NCR introduces "New voices from young Catholics"

National Catholic Reporter evidently saw the writing on the wall and is trying something new.

It's called "Young Voices" and here's how they describe it:

The future of our church is in the hands of a generation coming of age in the first decade of the 21st century. NCR went looking among this generation and found four young Catholics -- Nicole Sotelo, Kate Childs Graham, Mike Sweitzer-Beckman, Jamie L. Manson -- from different backgrounds and with different connections to the church. They will be sharing their stories in this space weekly.

Two possible goals here:

• Maybe they'd like to have subscribers under 40 again (no offense)
• Maybe they'd like to convince their subscribers over 60 that they are not a dying breed

Regardless of the conjectural editorial motivation, their inaugural column is by Nicole Sotello on Proposition 8.

Her thinly-veiled disagreement with the teaching of the bishops on this topic runs as follows:

But I wonder what type of laws we are preserving. We’ll be keeping a system of marriage laws that are not about love, but about privilege. Our current civil marriage laws privilege heterosexual men and women who happen to be fortunate in finding a partner. These couples receive special benefits with regard to taxes, pension plans, health care, social status and a variety of other societal advantages. Those who happen to be unlucky in love or whose families do not fit the mold are left out: unmarried parents with children, unmarried elderly individuals who live together and care for one another, and so on.

But marriage is a privilege - not a right. If it was a right, I could demand to be married - and as easier as that might make things for me on a friday night, it's clearly not reality. And marriage as a civil institution says nothing about love - that's a sacramental/interpersonal category, so it's unfair to ask if civil marriages are about "love". Try arguing that in a court.

Moving on: yes, marriage law privileges heterosexual couples, but why? Because they are the fundamental unit of society and society has an interest in protecting and fostering them. Society doesn't have that same interest in fostering the relationship between my brother and I, even if we share a house and expenses together (we don't, he has to graduate college first).

Protecting marriage is not about excluding people who are "left out". Even if gay marriage were approved by the state, that would do nothing to address the other situations Nicole talks about, including the unmarried, single-parents, etc. So that's really a completely separate issue.

And that coy "families who don't fit the mold" line? Please, if you're going to be a columnist, actually talk about the things you want to talk about. Don't use code language like that. Try being specific and explicit.

Oh, and in a column talking about Proposition 8, ya know that might be a really good time to express your understanding of the Church's teaching on homosexual unions and the civil ramifications.

My final take:

168 words of forgettable.

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.)

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.

Don't waste time on John A. Farrell's argument for Obama

Some folks are making interesting arguments for why a Catholic could support Obama.

John Aloysius Farrell of US News & World Report is not one of them.

Farrell has previously, by his own admission, compared the leadership of the Catholic Church to the Taliban, although he admits that was probably "a little over the top." Excuse me, a little?!

Now, in his pro-Obama argument "An Obama Vote Is No Sin for Catholics, Even With His Abortion Views", he first gets this wrong:

As a matter of church doctrine, Catholics are free to vote for any candidates whose stands they like on foreign policy, the economy, or other issues.

Of course not! A Catholic is not "free" to vote for Hitler if they like his policy on aggressive foreign expansion (Farrell apparently likes Nazi analogies). Anyway, liking a candidate on a single issue is not enough - they also have to be morally acceptable on important issues.

C'mon John - you have to admit that the above is just a stupid line, and claiming that it represents "church doctrine" doesn't help your cause with anyone who has ever cracked a catechism open.

Next wrongness:

And as a matter of practical politics, Catholic voters who vote Republican because they think the GOP is a strong foe of abortion have been sold a bill of goods.

In the 35 years since Roe v. Wade guaranteed a right of abortion for women, the Republicans, though dominating American politics, have consistently failed to take the tough political steps necessary to outlaw the practice.

This is a huge mis-reading of American history. Republicans have worked hard to reduce the incidence of abortion, and have been stymied in their attempts to do more by democrats. Are the republicans perfect on this issue? Of course not. Are they better than democrats on average? Yes.

And why do pro-abortion groups love democrats? Are they being sold a bill of goods by the democrats? What say you, Farrell?

Oh gosh, I'm sorry I asked. His solution:

If the Catholic clergy truly believes that abortion is so intrinsic an evil—a sin above sins—then it's time to blink at the lesser transgressions of birth control and sex education. Not just in America, but around the world.

You want to reduce the number of abortions? Distribute condoms and show teens how to use them.

I'm sorry, I've stopped listening. It's amazing how easy it is for Farrell to transition from an arguable claim about the legitimacy of voting for Obama to ... flat-out dissent from and opposition to Church teaching. No wonder he finds such a fast friend in Doug Kmiec, whom he quotes more than anyone else in the article.

It would be nice if we could all come together and condemn Farrell's ignorant, un-Catholic portrayal of the issues. He does his readers a disservice by claiming he speaks as an informed Catholic. I certainly do not see much evidence of being either.

Just where does McBrien get off?

Arch-dissentor Fr. Richard McBrien has published an article - surprise, surprise - in the National Catholic Reporter in which - surprise, surprise - he claims that "one-issue bishops violate their own teaching".

Carl Olson patiently points out that this is a straw man argument. And that's just a start.

