Honor Roll: Bishops who supported traditional marriage in Maine

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

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

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

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

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

Phoenix         $50,000 - Bishop Thomas Olmsted

Philadelphia     $50,000 - Justin Cardinal Rigali

St. Louis         $10,000 - Archbishop Robert Carlson

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

Newark         $10,000 - Archbishop John Myers

Providence       $10,000 - Bishop Thomas Tobin

Youngstown     $10,000 - Bishop George Murry

Fall River         $5,000 - Bishop George Coleman

Rockford         $5,000 - Bishop Thomas Doran

Crookston       $5,000 - Bishop Michael Hoeppner

Pittsburgh         $5,000 - Bishop David Zubik

Arlington         $5,000 - Bishop Paul Loverde

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary: Is abortion funding a distraction, or not?

Back when abortion funding was in the health care reform bill (protestations from the White House to the contrary notwithstanding), President Obama told Katie Couric that the abortion issue was a "distraction" from his larger project to promote health care reform. 

Rep. Patrick Kennedy later attacked the US Catholic bishops for using the "red herring" of abortion funding to oppose the overarching "pro-life" goals of health care reform (mark my words: it's going to be one of the biggest mistakes of his political career).

The message of both the White House and Democrat leadership was clear: to get hung up on the abortion issue, they claimed, was to needlessly fritter away precious time at the grave human expense of those without medical insurance. Pro-life Democrats and their Republican allies were holding health care reform "hostage" over abortion, it was said.

Then, two things happened. First, Rep. Bart Stupak's eleventh-hour abortion-neutrality amendment passed with the support of 64 Democrats. A couple days later, forty Democrats reportedly wrote to Speaker Pelosi threatening to vote "no" on a final bill unless the Stupak amendment is stripped in conference. They are, essentially, threatening to hold health care reform "hostage" over abortion.

Reporters, pundits and talking heads, meanwhile, are all buzzing about this new battle over abortion funding. It's the talk of the town. Legislation which advances the abortion agenda is evidently a non-starter, but arguments over the legitimacy of attempts to preserve the status quo - now that's something to talk about.

(Random aside: Chris Matthews in particular spent a lengthy segment on his program Hardball discussing the abortion funding problem with Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards. I had to raise my eyebrows when Matthews, discussing the abortion disagreement, asked Richards: "Can you cut this in half?" Her response was chilling to all King Solomon fans: "Sure.")

But what does all this new buzz about abortion funding have in common?

No one is saying this debate about abortion funding is a "distraction" or "red herring."

I, for one, welcome this newly-discovered common ground.

[cross-posted at the American Principles Project blog.]

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. 

Video: Two-Faced Stupak? Democrat admits to constituents he would ultimately vote for health care even with taxpayer-funded abortion mandate

A couple days ago I showcased Rep. Stupak's (failed) efforts to get taxpayer-funded abortions out of the house-version of the health care bill. When asked about his objection to this funding, and frequent attempts to eliminate it, Stupak said:

"I'm comfortable with where I'm at. This is who I am. It's reflective of my district. If it costs me my seat, so be it."

The Conservative organization Heritage Foundation has since found video, however, which reveals Stupak claiming to his constituents earlier this year that he would eventually vote for a health care bill even if his pro-life amendments had already failed. In this video, Stupak argues that as long as he tries to make the bill pro-life, he's doing his job and can still vote for a bill that isn't actually pro-life:

{update - it appears the video has been removed. But before it was I had a chance to view it and confirm that it is real. Kathleen Gilbert at LifeSiteNews summarizes what Stupak said in the situation.}



I think Rep. Stupak has some explaining to do - and quick.

House Democrats Have Almost Enough Votes for Pro-Abortion Health Care

A reminder of the political stakes we are facing:

House Democrats said today that they have almost enough votes to get a pro-abortion health care bill through the chamber. The votes they say they have collected include almost enough for the government option, which would expand abortion funding even further.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked her top lieutenants this week to conduct a vote count to determine where members of the party stand on HR 3200, which pro-life groups oppose.

Three House committee have approved different versions of the bill, all of which include massive abortion funding and mandates, that Pelosi and top Democrats will meld into one measure.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairman Raul Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, said today that House Democrats have secured about 210 votes for a bill with the controversial public option.

That's just eight votes short of the 218 needed to approve the pro-abortion bill. (Lifenews)

To fill in the picture, it also appears that the Obama Administration is improperly (and illegaly) using the Health and Human Services website to promote these pro-abortion health care bills. Fantastic.

update - worse and worse:

• AP: Abortion divides House Dems in health care debate
• LN: House Democrats Likely Won't Allow Vote to Cut Abortion From Health Care Bill

On the radar: NY 23

Last week I wrote:

In New York's 23rd congressional district, Doug Hoffman is the only pro-life candidate in a race which includes a democrat and an extremely liberal, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage republican. It's an important race for the national scene, for several reasons.

Let me briefly lay out those "several reasons":

• NY23 is the only congressional race this election cycle, so everyone is watching it, making the stakes very high.
• The pro-life republican candidate (Hoffman) is gaining far more grassroots support than the liberal, pro-abortion republican candidate (Scozzafava). He is a classic underdog, come-from-behind candidate. Now he has to beat the pro-abortion democrat (Owens).
• if Hoffman beats Scozzafava and Owens, it sends a strong message to the Republican Party about what kind of candidate will win in upcoming elections, namely, one who is strong on "social issues" like traditional marriage and pro-life. It says that "RINOs" (Republicans in Name Only) is not the way to go. People are more passionate about issues and the integrity of their representatives than they are about the letter behind a person's name.

Steve Ertelt at LifeNews is talking about this race, and I'd like to see it garner more Catholic attention.

If you are in upstate New York and want to help out, please drop me an email. Thanks!

Action: What Catholics can do to help health care reform

The current status of the health care debate is complicated (I know, I follow it every day) - but what Catholics can do to make health care reform is fairly simple.

Currently all the focus is on the Senator Baucus bill currently being debated in the Senate Finance Committee. Not suprisingly, like the other Democrat health care plans, it funds abortions.

The American Principles Project blog has a simple explanation for how you can contact your Senator and request that they vote in favor of the various pro-life amendments which have been introduced to get abortion funding out of the Baucus bill. If 100 people called each of their Senators it really would make a huge impact.

For those of you who want a bit more detail, pay close attention to the langauge of the Capps Amendment. It appears to be the model Democrats favor for sneaking abortion funding into various health care proposals. National Right to Life Committee's Doug John picks the Capps amendment apart in this column.

