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.

"Teen Birth Rates Higher in Highly Religious States"

I love science. Especially science about sex. It leads to such interesting conclusions.

U.S. states whose residents have more conservative religious beliefs on average tend to have higher rates of teenagers giving birth, a new study suggests.

The relationship could be due to the fact that communities with such religious beliefs (a literal interpretation of the Bible, for instance) may frown upon contraception, researchers say. If that same culture isn't successfully discouraging teen sex, the pregnancy and birth rates rise. (Live Science)

Now, I have a different interpretation. I would tend to think that religious individuals are less likely to choose abortion once pregnant. And that is why the teen birth rates are higher among religious individuals - because those babies aren't being killed in the womb.

The actual study, of course, "don't say anything about cause and effect", but that doesn't stop the scientists from forming their own conclusions:

"We conjecture that religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself."

How odd because - again - I would conjecture that religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging the choice to abort a child once he or she has been conceived.

Am I biased? Probably. Are the scientists biased? Probably.

But the difference is that the scientists look at this issue through the lens of contraception, and I look at it through the lens of abortion. Maybe we can find common ground in admitting that both can be a factor.

Oh, and that teens having abortions is far worse than teens becoming pregnant.

And that the Church proposes very effective solutions to both problems. If anyone will listen.

"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.

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."

Text: Letter from US Legion Territorial Directors to members

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

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

• Claim: Legion founder Maciel had multiple children; other details emerging
  
• Huh? Regnum Christi releases CD promoting RC vocations
  
• Update: Fr. Berg breaks his silence about the Legion
• Breaking: Abp. Chaput, other Legion visitors appointed by Vatican (full details added)  
  

Here it is embedded:

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

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.

Surprise: Washington behind forcing Belmont Abbey to pay for contraception

I blogged on this story earlier in the week. Turns out someone pulling strings in Washington is responsible for reversing the previous conclusion, which was in favor of Catholic religious liberty:

"In an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) today, Belmont Abbey College president Dr. William Thierfelder said officials at the Charlotte division of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) told him that a decision to close a discrimination complaint against the school for failing to offer contraception coverage was reversed after the matter went to the nation's capital."

The times, they are a-changin' for the worse.

update - whoops! forgot to include the link to the original LSN article.

Important: Bishop Nickless critically evaluates Obamacare, lays out Catholic principles

Stop the presses....

If you are a Catholic engaged in our nation's debate about health care, you need to read Bishop R. Walker Nickless' in his latest column.

I don't often post what I consider to be "required reading" for AmPsters, but this is one of those times. It's one of the very best articles on Catholic principles of health care I've read since I started following the debate.

Some excerpts:

.... My brother bishops have described some clear “goal-posts” to mark out what is acceptable reform, and what must be rejected.

First and most important, the Church will not accept any legislation that mandates coverage, public or private, for abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem-cell research. {contined}

Second, the Catholic Church does not teach that “health care” as such, without distinction, is a natural right. {continued}

Third, in that category of prudential judgment, the Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care. {continued}

Fourth, preventative care is a moral obligation of the individual to God and to his or her family and loved ones, not a right to be demanded from society. {continued}

Now Bishop Nickless takes a look at the particular parts of the legislation we are examining in Congress:

Within these limits, the Church has been advocating for decades that health care be made more accessible to all, especially to the poor. Will the current health care reform proposals achieve these goals?

The current House reform bill, HR 3200, does not meet the first or the fourth standard. As Cardinal Justin Rigali has written for the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-life Activities, this bill circumvents the Hyde amendment (which prohibits federal funds from being used to pay for abortions) by drawing funding from new sources not covered by the Hyde amendment, and by creatively manipulating how federal funds covered by the Hyde amendment are accounted. It also provides a “public insurance option” without adequate limits, so that smaller employers especially will have a financial incentive to push all their employees into this public insurance. This will effectively prevent those employees from choosing any private insurance plans. This will saddle the working classes with additional taxes for inefficient and immoral entitlements. The Senate bill, HELP, is better than the House bill, as I understand it. It subsidizes care for the poor, rather than tending to monopolize care. But, it designates the limit of four times federal poverty level for the public insurance option, which still includes more than half of all workers. This would impinge on the vitality of the private sector. It also does not meet the first standard of explicitly excluding mandatory abortion coverage.