The Cardinal Newman Society, meanwhile, takes a bit more umbrage at McBrien:

“Father McBrien’s blatant disregard and contempt for the leadership of the Catholic Church is nothing new,” said Patrick J. Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society. “Until Notre Dame and other Catholic colleges are rid of such jaded liberal theologians, the renewal of Catholic higher education can never be complete.”

Boy, they're really coming out of the woodwork these days.

More on former ND president Fr. Hesburgh

Diogenes was not impressed with Hesburgh's flippant remarks about Church teaching. Neither is Ed Peters:

Fr. Theodore Hesburgh's recent interview with the Wall Street Journal is getting some attention in the Catholic blogosphere, and it should: the WSJ article presents a casus classicus of how priestly ministry disappeared under the allure of social activism for the last 50 years or so. In any case, it is Hesburgh's assertion that "I have no problem with females . . . as priests, but I realize that the majority of the leadership in the Church would" that deserves a canonical comment. [Read it here.]

Former Notre Dame Priest President, "that venerable fraud"

Diogenes caustically, but not untruthfully, comments on recent public statements made by Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, the former President of Notre Dame, who's been quoted as saying:

"I have no problem with females or married people as priests, but I realize that the majority of the leadership in the Church would. But what's important is that people get the sacraments."

With shepherds like that, who needs wolves?

Not surprised: National Catholic Reporter promotes Feuerherd to editor-and-chief

Whispers reports some most unwelcome tidings:

"Placing the marquee publication of American Catholicism's progressive wing in feisty, fearless and familiar hands, earlier today the National Catholic Reporter announced the return of Joe Feuerherd -- until last year, the paper's longtime Washington correspondent -- to its masthead, but now as publisher and editor-in-chief."

Pure nerve from chairman-of-the-NCR-board:

“We are also impressed with Joe’s strong commitment throughout his adult life to peace and justice issues, as well as to the documents and spirit of Vatican II.”

"Spirit of Vatican II", I'll say....

Feuerherd has most recently got himself into hot water with this offensive "screed" published in the Washington Post, in which he literally expressed his desire to see the American bishops "damned" before he would fail to vote democrat this fall.

Feuerherd was quickly answered roundly by Ramesh Ponnuru, more notably by Sister Mary Ann Walsh of the USCCB, and most notably by Canon Lawyer Ed Peters who observes that under Church Law a very sound case can be made that Feuerherd deserved to be "punished by an interdict or other just penalties" (CIC 1373).

Hmm, someone who deserves to be punished by a Church interdict?!

Yep, promote him to your publisher and editor-and-chief.

Good call, NCR. Way to show us what sort of record you admire.

This seriously deserves a petition....

Catholic Nun invited to DNC doubts crucifixion story in talk

Quoted in full because Ryan Sayre Patrico doesn't waste words:

The Democrats didn’t invite Archbishop Charles Chaput to their convention in Denver this year, for understandable reasons. Instead, they invited Sr. Helen Prejean C.S.J. to speak at their interfaith gathering. If they were trying to avoid controversy and shore up support from religious party members, however, they were in for a disappointment:

COLORADO CONVENTION CENTER — Following the hot topic of abortion, Sister Helen Prejean tackled another: calling for abolition of the death penalty to raucous applause at the DNC’s interfaith gathering.

She received nothing but a stony silence, however, when she questioned the basis of the biblical crucifixion story as a “projection of our violent society.”

“Is this a God?” Prejeans asked about the belief that God allowed his son, Jesus, to be sacrificed for the sins of humanity. “Or is this an ogre?”

Just a little bit too left of left, I guess.

Is anything different 40 years later? Yes.

A particularly sad and encompassing example of dissent is presented by Fr. Richard McBrien (of the University of Notre Dame) upon the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae.

He cites the same, tired arguments that have been circulated against the teaching about contraception, and ends with this question: "Is the situation any different today, on the fortieth anniversary?"

My answer is yes, the situation is very different, but you, sir, sadly, are not.

(And that difference is not, I might add, in the teaching, but in the reception of it by the people of God - particularly my own generation - and the proven veracity of the predictions that document made.)

"Catholics for Choice" to publish open letter to Pope criticizing Humanae Vitae

The nerve:

A group of Catholic dissenters plans to publish an open letter to Pope Benedict XVI in a major U.S. and a major Italian newspaper criticizing Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae on the fortieth anniversary of its promulgation, July 25. The group Catholics for Choice (CFC) claims that the encyclical’s teaching against contraception has been an “utter failure” that endangers women’s lives and leaves millions at risk of HIV. However, a major pro-life leader said the group’s accusations were hard to take seriously. (CNA)

Meanwhile, in the corridors of sanity:

On 40th anniversary, 'Humanae Vitae' starts to gain more attention "Humanae Vitae" ("Of Human Life"), Pope Paul VI's encyclical on artificial contraception and the role of procreation in marriage, turns 40 July 25 and seems to be finding new life across the country.

"There is an army of people out there right now who are desirous of getting this message out," said Janet Smith, professor of moral theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in the Detroit Archdiocese.

Smith, who has taken her "Contraception Why Not" presentation across the U.S. and Canada, is finding that while the numbers may not be overwhelming, a growing number of people are beginning to understand the connection between the sexual freedom that emerged in the 1960s and today's violence, depiction of women as sex objects and high incidence of divorce.

"It seems to me that 40 years ago people thought that contraception would be advantageous. Now 40 years later, we'd better rethink that," she said. (CNS)

There's nothing like having reality on your side when you're trying to make a point.