Also, the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics blog appears to be a good resource for health care reform and end-of-life issues, particularly yesterday's article on "Robbing Peter to pay Paul - funding the senate finance bill by cutting health care funding for older Americans."

Finally, I should mention that I'm happy to do radio or TV interviews on any of these topics. The larger the audience, the better the chance I'll be able to take time away from my other commitments. But of course anyone is welcome to drop me an email.

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

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

Let's look at what Mahoney said when asked if he agreed with Cardinal Rigali that abortion funding is in the health care reform proposal being drafted in the House of Representatives:

“This is way beyond my field. My field is immigration. I really haven’t kept up on that, and I spend all my time on this other. You have to get somebody who spends time on that.”

When asked whether he believed abortion should be funded under the health care bill, Cardinal Mahony said: “No, but that’s what the president said, too, so.”

My initial thoughts:

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

Absolutely incredible.

"On Satisfying the Requirements for a Catholic Funeral"

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

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

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

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

Baltimore Catholic Schools opting in to Obama schoolchildren address

Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Baltimore are opting in to Obama's speech intended for public school children, but Archbishop O'Brien is also respecting the decision of some parents to have their kids skip the President's video presentation. This from Abp. O'Brien:

Since news of the address was first reported, the Catholic Center and several Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Baltimore have been contacted by parents, teachers and others expressing a desire that parents be given the opportunity to request that their children be excused from viewing the address.

Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien, Archbishop of Baltimore, acknowledges the historic significance of the President’s speech and is fully supportive of the educational messages the White House says the President will deliver. However, he agrees that parents should ultimately have the right to choose whether their child views the address and will ask Catholic schools in the Archdiocese to communicate this to parents.

“We respect the rights of our parents to decide what’s best for their children in this matter and our schools will be asked to make arrangements for children not watching the program in an alternate venue in order to offer an opportunity for discussion about the role and responsibilities of the presidency and the value of education,” the Archbishop said.

Is your Catholic school signing-up to watch Obama's speech? Are you opting your children out of the presentation?

Related: "When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings"

Controversy: Cardinal O'Malley defends participation in Kennedy funeral

This is going to ruffle feathers. 

The cardinal's blog (mirrored here) is down right now, probably swamped in traffic {update - appears to be working now}.

Michael Paulson at the Boston Globe:

Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley last night issued a forceful defense of his decision to participate in the funeral of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, an appearance that has drawn sharp criticism from some conservative Catholics because of Kennedy’s ardent support for abortion rights.

O’Malley, writing in his blog, also revealed the substance of a conversation he had with President Obama near the altar of the Mission Church as the congregation assembled for Saturday’s funeral. He said he told Obama that the Catholic bishops are “anxious to support a plan for universal health care, but we will not support a plan that will include a provision for abortion or could open the way to abortions in the future.’’

But the most impassioned part of the cardinal’s blog post - which is at times folksy, at times cerebral, and punctuated by snapshots of the memorial events - is a de facto plea for greater civility among Catholics when discussing divisive issues. He warned against “harsh judgments’’ and attributing “the worst motives’’ to people with whom Catholics have disagreements, saying “these atti tudes and practices do irreparable damage to the communion of the Church.’’

I did not watch the Kennedy funeral, but I gathered from reports that Cardinal O'Malley attended in choir (instead of concelebrating). I thought this was an acceptable compromise approach to making an appearance but not "endorsing" the proceedings.

This is something different, however.

As Fr. Roger Landry wrote:

".... [here is] one of the most important lessons that pastors in the United States need to draw from the history of the Church’s interactions with Senator Kennedy for its future engagement of other pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Despite the good intentions to try to engage him, teach him, and help bring him to conversion, the strategy failed. There were many words given at the Senator’s exequies about his “private faith,” but private faith is not enough. “Faith without deeds is dead,” as St. James poignantly reminds us. The Church has a responsibility to help bring people from “private faith” to see the consequences of it in public actions, and, in the Senator’s case, we didn’t succeed."

In DC, Archbishop Wuerl gets off the same-sex marriage fence

(Not to say he was ever on the fence about the issue - but hey, it made you click the headline, didn't it?)

In all seriousness, Archbishop Donald Wuerl is definitely off the bench and in the fight for traditional marriage now.

From the Washington Post:

Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl is plunging the Catholic Church deeper into the battle over legalizing same-sex marriage in the District, a tactic that could complicate the D.C. Council's efforts to quickly take up the matter this fall.

Wuerl sent a letter to 300 local Catholic priests Tuesday reminding them about the church's opposition to same-sex marriage, and he launched a round of media interviews designed to bolster the church's presence in the debate.

In his efforts to mobilize Catholics, Wuerl joins a group of Baptist, predominantly African American, preachers in stepping up the pressure on D.C. officials to allow a public vote on whether same-sex marriage should be legalized.

... 

Wuerl launched the media offensive on the same day that eight opponents of same-sex marriage, including {non-Catholic} Bishop Harry Jackson, filed a request with the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics to hold a initiative next year defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The proposed initiative simply states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in the District of Columbia." 

... 

In a letter supporting the proposed initiative, the D.C. Catholic Conference noted that there are 580,000 Catholics living in the Washington metropolitan area.

"It is ironic that at the same time the city is asking for voting representation in the U.S. Congress, its leaders are denying residents the opportunity to participate in the Democratic process for an issue with widespread implications for children and families," Ronald Jackson, executive director of the D.C. Catholic Conference, said in a statement. 

Good to have you in the game, Archbishop. Now let's get behind him.

From the Archdiocese of Washington press release:

Learn more about Catholic teaching and marriage at www.MarriageMattersDC.org, an initiative of the Archdiocese of Washington to promote a deeper understanding of marriage and its contribution to society.

Open topic: Bishop Joseph Martino resigns

Today Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, PA resigned, confirming a report I mentioned last week.

Unfortunately my current level of obligations prevents me from examining the decision in detail (for that, see Rocco's reporting), but I think it is important the AmP community is aware of it and discussing the fall-out.

Bishop Martino is a hated man for a simple reason - he has attempted to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, and to his episcopal vows.

A brief report from the Associated Press:

A Roman Catholic bishop in northeastern Pennsylvania says he is stepping down for health reasons.

Scranton Bishop Joseph Martino says he suffers from insomnia and crippling physical fatigue.

The 63-year-old leader of the Diocese of Scranton is resigning more than a decade before the usual retirement age of 75. He had led the diocese since 2003.