Here you have Bishop Nickless' very compelling prudential conclusion about the current forms of the health care proposals. The idea that Catholics have an automatic obligation to support them is false. Instead, Catholics ought to be vocally involved in opposing the problematic features of this legislation, while also calling for authentic reform along different lines than the ones proposed now.

AP claims government insurance "would allow coverage for abortion"

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

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

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

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

update: the post below has been rendered meaningless by an 11th-hour move by Rep. Waxman (D-CA) which brought the amendment up for a second vote, and then defeated it by a one vote margin:

An anti-abortion amendment to a sweeping health overhaul bill was voted down in a House committee late Thursday — a dramatic reversal just hours after the measure initially was approved.

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

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

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

It was enough to take down the amendment on a 30-29 vote.

See how dead set the Democrat leadership is on keeping abortion in this health care bill?

===

original post....

I typically don't post blogs in the evening, but this is important news which shouldn't wait till morning:

Lawmakers have amended a sweeping health overhaul bill to ensure it does not require coverage of abortions.

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

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

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

The measure was offered by Rep. Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, along with Republicans Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Roy Blunt of Missouri. (AP)

What we should take from this:

1. Despite the attempt by pro-abortion groups to hide the truth, abortion is in this health care plan until the point that it is explicitly excluded. That's why we needed an amendment to rule it out.
2. We're not there yet. This measure still has to be approved in the full House and Senate. Keep sending in the emails, making the phone calls, and find ways of meeting with your representatives as they go back to their home districts in August.
3. Removing abortion coverage is a big step, but the health care reform plan still has serious flaws which also need to be examined over the coming weeks.

But that said, praise God that some measure of sanity has been introduced into our nation's health care debate. Our efforts are meeting some success ... now let's redouble them.

Text: My response to Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL

Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, wrote a letter to the editor and published it in Politico yesterday (ph/t Salon) in response to a piece by Tony Perkins of Family Research Council (available here):

"Tony Perkins took 729 words to obscure a simple fact: What he and his allies are demanding is a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health insurance market (“Keep Abortion Funding Out of Health Care Reform,” July 28).

Today, private plans can choose whether to cover the service — and most do. If Perkins succeeds, women who purchase private insurance that now covers abortion services will lose that coverage.

The bills moving through Congress now do not reference abortion, so it’s obvious that Perkins is injecting this issue unnecessarily into the health reform debate in hopes that it will bring down the whole endeavor. That’s outrageous."

Here is my response, which I will try to have published on Politico:

Nancy Keenan took 106 words to cover-up a simple agenda. What she and her allies want is the greatest expansion of federally-funded abortions since Roe v. Wade. She is incorrect in claiming that Tony Perkins is "demanding ... a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health insurance market." Instead, he wants health care reform to respect existing laws which prevent federal funds from paying for abortions. The difference is that Perkins says his goal, while Keenan hides her own.

Keenan incorrectly claims that Perkins wants women to lose their private insurance coverage of abortion. Instead, Perkins is only talking about the government's proposed public plan, which is not private insurance. It is one thing for private individuals to decide what their money pays for (such as abortion coverage in private insurance), it is another for government to force taxpayers to pay for abortion, to the exclusion of existing laws which the majority of Americans support.

Perkins is not "injecting" the issue of federally-funded abortion into the bill, like Keenan claims. Otherwise, why have Democrats resisted every attempt to have abortion coverage excluded? If there is anything outrageous here, it is Keenan's efforts to obscure the facts.

I'll update this post if my response is published.

Abortion "common ground" = Dissent from Church teaching

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

Quote of the Day from Kathryn Jean Lopez's interview with Archbishop Raymond Burke. Pay close attention:

LOPEZ: You seemed to make very clear that Catholic voters collaborated with evil when they voted for Obama. If you’re Catholic and did, do you have to confess this now that Mexico City, embryo-destructive funding, among other things, have happened?
ARCHBISHOP BURKE: If a Catholic knowingly and deliberately votes for a person who is in favor of the most grievous violations of the natural moral law, then he has formally cooperated in a grave evil and must confess his serious sin. Since President Obama clearly announced, during the election campaign, his anti-life and anti-family agenda, a Catholic who knew his agenda regarding, for example, procured abortion, embryonic-stem-cell research, and same-sex marriage, could not have voted for him with a clear conscience.

Archbishop Burke minces no words: in his estimation, a Catholic who voted for Obama could not have done so with a clear conscience.

Note also how Archbishop Burke evaluates Obama as not only anti-life, but also anti-family because of his positions on same-sex marriage.

On a related note, Fr. James Schall, SJ unpacks Archbishop Burke's keynote address which he gave last Friday at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.

Text: Obama's response to tonight's question on Notre Dame, FOCA and abortion

Tonight during Obama's press conference Ed Henry of CNN asked an excellent question.

Here is the text of the question and Barack Obama's response:

CNN's Ed Henry: Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you're going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.

As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at one point in the campaign when asked about abortion and life, you said that it was above — quote, above my pay grade.

Now that you've been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator.

Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?

OBAMA: You know, the — my view on — on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.

I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they — if they suggest — and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.

The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that — that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their clergy.

So — so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.

And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.

Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's — that's where I'm going to focus.

I will refrain from commenting at this point. Do note, however, that Obama makes no comment about the Notre Dame scandal. I'm not quite sure immediately what significance there may be to that omission.

And props to Ed Henry for playing hardball. I wouldn't be surprised if he's taking hits for it.

[photo credit: CNN]

update - video of this question (via the SuzyB blog):

Essay: Christopher Tollefsen explains why torture is wrong

I'm very happy to see Public Discourse taking up this important topic, much in the news these days:

The recent publication of the Torture Memos and of the International Red Cross report on the treatment of high-level detainees in the aftermath of 9/11 has returned to national prominence the discussion of the morality of torture and “enhanced interrogation” techniques. It is important to be clear, as a moral matter, on what boundaries should be accepted in interrogation of human beings; a responsible and non-politicized discussion is essential on this difficult issue.

[Read Tollefsen's essay here.]

Some folks have left comments asking why AmP has not talked about the morality of torture. A significant reason for this lacuna was that I had not yet found a satisfying treatment. I look forward to their feedback now.

Update: Expert commentary on Glendon's noble refusal

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

Fr. Raymond J. de Souza at NCRegister:

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

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

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

Ed Peters at Canon Law Blog:

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

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

I say, God bless Ambassador Glendon.

Commentary: What Bishop D'Arcy's Statement Means

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read my comments here.

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

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

Joseph Lawler writing for AmSpec passes along a fascinating report:

"At Off the Record, Phil Lawler (my dad) is passing along a report that he has from a reliable source: ND President Fr. John Jenkins is in Washington, D.C. today for an unannounced meeting at the White House. This is still merely a rumor, but indeed FlightAware shows the ND jet flying to Dulles this morning."

Joe goes on to note that, despite the criticism of 42 bishops (and counting), Fr. Jenkins is digging in his heels, claiming he and others are "tremendously proud" to honor Obama (source).

As for the backlash to the announcement of Obama's invitation, which has included over 325,000 individuals signing a petition protest, Jenkins says: "it's unfortunate that the great event of President Obama coming to this campus has been a little clouded by that controversy."

... a little clouded?! This is easily the biggest scandal to hit Notre Dame in years, if not in its long history. To say the event has been "a little clouded" is simply a sentence out of la-la land.

Whatever Fr. Jenkins is saying in public, it's clear that internally Notre Dame is in severe conflict - this is quickly becoming an identity crisis for the institution, a struggle for the soul and reputation of the university. And Fr. Jenkin's fiddling isn't helping put out any of the fires.

And, surprise-surprise, I think it's going to get worse. I've been alerted to at least one other significant detail of the visit in particular which, if confirmed, will further strain the situation. Let's call it the "georgetown policy."

So if Fr. Jenkins is in DC to meet with Obama, what are they doing? My guess would be damage control. They are probably putting their heads together and trying to figure out some solution to what is fast becoming a watershed moment in the relations between the Obama administration and Catholic America.

Let's hope, work and pray for a peaceful (and satisfying) abatement to the waters.

Towards that end, we should recall that the top-down decision making pursued so far by Obama/Jenkins simply isn't working. Fr. Jenkins owes Notre Dame - and Obama owes American Catholics - a just solution which respects the contributions and concerns of those 42 bishops and 325,000 signers.

update: Notre Dame's student newspaper is claiming that the University spokesman is denying reports that Fr. Jenkins met Obama in Washington today. Can anyone lend clarity pro/con?

update 2: Why Fr. Jenkins is in DC (according to one source).

AmP Poll: What do you think of Notre Dame's invitation to Obama?

For the latest posts, scroll down or click here and scroll down. Notre Dame scandal updates here.

As always, please feel free to explain your vote in the comment box and spread the word.

(if you can't see the poll - click here.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was worried about something like this happening. Looks like Randall Terry lied to Archbishop Burke about how his interview would be used, and Burke has issued a statement today to clarify:

ROME, Italy - In response to the March 25, 2009 press conference of Mr. Randall Terry in Washington, D.C., the Most Reverend Raymond L. Burke, Archbishop Emeritus of Saint Louis and Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, issued the following statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I am deeply sorry for the confusion and hurt which the wrong use of the videotape has caused to anyone, particularly, to my brother bishops.”

Once again, this situation could have been avoided if Abp. Burke's assistants had done their homework. (News flash, people: USE GOOGLE.) After all, Terry advertised this DC press conference several days in advance ... and yet no one in Rome apparently took notice of the things Terry was claiming (Second news flash, people: USE GOOGLE to keep tabs on what the media is saying about your boss). Rome shouldn't be the last one to know.

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

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

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

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

Ph/t: Whispers.

Abp. Burke in interview says pro-aborts are to be denied communion

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

This is very newsworthy.

Terry Randall of Operation Rescue went to Rome recently and conducted an interview with Archbishop Burke, who is completely uncompromising in his interpretation and application of Canon 915. He hits the ground running:

"Mr. Terry: For the umpteenth time, I and the others are asking, under Canon 915 what should or should not be done?

Archbishop Burke: The Canon is completely clear, it is not subject in my judgment to any other interpretations. When someone is publicly and obstinately in grave sin we may not administer Holy Communion to the person. And that, basically, for two reasons: number one, to prevent the person himself or herself from committing a sacrilege, and secondly, to protect the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist. In other words, to approach, to receive our Lord in Holy Communion, when one insists on remaining in grave sin, is such a violation of the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist, so that Communion must not be given to people who are publicly, obstinately, in grave sin.

And that's just a start. Read the full transcript here.

Archbishop Burke will address the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on May 9th.

Exclusive: Director of ND Alumni sends email to club leaders

I have received a copy of the email, which I post in full:

Dear Club Leaders:

As you know, the University recently announced President Barack Obama will be the principal speaker and recipient of an honorary degree at Notre Dame’s Commencement ceremony this May. President Obama will be the ninth U.S. president to be awarded an honorary degree by the University, and the sixth to be the Commencement speaker. Here is the press release about the announcement.

Many alumni, parents, and friends of the University have expressed their opinions about the selection of the Commencement speaker. We welcome their feedback and appreciate the passion the Notre Dame family has for Our Lady’s University.

As leaders of ND clubs, classes, and alumni groups, you may receive phone calls, e-mails, and letters from alumni, parents and friends regarding the Commencement speaker.

If alumni, parents or friends would like to express their opinions to the University regarding this issue , please ask them to send an e-mail to the Alumni Association at ndalumni@nd.edu . They will receive a timely response.

The Alumni Association also welcomes you to share your personal views on this issue, but requests that any communications be sent outside the structure and distribution lists of the Notre Dame club, class or alumni group that you represent.

Here are a few University observations about the selection of the President as the Commencement speaker:

The University does not support President Obama’s positions on specific issues regarding the protection of human life, including abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Notre Dame’s positions on these issues are firm and unwavering. The invitation to the President to be the Commencement speaker shouldn’t be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions that contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Rather, the University has invited the President to campus for what he’s done for racial equality, and for his stands on poverty, health care, immigration, education, infectious disease, and seeking peace. These are causes dear to the heart of Notre Dame, and he has elevated these causes and made them his own.

It adds special significance that the Notre Dame family will hear the Commencement address from our first African-American president, a man who has spoken eloquently on the issue of race in this nation.

That said, presenting a Commencement speaker with an honorary degree does not imply approval of all a person thinks or does. We recognize that the University has differences with the President on specific issues of protecting life, and we hope his visit to campus will provide an opportunity t o address our concerns in a dialogue that can deepen over time, and ultimately lead to better policies for protecting life. A policy that is never discussed is policy that is never changed, and we’re going to get more discussion on these issues because of his visit to Notre Dame.

Also, I want to mention that Fr. Hesburgh spoke last Friday evening (3/20) to a group of alumni, parents, and friends who had gathered on campus for the Academic Recognition Weekend. Someone in the group raised the question: what did Fr. Hesburgh think of the University’s announcement of Obama as Commencement speaker? “No speaker who has ever come to Notre Dame has changed this University, he explained. We are who we are. But, quite often, the very fact of being here has changed the speaker.”

Do we expect President Obama to reverse his stance on life issues after visiting campus? No, but we do expect that the national attention drawn to these matters by virtue of his being here will open up the conversation around these critical issues—and shed light on Notre Dame’s and the Catholic Church’s firm opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

Your devotion to Notre Dame is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support and all you do for Our Lady’s University.

For Notre Dame,
Charles F. Lennon Jr. ’61, ’62 M.A.
Executive Director, Notre Dame Alumni Association

Notre Dame news nibbles

A busy day here at AmP, so I'm switching on the stream-of-consciousness to fit all this in quickly...

Just checked - another 20,000 signatures on the petition ... past 120,000 now. My earlier outside estimate that the petition could pass 250k is now far too conservative. This is because the story has gone mainstream as I noted late yesterday. Just look at this updating Google News search. In the coming days, watch for a move to organize a live (peaceful) protest/march at the actual commencement in May.

I have been informed that a response from ND students will be forthcoming today - so stay tuned.

Don't forget to vote in today's new AmP Poll: "What do you think of Notre Dame's invitation to Obama?"

Coming-into-the-Church-on-Easter Newt Gingrich had this to say when the ND news broke:

"It is sad to see notre dame invite president obama to give the commencement address Since his policies are so anti catholic values" [on twitter, of course.]

Last night in Obama's white house press conference ... we witnessed total incoherence and tiresome double-speak when the question of embryonic stem cells came up. Dan Gilgoff has commentary (scroll down for the transcript of the exchange). Kmiec should be embarrassed about the position he took last week in an exchange with Robby George. Gilgoff moderated that debate and can't avoid agreeding with the side of reality (George, against Kmiec).

Thomas F. Roeser in the Chicago Daily Observer is imploring Bishop D'Arcy to consider employing the "nuclear option" of removing Notre Dame's Catholic identification (after D'Arcy announced he was boycotting the commencement exercises). I don't think it will happen in this case, but down the road ... next time .... somewhere else .... it's worth reading up on the possibility.

Over at The Catholic Thing, Fr. James Schall, S.J. talks about Charles Krauthammer on President Obama's embryonic stem cell decision. Only he's not talking about just him. Read it and see why. Good stuff.

I think William McGurn was just brilliant in his analysis of the situation in yesterday's Wall Street Journal.

If you're trying to find signs of hope, here's a little glimmer: "Several representatives of leading national pro-life groups held a meeting with President Barack Obama's top White House faith office staffer on Tuesday." However: "Pro-life groups aren't expecting much from Obama given his pro-abortion record." Still, we can at least try to hold him accountable to his promise of reducing abortions. Sadly, I think that's where we are at for now.

One last thought: it'd be very nice to top 700 twitter followers today. Yes it would. On busy days I'll tend to update twitter more often rather than spending the extra time for a full-out blog post. Like this one.

Day 4: MSM takes note of Notre Dame scandal (finally)

It took awhile, but the mainstream media is finally taking note of the Notre Dame scandal, aided no doubt by the tends of thousands of signatures gathered by the Cardinal Newman Society (and more by the minute).

Drudge recently posted this story with the headline: "Obama faces Notre Dame Catholic backlash..." and once Drudge picks it up, it's news. Numerous media outlets are posting their own coverage of the controversy.

{update - the story has also made the front page of FoxNews.com...

... told you the story would be big.}

This means we can now expect such enlightened commentary as this from the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder:

"Life, Taken For Granted: Given that President Obama went out of his way to give pro-life pastors a prominent place at his inauguration, aren't the demands of those who want Notre Dame to rescind its commencement invitation to Obama a little.... well... of course they're predictable...but mostly... uncivil? Also: aren't both side of the abortion debate more mature than this now? Shouldn't pro-lifers want as much contact with Obama as possible?"

First of all, that's a very ironic title, because most people who have life do in fact take it for granted. