want to limit other people's ability to make their own decisions will always be unacceptable." 

Insight: Gompert is speaking honestly here. Her statement further confirms a lurking suspicion of my own that common ground initiatives proposed by ardent pro-aborts will come to nothing. There is simply no common ground between those who think innocent lives may be killed and those who think they may never be killed.

What must happen on the part of pro-aborts is a change of mind and heart. Helping this conversion take place is what we must commit ourselves to accomplishing, and I believe one important step in that process is to hold fast to our position in support of life. Only from that high ground can we begin to reach out.

Prof. Kaveny needs a re-write on Pope and President

University of Notre Dame Law School:

M. Cathleen Kaveny, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, addressed the question “Why does the American Catholic leadership seem to be focused on abortion, while the Vatican appears willing to view that issue as merely one among many on which to judge a political leader?” in a New York Times blog.

Evidently, on a planet far, far away, Obama is still the man he claimed to be in his campaign ads. Sadly, the far, far away planet is the writing dens of notable, liberal Catholic academics like Prof. Kaveny. Well, I would challenge her that she needs to update her fact sheet and move beyond the campaign rhetoric of Mr. Obama and actually take a look at the facts. Reality, after all, has a habit of exploding poor arguments.

Reading through her comments, she makes a very convincing case - if we didn't have the experience of the last six months to jolt us out of these false hopes. Let's take a look at a few of her claims with red correction pen in hand:

From different vantage points, [the pope and president] are both grappling with the same challenge: how to protect and promote human dignity in an era of increased globalization, how to work together to solve the problems like the worldwide economic crisis, global warming, and food insecurity.

Let's see, so far Mr. Obama has repealed the Mexico City Policy (funding oversees abortions), removed restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, passed a failed cap-and-trade bill which has negligible international environmental impact at huge domestic cost, allowed an abortion mandate into his socialized health care policy, and - in the eyes of many - failed to support the people of Iran and Honduras in their struggle for a more just government.

Yes, the two men may be grappling with the same challenge, but how has Mr. Obama performed? Politics is absolutely about different groups seeking to right the same problem, but what matters is who comes up with the better solution, and who follows-through. Prof. Kaveny can assign the same legal problem to all of her students, but only those who reach the correct conclusions should receive high marks. Prof. Kaveny wants to give Mr. Obama a perfect score for just walking into the classroom. 

The Vatican, in my view, respects Mr. Obama as a man of moral seriousness, who in turn respects those who disagree with him on serious moral issues such as abortion.

Okay, can I ask an awkward question? Just what the heck does "moral seriousness" mean? No one, to my knowledge, is claiming that Mr. Obama is a morally "unserious", as if he's some sort of clown. We can all agree someone is morally "serious" and still conclude that they are philosophically, prudentially wrong. Prof. Kaveny is a legal scholar - would she give a student an "A" simply for being "morally serious" were he or she to make a legal claim in an academic paper for chattel slavery being just? Of course not! All the "moral seriousness" in the world isn't worth a hill of beans if you are seriously wrong in your moral conclusions.

Cardinal Cottier is impressed by the fact that Mr. Obama recognizes the tragic nature of the abortion choice, and the fact that he is committed to finding ways to reduce the need for — and therefore the numbers of — abortions. He highlights that Mr. Obama is committed to protecting the consciences of healthcare workers who morally opposed to abortion.

First of all, Prof. Kaveny is happy to selectively quote Vatican officials, finding the ones that she thinks supports her argument. But second of all,  Mr. Obama has never - to my knowledge - committed himself to reducing the number of abortions. That would mean he has to admit there is a problem with a woman expressing her "choice" to have an abortion. And he is too much enmeshed in the pro-abortion agenda to ever say that. And just try to make the point with an abortion advocate that reducing the need for abortions equals reducing the number. They will never admit this, for the same reasons Mr. Obama cannot and has not. Finally, search the new health care bill for a "robust conscience clause." It doesn't exist. So what world is Prof. Kaveny still living in? It doesn't look much like the real one you and I are inhabiting. 

Prof. Kaveny, in other words, makes two claims without providing any proof for them. And she also commits a logical fallacy when she presumes that reducing the need for abortions would result in reducing the number of them. It's almost as if she has never engaged a pro-abortion advocate in debate on this issue. Abstract conclusions make little difference when we are facing practical problems with real people. Especially these abstractions are contradicted by the concrete details.

Okay, three points seems enough. Of course, there are other areas where I profoundly disagree with Prof. Kaveny's essay. To conclude, she needs to update her talking points and respond somehow to the actual events which have transpired in the last six months. Until some liberal Catholic can do that, we're still playing word games. Just like Mr. Obama wants to see us do.

Kathleen Reeves doesn't want to understand the Church

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

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

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

(So much for common ground.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

... and that's just a start. 

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

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

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

"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?

In new plan, White House faces choice between Catholics or abortion groups

Dan Gilgoff, with his dependable, informative coverage of things religious/political, notes that as the White House prepares to debut its abortion plan, "packing" is becoming a "major issue":

As the White House readies its plan for finding "common ground" on reproductive health issues and reducing the need for abortion, a major debate has emerged over how to package the plan's two major components: preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion.

Many abortion rights advocates and some Democrats who want to dial down the culture wars want the White House to package the two parts of the plan together, as a single piece of legislation. The plan would seek to reduce unwanted pregnancies by funding comprehensive sex education and contraception and to reduce the need for abortion by bolstering federal support for pregnant women. Supporters of the approach say it would force senators and members of Congress on both sides of the abortion battle to compromise their traditional positions, creating true common ground that mirrors what President Obama has called for.

But more conservative religious groups working with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships say they would be forced to oppose such a plan—even though they support the abortion reduction part—because they oppose federal dollars for contraception and comprehensive sex education. This camp, which includes such formidable organizations as the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, is pressuring the White House to decouple the two parts of the plan into separate bills. One bill would focus entirely on preventing unwanted pregnancy, while the other would focus on supporting pregnant women.

The White House declined a request for comment. Advocates for both plans say the administration has offered no hint about how it will come down on the matter. But with the White House expected to announce its plan on abortion and related issues this summer, advocates on both sides are strenuously lobbying for the plan, arguing that it offers the only true hope for common ground on very thorny issues. (Read full article here.)

The Obama team is silent about what it plans to do.

Bottom line:

For the White House, the decision about which tack to take is largely a question of whom it feels more comfortable alienating: religious groups like the Catholic bishops, which it has been trying hard to win over, or abortion rights groups, a key part of the Democratic base that it doesn't want to lose.

As I said in my extended look at Reproductive Health Reality Check's "common ground forum", the new pro-abortion tactic is "[not to] reduce abortion, [but] to reduce the "need" for abortion, often through recourse to contraception." And they will never rule out abortion. In fact, the RHRC's twitter feed yesterday promoted "ensuring universal access to family planning" (a euphemism for contraception and abortion) as common ground!

So what does this "new way" boil down to for us? Catholics giving in on contraception. The radical abortion agenda will not back down one step, so their "common ground" is a mask for us to compromise our principles.

Just look at the thoughts expressed in the ultra-liberal Daily Kos, which specifically targets Catholics:

On the subject of Reproductive Freedom, there can be no common ground between the militant anti-abortion religious right, including the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and those of us who believe that people have the right to use any method of birth control they choice, up to and including safe, legal abortion.

While most of Catholics in this country and much of the rest of the world believe as I do, that girls, women and their sexual partners should have this right, the Roman Catholic hierarchy would rather women die of AIDS, and they and their children die of hunger, rather than a sexual partner use condoms or themselves use artificial methods of birth control or be able to attain a safe, legal abortion.

This sort of thinking is the same type that is held by the owners of Planned Parenthood, and the powerful pro-abortion interests in this country.

Secondly, it's a liberal orthodoxy that universal access to contraception (and honestly, pushing contraceptives on sexually active people, starting young) will reduce the need for abortions.

However, I've heard it argued that the actual data reveals that countries with expanded access to contraception actually have more need for abortions. I would tend to agree with this analysis, because who of us thinks that American youth *don't* have enough access to contraception?! Frankly, the people who don't use contraception for religious reasons are the same people who are far, far less likely to seek an abortion.

But it would help if I had the research at my finger tips. So if you know where it is online, please send me the link and I'll post it on AmP.

There is currently a lobbying battle waging between pro-abortion groups and the USCCB over which plan the Obama team chooses, as Gilgoff reports. We need to be active in supporting the USCCB and combating the tactics of the pro-abortion groups, who only offer a common ground that hurts Americans, born and unborn.

Stunning: New technology allows you to "hold" your baby before birth

This new technology deserves a great deal of attention. I think there is a tremendous opportunity here, as I will explain.

Most of us have seen the amazing 4D photos of unborn children (I've inserted one to the left).

Now a student at the Royal College in Britain has taken the next step of using these photographs to create an individualized, life-size model of the pictured unborn child.

LifeNews:

Stunning new technology is allowing parents to go beyond a 3D or 4D ultrasound to bond with their unborn child in ways never imaginable. A student at the Royal College of Art in Britain has created life-like models based on pictures of unborn children that are the exact shape and size of the baby in the womb.

Fetal models have long been a staple of county fairs and health education classes across the country, but one student has gone further.

Brazilian student Jorge Lopes is a PhD. student at the college and he has pioneered the use of converting data from ultrasounds and MRI scans to form life-size plastic models in a process called rapid prototyping.

"It’s amazing to see the faces of the mothers. They can see the full scale of their baby, really understand the size of it," Lopes told the London Daily Mail newspaper.

The results are breathtaking:

More pictures of the models in action here. 

Technology like this has the potential of re-framing the abortion debate, because this technology does not create an abstract model - it shows, instead, that killing an unborn life is never killing a type of human being, it's killing a distinct, unique human being.

Can you imagine, for instance, if these sorts of models were available to women considering abortion? 

The "other side" of the abortion debate can imagine it. And the prospect scares them:

"Brazilian inventor, Jorge Lopes, figured out a way to use 3-D printing technology to create models from 3-D ultrasound images. The purpose, initially, was for archeological digs. But dinosaur bones? How can you make a fortune from dinosaur bones? You don’t.

But you can make a fortune preying on pregnant women’s fears, hopes and dreams."

See what the author did? Typically, advocates of abortion want to claim that science and technology are on their side. But lo and behold, a technology emerges which brings to mind the true reality of unborn life, and - suddenly - technology is no long neutral to their cause, it is instead "preying" on pregnant women! What can be said about a movement that constantly tries to hide the reality of what happens in an abortion? Are they truly on the side of science, or reason?

Next, the pro-abortionist who has probably accused the pro-life movement of being too preachy gets ... well, really preachy when she doesn't like how things are going. She says (addressing the creator of the technology):

"...don’t set up pregnant women for yet another way to fail in pregnancy and impending motherhood. Surely it’s OK to look deeply into a perfectly formed pair of stark white eyes with no irises and feel nothing."

My question is, how can seeing the human dimensions of your baby make you "fail" in pregnancy and motherhood? Is it not the case that the above author is actually terrified that women, when they see a model of their child, might realize that the real "failed" pregnancy is one where she allows her child to die?

More heartbreaking still, the author's only defense for "feeling nothing" when she looks into the model's eyes ... is that she must ignore the human, beautiful eyes of the real child within the womb. The point of the model is to show what is hidden from our sight. And it's only a guilty conscience that turns away from the truth.

I hope pro-lifers figure out ways of getting these models into the hands of the women who need to see them most. The truth of the human person and human development is on our side, now let's use the tools of science for the right end - to better the plight of unborn children who need mothers to see them as God sees them.

RHRealityCheck offers abortion "common ground" ... on the edge of a cliff

Dan Gilgoff on the oddity (my description) of a "Major Abortion Rights Site [Launching an] Online 'Common Ground' Forum":

"Coinciding with the Obama administration's move to ready a plan for "reducing the need for abortion," a major abortion rights website has launched an online forum aimed at finding what it calls "common ground" in the abortion debate. The forum, called On Common Ground, is hosted by RHRealityCheck.com and went live yesterday.

The unusual project—moderator Cristina Page, a prominent abortion rights advocate, calls it an experiment—already includes posts by Third Way's Rachel Laser, Beliefnet cofounder Steven Waldman, Faith in Public Life's Katie Paris, and others.

One of the striking features of the project's launch is that it uses the recent murder of abortion provider George Tiller to argue that the abortion debate must be wrested away from extremists. It will be fascinating to watch how antiabortion rights groups respond. Some will almost surely brand On Common Ground a cynical attempt by abortion rights supporters to co-opt the antiabortion movement. It will be interesting to see how some of the more moderate antiabortion groups react."

I take Gilgoff's line about "it will be fascinating to watch how antiabortion rights groups respond" as an invitation to take a look at RHRealityCheck.org's "common ground" forum. I don't want to immediately fulfill Gilgoff's prediction that "some [pro-life groups] will almost surely brand On Common Ground a cynical attempt by abortion rights supporters to co-opt the antiabortion movement" ... so let's look at the facts first.

First of all, RHRealityCheck is a radical, pro-abortion organization which specializes in attacking groups, bills and politicians who do not stand up to their litmus test. Just take a look at their profile of Fr. Frank Pavone's Priests for Life, where they claim: "Despite claims of being opposed to violent tactics such as bombing of clinics or murdering doctors, Pavone has long had ties to some of the most extreme anti-abortion activists who sanction such activities."

So, Fr. Pavone hangs out with bomb-throwers? Check.

Another gem from RHRealityCheck's profile of Priests for life: "While their primary mission is to educate and mobilize Catholic clergy as anti-family planning activists, their tactics are often aggressive and overtly political."

So, Priests for Life is essentially a republican front organization? Check.

I could go on and on, but time is short, space is precious, and let's get right to the main points.

Point #1: RHRealityCheck's "common ground" is not an attempt to reduce abortion, it's an attempt to reduce the "need" for abortion, often through recourse to contraception. And they will never rule out abortion.

Christina Page, the front-woman for RHRC's common ground initiative, is also an active blogger at Birth Control Watch.org, where she writes about Alexia Kelley, co-founder of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and new Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

"Kelley is a new style pro-lifer, one who believes a progressive agenda will produce pro-life results...

...Make no mistake, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is a Catholic organization that accepts the Church's position on abortion and contraception. But under Kelley's leadership, its efforts were spent exploring an array of policies that succeed at reducing the need for abortion. The organization has taken a notably passive role towards the church's dictates. It has not worked to restrict abortion or make contraception less available, approaches most other anti-abortion and Catholic groups focus on exclusively.

... pro-choice people need to improve the national dialogue on the abortion issue. We can lower the vitriol. We can expose the anti-abortion groups that oppose all the proven ways to reduce the need for abortion. We must isolate those that only stoke the coals of hatred in this conflict and, especially those who create the inflamed environment that inspired Dr. Tiller's murderer. The vast majority of self-described "pro-life" Americans abhor the violence, want to move past the conflict and have both sides work together to find common ground. The American pro-life public has longed for leaders like Kelley and, the truth is, so have we."

Page literally wrote the book on radical access to abortion in American politics. She titled it "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex". I highlighted one line in red above to make a simple point: contraception technically reduces the "need" for abortions, but it is an unacceptable "solution" for Catholics, for many reasons grounded in faith and reason. Page's line highlighted in red is classic wedge-politics.

Point #2: RHRC has pre-defined the terms of debate in an unacceptable way. 

Page's operating framework is that the only type of acceptable "pro-lifer" is an apologetic one, who admits the necessity of abortion and contraception, and only from WITHIN that framework, works to reduce the instances of abortion. That's simply unacceptable, to me.

Point #3: Only such "apologetic" pro-lifers are invited to Page's common ground table. 

The profiles of those involved features people who are either militantly pro-choice or covertly pro-choice, with Serrin Foster of Feminists for Life of America being the only exception I can see. But Chris Korzen of Catholics United? Sarah Stoesz, a Planned Parenthood CEO? Why are such individuals included, who have a clear bent to one side of the debate, when there is not a fair representation of the other side? In other words, if those who will always support abortion are invited, why aren't those invited who will never support abortion? (Elsewhere RHRC contributor Rachel Laser basically admits you have to "Find the Right People" to engage in dialogue. Well that's right in a twisted way: you probably won't like the outcome if you try to engage people who aren't willing to meet your unreasonable demands.)

As for the proposals offered by RHRC's common ground, the Prevention First Act "aim[s] to improve access to family planning and encourage the development of effective state-level sex education initiatives." Note, family planning includes both contraception and abortion. This is, again, a wedge move: it implicitly attempts to paint pro-lifers as hypocrites when they do not endorse the proliferation of contraceptives and condoms. The proposal of contraception as "common ground" is poison to faithful, practicing Catholics. 

The other proposals, from what I can see, are not as problematic. But I welcome others to do the leg work on researching the nuts and bolts of them. Sadly, the devil often hides in the details of these "common ground" proposals. 

Point #4: The viewpoints of the RHRC-sanctioned contributors are toxic to faithful Catholics. As I was saying about nuts and bolts, let's take a look at what the contributors to this forum are actually saying. Debra Haffner:

"Here is my suggestion: Let's stop talking about reducing abortions as a goal in itself. Let's keep talking about reducing unintended pregnancies. This is not only the better public health position; it is a faithful and moral one as well."

Okay, so wanting to reduce the destruction of unborn human life is always off the table? Check.

Steve Waldman of Belief Net:

"... pro-lifers need to decide which of their beliefs is more important: their concern for the unborn or their concerns about the nature of premarital sex."

This is slippery, he's actually making an argument that Catholics should quit worrying about contraception. He just can't bring himself to actually say it:

"It’s hard for pro-choicers to take pro-life “common grounders” seriously if they won’t budge on birth control; it’s equally hard for pro-lifers to take pro-choice common grounders seriously if they won’t accept the basic premise of the exercise. So who will be the brave souls to break that conceptual logjam?"

Waldman, if he is sincerely trying to present a Catholic position, shouldn't be challenging Catholics to "budge" on birth control. Catholics cannot budge on intrinsically-evil choices. That's NEVER common ground.

The path to common ground in abortion involves Catholics fudging on contraception? Check.

Sarah Stoesz, a Planned Parenthood CEO, meanwhile takes a swing at recent poll numbers suggesting that America is becoming a more pro-life country: "Read deeper into the results of this and other recent polls and you'll find that, no matter what the label, most Americans want to keep abortion legal."

Oh, so of course we should always have abortion. Most Americans will always want abortion? Check.

Conclusion: So, going back to Gilgoff's prediction, do you think there are reasonable grounds for thinking this innitiative is a "cynical attempt by abortion rights supporters to co-opt the antiabortion movement"? 

As a Catholic who is striving to live out the commands of Jesus Christ when it comes to respecting the dignity of the human person, and as a reasonable fellow who cannot abide any solution which unjustly destroys the rights of the innocent, and who will not accept common ground that results in the destruction of human life, in RHRC's common ground initiative, I see no room at the inn for me, but rather a trap door into a precipice.

AmP Challenge: No more claiming the US Bishops are "partisan" on abortion

In the interest of dialogue with our liberal Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, I challenge them to explicitly and totally repudiate the pernicious claim that US Bishops, when they speak about abortion, are engaging in "partisan politics." This same claim is similarly made about American Catholics when they, essentially, mimic the talking points of the US Bishops.

The claim that US Bishops, and those who agree with them, are "partisan" when it comes to abortion is deeply hypocritcal, because such a claim is, itself, a partisan charge made exclusively by liberals.

How common is this theme of calling US Bishops and their supporters "partisan" when they speak about abortion? Well, it is very common (see below). Most recently, these liberal partisans have taken to using recent L'Osservatore Romano articles as proof that "their" side is the right one. Well, they are in for a surprise, as I will demonstrate.

Here are some of the chief offenders (note how they all claim L'Osservatore Romano is on their side):

• Joe Feuerherd at National Catholic Reporter: "Less than four months into the new administration we don’t plan a mea culpa. Rather, we agree with L'Osservatore Romano, that the administration has demonstrated thoughtfulness and moderation, even as some of its less temperate Catholic critics declare, "We are at War!"
• Michael Sean Winters of American Magazine: "Chaput sneers at Jenkins. He sneers at Obama. (I am assuming he sneers at L'Osservatore Romano which had a far different interpretation of the President's visit to Notre Dame.)"

And yet in L'Osservatore Romano's own June 5th edition, it said this:

"Obviously the Holy See and L’Osservatore Romano have been, are and will be fully at the side of the U.S. bishops in their commitment in favor of the inviolability of human life in whatever stage of its existence.

Other interpretations have no foundation, especially those that have wanted to use the newspaper’s articles to make it appear that the teachings of the U.S. episcopate on the inherent evil of abortion were an exercise in partisan politics, supposedly in contrast with a different strategy of the Holy See."

L'OR is crystal clear: the interpretation that "the teachings of the U.S. episcopate on the inherent evil of abortion [is] an exercise in partisan politics" ... has "no foundation".

With that said, will Joe Feuerherd again "agree with L'Osservatore Romano" on this point about US Bishops and those who agree with them? Will Michael Sean Winters cease his sniping at Archbishop Chaput and other teaching bishops, or will he do a 180 and himself "sneer at L'OR" now that the newspaper isn't agreeing with his liberal talking points?

If they don't take up this challenge, we can be sure of three things:

1. The entire time they were agreeing with L'Osservatore Romano, it wasn't because they were trying to be faithful Catholics, it was because L'OR was agreeing (they thought) with their liberal talking points
2. They are in fact selectively picking-and-choosing what things they agree with the Vatican on, again filtering what they hear and agree with through a partisan, liberal a priori position
3. They themselves are guilty of engaging in the sort of "partisan politics" which they have accused the US Bishops and those who agree with them of embracing. This is text-book hypocrisy.

To make my case even stronger, I'd ask AmP readers to send me examples of Catholic columnists claiming that the US Bishops are engaging in partisan politics, and especially of recent examples where they claim L'Osservatore Romano is in effect "taking their side." I'd also ask AmP readers to note when this claim is made, in its various forms, from this point forward. I intend to call them on it every time they do it.

Why am I being so blunt about this? Well, certainly there here are many, many things wrong with the current state of debate between liberal Catholics and other Catholics when it comes to the issue of abortion and politics in America, but with this challenge, I hope to begin systematically rooting-out and definitively putting-to-rest one of the most pernicious and offensive of these errors.

I think such charges against our bishops are corrosive to constructive dialogue. Let's at least agree that when they speak about abortion, they are speaking from the heart of the Church, not a partisan talking-points page.

update: readers have asked for more proof of my claim that some notable individuals have systematically set themselves up against the bishops on the issue of abortion, along partisan lines. I have removed my quotation from Stephen Schneck for lack of further evidence. More proof for the other two:

• Joe Feuerherd (Feb 22, 2008 - Washington Post): "[Bishop Doran] is not alone among Catholic bishops in his attempt to anathematize the Democrats, to make the party and its candidates illegitimate in the mind of the electorate." ... "Sounds like I'll be voting for the Democrat -- and the bishops be damned."
• Michael Sean Winters (April 30, 2008 - America Magazine): "I hope the bishops who are in such high dudgeon about Obama will demand that Dr. Glendon be forbidden from receiving any Catholic honors until she renounces her association with the Bush administration."

And for good measure, I've re-added a third:

• Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ (November 7, 2008 - Washington Post): "This division between the vocal, partisan bishops and the silent, nonpartisan bishops will be a major issue at the Baltimore meeting."

NCRegister: 3 Things Obama Didn't Say in Cairo

Tom Hoopes has a brilliant re-keying of several passages in Obama's speech to a muslim audience in Cairo earlier this week:

Obama told his Muslim audience: “[W]e must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors.”

Hmmm … here are three things he didn’t seem to want to say openly in Cairo: He didn’t praise doubt, or promote LGBT, or read the Koran’s next verse.

[Read the jarring parallelisms Hoopes sets out to prove these three points.]

David Corn in MotherJones has a perfect phrase to describe what Obama is doing:

"Ultimately, Obama is calling for universal acceptance of a relativistic, ecumenical, multicultural view of human nature and the world."

The problem at the center of Obama's position, of course, is that it is premised on a relativistic world-view. This core despair of truth irrevocably flavors his ecumenical, multicultural outreach, vitiating it of the effectiveness it could have if it were objective.

Bishop Jenky, CSC - a hope for Notre Dame?

In the interest of completeness I must mention one episcopal figure whose silence is notable in this Notre Dame scandal: the Most Rev. Daniel Jenky, CSC of Peoria, IL.

There are four reasons I hope Bishop Jenky is taking an active role in this situation, at least behind the scenes if not in public:

1) He is a member of the Notre Dame community. He completed several degrees there and was appointed Superior of the Holy Cross Priests and Brothers of Notre Dame (who administer the University).

2) He is a member of the Notre Dame administration - appointed both to its Board of Trustees and Board of Fellows (where the real decisions are made). Their charter includes this as a duty of the office:

The essential character of the University as a Catholic institution of higher learning shall at all times be maintained, it being the stated intention and desire of the present Fellows of the University that the University shall retain in perpetuity its identity as such an institution. (PDF source)

3) He is a member of the U.S. bishops. He was a one-time auxiliary under Bishop D'Arcy in the diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend. And in 2002, as Ordinary of Peoria, he was a full member of the body which released the 2004 directives that Notre Dame has now been convicted of violating.

4) Finally, to my knowledge, he is the only CSC-congregation bishop in the United States. He is, in other words, a brother priest with President Jenkins and half of the others members on the Board of Fellows.

He is thus able to speak as member with, administrator of, overseer from without and brother to Notre Dame.

That's four ways we can hope he'll help.

Update: Expert commentary on Glendon's noble refusal

In reaction to this morning's breaking news story that Mary Ann Glendon has refused the Laetare Medal.

Fr. Raymond J. de Souza at NCRegister:

Father John Jenkins likely thought himself very clever. Professor Mary Ann Glendon just took him to school.

In declining to receive the Laetare Medal alongside President Barack Obama’s honorary doctorate of laws at next month’s commencement, Glendon has refused to participate in the shabby manipulation Father Jenkins attempted to engineer. It is a rare personage who could ennoble an award by refusing to receive it, but Professor Glendon has done just that. The Laetare Medal will now be known best for the year in which it was declined. Glendon chose, to use the apt words of Bishop John D’Arcy in this regard, truth over prestige.

The significance of Glendon’s refusal is enormous. The most accomplished Catholic laywoman in America — former ambassador of the United States to the Holy See and current president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences — has refused to accept Notre Dame’s highest honor. It is a signal moment for the Catholic Church in the United States. It is a signal moment for the Church’s public witness. It is may even be a signal moment for Notre Dame. What Glendon will not say at Notre Dame will finally be a fitting response to what Gov. Mario Cuomo said there some 25 years ago. [Read on.]

Ed Peters at Canon Law Blog:

I see Dr. Mary Ann Glendon's refusal to provide cover for Notre Dame's inexcusable conferral of honors on a prominent pro-abortion politician as an application of Canon 209.1 "The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church", or of Canon 225.2 "According to each one's own condition, [laity] are also bound by a particular duty to imbue and perfect the order of temporal affairs with the spirit of the gospel and thus to give witness to Christ, especially in carrying out these same affairs and in exercising secular functions."

The evil that ND President Jenkins and his Board of Trustees committed has, Deus laudetur, occasioned one of the most striking displays of episcopal fortitude I can remember, mobilized hundreds of thousands of American Catholics against another quiet surrender to the Culture of Death, and has effected notice to several once great Catholic institutions that it's time, finally, to decide where they stand.

I say, God bless Ambassador Glendon.

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.

AmP predicts Carlson for St. Louis ... now here's what you need to know about him

In March I began receiving reliable reports that Bishop Robert Carlson of Saginaw MI would be the next Archbishop of St. Louis, filling the vacancy left by the mighty Archbishop Raymond Burke, so much so that I said:

"I'm also seeing a particular name rise to the surface in these various reports - which would be extremely exciting for me and good for the Catholic Church in America if he proves to be the one."

Perhaps the appointment was postponed to allow Archbishop Dolan the limelight, and conversely, so that New York would not overshadow the importance of the St. Louis vacancy being filled. Regardless, last night I called Bishop Carlson for St. Louis at about 6PM.

I have some measure of personal experience with Bishop Carlson and here's what you should know:

Bp. Carlson is already a legend among Catholics in Michigan, for the following reasons.

He is a vocations magnet and cultivator par excellance, creating a culture of vocations in his diocese and supporting his candidates through their formation and education. Before he came to the diocese it had not had a vocation for four years. In the past two years Bp. Carlson has ordained eight men and there are more than 20 currently in formation.

He is a passionate defender of life, personally hopping on the bus with the young people of his diocese to attend the March for Life in DC whenever he is able. He will not shy away from speaking out in defense of life - that's a promise.

His episcopal motto is "Ante crucem nihil defensionis," or "Before the cross there is no defense" - I think that says a lot about how he views his episcopal ministry.

I have heard he enjoys a particularly close relationship with Pope Benedict. In 2006 when Carlson was in Rome and Pope Benedict heard about it - the pope cleared his schedule and sent a message to Carlson saying that he wanted to meet with him.

In 2003 Bp. Carlson told Tom Daschle he could no longer call himself Catholic, when he was his bishop.

He moves quickly: look at this seminarian post detailing his second year accomplishments in Saginaw.

He called a Eucharistic Congress in 2007 and has gradually been re-establishing sound liturgical practice in his formerly-liberal diocese of Saginaw.

He started a house of formation in the diocese of Saginaw so that it would not have to be farmed out. He has written four pastoral letters and four other documents. He has founded an order in Columbia which is very close to his heart. He chairs the well-regarded Institute for Priestly Formation.

This interview with Bp. Carlson presents his comments on his 2006 meeting with the pope, and gives a decent glimpse of his pastoral style. This story published just today also should prove useful.

Update: Tomasic takes another swing at Abp. Chaput, strikes out

In response to my post of last Friday, "John Tomasic tries to cast Abp. Chaput in a bad light," the author made a contribution to the comment thread:

You all misread. The original post-writer Tomasic (me) has nothing at all against anyone in the country freely speaking their mind, including Abp Chaput. I object not to speech but to showboating and the politics of Chaput and his pro-life pepsquad, who play into the hands of right-wing political power-seekers, who in their law-making care little for Catholic teaching -- that is, for alleviating the suffering of the sick and the poor and, as you say, especially the helpless. I encourage the Abp to continue to speak out and I encourage others to hold him to account when he does.

In fact, on that matter, I was wondering if Chaput would weigh in on the men held helpless in the U.S. prisons of the War on Terror, the men subjected to the insane abuses, including hundreds of waterboardings, outlined in the CIA torture memos released last week. Predictably, five days after release of the memos, there is nothing from Chaput and there is nothing on this Papist blog about the way the memos reveal the extent to which the culture of life held up by the Church had been violated intentionally and repeatedly by the Bush administration and its thug lawyers and operatives.

Where is Chaput calling for a letter-writing campaign for justice and protest in defense of the rights of the unconvicted prisoners of the CIA? It was the ACLU that sued for release of the memos and encouraged letter writing. Where was the outspoken Bishop? Where was the American papist?

Rather than chase after his red herring argument, I've attempted to refocus the debate:

Let's get to the heart of this disagreement right away. In 3 easy steps:

1) Abp. Chaput believes that abortion is the murder of an innocent, helpless human being. Science agrees - but we don't need to get into that now. For our purposes, Abp. Chaput genuinely believes abortion is murder.
2) There are millions of abortions each year. That means Abp. Chaput believes there are millions of human beings being murdered in the United States every year.
3) Because of 1 & 2, Abp. Chaput believes abortion is the No. 1 moral issue of our age. Because he does not have an infinite amount of time, as much as he sincerely cares about these other issues, he focuses on abortion in a special way when he speaks publicly.

Now do you understand Abp. Chaput's vocal condemning of abortion in this country? Even if you disagree with the science, even if you don't share his faith, can you at least see how Abp. Chaput is *not* "showboating" or "playing into the hands of right-wing political power-seekers" when he tries to prevent the further murder of millions of unborn human beings? He really believes this stuff.

If you can't see how Abp. Chaput's public speech is at least consistent with his internal beliefs, then there's nothing I can really talk to you about. You just don't get it, you don't get him, and you don't get what American Catholics are about in this debate.

As I said in my original post, you don't even try to grapple with what Abp. Chaput is saying. It's said that before one can critique an opponent's position, one must understand it. You haven't demonstrated even understanding what Abp. Chaput is saying. Well, he's been pretty clear about that, if you had bothered to listen.

Maybe my rejoinder lacked charity, but hopefully it contained some needed truth.

After all, it remains a common critique in the public square that whenever a bishop speaks out about the evil of abortion, it is said they are picking and choosing their issues. However, this criticism will always apply no matter what - there will always be some issue a bishop is unable to address, because he only has so many words and so much time. If, for instance, Abp. Chaput were to take up the issue of torture, the criticism could then be made that he has not spoken about the sex-slave trade.

Well, it's true Abp. Chaput has not weighed-in on every single moral issue confronting America today. But what he has spoken about forcefully, abortion, is very important - even the most important issue of our day and age. So let's debate that issue on its own merits.

Tomasic still hasn't tried to do that.

Kmiec's epic fail in Time magazine

When I found out Doug Kmiec had shot out an article for Time magazine in the wake of Pelosi's meeting with Pope Benedict, I geared myself up for yet another point-by-point critique of his flawed arguments.

This time, however, I don't even need to take the trouble, because the entire premise of Kmiec's latest piece is factually in error. To see why, first I will summarize Kmiec's argument.

Kmiec says:

"If you read [the pope's statement to pelosi] carefully, the statement is actually quite radical — perhaps unintentionally so. The brief message — just two short paragraphs — draws no distinction between the moral duties of Catholic policymakers and Catholic judges to work against abortion.

As a lifelong Catholic, Pelosi could not feign surprise at being called upon by the Church to use her gift for persuasion to restrict abortion legislatively, or at least not to be its advocate. But until now, the Church had not formally instructed judges in a similar fashion. As written, the Pope's statement has the potential, at least theoretically, to empty the U.S. Supreme Court of all five of its Catholic jurists and perhaps all other Catholics who sit on the bench in the lower federal and state courts."

Kmiec spends the rest of his time flushing out the implications of Pope Benedict's supposed admonition to "jurists" telling them to, in Kmiec's words "undertake an activist, law-changing role."

Out of this mistaken interpretation, Kmiec tries to create a lose-lose scenario where jurists are stuck between the rock of Peter and the hard place of their judicial oath.

Kmiec next handily provides a solution to his self-created dilemma, saying the Vatican should renege its statement and re-introduce the distinction between jurists and legislators.

.... now comes the reality check: the Vatican statement does include the necessary distinction in terminology.

From an AmP source with extensive experience in Italian legal matters:

"... giuristia is not the word an Italian author would use when referring to a judge. He would use giudice. A giurista is someone who attends to he law as a matter of profession, most frequently a lawyer, or a professor of law. But a giudice is a magistrate who evaluates the merits of an argument in a case or controversy.

In American law, distinctions between words carry great significance; and in Vatican press releases, the spokesmen for the Holy See select their words very carefully. In this instance, the press office elected to use the more vague term giuristi rather than the specific term giudici. However, Kmiec misses this critical distinction."

Kmiec's "missing" of this critical distinction creates his entire argument. Consequently, once it is made clear that the Vatican did use its words right, Kmiec is left out in the cold, actually saying nothing.

Re-reading Kmiec's piece then becomes comical once you realize his premise is false: the statement is not, in fact, "quite radical - perhaps intentionally so" ... it is actually quite logical -intentionally so. The statement is not a "sharp break with the past." The Church's teaching is aware that the responsibility to defend life ought to be "applied in light of the scope of office."

Proceeding in the same vein, someone in the Vatican office did not "in the rush of the event [...] mistakenly included the judicial terminology" ... it was Kmiec who, in the rush of trying to publish in Time, didn't bother to double-check his Italian-language comprehension skills.

(.. and this is the man who hopes to become the U.S. ambassador to the Holy See?!)

So, if Kmiec hasn't actually illumined a "surprising" and "overlooked" aspect of this recent statement, what can we learn from his writing?

I'd offer this observation: Kmiec is predisposed to seeing difficulty and crisis whenever one attempts to bring one's Catholic faith into politics. Because of this pessimism, his initial reaction to the Holy See's communique was not to check his translation or try to understand what the Holy See was saying, but instead to criticize it and call on them to change.

In reality, however, the Church's admonition to public servants is reasonable, is informed, and is livable.

You just have to give it a chance - and yes, even pull out your English-Italian dictionary once in awhile.

The Legion: What is happening behind the scenes?

The short answer, of course, is that we don't know.

Unofficially, from the background chatter I'm hearing, I'd wager a few bets. These hypotheses do not entail any sort of privileged knowledge on my part, just connecting the dots.

First, some sort of "serious clarification" is in the works, but has been delayed, perhaps because they are waiting for the Vatican to "sign off" on it. When will it be released? That's really anyone's guess.

Second, the General Director of the Legion, Fr. Alvaro Corcuera, is talking to the Holy See, and at least some communication is happening with Pope Benedict, although not necessarily directly.

Third, some sort of Vatican visitation of the Legion is going to take place. There remains some question where this will be official or unofficial. It will take a look at Legion operating practice - though it is unclear how broad or deep a mandate this visitation will receive, or who will undertake it.

Fourth, a careful look at the Legion norms will occur, specifically in regards to how they incorporate the writings, "witness" and charism of their founder, Marcial Maciel. It's my speculation that some serious effort will be made to bring them fully into line with canonical norms if they are not.

Fifth, individual members of the Legion and Regnum Christi are re-evaluating their relationship to the movement. Many people have told me they are leaving, some have commented (directly and indirectly) that they never intend to leave, others have not yet decided, and say they are waiting to see how the leadership handles this crisis.

The Sixth, and least knowable, thing happening involves the Legion leadership. Besides the single public statement of Fr. Alvaro, scattered reports of his internal addresses to members, a few odd comments from low-level Legion priests, and a handful of public comments made by Legion spokesman (notable for their problematic nature), we don't have any sort of handle on what the superiors of the Legion are doing.

Illumination on any of these points would be appreciated.

A reaction to Austin Ruse's defense of the Legion

Many AmP readers have asked me to link to Austin Ruse's defense of the Legion which he published last Friday in The Catholic Thing. I have linked to it and, in the interest of forthright discussion, I will bring up several points that strike me after reading it.

I have great respect for Mr. Ruse and his work for C-FAM (which I have promoted often on this blog), and intend with these comments only respond to the arguments he makes for the Legion.

Ruse: "There are souls in Heaven because of the charism of the Legion of Christ and of Regnum Christi."

AmP: This is an imprecise (and even misleading) statement. Obviously, souls are in heaven ultimately by the grace of God. The question at hand is what role did or did not this "charism" play in their salvation? What role can Maciel's spiritual insights and writings play in their lives? It also begs the question to assert that Maciel's charism was "revealed to him by God" - how do we know that it was? The mere fact that Ruse must say "there will be more saints because, and now perhaps in spite, of [Maciel]" should raise concern: charisms, after all, do not assist people towards heaven despite themselves!

Ruse: "The inevitable braying in the media and in the blogosphere is deafening."

AmP: I am happy, of course, to see my name excluded from this list. Dismissing, however, the "braying" does nothing to respond to the sensible criticisms that have also surfaced. If Ruse is attempting to highlight the most visible responses to this crisis, he has excluded several of the important ones (Ed Peters and George Weigel, for instance).

Ruse: "Under the guise of a letter to a friend, which in friendly fashion he released to the blogs, Germaine Grisez calls for an investigation, but assumes the Legion must be dissolved."

AmP: Dr. Grisez's choice to release an open letter was an entirely friendly thing to do if he had serious doubts about the Legion's own internal communication structure, which - after sustained observation - appears highly insular and inefficient. The best way for Legion members to see his suggestions, frankly, was to post them on the internet. Second, Grisez does not "assume" the Legion must be dissolved, he argues for that conclusion saying it is the best way to serve the continuing common good of its members.

Ruse: "Old clubs are being pulled out to beat the Legion."

AmP: 1) Admittedly, there are always people who want to club the Church. But in this case, it's not pulling out clubs to point out LC/RC problems that have been pointed out before. The last two "clubs" are true, 20/20 vision would seem to tell us. And therefore, individuals should be thanked for their courage in pointing these problems out rather than dismissed as having ulterior purposes. 2) On the contrary, Maciel did attract the attention of several popes, including the current pope, who banished him to a life of private prayer and penance. 3) Of course there should be no "glee" in watching the Legion suffer, but there should be relief that issues plaguing it might ultimately be addressed through this painful process. Purification is rarely easy, after all.

Ruse: "[Maciel's] failings do not nullify all the good that [The Legionaries] have done and will do for the Church and for the Kingdom of God."

AmP: True, but the question remains - will they continue to do these good things (or did they perform these good works) for the Church as/because they were Legionaries? Was Maciel's direction essential to their good works? Or rather, is Maciel's ongoing influence, in fact, known to be detrimental to the Legionaries own common good and the good of the universal Church? Might the definitive revelation of Maciel's misdeeds bring about the necessary emancipation of its members from the structure of sin he created to protect himself and further his misdeeds?

Ruse: "When I think of the Legion and Regnum Christi I think of Father Thomas Berg, a faithful Legionary priest who runs a bioethics think tank that is on the cutting edge of public discourse."

AmP: This is an exceedingly odd first choice for Ruse's list of LC/RC shining lights, considering Fr. Berg has actually been very active in working outside the LC/RC structure to assist other members in the movement. And just look at Fr. Berg's own advice to RC members: "If you still find the letters of the founder helpful in prayer, feel free to use them. But it is certainly OK to leave them aside. Remember that in many ways, the spirit and charism we have lived is Pauline. Continue to nourish your spirit on the letters of St. Paul." (So much for exclusively embracing the founder's charism.)

Fr. Berg also goes on to demand from the Legion superiors "nothing less than full transparency regarding the case of Fr. Maciel. Demand that Fr. Alvaro seek an independent third party investigation (perhaps in the form of a temporary review board or Visitation team from the holy see) into uncovering any Legionaries who may have been accomplices to Maciel. Demand that a similar body guide Legionary leadership in introducing any needed reforms into the internal culture, methods and religious discipline of the Legion."

In other words, if Fr. Berg is someone whom Mr. Ruse first thinks of when he thinks of the Legion, it might be good to take seriously what Fr. Berg's own advice has been to the movement in light of the Maciel news (and incredibly inadequate official Legionary reaction). Fr. Berg's reaction, after all, is very different from Mr. Ruse's, and more pragmatic.

Ruse: "[To members:] Remember the good and holy priests and all the members of the movement who are the charism. Ignore the idle chatter. Hew close to the charism. Either it is false and will die, or it is true and will be your guide to Heaven."

AmP: 1) I didn't realize a charism is its membership. If this is true then Mr. Ruse should not object to the Legion dissolving or at least seriously revisiting its foundation. 2) I agree - ignore the idle chatter ... but don't ignore the pure-intentioned advice of the prudent and concerned. 3) If we are using an organic metaphor ("hew close"), I'd say it is better for the movement to lop itself off from the decaying branch of Maciel and re-graft itself firmly into the One Church of Christ (by appealing to Rome publicly), perhaps through a new and living branch. 4) This last line puzzles me. I would say: if this charism is "false", God has issued an invitation and an opportunity for it to be renewed, so that it might be a better guide to Heaven. I would submit that this attitude of "abandonment to providence" (as an alternative excluding personal action, discernment and sacrifice) which Ruse seems to espouse is somewhat culpable for this sorry state of affairs in which many Legionaries now find themselves. If there is one thing which characterizes this crisis, it is the inaction of individuals of authority and responsibility who could have prevented it had they the courage. Please God, let us learn from their mistakes.

A crystallization of what is wrong with the LC response

I missed the import of these lines when I first read them in a Catholic News Service interview with Fr. Paolo Scarafoni, spokesman at the Legionaries’ headquarters in Rome:

Asked how the Legionaries came to know about [Maciel's child], Scarafoni said, “Frankly, I cannot say and it is not opportune to discuss this further, also because there are people involved” who deserve privacy.

{Is it truly concern for the child and her mother that is keeping them from discussing it? They need not give any details about them, they ought to give details about Maciel.}

The pain the Legionaries are experiencing now “is so great precisely because this is something we did not know before,” Scarafoni said. However, he said, “We are serene." ... "At the same time, he said, “there is much gratitude. Our gratitude to him remains very strong because we have received so much that is good from him. This is something we cannot and will not deny.”"

{Cannot and "will not"? Why such obstinate/defensive language? Why serenity that your founder lied to you? For most people, "acceptance" is not the first emotion one reaches when presented with new, shocking news. And why such focus on pain already experienced but so little concern for preventing further pain by listening to the council of concerned observers?}

Scarafoni said the Legion had no plans to apologize to any alleged abuse victims or offer them pastoral care. "They have surely found a way by now to receive adequate care," he said.

{This gets me the most. If ever the allegations of abuse victims should be re-visited, it is now, when Maciel's character has been definitely reveled as suspect. Why not even a second thought about these persons, when everything the Legion has presumed - and taught - about its founder's actions is being called into question?}

This won't do.

Day 4 - A response from the Legionaries? My conclusions.

Almost four days after AmP carried the story that Legionaries founder Marcial Maciel fathered a child with his mistress and led a double life, the Legionaries of Christ and its lay component Regnum Christ have updated their websites with this letter from the new Legion superior, Fr. Alvaro, entitled "In the Wake of Painful News." They have also linked to this Zenit article: "Legion Regrets Founder's Conduct - Congregation Apologizes for Scandal".

The picture at left (taken from the Legionaries news page) illustrates the awkward juxtaposition the Legion finds itself in - on the one hand they have barely finished extolling their late founder in days previous, on the other hand they must explain to their members that Maciel was, for lack of a more descriptive term, a scoundrel.

What they have done so far in response, however, is not adequate to the gravity of the situation, regardless of their apparent desire to see it resolved quickly.

I think significant problems remain when it comes to Maciel, the LC Leadership, and the RC Membership.

Maciel: First, the discovery that Maciel fathered a child with a mistress is the tip of the iceberg. It's very credible from the New York Times story that he also misappropriated Legion money to fund his double life. There may be at least one other child. There have been tenable reports that Maciel abused drugs. And I'm not even mentioning the long-standing allegations of his sexual abuse of minors, which have been surfacing for years.

In fact, there cannot be a sense at this point that we know the full breadth of Maciel's crimes. And because we still don't have the facts on Maciel (for a moment, can you imagine what the canonical process for his canonization would have been like?!) it's premature to think we have even begun the healing process.

LC Leadership: Second, we don't know who (if anyone) in the Legion abetted his immoral activities. I don't see how Maciel could have done these things without anyone covering for him. If he did manage to pull this off solo, this means those around him had no idea what he was doing for significant segments of time. They should have known something was up, especially if he was asking for unmarked bills before taking trips.

Therefore it is evident that a thorough investigation of the Legion leadership is necessary, and yet I see no hints that this is on the Legion's radar, and frankly, I have serious doubts that the Legion is capable of self-diagnosis and treatment on this matter. And needless to say, it is disturbing that outside sources have to be the ones bringing up the question of how Maciel got away with it. The question of how to institutionally fix the patterns of activity that allowed this to happen in the first place should have been raised internally, immediately, and then become part of the Legion's public response. An institution that claims to be surprised that Maciel did these things cannot also claim to be on top of its own affairs.

RC Membership. Third and finally, there is a pastoral crisis facing the Regnum Christi and Legionary memberships, involving how they relate to Maciel, and especially how they absorb these discoveries about his moral depravity. In this task, I don't think they are being helped by their Legionary pastors. And while this is a complicated phenomenon, it boils down to a simple point: the Legion do not have objectivity about Maciel. Their commitment to spreading Maciel's spirituality has become unhealthy because this task now has an insurmountable contradiction to overcome - Maciel's own life.

Let me explain. It is one thing to say [A] "this man was a good person, let us follow his positive example." It is quite another to say [B] "this man was not a good person, let us learn from his example negatively." It's a third thing altogether to instantly switch from [A] to [B], without even admitting that is what is being done. Consequently, until I see some admission from the Legion that this changeover from [A] to [B] must happen (whether it should happen at all is a separate issue), or until Legionary leadership can admit publicly that Maciel did evil things and is not an example of virtue, I must remain seriously doubtful that they can meaningfully be trusted with the flock given over to them.

These are my private opinions. In my reporting, I aim to present an accurate picture - giving equal weight to all sides. I will stay true to this style of coverage in the coming days. Thank you, and I welcome comments.

An open letter to Doug Kmiec (on behalf of the “right-wing Catholic blogosphere”)

Doug Kmiec has published a lengthy article in Commonweal accusing the “right-wing Catholic blogosphere” of perpetrating “unrelenting personal attacks” upon him during the Presidential election cycle.

He calls these conservative Catholic blogs his “online tormentors” comprising a “hate-filled blogosphere” who practice a “politics of odium” and are “preoccupied with demonizing” him, thereby “spinning a web of pervasive falsehood” without even “[indulging] a microsecond of charitable thought before hitting the send button.”

These are very harsh words. Indeed, they are about as harsh as the language he accuses the “right wing Catholic blogosphere” of using when they have criticized him.

Because Kmiec also lumps-in conservative Catholic bloggers in his accusations, and I am myself a conservative Catholic blogger with a sizable readership, I am issuing a public correction in response to his article. I have mentioned Kmiec by name in almost one-hundred blog posts during the election cycle so am well-informed about the situation, which is in dire need of a reality check after Kmiec’s misleading narration.

At the outset, Kmiec makes no distinction between the reasonable criticisms his arguments have received from the shrill hip-shots that also make their way into the blogosphere. Hyperbolic fluff has always been part of the background noise of the blogosphere, but to equate that with the excellent Catholic journalism represented in many blogs is the worst sort of overgeneralizing. It is like complaining that “the press” is persecuting you, and then proceeding to quote exclusively from the National Enquirer gossip pages.

So who exactly are these “right-wing Catholic bloggers”? Is Kmiec referring to popular bloggers such as Amy Welborn, Jeff Miller, Steven Gredanus, Mark Shea, Carl Olson, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, myself (all of whom have blogged about Kmiec)? Together these figures represent a heavy proportion of the Catholic blogosphere’s readership, and yet, having read practically every post they have written on Kmiec, I’m hard pressed to think of a single example of rank uncharity in them. Indeed, I doubt a single one of Kmiec’s infamous quotations will be found on their published pages.

What does that leave? Comment boxes and smaller blogs. Now make no mistake, I’m not denigrating smaller blogs – there are real gems out there and I read many of them. Neither am I defending the uncharitable comments that have doubtlessly been made. But what Kmiec has in essence done is to complain about any instance of uncharity in the blogosphere. Considering how easy it is to publish a blog, it is almost like criticizing free speech. Kmiec is asking that we shut down (or criticize heavily) an open room of vocal Catholics because of a few hecklers.

Kmiec’s choice to only call out the hecklers has allowed him to avoid other legitimate, constructive criticisms of his position. Here he has perfected the art of misdirection by turning the debate away from the issues onto the personal hurt he feels he has received.

For someone who “never thought it was mainly about [him]”, Kmiec spends most of the time talking about himself, long after he apparently gave up pursuing an open debate in a public forum (or any even playing field). Instead he has chosen to portray himself as some sort of martyr in his Catholic support for Obama.

This is exceedingly strange to me, because a universal trait of martyrs is that they do not complain about or bring attention to the fact that they are martyrs. And yet Kmiec says: “I have at times considered the blog calumnies hurled at me as penance for occasions when I have put on a bit of a false front.” Far from offering this persecution up, Kmiec has chosen to wear it on his sleeve. He misses no opportunities of mentioning a time he was denied Communion for his public stance (a decision I condemned) and the loss of many friendships he has suffered (should not that at least give one pause?).

I do not have equal space to respond to each of Kmiec’s claims, but I can briefly respond to a few of them to provide a sense for how he is misrepresenting the true state of affairs.

First, FOCA is not a “wedge” issue between the Church and the incoming Obama administration, as Kmiec asserts. Obama is on record promising that he would sign it into law. Such a statement reveals the President-elect’s character and priorities. If Obama does not support FOCA, he should not have promised to sign it into law. But you will find no instance of Kmiec admitting that either Obama lied (or pandered) to his supporters or Obama really is so extreme in his support of unrestricted access to abortion.

Second, Pope Benedict does not have to personally tell someone to remove a page from their book for them to know their presentation of Church teaching is misleading. Kmiec’s offer to do so is absurd because it will never be taken up, for such interventions are not the task of the pope. It is, however, the responsibility of local bishops to speak out when they think clarification is needed, and yet every time a bishop has done so, Kmiec has either disagreed with them or ignored them. Indeed, dozens of bishops have called into question Kmiec’s distinctive arguments for how a Catholic can support Obama, but unless such admonitions bear the papal seal, Kmiec evidently feels free to disregard it.

Third, Kmiec tries to portray episcopal disagreement with his positions as always a case of misunderstanding or prejudice (aided by that tireless machine of right-wing propaganda, the conservative Catholic blogosphere, Kmiec would claim). In fact, one of Kmiec’s detractors with the highest visibility (as well as the author of a New York Times’ bestselling book on the subject of faithful citizenship), Archbishop Charles Chaput, can hardly be described as ignorant of American political history, reality, or Kmiec’s own position. How does Kmiec respond to this sort of criticism? Again, not with counter-arguments, but with cries of “foul!”. I could go on, but these cases begin to establish a pattern of obfuscation.

In fact, one faces a daunting task when trying to discover any sort of sustained argumentation from Kmiec in his latest Commonweal piece. His claim that he remains “unabashedly prolife” simply cannot stand on its own when he supports a President with a 100% rating from NARAL, who promises his supporters to sign into law FOCA, and has demonstrated no desire to undermine the judicially-established and morally repugnant right to abortion in this country. And when Kmiec relates tales of meeting Obama and having the future President say that he was “left empty until he knelt before the Cross”, and that Kmiec believed him, I am left thinking, “well, that’s wonderful, but Obama will elect pro-abortion supreme court justices.” And regardless, Obama’s personal confessions of spirituality are not an argument, and they will not help the cause of defending unborn life in America.

The preceding is just a taste of the reality check I believe is necessary after Kmiec’s charges. The Catholic blogosphere he describes is something completely alien to my experience, and only exists to the degree that mold clings to a tree. The idea, for instance, that the Catholic blogosphere is too busy demonizing their “brothers and sisters in Christ” who voted for Obama that they take no time to give other matters competent discussion is simply preposterous. Someone who has evidently kept such a close track of the Catholic blogosphere should know better than that. Most Catholic bloggers have moved on and are sincerely, energetically, attempting to continue defending the cause of unborn life as best they can. Kmiec, in contrast, is still nursing old wounds by rubbing off the scabs.

This observation about different perspectives yields my last point. I am willing to admit that some individuals have been too energetic in their condemnation of Kmiec’s positions (I have also argued that they constitute a slim minority when compared to the mainline critique), but Kmiec never seems aware that the motivation behind their over-zealousness is, on the whole, a pure one: they really care about the babies. They really think the babies are more in danger as a result of Kmiec’s support for a candidate who does not believe, as Catholics do, that babies must be protected inside the womb.

Kmiec ends his article by quoting Obama about the necessity of applying the golden rule. I find such a move ironic after Kmiec has spent pages grossly misrepresenting and unfairly describing plenty of sincere souls. One would think he did not even indulge a microsecond of charitable thought before hitting the send button (his words). But what is worse is that he did, and I hope that readers will take more than a microsecond in forming their opinion of what he (and I) have said. But I'll try to give this discussion a little nudge forward....

If Kmiec is so concerned with setting the record straight for posterity (as well as the immediate four-to-eight years ahead), I will offer this: I readily condemn the calumnies he has undergone by the nameless bloggers. He is, of course, also more than welcome to read through the almost one-hundred posts I have written which mention him to see if I am ever guilty of the same. But I ask for this response: that he apologize for the overgeneralizing and wild mischaracterization he has perpetrated against the “right-wing Catholic blogosphere”, who, in my estimation, have actually shown an admirable restraint in their dealings with someone that they genuinely believe is endangering unborn lives and setting a dangerous example of Catholic voting in U.S. democratic elections to come. It is time for Doug Kmiec to practice the golden rule he preaches. +++

update: I am heavily quoted today by CNA on this topic: "Catholic bloggers respond to Kmiec criticism."

The Daschle Glass if Half Empty

Michael Sean Winters, writing for the America blog, has tried to claim that the appointment of Tom Daschle as Secretary of Health and Human Services is a "step in the right direction." As he puts it: "Call me an optimist ... The Daschle glass is half-full, not half-empty."

Well, call me a realist, but I think the Daschle Glass is half-empty, and I'll explain why.

From the outset, Winters misses the point:

The Church in America today is burdened by a group of conservative prelates and laity all of whom seem to be taking their marching orders from the Republican National Committee

I've said it dozens of times: when Catholic bishops speak out on behalf of the unborn they are doing so because abortion is a human rights issue, not a partisan talking-point. Catholic bishops would rejoice to see the pro-life cause energetically embraced by democrats and republicans alike. Winters continues:

The Catholic press and blogosphere are the only outlets that view the Daschle selection through the prism of where he stands on the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).

Well no kidding, that's because the Catholic press and blogosphere actually believe abortion is wrong, and actually believe that Obama might very well try to fulfil one of the promises he made. Catholic press and blogs would be abandoning their commitment to a Catholic perspective on modern social issues if they mirrored the liberal orthodoxy of the age which says abortion is here to stay.

I don't have time to chase down all of Winters' claims about Daschle's supposed teppidness when it comes to abortion. I'll grant that Daschle is not the most extreme supporter of abortion rights ... but he still supports them. Daschle fundraises for NARAL, for pete's sake! Especially around election time. A 50% rating from NARAL doesn't mean he's 50% pro-life, it means Daschle is only half as radically, unequivocally, energetically pro-abortion as they demand.

Winters also takes a cheap shot, quoting Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League on crisis pregnancies, and then saying this in response:

Those are the words of a man who has never spoken with a poor woman facing a crisis pregnancy and who has evidently never read a papal encyclical on social justice. These voices can be counted upon to denounce the Daschle appointment.

Um... excuse me? How does Winters know that? Does a lack of personal experience mean Scheidler can't make prudential decisons? How dare Winters (or Daschle, for that matter) attempt to legislate for things they have not personally experienced?! Oh that's right, all politicians legislate about things they haven't personally experienced. Winter's comment isn't even an argument. And I'd like to see Winters point out to me that "papal encyclical on social justice" where it says abortion is the answer to any social problem. I'll be waiting.

Winters winds down his post with claiming to have originated, or at least pre-dated, the current democrat line which says "Roe v. Wade is here to stay, so the only way to reduce abortions is to make women not want them." Ironically, Winters resumes "Call me an optimist..."

I'm sorry, but what Winters just said sounds incredibly pessimistic. And it's a very sad day indeed when Catholics feel encouraged by the appointment of pro-abortion Catholic politicians to the highest healthcare office in the country, and somehow claim that the rest of us are impeding progress when we voice concern.

AirHeadOpEd

That's the most charitable way I can describe Ann Weaver Hart's article "Catholic Bishops Sow Divison"

The one line of hers I most agree with?

"The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is meeting in Baltimore this week."

She's absolutely right, they sure did!

Everything else she writes? Misinformation along these lines:

The Catholic church has adopted the attitude for centuries, that women who became pregnant in bad circumstances were suffering for their sins, and deserved whatever came their way, including, but not limited to being separated from their infants at birth, living in poverty, and enduring social stigma for either having children outside of marriage or being without them. The neoconservative movement, which tends to believe that poverty is a well-deserved punishment for sin, has agreed, and the two groups have supported “social conservative” candidates whose real agenda has been laissez-faire corporate rape of the country and its citizens.

Reading this, I can't help wonder why orthodox Catholics labor under the stigma of being "ignorant".

It just goes to prove that the only thing you can hate is a caricature of the Church, not the true Church.

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

You can read the text here.

My pull quotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tick, tock, tock.

Results: New Bishop chairs announced + analysis

The results as reported by Whispers:

Conference Secretary:
Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton: 69
Bishop George Murry SJ of Youngstown: 150

National Collections:
Bishop Michael Bransfield of Wheeling-Charleston: 84
Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas: 139

Cultural Diversity:
Coadjutor Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento: 134
Bishop Terry Steib SVD of Memphis: 92

Communications:
Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St Joseph: 97
Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Zavala of Los Angeles: 129

Pro-Life Activities:
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston: 165
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City-St Joseph: 59

Doctrine:
Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington: 140
Bishop Jerome Listecki of LaCrosse: 85

I don't know how to evaluate the claim made by some that these elections to bishops chairs are "politically influenced" - i.e., popular bishops get elected and unpopular ones don't. While that certainly seems like a very human temptation, I tend to disbelieve it actually obtains here in any serious way.

At any rate, some gut reactions:

• No comment on the first two
• Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas was a very outspoken bishop and won comfortably
• Coadjutor Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento has dished out some needed truths himself
• Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Zavala of Los Angeles over Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St Joseph is perhaps the most interesting. Finn is a firebrand on behalf of life, while Zavala - not so much.
• Similarly, Naumann joined his words with Finn .... but DiNardo is no lightweight himself
• Wuerl for Doctrine seems straightforward enough, he's articulate and knows his stuff

And just to shut down one line of disagreement at the outset: I'm not trying to evaluate the "goodness" of these bishops based only on how vocally they preach the Church's teaching about unborn life.

However, the other side will be going over these chair elections with a fine-tooth comb trying to do the opposite - saying that whenever an outspoken bishop isn't chosen, somehow the American bishops are shunning them. I don't think that is the case. And either way, it's best to know a little bit about their records.

Doug Kmiec has seen my YouTube interview

Or so Kmiec implies in the public letter he wrote to Abp. Chaput yesterday (who has responded here).

You can watch the YouTube interview Kmiec refers to right here. Now that we know what the political future holds, it is helpful to see where Abp. Chaput predicts the cultural and religious future of our nation is headed.

As for Kmiec's 11th-hour letter to the Archbishop, I have a few observations:

• I dislike his tone. This is not a dinner party disagreement. Human lives are literally at stake in this debate.
• Kmiec ignores the issues he can't handle. He has his own idea of what this debate is about, and constantly refuses to move away from his talking points. This is not what happens in a debate - this is instead a propaganda tactic. Has he ever spoken about FOCA, for instance?
• Kmiec calls for collaboration in what is already happening and Catholics are already doing, as if he had thought of the idea. Supporting women who face problem pregnancies? Check. Finding ways to make adoption an alternative over abortion? Check. A Human Life Amendment? (seriously?!) Well, check that too. Sure, more could be done in these three areas - but Obama is against many of these proposals and they will be harder to achieve when he is President! How can Kmiec hope for these when the candidate whom he supports is against them? It's schizophrenic. I simply don't see the logic here.

And as for Kmiec's comment that "Intemperate language and hyperbolic argumentation may play well on the blogs", two things:

• There might be intemperate language and hyperbolic argumentation out there. But there is also sound, logical critique - critique that Kmiec has never been able to answer to my satisfaction. I should start a counter for every time he claims to be a martyr and treated unfairly when people disagree with him or criticize his position. A man of his experience shouldn't need me to tell him to get over it and move on.
• I'd be happy to debate or interview Doug Kmiec in person anytime he wants. How's that?

Finally, see my 4th conclusion that I write about in this post. That prediction is now a reality....

update: stop the presses, Archbishop Chaput has responded himself.

My thoughts about the 2008 election

I have been covering the 2008 presidential election since its beginning, striving always to provide a personal perspective informed by, and faithful to, the teachings of the Catholic Church.

In this brief calm tonight before tomorrow's storm, here are the top five conclusions I've drawn:

1. Obama's record and philosophy disqualifies him from being an acceptable Presidential candidate. He is unapologetically pro-choice, and for all his talk about moving on and changing politics as it is currently practiced, his solution to the problem of abortion is to completely and unilaterally decide in the favor of the abortion-on-demand crowd. More than that, his party platform and promises would force Catholics to help fund abortions, and his policies on embryonic stem cell research and other biomedical issues will pose a grave threat to the practice of Catholic ethical health care in America.
2. McCain is not a perfect candidate - far from it, he is flawed on the issue of embryonic stem cell research and not-quite-perfect on the issue of abortion. But he is, in a distinct sense, the lesser evil, and compared to the prospect of an Obama presidency, is the better choice. I could go on about his other policies, but they are matters of reasonable debate - the positions of Obama on life issues, however are not open for debate. They are so deeply flawed that they preclude our vote, and Catholics must shape the public debate by sending a strong message to pro-choice candidates that this will not be tolerated.
3. The American bishops have spoken. Well over one-in-three have chosen to conspicuously remind their followers about the importance of life issues in the weeks leading up to this election. Nor is this a coincidence - they know exactly what they are doing and what they are risking. Those bishops who have attempted to re-assert a (false) spectrum-of-issues argument can be counted on one hand, and hail from some of the most liberal and dysfunctional dioceses (and no, I'm not using the terms synonymously) in the country. We can expect a heated and urgent debate in a week when the bishops convene in Baltimore to discuss the fall-out of the misinterpretations of Faithful Citizenship spread by pro-Obama catholics. Sadly, I fear it will be precisely one week too late. But we hope for the future, and the next election.
4. Pro-Obama Catholics will remain with us into an Obama presidency. And we must hold these people accountable. By this I mean we have to hold them to the promises they have made the Catholic faithful about the reduction of abortions which they claim Obama's presidency will bring about, as well as a whole range of other predictions. They are on record, we have read their statements, and the burden is on them. Don't get me wrong - faithful Catholics will never cease in their efforts to defend the unborn, but as the waters rise, it is the pro-Obama Catholics who claimed we didn't need the levees.
5. Election controversies are faith controversies. Politics does not occur in a vacuum, and it is not separated from our Catholic faith. Disagreements arise (indeed, sometimes in a conflagration) more often in politics because it's impossible to ignore the opposing results that different understandings of our faith bring about in the real world and in practical day-to-day matters. "Do you believe, as the Church teaches, that abortion is a grave moral evil that Catholics must do everything in their power to eliminate, and quickly?" How you answer that question will effect how you vote. Or again, "Do you believe we must listen carefully to our bishops when they speak out on issues of justice?" These two questions are just a start.

I could go on, but there will be so many last-minute op-eds published today that I'm content to stop here.

If you haven't voted yet, go vote. It's an obligation for Catholics. Oh - and pray, and fast.

Those last two we can do the whole year round. To start, it's going to be a long Advent this year....

And, needless to say, I'm eager to learn what you've observed as well. We have time before the polls close.

From Thomas Reese, SJ .... nothing new.

Over at Busted Halo Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ succeeded in fooling me into excitement for about as long as it took me to read beyond the first line of his article "Something New in the Abortion Debate":

"After decades of debate over abortion, something new has occurred this year."

Unfortunately, what follows is a catalogue of the old. AmP readers have already seen me respond to each and every argument Reese proposes, because Reese simply repeats what has already been offered by the Catholic pro-Obama advocates.

A brief highlight reel:

"after many years of insisting that abortion be legal and safe, the Democrats are finally emphasizing that it should be rare"

Nope: they actually removed that language (and added a promise to fund all abortions sought).

"The traditional pro-life strategy has been to try to make abortion illegal."

Nope - this is a falseminimilization of the comprehensive pro-life movement (see: Amy Welborn).

"A small group of Catholic pro-lifers, exemplified by Douglas Kmiec and Nicholas Cafardi, has concluded that criminalization is a failed strategy.

Nope - the bishops disagree.

"[they say]the most successful strategy to actually reduce the number of abortions is to vote for Democratic candidates."

Nope - and *blech* - prove it. You can start by responding to this.

"there is no difference between the positions of McCain and Obama on stem cell research and gay marriage."

Nope - McCain is certainly different on the question of embryonic stem cell research.

"they are a small minority among bishops since there are over 180 other dioceses where Biden is welcomed to go to Communion."

Nope - outright denying Communion, maybe, not speaking out against Biden? Plenty.

At this point Reese actually switches over to quoting Catholic pro-Obama websites. I guess we can conclude that he identifies and supports their arguments. But at least he has the honesty to say:

"If the Democrats do not deliver, the pragmatic pro-lifers [what Reese calls himself] will be left out on a limb."

But, let it be noted, it's not just Reese & Co. who will be left out on a limb if the "democrats do not deliver" - it will be hundreds of thousands of children cut off from the tree of life.

That, too - sadly - is nothing new.

National Catholic Reporter editors endorse Obama, and I lose it

Well, in effect.

Here's how the editors of NCR begin:

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

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

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

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

And all this crosses a line. How dare they.

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

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

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

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

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

How dare they.

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

Charles Krauthammer on not voting Obama

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

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

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

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

A final reflection for today

I've thrown alot of material up on the blog today - 8 posts on the election alone. Let's get concise.

I think what SDG said reflects accurately the opinion many observant, thoughtful Catholics are forming:

1. John McCain does not deserve your vote.
2. If Obama loses — to anyone — it will be a victory for life.

Even for those who admit the truth of 1, it's almost impossible to get around the urgency of 2.

And I think 3 logically follows.

But for Wales?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Myth: Catholic grassroots support Obama

"Suddenly, Obama is the natural choice for Catholics."

That's the only way I can describe the message being spread by numerous pro-Obama Catholic websites, organizations and a few prominent figures. I would submit this is the perfect example of a snowball phenomenon, made possibly by large amounts of money.

First of all, while such arguments have been circulating since shortly after Obama clinched the nomination, they have rapidly crystallized and have mutually supported each other's emergence in the recent couple weeks, timed perfectly to sway the decision of 11th-hour independent voters, of whom, apparently Catholics comprise a significant majority, especially in crucial swing states.

Whether planned or spontaneous, the end result is masterful. First, Doug Kmiec dipped his toe into the waters to test what the reaction would be to his public endorsement of Obama. The reaction, after he was (mistakenly) denied communion, was becoming a psuedo-martyr for his conscience and cause, a noble attempt to try a different way and give Obama a chance. Soon his boldness grew - an Obama vote morphed from an "acceptable" or "arguable" one, into the "natural" and even "obvious" one, one that could be made without "even a moment's consideration." There was a crack in the dam.

Because timidity does not win arguments where one is unsure of one's position, subsequent Obama endorsements by Catholics have been very strong, even directly challenging and/or mocking of the traditional thinking on this topic. Obama's desire to repeal all restrictions on abortion is actually the path towards reducing abortions. Obama's own admission that Roe v. Wade hangs in the balance (a classic line used historically to scare women into voting democrat) is ... an enlightened approach that legislation is not the way to reduce abortion (indeed, Obama's legislative approach seems to be geared towards increasing abortion access). Obama's 100% rating by NARAL and 0% rating by the NRL is simply an expression that he is beyond the old politics of divisiveness and partisanship. Obama's criticism that McCain isn't enough in favor of expanding the creation and killing of embryos ... well, we won't talk about that.

As you can see, the argument of the pro-Obama Catholics has to be very focused, and simply cannot respond to the counter-arguments. This is a particular application of the general (successful) campaign principle "never answer the question." As long as they decide what aspects of the Church's social teaching are to be observed, their candidate will always come out ahead.

Stage two has been the proliferation of this tactic with big money, and I mean *really* big money, and the apread of the message through the media, whos eemingly ahve the pro-Catholic Obama spokespersons on speed dial. Once again, they get to create the narrative, and it remains unchallenged. It's the classic methodology of propaganda - be omnipresent and persistent.

Catholics should be wary of this outreach for several reasons. Here is one of the most significant ones I think: it completely cuts out the American bishops, treating them like "middle men". Only the bishops aren't "middle men", we believe they are the guardians of the Church, and ought to play a significant role in forming the conscience of Catholics. Their position has been very clear, and I think some of their best are quickly getting wise to what is going on. The old silence doesn't work when the void is being filled with the chatterings of pro-Obama catholics. Regardless, the fact that the luminaries of the Catholic pro-Obama cause categorically refuse to dialogue with American bishops and other Catholic intellectuals is very telling.

After all, they will still direct mailings to hundreds of thousands of Catholics in battleground states.

Have no doubts about it. I think we are seeing a new thing here. A persistent, organized, well-funded attempt to hijack the social teaching of the Catholic Church among the next generation of Americans. If it proves as successful as I think it will be this election cycle, it will remain, by merit of its success, an active force in the next election, and so on. A response must be made, and the first step towards that response is admitting that a battle of interpretations is already taking place, and we are losing it.

update: in a similar vein, SDG asks "Who gets to say what is Catholic?"

In the spotlight: Pro-Obama Catholics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He sandwiches this point around two statements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New polling claims Younger Christians becoming more liberal

I received an initiation to participate in a conference call yesterday explaining the results of new polling data acquired by the "progressive" religions group Faith in Public Life (founded after the '04 elections), on young evangelicals and Catholics. Unfortunately prior duties prevented me from participating.

The results are online here (PDF).

I have something to say in response to each one of their conclusions.

But, because this is a topic very close to myself and one of the ongoing goals of AmP (to provide news, quality commentary and content for young Catholics living in America), I'll probably spend a bit more time on this report and try to get something on it published (you'll hear about that when it happens).

In the meantime, what are your observations?

Related previous AmP topics:

• Commentary: If Liberal Catholicism is Dead, then the Youth Killed It (May 7)
• Report: "Younger Catholics Becoming Increasingly Liberal, Studies Show" (February 17)
• Cardinal Pell on the signs of hope among young conservative Catholics (May 2006)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Her second major mistep, the subtitle to her article:

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

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

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

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

Doug Kmiec's lesson learned, and mine

I'm going to make this post as simple as possible so hopefully it will retain a sharp focus.

Doug Kmiec, the most notable Catholic with a previous pro-life record who publicly supports Barack Obama, has published an excerpt from his new book about voting for Barack Obama as a Catholic. This excerpt tells the story of an event that took place in April where he was denied communion for his public support of Barack Obama.

I'm not going to get into that here, because others have already done so.

At the end of telling his story, Kmiec concludes (underlining mine):

"Perhaps there was a Providential hand at work using [this event] to teach a lesson to a larger congregation. The lesson? Any Voter Guide even hinting at a Catholic duty as a matter of faith and morals to vote against Senator Obama is seriously in error."

Now that is quite a claim.

Kmiec himself admitted, in his famous coming-out-for-Obama article in Slate:

"Beyond life issues, an audaciously hope-filled Democrat like Obama is a Catholic natural."

Now hold on a second. "Beyond life issues"? That should give us pause. Kmiec is of course referring to Obama's extreme stance on abortion rights, embryonic stem cell research, etc. But do the American bishops also say Obama's positions should give us pause? Do they hint at it? Let's see....

First, Faithful Citizenship (PDF), the most recent Voting Guide from the American bishops, says:

"A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position." (#34)

Okay, so already above we have one example of the official voting guide of the American bishops describing a way in would be a Catholic duty, as a matter of faith and morals, to not vote for Senator Obama. So does that mean the American bishops are "seriously in error"? Maybe not...

Second quote from Faithful Citizenship:

"A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support." (#42)

Here now is a second situation in which the official voting guide of the American bishops describes a situation (applicable here) where one may "legitimately" disqualify Obama. So here the American bishops, to use Kmiec's words, "hint" at what could be a Catholic duty. So would Kmiec consider the American bishops "seriously in error" for even hinting this?

Third quote from Faithful Citizenship, from their "Goals for Political Life" (p. 29):

We hope Catholics will ask candidates how they intend to help our nation pursue these important goals:

• Address the preeminent requirement to protect the weakest in our midst—innocent unborn children—by restricting and bringing to an end the destruction of unborn children through abortion.

Note that the first question they teach Catholics should ask their candidate is how they intend to protect innocent unborn children by means of restricting or bringing an end to abortion.

Obama would actually repeal current restrictions (by signing the "Freedom of Choice" act as his "first act as President") and has committed himself, in pursuing the platform of the DNC, to never bring an end to abortion. He fails 2 out of 2.

Therefore, one could reasonably argue, the official Voting Guide of the American Bishops more than "hints" that it might be a Catholic duty as a matter of faith and morals to vote against Senator Obama, making them, by Kmiec's own conclusion, "seriously in error."

I know what the response to the above argument will be: "But the Church will never choose parties, candidates or tell us who to vote for!" That's right, but they sometimes hint. If they didn't even hint, we would have absolutely no guidance for how to vote, but we do. Stating a general principle that (incidentally but obviously) applies to a particular candidate is hinting.

Kmiec could have played it safe, but he didn't. He may have learned his lesson, but it's a wrong one.

Oh, and for good measure, one could also make the case that this Voting Guide gives hints that McCain could be an unacceptable candidate (e.g., for his support of embryonic stem cell research).

As I hope is clear, this is not an anti-Obama post. This is an anti-Kmiec-sophism post.

So what lessons did I learn? Kmiec thinks the Voting Guide of the American bishops is seriously in error, and Kmiec's support of Obama has forced him to propose more and more untenable arguments.

update: and just to take one example of a local bishop also making the sort of "hints" that Kmiec would claim are "seriously in error", see this Voting Guide (PDF) issued by Bishop William Lori, Diocese of Bridgeport, CT and Chair of the USCCB Committee on Doctrine:

"... while Faithful Citizenship acknowledges that one may vote for a politician who supports pro-abortion policies “only for truly grave moral reasons,” a conscientious voter must question what grave moral issue rises to the level of nearly 49 million lives lost to the evil of abortion."

And there are many, many others like this.

Where is Kmiec getting his lessons?!

Time Mag. asks: "Does Biden Have a Catholic Problem?"

The short answer is, of course - yes, he does.

{update: forgetful me - here's the article link.}

There's so many little quibbles I have with this piece, I've decided to go point-by-point first:

• Abp. Chaput did not get "marginalized in the bishops conference — losing key leadership elections — in part because of his extreme views about denying communion to politicians."
• "[the recent actions of the bishops] has Catholics Democrats worriedly asking themselves: Can one of their own ever again win national office?" The answer is: yes, if they stop allowing/promoting abortion.
• "[Kerry] was utterly unprepared for the attacks that came his way." No, he had his entire public career to prepare himself, if he had even bothered to understand his Church's teaching.
• "[Kerry] left unchallenged the idea that he was a bad or insincere Catholic." Actually, he tried to act like he was a Catholic in good standing - that's what got him in the biggest trouble.
• "Biden also benefits from the work of progressive groups like ... Catholics United." An organization that I exposed as a liberal front-group some time ago. Seriously - who are they fooling? (Besides writers for Time?)
• "And some conservative Catholics are speaking out as well, venting their disappointment with Bush policies that have not reflected Catholic social teaching and with the Republican Party's focus on overturning Roe v. Wade as the only way to address the abortion issue." Ah, finally, a meaty argument tucked-in an innocuous paragraph. But disappointment in one party does not mean one will vote for the other, or that - overall - it is the more palatable choice. The GOP is certainly far from perfect, but is the DNC better?

Okay, now that we've the little things off the table, let's jump into the last two paragraphs. Reading them, I'm once again amazed how unobjective journalists can be on this topic (and how their editors can let them get away with it). Let me explain what I mean:

The second-to-last paragraph tries to make the claim that there is an "inconsistency" in the bishops' public stance on moral issues. The only proof for this claim is an interview given by Abp. Chaput about the topic of McCain's support (background) for embryonic stem cell research.

But wait a minute, the same author (Amy Sullivan) began her article by dismissing Abp. Chaput's views as extreme and isolated. Now which is it? Are we to listen to Chaput or not? Apparently we can dismiss his pro-life advocacy because he is, well, isolated, but we must take note of his lack-of-extreme criticism of McCain on the topic of embryonic stem cell research. Moreover, Chaput's supposed-waffling (I have not reviewed the tape to corroborate Sullivan's charecterization), is somehow supposed to undermine the combined teaching of the 27/13 bishops who have spoken-out against Pelosi/Biden.

The last paragraph then blithely goes on to claim that the entire proceeding discussion is irreleveant because "[the democrats] are already poised to improve on Kerry's support from Catholic voters, whose top issues this year have been the economy and national security instead of hot-button moral issues."

So why did the author feel she had to ask if Biden has a Catholic problem in the first place? Evidently, the future is already secure. So her answer, I guess, is "no he doesn't". But just in case he does:

"Even so, Catholic Democrats can't afford to look like the kids in the corner who don't know their Catechism. In the future, they might want to resist the temptation to wade into theology and stay firmly in the world of policy."

That's right, don't engage your faith, don't have that faith inform your policy. Ask fellow Catholics to follow you not because of how you've acted, but because of who you just "are."

Yep, no problem here.

update: This has been edited-down and cross-posted to the CatholicVote.com blog.

Open thread: Kerry v. Biden

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

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

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

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

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

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

May they be commended, and the Holy Spirit thanked.

Stevens-Arroyo's inexplicably flippant - and uninformed - Pelosi commentary

Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, contributing to the Washington Post/Newsweek blog On Faith today, demonstrates an extraordinary ability to gravely miss the point of Pelosi's comments, and do so glibly.

First, the glib:

"After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke about the abortion issue in a television interview, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington issued a clarifying statement.

Rather than a put-down as some had expected, however, the Archbishop did a dance with her."

Oh, isn't that cute. They're doing a little dance together. One problem: they're dancing around the issue of abortion.

Next, missing-the-point:

In the interview, Pelosi had said that the Democratic Party's position reflected the religious pluralism of the country.

Wrong. Pelosi did not make claims about the Democratic Party's position on abortion. She made claims about the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion. If she had made claims about the Democrat Party's position on abortion, there would have been nothing to talk about. In fact, she went beyond that and made (erroneous) claims about the Catholic Church.

That's why the bishops responded. This is a fundamental point, and Stevens-Arroyo completely misses it.

More missing-the-point by Stevens-Arroyo:

The House Speaker had talked about the scientific dimension of the issue: the Archbishop emphasized the theological (or metaphysical) definition. They were moving in lock-step but in different directions - just like partners in a dance.

Wrong again. In regards to abortion and the question of when life begins, part of the theological point is that scientifically one can know that human life begins at conception. They aren't moving in "different directions" - they are approaching the same truth from different perspectives.

Even more missing-the-point by Stevens-Arroyo:

Other bishops continue to repeat the theological opinion, which of course they should do. However, while theologians can speak authoritatively about the need to respect the moment of conception, it is "above their pay grade" to put on a biologist cap and define scientifically when that moment occurs.

First of all, using Obama's infamous "above my pay grade" line isn't going to win you any friends among rational, informed Christians. Second, wrong: this was exactly the point of Cardinal Egan - being Catholic doesn't make you automatically incapable of doing science, no matter that Pelosi tried to claim a disingenuous scientific agnosticism about the time when life begins at the same time as proposing a false theological relativism when confronted with the question of when this life deserves protection. (Honorable-mention third point: Pelosi didn't limit herself to defending early abortions, she also brought in second, and third-trimester abortions.)

Now, not just missing-the-point, but being actively wrong, by Stevens-Arroyo:

Fertility doctors, who are the experts on this matter, distinguish between a "fertilized egg" and "conception." Only when the embryo is implanted in the womb does it achieve conception, they say.

Notice, first, how the opinion of fertility doctors is supposed to be some sort of trump card. Second, this is not a grammatical question of what one considers a "conceptus." The Church defines conception as the moment of fertilization. And Stevens-Arroyo would be hard pressed to argue that the conceptus undergoes some sort of radical change simply by merit of being physically in the womb as opposed to the fallopian tube.

Now, on top of being wrong, being wrong about what the Church teaches, by Stevens-Arroyo:

Now, Catholic teaching instructs us that even if an embryo is not yet conceived, it has that potential.

Show me where the Church teaches that a "conceptus" is not an embryo. You can't. I'll put it another way, more clearly: embryos do not have the potential to be conceived, they are the result of being conceived.

Back to simply missing-the-point, by Stevens-Arroyo:

Unfortunately, this avoids the real issue for bishops and politicians alike: Does Catholic teaching bind non-Catholics?

That, actually, is a separate question. If Pelosi had kept herself to that sort of discussion, no correction would have been immediately and urgently required. Instead, she decided to claim that Catholic teaching does not bind Catholics. (Seriously, how hard is this?)

More missing-the-point, by even wider margins:

Are Catholic voters obliged by their bishops to take away the right of Protestants (or Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.) to practice their religion (or atheists to be atheists) in the U.S.?

Honestly, this is so far off topic that it's not even worth chasing.

The rest of the essay trails off along these confused lines, but a couple further line do deserve a highlight:

However, so as long as the bishops give theological answers to political questions, they expose our faith to confused charges of infidelity to the American way.

Stevens-Arroyo is here guilty of the tired separation of church-and-state dualism which claims a question can only be theological or political, and never both (i.e., informed by both). In fact it was Pelosi who trespassed into theological territory when she claimed to present the teaching of the church. She was the one who exposed "our" faith to ridicule and dissemination.

Finally, as a laughable conclusion to this travesty of a commentary:

Speaker Pelosi is no dummy: she spoke correctly from her perspective, just as the Archbishop did from his. It would be a service to Catholics everywhere if the bishops articulated more clearly the need to distinguish between theological teaching and political decision-making.

It's like we're talking about a different person, and reading different words uttered by that person. She did not speak correctly from her perspective - because she spoke as a Catholic. How one can possibly take Pelosi-Gate as an example of bishops failing to make distinctions is simply beyond me. It was they who re-established the destinction after Pelosi had made a mess of it all.

The author's flippant sign-off:

Keep Catholic political leaders and bishops on the dance floor of the public square, I say! The public needs to see the careful intricacy we undergo in living within our shared Catholic conviction. I think the two concerns of theology and democracy can make beautiful music together.

It's one thing to be wrong. It's another, worse thing to be flippantly wrong about issues as grave as abortion, the malicious deceits of Catholic pro-abort politicians, and the response of lay people and Catholic bishops who are trying to instruct the Catholic faithful in this atmosphere of ignorance, self-interest and ... joking.

I've refrained from doing much research into Stevens-Arroyo's other published commentaries. This isn't a hit piece, after all. It's simply a point-by-point illustration of the errors in this piece of his writing.

I do have to add, however, that his June 17th column is titled "When Popes Go To Far" and argues for women priests against the 1994 teaching of Pope John Paul II. So maybe he makes a habit of missing the point when it comes to Catholic teaching.

... can someone explain to me again why Newsweek/Washington Post goes to him for "Catholic commentary"?

[Photo credit: DAVID KIDWELL/Pocono Record]

update: my counter-points are well-supported by today's press release by the U.S. Bishops.

Commentary: Pelosi visits Hiroshima memorial

Today Nancy Pelosi visited a Hiroshima memorial in Japan and laid flowers.

When asked how she justified the decision to drop the nuclear bomb, she responded:

Pelosi: "I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said only when you need to. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the President's right to nuclear bomb. The UN talks about very clear definitions of when you can nuclear bomb, certain considerations; long-term war; not so shorter war. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about nuclear bombing on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that the President has to make with his military advisors and his god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when you can nuclear bomb. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided..."

Interviewer: "The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it..."

Pelosi: "I understand that."

Interviewer: "... nuclear bombs are never to be used..."

REP. PELOSI: "I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that."

Oh wait, she actually didn't attempt to defend that mass murder.

Pelosi-Gate: Decision Day

Today is a critical juncture in the struggle between Nancy Pelosi et al. and the American bishops over what it means to be a Catholic in America today.

Pelosi-Gate has been covered in the last 24 hours by the Associated Press, Reuters, Drudge, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh & Bill O'Reilly. People already know where the debate stands, and are waiting to see what happens next.

This is a unique situation for two reasons: a) Pelosi's comments are absurd enough that they bring several long-simmering issues to a boiling-point and b) so far, Pelosi has received public correction from the American bishops. In other words, the bishops have every reason to continue taking advantage of this unprecedented teaching opportunity. They have the stage, an attentive audience, and a winning position.

Furthermore, in authorizing her spokesman to release a statement defending her position, Pelosi has tossed the ball back into the American bishops' court. She has said, in essence: "No, I was right, and you were therefore wrong to correct me."

The next few days (and honestly, given today's news cycle, the next 24 hours) will determine whether her bluff is called, or if she and her ilk are permitted to continue deceiving Americans about what their Catholic faith actually means in the American public forum.

The bishops have already made the most difficult step: they have started a public conversation with Pelosi on a critically-important topic. They now benefit from a different type of inertia than the one they are perhaps used to - namely, the positive inertia of already being in the debate as opposed to the negative inertia of not having said anything at all.

Their actions, of course, have already drawn fierce criticism from exactly the sort of people who we counted on raising the alarm. But the bold words of the bishops have also drawn vocal, immediate support and praise from sincere ardent, practicing Catholics. Backing down now would be a greater victory for Pelosi's deceits than allowing her comments to go unopposed in the first place.

So please, don't stop while you're ahead. After all, we are so rarely ahead.

update: Phil Lawler brilliantly outlines the ways in which Pelosi has (unintentionally) performed a huge favor for the cause of respecting unborn life in America. There is also at least one possible sign that the American bishops do not intend to let this conversation end with this unsatisfactory conclusion.

Pelosi and the Flat Earth Society

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today tried to base her dissent from authoritative Church teaching on an isolated ancient century text of St. Augustine.

On a whim, I decided to look through the various times Pelosi has mentioned her Catholic faith when debating moral issues. I quickly found this instance, where she is arguing for the legalization of RU-486, commonly known as the "abortion pill."

Look how she criticizes Mr. Coburn of Oklahoma who wishes to defend the unborn:

"I certainly respect the gentleman's religious beliefs and understand them, as a Catholic, myself, and mother of five, grandmother of four, and that we do not think abortion is a good thing...

... [but] the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is starting to have this body, this room, this Chamber, look like the Flat Earth Society again, Mr. Chairman.

We have our Flat Earth Society days around here, and this appears to be one of them." (source: house.gov)

The Flat Earth Society, broadly-speaking, is a Christian-related ideological group that refuses to admit the findings of modern science.

... much like Pelosi's position on abortion is a Christian-related ideological position that refuses to admit the findings of modern science, let alone the authority and constant tradition of the Catholic Church.

I guess Pelosi is having one of her Flat Earth Society days.

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

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

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

Let me illustrate:

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

But one more shoe needs to drop...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I refuse to join Catholics United

Today, upon the occasion of Joe Biden's selection as Barack Obama's vice-presidential candidate, I received a press release from the executive director of Catholics United, which claims to be a ...

"non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting the message of justice and the common good found at the heart of the Catholic Social Tradition."

I wish I could agree this is in reality the case. First, let's take a look at their press release, briefly:

"Catholics United believes Senator Biden’s selection as vice presidential candidate is a positive development for Americans who respect leaders who have strong religious, family, and personal values. Senator Biden’s well-known commitment to his Catholic faith has inspired his advocacy on issues such as genocide, universal health care, education, workers’ rights, and violence against women. His faith has helped him to find solace during times of tragedy and crisis.”

Notably absent: defense of the unborn. I'm sorry, but nothing is closer to the "heart of the Catholic Social Tradition" than the dignity and right of all human beings to life. Next:

“We are optimistic that Senator Biden’s history of seeking practical means of addressing abortion will help move our nation beyond the divisive, acrimonious, and unproductive debate that has come to surround the issue. Senator Biden accepts his church’s teachings on human life and can work to advance these teachings in ways that Americans of all political persuasions can support.”

Biden's "practical means of addressing abortion" have been, historically, to allow and never restrict it. His choices continue the debate on abortion because he has not actually helped "address" the problem at all.

Now here's my favorite paragraph:

“Catholics United is especially hopeful that operatives on the far right will refrain from using Senator Biden’s faith and the teachings of the Catholic Church as political weapons in the coming campaign. Faith and values should be used to unite Americans behind solutions to the key challenges of this age – war, poverty, lack of health care, and a looming climate crisis – and not as partisan wedges to divide voters.”

You've got to be kidding me. Clearly this organization defines the "heart of the Catholic Social Tradition" to be silencing the actual "teachings of the Catholic Church," ignoring the need to live one's faith even in the public forum, and excluding the defense of human life from the "key challenges of this age."

For an organization that claims to be non-partisan, why exactly does everything in these three paragraphs seem like it is lifted directly from this year's democrat playbook on faith and religion?

Not convinced? The author of this press release, Chris Korzen...

• recently took part in a Democratic conference call (along side promininant pro-Obama Catholic Douglas Kmiec) to prepare for the upcoming national convention. [source]
• is the guy behind the defunct "Catholic Voting Projet", which Karl Keating accurately pointed out claimed to be run by "nonpartisan," [indeed - 'committed' Catholics] but their web site has a clear bias in favor of John Kerry." Karl Keating systematically destroys Korzen's claims to be non-partisan and "Catholic".
• frequently tries to marginalize conservative Catholics, claiming them to be GOP shills.
• writes for ultra-liberal Huffington Post claiming that McCain is getting a free ride for flirting with pro-abortion politicians, and this somehow shows that he isn't truly pro-life.
• again, writes for ultra-liberal Huffington Post, this time claiming "Extremists Pressure Catholic Bishops to Use Communion as Political Weapon"

Okay, enough links. My point: Chris Korzen is yet another liberal democrat masquerading as a "non-partisan/big-tent" Catholic.

Honestly, just look through the Catholics United recent posts and try to find a single post that isn't critical of republicans and supportive of democrats.

(All of this is bad enough, but I really start scratching my head when Catholics United and Chris Korzen are uncritically included, for instance, in CNS blog coverage ... did they do no research?)

I don't get angered by liberals disagreeing with the social teachings of the Church. I don't get especially angered at Catholics dissenting from the teachings of the Church, as long as they admit they are dissenting. But I do get angry, and cannot tolerate, when liberal Catholics falsely claim their opinions to be in harmony with the Church's social teaching when in fact they are not.

That's really the only reason Catholics United deserves any of my time. And I refuse to join them.

Are ex-Anglicans getting stonewalled by liberal Catholics?

Allright, time to dip into some deeper waters now. I hope you've had your afternoon coffee.

Rod Dreher poses the question:

Do ex-Anglicans make the wrong kind of Catholics? You know, the kind who really believe the Catechism? I ask for two reasons. One, the Dallas Morning News reports today that priests of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth have been inquiring of the city's Roman Catholic bishop about their diocese coming over to Rome en masse, so to speak. No report on how the RC bishop, Kevin Vann, responded to the Episcopal priests' petition, though the Catholic diocese did confirm that the meeting took place.

... Well, if you were a Catholic bishop, you ought to find that inspiring. One hopes Bishop Vann does. But the example of a former Episcopal bishop of Fort Worth who wanted to convert to Rome but was sabotaged by Catholic clergy offers a cautionary tale, which is basically this: some Catholic clergy don't want those traddie Episcopalians, presumably because they would be a force for Catholic orthodoxy. A possible secondary reason: because keeping the church bureaucracy functioning, including maintaining good relations with bureaucrats in other churches, is more important than conversions.

And his eventual conclusion:

It also makes me think that if Rome is too powerless to bring over an Anglican bishop who the Pope has said he is "in communion" with because of the Baton Rouge priests council, or unwilling to help bring over 200+ whole Anglican parishes, how much power will they have or energy will they spend to help us? We may have to come to the same sad lesson that most of the Anglo-Catholic dissidents still in the Church of England came to: the bishops and priests don't want us, and Rome is unwilling or unable to help us. Therefore, we have to help ourselves.

I think Rod is being too pessimistic:

While the individual cases he cites are indeed troubling, it's a stretch to claim that they represent the usual way such requests are being handled. Indeed, if anything, his treatment of the topic might serve to raise awareness, and with heightened awareness, influence positive action being taken on behalf of these searching Anglicans.

Obviously, in these situations Bishops hold the ultimate responsibility (under the authority of the Pope) to oversee the conversion of traditional Anglicans into full communion with the Church. This is an entirely possible goal, and should be eagerly sought for by "liberals" and "conservatives" alike.

After all, if "liberals" are disconcerted by the prospect of conservative converts, what does that say about their own view of the Church?

Here I thought they were the inclusive ones.

CNA has also covered the original subject matter of this story.

"Call me biased..."

So begins a Feministe blogger's post about pro-life positions and organizations. She continues:

"…but I just can’t wrap my mind around anti-choice rhetoric. I am fairly skilled at seeing both sides of most complex social issues and I even try to give credit to those that oppose my view if their reasoning is sound, but anti-choice stuff…it is just totally illogical to me."

Oh goodness, what an inexplicable dilemma! Whatever could be the cause of her predicament?

Let's look at the beginning of the second paragraph:

"As most of you know, I work in public affairs at a Planned Parenthood affiliate."

Oh, suddenly this begin to make sense.

She goes on to maligne the "favorite anti-choice groups [which] makes your blood boil the most."

And if her blog's title and content wasn't a self-fulfilling prophecy itself, the commentors proceed to misunderstand (with some notable individual exceptions) every truth the pro-life community attempts to reveal and defend.

A perfect case of what I'm talking about? The blogger denies Margaret Sanger was a racist.

"Call me biased..."

No, "bias" doesn't begin to describe it.

On Egg Donation and Cultural Narcissism

Stories like this one by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, which point out the demographic implosion taking place in the west because of sub-replacement level birth rates, are popping up more and more often. What's surprising is that they have now reached the awareness of such online liberal strongholds as The Huffington Post and New York Times Magazine.

Nicely enough, when the Rabbi begins to diagnose the problem, he begins with a point made by Pope Benedict:

... Pope Benedict summed it up best. "Europe is infected by a strange lack of desire for the future. Children, our future, are perceived as a threat to the present."

While the article blames the falling birthrate on poor government policies that do not enforce maternity leave or subsidize post-natal care, as well as inflexible working conditions for women, a far more important reason is growing Western narcissism. As the west becomes richer it is also becoming more self-absorbed.

Children consume time and resources both of which young adults would rather focus on themselves. Better to have the availability, and the cash, to jet to Paris for the weekend then push a kid on some dumb swing. Not that we don't love kids any more. We do, but in an abstract as-long-as-it-doesn't-interfere-with-our-freedom kind of way. Having them in our thirties, and about one or two max, minimizes the disruption.

... The Western cult of narcissism is spoiling our kids, making us neglectful of our elders, spawning an out-of-control material insatiability, and destroying us -- quite literally -- by having us die off without a replacement generation.

And of all the many remedies available that might free us from our growing self-absorption, having one more baby than we originally planned for our marriages is the best remedy of all. (HP)

The most one commentor can do in response is trot out some outdate overpopulation predictions that have long since been disproven. And wouldn't you know it? LifeSiteNews today reports: "Communist Government in Indian Province Proposes Crippling Sanctions against Having a Third Child"

And on a similar note, more women are choosing to donate their eggs as a way to make spare income:

Now more than ever, women are donating their eggs to make ends meet.

So, who's doing it, and how easy is the process?

Melissa, who declined to give her last name, admitted the main reason she's donating eggs is because she's struggling financially.

... At the Center For Egg Options in Illinois, the number of women donating has increased significantly since April.

"There's no reason to think that suddenly there's 30 percent more people who have suddenly had this inner feeling to help out people and what's changed, it’s the economy," said fertility specialist Ed Marut. (Fox 5 Vegas)

And so when a narcissist decides to have a child, they don't even have their own. Now that's self-destructive.

"Sen. McCain holds private meeting with Archbishop Chaput"

Scant little details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

On clapping in Church, and whether one should (ever)

Fr. Z comments on an article in Catholic Exchange titled, "Hold the Applause: Confessions of a Conflicted Clapper", which begins with this arresting statement:

"Whenever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of the liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment."

Now guess who said that? Pope Benedict XVI.

Cardinal Arinze, head of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, is also quoted:

"…when we come to Mass we don’t come to clap. We don’t come to watch people, to admire people. We want to adore God, to thank Him, to ask Him pardon for our sins, and to ask Him for what we need.”

Now, my question: does proper liturgical praxis involve never clapping during Mass (ever)?

Commentary: Pope Benedict talks eloquently about ... water

I admit to raising my eyebrows upon my first reading:

"I am pleased to send a message of faith and hope", the Pope writes, "to those who are visiting the 2008 Saragossa Expo dedicated to the complex themes tied to the importance of water for human life and the maintenance of equilibrium among the diverse elements of our world. The Holy See wanted to be present at the Expo with a pavilion that was jointly prepared with the archdiocese of Saragossa, which I thank for their generous commitment to promoting proper cultural initiatives that draw the visitor closer to the immense patrimony of spirituality, art, and social wisdom that is inspired by water and which has been safeguarded by the Catholic Church".

"We have to be aware that, regrettably, water - an essential and indispensable good that the Lord has given us to maintain and develop life -, because of incursions and pressures from various social factors, is today considered a good that must be especially protected through clear national and international policies and used according to sensible criteria of solidarity and responsibility. The use of water - which is seen as a universal and inalienable right - is related to the growing and urgent needs of those living in poverty, keeping in mind that the 'limited access to drinkable water affects the well being of an enormous number of people and is frequently the cause of illness, suffering, conflict, poverty, and also death'".

"Those who consider water today to be a predominantly material good", the Pope concludes, "should not forget the religious meanings that believers, and Christianity above all, have developed from it, giving it great value as a precious immaterial good that always enriches human life on this earth. How can we not recall in this circumstance the suggestive message that comes to us from Sacred Scripture, which treats water as a symbol of purification and life? The full recovery of this spiritual dimension is ensured and presupposed for a proper approach to the ethical, political, and economic problems that affect the complex management of water on the part of all concerned, as well as in the national and international spheres". (VIS)

After thinking about it for a bit, however, I began to see the two-fold point. First, a clean and accessible water supply is indeed of paramount importance in the fight against global hunger and disease. Second, in the final paragraph, Pope Benedict transcends the material good represented by water and elevates his discourse to treat water's spiritual symbolism and (even) sacramental efficacy.

Now that's a type of conservationism I can admire.

"Aborting children through lack of healthcare" and other nonsense

An unlikely gathering, I would have thought:

Black church leaders gathered at Howard University School of Divinity in Washington this week to discuss the future direction of the black church and what they said was the importance of advocating the causes of abortion rights and greater inclusion of homosexuals.

The event, part of this year’s 12th annual National Black Church Summit on Sexuality, featured workshops that spoke of the importance of pro-choice reproductive rights and ending what speakers said were failed federal abstinence approaches to sex education in schools. (update, link fixed: Christian Post)

The quotes start with being simply self-contradictory:

“We can teach our young people, ‘Yes, I believe in abstinence only,’ but I also believe I have to be realistic enough to tell my young people how to protect themselves and to keep from becoming pregnant,” Veazey told Cybercast News Service, while explaining his opposition to abstinence education programs.

... then you don't really believe in abstinence only education. Here's a (I think, somewhat reasonable) parallel: "I believe in not abusing drugs, but I also believe I have to be realistic enough to tell my young people how to sanitize the needles and keep from getting HIV."

See my point? Then he really doesn't believe in not abusing drugs.

Then the quotes just get sickeningly outrageous:

Veazey, however, dismissed the voices of black pro-life advocates.

“They talk about abortion, and I tell them ‘you are the ones who believe in the fetus, you all worship the fetus, and then when the baby really gets here you all abort them,’” he told Cybercast News Service.

“I say you abort them every time I drive through southeast Washington, where there’s a lack of health care, lack of housing, lack of opportunity. Some of those kids are aborted walking around. And do you know where they go when they are aborted? They go to jail. They go to the criminal justice system. They go to drugs. But these are the same kids that they were so anxious to bring here,” he added.

"Aborted walking around?" I wonder if Veazey would dare say something like this to the face of one of the persons he is referring to. At least people in these situations challenge us to care for them better. But killing them sure isn't the solution. I thought that would be obvious. Well, maybe not to Veazey.

The article also cites:

"Abortion, in particular, has been a thorny issue in black communities as blacks reportedly account for as much as one-third of all abortions in the country, despite accounting for only 12 percent of the population."

Many black leaders, including Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., have called abortion a “racist, genocidal act” and are preparing to boycott the NAACP’s annual convention next week in Cincinnati for what they say is the group’s harmful support for abortion.

The article makes other good points. I just wish Veazey's midset weren't so sadly typical of the rabid pro-abortion lobby. One would hope members of his congregation would be quick to call him out on it.

NYT columnist quotes priest for marriage advice, offends feminist

Sometimes when it's a slow news day or when I'd like to see the world through the eyes of someone coming from a completely different perspective I visit feministing.com. Today was a classic:

Getting marriage advice from a priest.

"Dowd has stooped to a new low. Paraphrasing a priest on advice on what to look for in a husband. I guess I can see on some level, since marriage is frequently a religious thing, but in general, this gets a no. And by the way, apparently we should be looking for man-robots that have never experienced any trauma or disruption in their life." - Samhita

Get this: a priest should evidently be the last person in the world to give relationship advice. Marriage is only accidentally a "religious" thing but in general religious considerations should play no part in it. Finally, she thinks the priest presents impossible ideals about what women should look for in a potential spouse.

Now the nice thing: the first two commenters on this post at feministing.com completely disagree with "Samhita's" critique, and provide good reasons for their agreement with the advice given.

Now judge for yourself: "An Ideal Husband" by Maureen Dowd over at the New York Times. Was the priest telling women to look for "man-robots that have never experienced any trauma or disruption in their life" or instead for virtuous men who can love and care deeply for their spouses?

It's frustrating to once again see a self-proclaimed feminist disregarding the kind of advice that might improve her perspective on the male gender because of her own a priori reservations and ideology.

Hopefully she can see that on some level.

Finally: "Complaints cause cervical cancer vaccine scrutiny"

In February 2007 I did a story on Gardasil, a vaccine for certain STDs that cause cervical cancer. What upset me most about the story at the time was that Texas had decided to mandate this drug for all school-age girls, even those who did not intend to engage in sexual activity.

Such a decision is outrageous because this vaccine can cause serious side effects. Quite simply: why inoculate girls for an STD they have no chance of contracting (if they practice abstinence) and thereby put them in danger of suffering the vaccine's own harmful side effects?

Texas is not alone in this quest to mandate Gardasil. As recently as June 18th, Alberta was trying to force Catholic schools to give the vaccine to girls in pre-sexual activity age groups.

In January of this year, two instances of Gardasil-related deaths finally made it into the mainstream: "Alert over jab for girls as two die following cervical cancer vaccination" (UK Daily Mail).

By June, the FDA had refused permission for Gardasil to be marketed among women age 27-45. This decision came as a blow to its pharmaceutical producer Merck, because Gardasil "has been one of [its] most successful newer products and has helped the company recover after the 2004 withdrawal of its Vioxx arthritis treatment." Again, to put it simply: Gardasil is big business for Merck.

Today, it caught my eye that even CNN thinks there could be a story here:

A vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer is coming under fresh scrutiny amid thousands of complaints linking it to a range of health problems.

Gardasil has been the subject of 7,802 "adverse event" reports from the time the Food and Drug Administration approved its use two years ago, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Girls and women have blamed the vaccine for causing ailments from nausea to paralysis -- even death. Fifteen deaths were reported to the FDA, and 10 were confirmed, but the CDC says none of the 10 were linked to the vaccine. The CDC says it continues to study the reports of illness.

It's nice to see the mainstream media finally noticing a story that I (and many, many others) have known about for about 16 months. So why did it take them so long?

I would argue that this is only getting reported now because their fixation on eliminating the harmful side-effects of promiscuous sex often causes them to turn a blind eye to the drawbacks of mandatory universal vaccination. And the sad thing is that even young women trying to live a chaste lifestyle, in these situations of mandatory vaccination, are in danger of the vaccine's own harmful side effects.

Now whose freedom is being violated?

Photos: Inappropriate advertisements help finance Church upkeep in Italy

Reader Joe writes:

My daughter just returned from a semester in Rome. She was with a group of students and seminarians, mostly from Saint Thomas University in Minnesota, all of whom enjoy your website. She shared some of your humorous captions with me, so I thought you might like to see a couple of photos that I took recently in Milan.

The first place I went was the famous Gothic cathedral. You can imagine how shocking it was to find large (40-50 foot) billboards plastered on the sides of the cathedral! One of them reminded me of a 'B' rated sci-fi movie from the 1950's-the Attack of the Fifty Foot Woman. Apparently, in Italy, many churches are actually owned and maintained by the government with the stipulation that the faithful can continue to worship at these sites. Scaffolding space is rented out to advertisers when renovations are underway. That is because the Church can't afford to maintain all of the priceless artwork and architecture.

I couldn't agree more with this gentleman's reaction. When I was in Milan several years ago to see the