Martino had been heavily criticized by parishioners who felt alienated by his imperious leadership style and staunch defense of Catholic orthodoxy. Supporters say Martino was simply enforcing church doctrine.

Pope Benedict XVI appointed Cardinal Justin Rigali, who leads the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, to oversee the Scranton diocese until the Vatican appoints a new bishop.

A recap of his "controversial" actions as a bishop, as reflected by the Religion News Service:

The bishop burst into the national scene during the 2008 presidential campaign, when he frequently criticized Catholics -- including fellow bishops -- who suggested that abortion was only one of many issues by which to assess candidates.

Shortly after the election last November, Martino stood on the floor of the bishops' meeting in Baltimore and pledged to withhold Communion from Biden, who was raised in Scranton, because he supports abortion rights.

Martino later issued similar threats to Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., after he voted to confirm Kathleen Sebelius, who supports abortion rights, to head the Department of Health and Human Services.

Martino also warned Scranton politicians that he would close the diocese's cathedral on St. Patrick's Day if they honored any politicians who support abortion rights; he tried to shut down a local Catholic college's diversity program after it hosted a gay rights advocate; and he refused to recognize a local Catholic teachers union. He also presided over mass consolidations of schools and parishes, many of which were contentious.

"By the world's standards, perhaps I have not been successful,"
Martino said Monday. "But I have been faithful."

David Gibson - a religion reporter with whom I have disagreed in the past - writes in Politics Daily:

But church insiders say Martino had also worn out his welcome with his brother bishops and the Vatican. So his resignation may be further evidence that the U.S. hierarchy is divided between moderate voices and a more strident conservative minority that is struggling in the wake of Obama's success with Catholic voters.

Liberal Catholics are taking Bishop Martino's resignation as a vindication of their position, and as a sign from within the Bishops conference and from the Vatican that Bishop Martino's pastoral "style" is unnaceptable:

But it was an event in late October last year, on the eve of the presidential vote, as religious rhetoric was growing white-hot, that may have pushed Martino over the line in the eyes of many.

A parish was holding a regular voter-education forum on the election, featuring discussion of a document, "Faithful Citizenship," the election guide endorsed almost unanimously by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or USCCB. Martino showed up at the parish hall unannounced, causing a stir. Then he took the microphone and proceeded to critique the organizers for not using his own letter on abortion as the basis of the discussion.

When a nun at the forum reminded Martino about the document of the enitre bishops conference Martino responded, "No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese. The USCCB doesn't speak for me," Martino declared. "The only relevant document ... is my letter. There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable."

It was a bizarre episode and one that not only capped Martino's reputation as a divisive figure, but also seemed to set him against his other bishops -- a stance that may have been the ultimate cause of his downfall. Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia was named Monday by the pope to be the temporary administrator for the Scranton diocese, which comes under Rigali's purview.

Whatever the ins and outs of the internal church maneuvering, the upshot is that a leading voice in the anti-Obama wing of the church hierarchy has been silenced while both Obama and Biden continue to take center stage.

.... In addition, there are signs that some bishops are growing uneasy with the more strident and even partisan tone of many church leaders, especially in the wake of the shooting of Kansas abortionist George Tiller. The opposition of some bishops to health care reform -- which the pope has declared a fundamental human right -- as well as fallout from the fierce opposition by some to Obama's appearance at Notre Dame in May has also given some bishops pause.

.... "By the world's standards perhaps I have not been successful here," Martino concluded. "But I did what I thought was right.

Clearly not everyone agreed with that self-assessment, from Martino's fellow bishops on up to the pope. Where the hierarchy, and American Catholics, go from here is the question that remains unanswered.

Again, it pains me to be currently unavailable to pause and reflect on this episode at length, but in the meantime, I'd invite AmP readers to fill in the context and add their helpful observations to a debate that is shaping up to be central in defining the identity of American Catholics in the years to come.

For those who are interested, there is a Facebook group "I Support Bishop Joseph Martino" which has almost 500 members. I'm a member.

Photo: CNA.

Kennedy funeral: GIRM vs. Archdiocese of Boston

Mr. Obama is scheduled to give a five minute eulogy at Mr. Kennedy's funeral tomorrow.

This is a classic example for why it would have been good for the Archdiocese of Boston to follow the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which reads:

382. At the Funeral Mass there should, as a rule, be a short homily, but never a eulogy of any kind.

A eulogy can still be delivered, of course, at the cemetary.

The GIRM also says:

385. ...Pastors should, moreover, take into special account those who are present at a liturgical celebration or who hear the Gospel on the occasion of the funeral and who may be non-Catholics or Catholics who never or rarely participate in the Eucharist or who seem even to have lost the faith. For priests are ministers of Christ's Gospel for all.

In other words - the GIRM wants preaching to the congregation instead of the congregation (Mr. Obama) doing the preaching.

But this is what the Archdiocese of Boston proscribes:

18. Following the prayer after Communion and before the Final Commendation, only one speaker, a member or a friend of the family, may speak for not more than five minutes in remembrance of the deceased.

... and here we are.

Ripe for disaster: Obama to give eulogy at Kennedy Mass

I'm not sure what presents more opportunity for disaster - Mr. Obama giving the eulogy at a Catholic Funeral Mass for Mr. Kennedy, and in all probability warping Mr. Kennedy's record on the issues that are important to Catholics - or the prospect of Mr. Obama's senior administration, which is full of dissenting Catholics who should be ineligible to receive Communion - lining themselves up for it.

Luckily, I don't think I'll have time for TV or the news this weekend.

After Kennedy's Death: Silence from the Vatican

Time Magazine points out the lack of condolences, and fills in Mr. Kennedy's checkered Catholic history.

Abp. Dolan says Lockerbie Bomber's Release a 'Sad Mistake'

America's most visible bishop on a current hot topic:

AP Scotland's decision to release convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was a mistake that will cause more pain for relatives of the victims and potentially encourage other terrorists , New York religious leaders said Tuesday.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan, the leader of New York's 2 million Catholics, said it was "a sad and perplexing mistake " to free al-Megrahi from his life sentence in a Scottish prison.

"While as a follower of Jesus Christ I believe in mercy, I also believe that mercy must always be tempered with justice ," the Archbishop said in a statement. " Mercy can be demonstrated in ways other than by releasing a man responsible for so much pain, suffering, and death. Those who lost loved ones also deserve mercy and justice . Finally we must consider that the release of this man could encourage others to engage in similar acts of terrorism in the future which would be a tragic result." (NBC New York)

Update: A Catholic Funeral for Ted Kennedy?

My father, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters, answers with a qualified yes:

"[while] notorius pro-aborts seem to be "manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful."

[it can happen when] "they gave some sign of repentance before death." And there is at least some evidence that Ted Kennedy did just that. Find out why."

update: in a related vein, Maureen Fiedler goes ga-ga over Mr. Kennedy's death and Michael Sean Winters runs (lamely) to her defense, after Patrick Madrid from the sidelines starts muttering "oh, please!" a little too loud.

What *not* to learn from the tragic shooting in Pittsburgh

As many of you are probably aware:

A gunman walked into an LA Fitness gym outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, turned off the lights and fired off 50 rounds, killing three women before killing himself Tuesday evening, police said.

The man didn't speak but was carrying a gym bag with a note inside it. He was found dead in the gym lying on top a gun about 7 feet away from a victim, said Charles Moffatt, Allegheny County police superintendent.

At least 10 other people were injured in the barrage of bullets that sent people in the gym ducking for cover, Moffatt said.

A law enforcement source identified the gunman as George Sodini, a 48-year-old gym member. (CNN)

First of all, we ought to pray for the victims, and for Sodini.

Unfortunately, it appears Sodini's online journal contain references to his theology. He said:

"Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell," Sodini apparently wrote, before adding later, "I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them."

I need not point out that this disturbed individual also has a deeply-flawed theology. And I hope no one takes this tragedy as an opportunity to blame Christianity for this man's evil actions.

If commenters want to point out the real Christian witness in this drama, it is here:

Relatives and friends of those who'd been inside the fitness center eventually were directed to the Bower Hill Volunteer Fire Department on Vanadium Road in Scott to await word on the dead and wounded.

There, they were comforted by crisis counselors and priests from the Pittsburgh Catholic Diocese -- the Revs. Kim Schreck, John Naugle and Joseph Freedy, who were sent to the fire hall by Bishop David Zubik.

Father Freedy had been one of the first to the gym after the shooting, Father Schreck said. Father Freedy, who had been passing by, ministered to panicked club members in the fitness center parking lot and also comforted some of the wounded before contacting the bishop.

Bishop Zubik then dispatched the three priests to the fire hall, and the bishop himself visited the wounded and their families at the three hospitals.

"We're here so we can help, perhaps, some with their spiritual needs," Father Schreck explained.

The priests listened to, counseled and prayed with more than a dozen people inside the fire hall "whether they were traumatized by the incident or here for a loved one," he said.

Asked what he told people in such situations, he said, "Evil is real. For whatever reason, this man acted in a horrible way, and we suffered because of it. Some people blame God, but He is here in us. The Lord is with us in our suffering."

Amen.

Politics: Infanticide-promoter Peter Singer argues for rationing health care

Peter Singer, a eugenicist who believes in infanticide, takes to the pages of the New York Times magazine to advocate rationing health care for you and me:

"Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse. If we ration we won’t be writing blank checks to pharmaceutical companies for their patented drugs, nor paying for whatever procedures doctors choose to recommend. When public funds subsidize health care or provide it directly, it is crazy not to try to get value for money. The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable. Then we can ask, What is the best way to do it?"

Who would honestly want to be on the same side of a debate as Peter Singer?

This is a man who admitted that if it was up to him, he might have pulled the plug on his sick mother (luckily his sister had joint care of her and wouldn't allow it). There is also some disagreement that he actually helped pay for his mother's health care costs - which contradicts his utilitarian philosophy.

So either he is a hypocrite or a monster. And I'm disturbed that he likes Obama's socialized health care plan. With advocates like that, who needs critics?

Gilgoff: Sotomayor staying mum on abortion views

Dan Gilgoff reports:

On the abortion front, I'm struck by two dynamics at work in Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. One: Republicans are attacking the idea of a constitutional right to abortion with a unity and forthrightness not seen in years, grilling Sotomayor on how the Constitution could be construed to contain such a right.

Two: As Republicans lift their voices on the issue, Sotomayor is evading all questions about her personal views on abortion. While recognizing that she considers Roe v. Wade to be settled law, Sotomayor has gone out of her way to obscure her personal position, disavowing signs that abortion rights supporters and opponents have taken as evidence of her pro-abortion rights views.

... Sotomayor is not going to vote to overturn Roe. But her obfuscating on other abortion-related questions raises questions about how she'd rule on restrictions on late-term abortions and on consent laws. And those are the kind of cases—as opposed to direct challenges to Roe—that would be more likely to come before her on the Supreme Court.

I'm sure her team of advisors have taken note that her personal position on abortion is seriously out-of-touch with mainstream America. So much for that oath to tell the whole truth to the American people. How can she single-out abortion (and its many related issues) as a topic upon which she has no opinion besides the "settled law" of the land? As a Supreme Court justice she will be charged with making the law of the land!

Furthermore, there is clearly interest on this topic. The AP's story on the subject was the top story on Yahoo! News yesterday (the largest internet news portal in the U.S.).

I'm looking forward to today's testimony by Charmaine Yoest at Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings. She's the lone representative from a pro-life organization to be invited.

Report: Obama meets with Catholic reporters

As I reported earlier today, this morning Obama met with representatives of Catholic newspapers, and CNS has a report.

The list of organizations in attendance was a who's-who list of liberal Catholic print publications, with just enough Conservative publishers to appear balanced (actually, just one - the National Catholic Register, because Vatican Radio isn't American and CNS is USCCB-sponsored, and therefore an obvious choice). 

Anyway, not only were liberal publications National Catholic Reporter and America magazine invited (which I predicted), but also Commonweal and Catholic Digest. A religion reporter from Washington Post was invited as well. Of course, no invitation was extended to Catholic World Report or Our Sunday Visitor - they might ask awkward questions, you see. 

As for what was said, it is so discouraging to see that Obama continues to bring up the example of Cardinal Bernardin unchallenged. Today he told the Catholic reporters that "his encounters with the cardinal continue to influence him, particularly [the cardinal's] "seamless garment" approach to a multitude of social justice issues." 

Obviously, Obama is choosing to be selectively influenced, because Cardinal Bernardin himself went on record with the National Catholic Register in 1988 and said: ""I don't see how you can subscribe to the consistent ethic and ... [feel] that abortion is a 'basic right' of the individual."

Cardinal Bernardin went on to say in that same interview:

"I know that some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don't hold anybody's feet to the fire just on abortion. That's a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it."

Now, if ever there was a golden opportunity to ask Obama what he would say in response to these words of Cardinal Bernardin's, it was this morning when the current publisher of the same magazine which originally published the Cardinal's words - Fr. Owen Kearns of the National Catholic Register - was seated at a table where Obama, once again, began to claim the mantle of Cardinal Bernardin.

... but I bet you it didn't happen. And that's why people like me are not invited to Obama's meetings. Because there are some questions he can't handle, and his team knows who to invite to ensure those questions don't get asked.

Some "listening session."

update: National Catholic Register's Tim Drake with Fr. Owen Kearns take on the meeting. Each participant was allowed to ask one question. I'd like to hear what was asked, and how Obama responded.

Justice Souter to step down in June, pro-abort replacement a given

It's all across the internet.

Politico: "Supreme Court Justice David Souter plans to retire this year – giving President Barack Obama his first chance to shape the court in his image, according to Democratic sources."

New York Times:

"Justice Souter, who was appointed in 1990 by a Republican president, the first George Bush, but became one of the most reliable members of the court’s liberal wing, has grown increasingly sour on Washington and intends to return to his home state, New Hampshire, according to the people briefed on his plans. One officials said the decision might be announced as early as Friday."

... During a campaign debate last fall, Mr. Obama said the selection of a new justice would be “one of the most consequential decisions of the next president.”

... On the always explosive issue of abortion, he said he would “not provide a litmus test,” but added, “I am somebody who believes that Roe versus wade was rightly decided.”

So we can expect someone in the mold of another Souter. Obama will continue his track record of not being at all "conflicted" about abortion "rights" when it comes to practical decisions like Supreme Court nominees.

{update - Blogger Thomas More thinks this could be good news.}
{update 2 - changed "pro-choice" to "pro-abort" in blog title. Thanks for the catch.}
{update 3 - "Specter's Defection Could Help Republicans Block a Nominee to Replace Souter"}

Video: Pelosi stammers about STD earmarks

On The CBS "Early Show" today:

I explain the backstory for Pelosi's bid to include $335 million in STD prevention earmarks here.

Face it, Pelosi, there's no reason to have this stuff in the bill except that you want to sneak more money to your pet causes and organizations..... immoral causes and evil organizations, I might add.

Where is (are) the bishop(s)?

NY plane crash "a miracle on the Hudson"

Amazing:

A cool-headed pilot maneuvered his crippled jetliner over New York City and ditched it in the frigid Hudson River on Thursday, and all 155 on board were pulled to safety as the plane slowly sank. It was, the governor said, "a miracle on the Hudson." One victim suffered two broken legs, a paramedic said, but there were no other reports of serious injuries.

The US Airways Airbus A320 bound for Charlotte, N.C., struck a flock of birds just after takeoff minutes earlier at LaGuardia Airport, apparently disabling the engines.

The pilot, identified as Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger III of Danville, Calif., "was phenomenal," passenger Joe Hart said. "He landed it — I tell you what — the impact wasn't a whole lot more than a rear-end (collision). It threw you into the seat ahead of you.

"Both engines cut out and he actually floated it into the river," he added. (AP)

Great piloting, and some special angelic assistance. What a cold day to be waiting in the water!

Picking up the pieces (recap post)

Yes, Barack Obama won 349-173, and by about 7 million votes nationally. The Senate is Democratic 56 to 40 with 4 seats undecided (still?!), but it's highly unlikely the Democrats will reach a super majority of 60. The House is Democratic 258-173, a gain of 17 at least.

Okay, on to ballot innitiatives....

• It looks like Prop 8 in CA - which would ban gay marriage in that state - will win. Arizona and Florida bans on Gay Marriage and Arkansas' ban on gay adoption also passed. Good news.
  
• Pro-life initiatives in Colorado, California and South Dakota have lost. Bad news.
  
• In Michigan, pro-embryonic stem cell research proposal 2 passed by 4%. More bad news.
  
• And Doctor-Assisted Suicide is now legal in Washington. Even more bad news.

So what happened? Anti-gay marriage legislation won .... pro-life legislation lost, and badly.

We've got our work cut out for us.

update: some early numbers on how Catholics voted...

• Catholics who attend Mass at least weekly went for McCain 54-45%.
• Catholics who attend Mass less than weekly went Obama 61-37%

What can we take from this? One obvious conclusion: Catholics who don't feel obligated (or desire) to attend Mass probably won't feel obligated (or desire) to inform their conscience either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, who should feel lonely now?

Open Thread: other stuff

Everything non-political here. Yes, as in stories not related to politics. What are you reading? What's happening? What have I missed? What is the pope up too? Any good links? Any funny pictures for a caption call?

Bad news: Obama close to double-digit lead

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

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

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

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

Weigel fires back at Kmiec, Cafardi & Kaveny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claim: Obama's strenuous Catholic outreach making inroads

Could they be buying it?

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

Can you hear the glee in Dan's voice?

Related: Shock Poll: Dems Favor Obama (CMR)

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?"

Sullivan, predictably, predicts Catholics for Obama in November

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

Head-scratching line:

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

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

Into her argument:

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

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

Truncated initial conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, Amy:

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

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

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

Up next? Climate Change.

I'm a man-made global warming skeptic. There, I said it. When the world was getting warmer, I admitted it, but didn't attribute it to human activity. Now that it's getting colder, I don't attribute it to human inactivity.

Being a skeptic takes some guts when CNN publishes articles like this on a daily basis:

"Climate change is happening faster than previously predicted according to a new World Wildlife Fund report.

Bringing together some of the most recent scientific reports and data, "Climate change: faster, stronger, sooner" reveals that global warming is accelerating more rapidly than the predictions made in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007."

Then I sit back, sip a cup of tea, and read something that strikes me as far more sane:

In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.

Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up.

[Helpful graph:]

Now where was I? Oh yes:

For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."

Moreover, while the chart below was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years -- the period corresponding to reduced solar activity -- all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.

It may be that more global warming doubters are surfacing because there just isn't any global warming.

Well, let's just hope annoying news like this doesn't get out before the democrats can spend billions of dollars on "climate change" legislation in the coming year.

And to be clear: I have no problem pursuing energy alternatives, but pursuing them only to reduce carbon dioxide emissions strikes me as imprudent and frankly, more than our economy can handle right now.

Liberal website libels Catholic author Dawn Eden

I watched this story develop over the weekend and around 9pm tonight I knew it was time to get involved. You see, it's a twisted tale - as twisted as the nutroots efforts to attack Sarah Palin in any way/shape/form that presents itself - including the fictitious.

I'll quickly describe the situation and you'll see what I mean.

A while ago Catholic author Dawn Eden (a personal friend, I should add) posted her SAT scores online. A few days ago, someone doing a Google image search for "SAT scores" found Dawn's photocopy, and substituted Sarah Palin's name for it - and replaced some of the scores with lower ones. The point of this forgery was to spread the rumor that Sarah Palin didn't perform well in her standardized testing.

Fast-forward a couple blog news cycles later, and most the major liberal outlets that had claimed the story to be true ... backed off.


Then Gawker stepped in it. Dawn:

"Three days ago in the post below, I exposed how Gawker fell for a forgery that purported to be Sarah Palin's SAT scoresheet but was actually a Photoshop job—made by someone who stole my own scoresheet off my blog and pasted in bad grades. Now, Gawker admits it fell for a forgery—and libels me by claiming the bad grades are mine.

That is just plain bad reporting, and, if not corrected, crosses the border into libel. (It would be hard for Gawker to prove absence of malice, given its previous reportage on me.)"

Click the image above or here for a preview of Gawker's post - no reason to give them traffic unless you are curious.

The only one with egg on their face at this point is Gawker, who swooped in on a story that was wrong to begin with, and then when they discovered their error, made a second serious error (or at least embarrassingly poor fact-gathering), and just presumed that because Dawn is a practicing, conservative, chastity-talk-giving Catholic ... well then she must be stupid.

Gee, if you look at the facts, it's Gawker that sure looks stupid. I mean - at least Dawn demonstrates fourth-grade reading comprehension. I'm not sure that I can say the same about Gawker.

Also, if anyone wants to represent Dawn against Gawker pro-bono, drop her a line.

Gawker might benefit from the detention.

On L'O.R. adding its two cents to US economic woes

I'm not sure what all to make of this. But I'm trying to come to terms with it [my comments in brackets]. I'd love to start a conversation about this:

The current financial crisis pummeling the United States and beyond is a sign that the so-called "new economy" and its risky investments have failed, the Vatican newspaper said. [I think what failed was unsound speculation, widely practiced and condoned.]

The booming growth of financial markets did not correspond to real growth or concrete development for society because it created an artificially robust gross national product, said a Sept. 24 article in L'Osservatore Romano. [I don't know about this one way or the other, but I'm prone to admit it.]

The only real growth registered in this crisis has been "the commissions, profits of the banks and bonuses for the managers," it said. [That's fairly obvious.]

The article, with the headline "A costly illusion," was written by Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, an Italian economist and professor of financial ethics at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, Italy.

The U.S. financial meltdown has been blamed on "the greed of managers and lack of regulations. But curiously, no one ever refers to the indirect responsibility of the government's economic policy" which, he wrote, tried to cover the lack of any real economic development with a booming Wall Street. [I agree with this.]

He said the U.S. government's proposed bailout may stave off any worst-case scenario for its troubled financial markets, but it will not repair the root causes of the crisis. [Well sure, that's apparent.]

"Despite various attempts, the Western world does not know how to map out a model of development that is capable of guaranteeing stable wealth," the article said. [I disagree with this. I think we did very well for quite some time. It was departing from free market principles and introducing heavy government regulation that turned things sour.]

The West has "not succeeded with its new economy project, it did not succeed with accelerating growth in Asia by transferring low-cost production (there), and it did not succeed after inventing a boom in the GNP through risky financial models that were poorly conceived and badly regulated," it said. [Sure, but that does not mean the West doesn't know what it's doing, it's just losing its way, and badly.]

"In order to maintain this sham GNP, the banks financed things that were not guaranteed" and that should not have been financed, like the subprime loans, it said. Financial institutions created an "economic growth out of debt and, therefore, (created something) very risky," it added. [Yep, I'm with this.]

The article said the lesson to be learned is that nations cannot build a healthy economy or experience real development if it is not based on "balanced demographic growth." [Ah, now that's an excellent point. Demographics are hugely important - but what would the author say about the situation in Italy/Europe?!]

It said the world economy also needs to be run responsibly and transparently with precise rules. [Sure, sure, but good luck.]

Okay, it's Friday. If anyone has some time on their hands, feel free to educate the rest of us.

Chuck Colson on "God & Wall Street"

Consider these my three quotes of the day, Chuck Colson on the economic downturn and the Christian response:

"Today we have an opportunity to see how the Acts 4 church really works—where Christians help one another through tough times and reach out lovingly to our neighbors."

"Michael Novak, the great theologian, has said that Western democratic capitalism is like a three-legged stool, resting on political freedom, economic freedom, and moral restraint. Take away moral restraint, and the stool collapses."

"Above all, remember this: God is on His throne. Maybe the “eat, drink, and be merry” attitude of Americans needed a little adjustment—as does the spiritually casual attitude of the Church."

Read his full column here.

Open thread: the economy

I figured on this bleak Tuesday I'd bring the topic up as I draft other stories.

... so what are folks thinking?

update: over at IC, Elizabeth Scalia talks about praying for economic and social wisdom, while the Anchoress says "prayer is not just okay, it is imperative" in situations like these.

Honestly, if we are to pray for something as general as "world peace," then "economic well-being at home" seems equally needful.

update 2: as some more food for thought, this is the best single post I've read about the past, present and future of the crisis. Inform thyself!

update 3: oh, and today CNA tells us that "Leading Catholic entrepreneur [has written] book on how people should relate to money". Interested? Here it is on Amazon.

Chuck Colson sums it up for me...

On the topic of gas prices:

It is galling to me to watch people who, doubtless, live in large homes, fly in private planes, and are not affected by the price of gas, build their idea of utopia on the backs of the poor. Christians must care about the environment, of course — but people, especially the poor, come first.

So, if our leaders are, indeed, ready to change this immoral status quo, I say, “What took you so long? And let’s get going now.”

I agree. And I don't even own or drive a car.

Soon in DC, you'll be able to defend yourself again

It happened:

Silent on central questions of gun control for two centuries, the Supreme Court found its voice Thursday in a decision affirming the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and addressing a constitutional riddle almost as old as the republic over what it means to say the people may keep and bear arms.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities, Chicago and San Francisco among them. Federal gun restrictions, however, were expected to remain largely intact. (AP)

While it is the talk of the town, I'm not sure that I have anything significant to contribute. Help?

The Pope's Visit: Satirical and Serious commentary

On the funny side, today's article by the Onion (a satirical newspaper):

In an unprecedented breach of national security, Pope Benedict XVI, leader of the international organization known as "the Roman Catholic Church," has infiltrated the highest levels of the U.S. government and devised a wide-ranging plan to destroy the entire country.

... "We normally do not allow anyone to view top secret documents, but with the miter and the robe and everything, it was difficult to say no," said one Department of Energy official, who allowed Benedict to view plans for a proposed warhead delivery system, and detailed maps of the nation's nuclear power plants. "He said he wanted to bless the documents, which he did. Unfortunately, we now believe that the ring he wears is a miniaturized digital camera." (More)

On the substantive side, Donald Devine talks about the "Internationalist Pope":

Was Lou Dobbs right that “the pope is blasting our society; here he is, I guess, in many ways insulting our country, talking about the need to be welcoming, taking up the issue of illegal immigration without any comparison to the rest of the world?” Congressman Tom Tancredo criticized him too. Are conservatives right to be concerned about Benedict XVI’s “welcoming internationalism”?

... While he may have criticized the U.N.’s ruling body, it is clear Benedict thinks collective rather than nation-state action alone is necessary to promote a just world order. On the other hand, he also said that “Every State has the primary duty to protect its own population from grave and sustained violations of human rights, as well as from the consequences of humanitarian crises, whether natural or man-made.” So the nation-state comes first but “If States are unable to guarantee such protection, the international community must intervene with the juridical means provided in the United Nations Charter and in other international instruments.” (More)

There, hopefully that strikes a nice balance.

Prayers requested for the disaster in Myanmar

The Pope prayed for the victims today. Deaths from the recent cyclone could top 50-60,000:

• UK Times: Aid workers fear Burma cyclone deaths will top 50,000
• BBC News: Burmese storm toll 'tops 10,000'
• Sky News: Burma Cyclone Death Toll 'Hits 22,000'
• UK Daily Mail: 10,000 killed in ONE town as massive wave is blamed for death toll set to top 60,000

Sensationalist headlines and mounting figures aside, we should be praying sincerely for the victims.

update: and thanks, Al Gore, for blaming this disaster as a consequence of global warming.

Des Moines Register knows who to quote on matters canonical

In this case, my father (come to think of it, in all canonical cases he's the guy to quote):

The Catholic Church's decision to grant Steven Sueppel a funeral at St. Mary's Church after he killed his wife and four children on Easter night has left behind an emotional debate among Iowa City-area Catholics and Catholic scholars.

Edward Peters, a professor of Catholic doctrine, or canon law, at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, says Sueppel should not have been given a Catholic funeral.

Sueppel would be what canon law calls a "manifest sinner" because he murdered his wife and four young children before killing himself, Peters said.

He said his interpretation of canon law leads him to conclude that Sueppel should not have been granted a Catholic funeral because doing so creates a "scandal for the faithful."

Of course, canon law is not equivalent to "Catholic Doctrine", as the article claims.

Save yourself from this and other mistakes by adding Dr. Peter's canonlawblog to your blogroll today!

Local Bishop claims no responsibility for "balloon priest"

When I reported on the story of a balloon-flying priest earlier in the week, I asked "Which bishop, exactly, approved this leave of absence?!"

Looks like the bishop in question ... is distancing himself from his earlier approval:

Bishop Joao Alves Dos Santos of Paranagua said this week the Church warned Father Adelir de Carli, who disappeared last Sunday, against the dangers of taking a balloon flight.

The 41 year-old priest was hoping to break a balloon flight record in order to raise money for a spiritual rest stop for truck drivers. Although he said he was prepared for the journey, he went missing a few hours after he began his flight and he has still not been found. Rescue efforts by the Brazilian Air Force were suspended on Thursday, but the priest's family is persisting in the search with the help of a rented twin engine plane.

Bishop Dos Santos had joined in the now suspended search effort and said he is praying for the wellbeing of the priest.

According to the bishop, the Church did not encourage Father De Carli to take the flight. “We respected his decision but we advised against the trip because it was dangerous,” he said. (CNA)

Sure, suspending yourself hundreds of feet above the ocean with party balloons. What's not to respect?

Seriously, I hope they find him. But is this sort of thing really the best way to raise money in Brazil?!

"Bee Tornado" or Modern Day Eleventh Plague?

True story [with my bracketed comments for illustrative purposes]:

A giant cloud of thousands of bees mysteriously appeared and began to swirl in a "tornado pattern" around [an Egyptian-run] Central Florida Mexican restaurant [and brick manufacturer].

[Hebrew] Customers at Oxie's restaurant located near Highway 17-92 and Plymouth Avenue in [in Lower Egypt] said they noticed a cloud in the sky and thought it was raining. They then realized, the cloud was a swarm of bees.

"A lot of people said it was bees and ran to their cars [and chariots]," restaurant owner [and Pharaoh] Oxie Ochiana said. "It was scary. I was panicking. I didn't know what to do. [When one of my customers claimed his God was a jealous God, I totally didn't believe him.]"

Witnesses said the bees began to swirl like a tornado and menace customers Thursday [saying, "Let my people go!"].

"I looked and it was like a tornado of bees just all around our parking lot, swarming," said restaurant worker Marie Olson [whose Hebrew name is Zipporah].

A crowd formed at a distance to watch the cloud of bees [and praise the Lord with Timbrel and Harp]."

"It was crazy," Olson said. "I was shocked. I was surprised to see it. I don't know where they came from, so it was amazing to actually see them like that. It was awesome. [Our God is faithful to his promises!]"

I swear, the non-bracketed parts are completely original.

Picture: Houston's New Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart

Houston's new Cathedral is first seeing the light of day:

A slideshow of 49 more pictures here. Whispers has thorough coverage. The $65m cathedral will be dedicated this Wednesday, with 60 bishops attending. This is the first "mother-church" dedicated since the "Taj Mahony" opened in 2002. Oakland's Christ the Light will be dedicated in late September 2008.

Peggy Noonan on Hillary's non-inevitability, the GOP debate, etc.

In reverse order, Peggy Noonan's column treats the question of Hillary's "non-inevitability" in points 3 & 4.

Point 2 deals with the recent Giuliani scandals, and how she doesn't think those will slow him.

Point 1 talks about the GOP debate:

I will never forget that breathtaking moment when, in the CNN/YouTube debate earlier this fall, the woman from Ohio held up a picture and said, "Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, this is a human fetus. Given a few more months, it will be a baby you could hold in your arms. You all say you're 'for the children.' I would ask you to look America in the eye and tell us how you can support laws to end this life. Thank you."

They were momentarily nonplussed, then awkwardly struggled to answer, to regain lost high ground. One of them, John Edwards I think, finally criticizing the woman for being "manipulative," using "hot images" and indulging in "the politics of personal destruction." The woman then stood in the audience for her follow up. "I beg your pardon, but the literal politics of personal destruction--of destroying a person--is what you stand for."

Oh, I wish I weren't about to say, "Wait, that didn't happen." For of course it did not. Who of our media masters would allow a question so piercing on such a painful and politically incorrect subject?

I thought of this the other night when citizens who turned out to be partisans for Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards asked the Republicans, in debate, would Jesus support the death penalty, do you believe every word of the Bible, and what does the Confederate flag mean to you?

It was a good debate, feisty and revealing. It's not bad that the questions had a certain spin, and played on stereotypes of the GOP. It's just bad that it doesn't quite happen at Democratic debates. Somehow, there, an obscure restraint sets in on the part of news producers. Too bad. Running for most powerful person in the world is, among other things, an act of startling presumption. They all should be grilled, everyone, both sides. Winter voting approaches; may many chestnuts be roasted on an open fire.

Okay, so now that you've read point 1, you should really go read points 2-4.

Ahmadinejad and the limits of free speech in academe

The president of Columbia University Lee Bollinger has invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak today [AP report]. Ahmadinejad had also planned to visit Ground Zero during this trip until his request was denied using the excuse of security concerns [Reuters].

Surveying the situation, it's ironic how categorical the condemnation of this invitation has been, while the (I would argue, parallel) situation of inviting pro-choice politicians to speak at Catholic universities is considered legitimate.

Columbia President Bollinger didn't help matters any when he stated publically that he wouldn't have a problem inviting Adolf Hiltler to speak (video).

Of course, when secular society is faced with this kind of attitude, it's quick to threaten financial penalties: and sure enough, state and city lawmakers are contemplating witholding public funds in protest of Columbia's invitation.

I haven't had the chance yet to really think through this whole question, but in these events I'm trying to imagine, for a second, what the world would look like if it universally admitted that pro-choice politicians are proponents of infanticide and treated them as such when they were given pulpits by universities.

I think it would look much like the resistance we are seeing to Ahmadinejad's invitation at Columbia.

Update: Diogenes, with his characteristic brevity and wit, co-posts on this topic.

Update 2: To give credit where credit is due, President Bollinger evidently excoriated Ahmadinejad (and rightly so) on his human rights track record, as the AFP and Reuters reports. And 25,000 people protested Ahmadinejad's UN appearance. I'm happy to see that America still has enough moral integrity to call some forms of evil, well, evil.

Also, via commentor John V, via the Dawn Patrol, a clip from an upcoming documentary that looks at "tolerance, Columbia-style":

Video (+commentary): "Christian extremists disrupt Hindu Senate invocation"

A Hindu gave the opening prayer at today's Senate session, which is a first, but not without three Christians vocally protesting.

WorldNetDaily has a report.

Rajan Zed, the hindu chaplain, was invited by Democrat Harry Reid (a Mormon). There are no hindus serving in Congress.

The AP report closed with a quotation from Harry Reid:

"I think it speaks well of our country that someone representing the faith of about a billion people comes here and can speak in communication with our heavenly father regarding peace," he [Reid] said after the disruption."

I doubt that even Zed would agree that he was praying to the same "heavenly father" as Christians confess. I guess it's not as surprising that Reid would think so, however, because of the functional polytheism of Mormonism (?).

Here is a YouTube video of the prayer & protest:

Here is the text of Zed's prayer:

Let us pray. We meditate on the transcendental Glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky, and inside the soul of the Heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds.

Lead us from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality. May we be protected together. May we be nourished together. May we work together with great vigor. May our study be enlightening. May no obstacle arise between us.

May the Senators strive constantly to serve the welfare of the world, performing their duties with the welfare of others always in mind, because by devotion to selfless work one attains the supreme goal of life. May they work carefully and wisely, guided by compassion and without thought for themselves.

United your resolve, united your hearts, may your spirits be as one, that you may long dwell in unity and concord.

Peace, peace, peace be unto all. Lord, we ask You to comfort the family of former First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson. Amen.

Organizations such as the AFA have been circulating petitions to protest this invitation, primarily because , they claim, it flies in the face of the American motto "One Nation under God."

So, here's the question: is this a legitimate expression of religious freedom or an abdication from the USA's founding and constitution as a Christian nation "Under God", etc., etc.?

Update: LifeSiteNews adds more to this story:

Former navy chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt requested two days ago that he be allowed to lead the prayer using 'in Jesus name," but he was turned down by both Senator Reid and Senator Clinton's offices, The American Daily reports. Klingenschmitt is a former navy officer who was court-marshaled for praying 'in the name of Jesus.' His case eventually led to a change in a U.S. law, rescinding a ban on "sectarian" prayer.

Klingenschmitt told LifeSiteNews.com, "I think it's hypocrisy when Senators claim diversity, but they exclude chaplains who pray 'in Jesus name'. At the same time, they welcome a Hindu chaplain to pray on the floor of the Senate."

Gas prices and popular (re)action

So, I'm sure everyone is noticing the rising gas prices that accompany summer and it got me to thinking: do they really need to be this high? See, I've read the articles [example] about Exxon Mobile (for instance) earning record profits, and I remain skeptical that they are passing those savings onto us.

The question, however, is how to do something about it. I've received chain emails calling for various grass-roots efforts. The most reasonable of them seems to be the "don't buy from Exxon Mobile" idea. With the idea being that once they notice a hit in sales they would lower gas prices. But I don't think enough people will get organized to make such action effective, and frankly, I think they could last longer than us.

What about political action? Is the big oil "interest" too much to overcome? Why isn't gas a regulated utility, like electricity and water? [related: On Profit and Pump Prices.]

(Incidentally, I don't currently own a car. In fact I probably have one of the smallest "carbon footprints" of anyone I know. I often walk to work, carpool to school, and take flights rarely. I do, however, probably need to replace some light bulbs. And to be honest, I'd really like a car, and I just bought a couple sets of plane tickets.)

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what my readers think. So this is your chance to voice your thoughts (and/or vent your frustration if you feel so inclined).

Update: In terms of pratical short-term solutions, GasBuddy tries to help you keep track of what prices are like at the pump in your area. A nice little resource for those of us trying to stretch our pocketbooks.

According to this article, the sharp rise in prices this year [graphic] is partially explainable by a "series of refinery outages and breakdowns." And oh yeah, they're predicting that this summer will be one of the "worst-looking" ones we've seen. Goody.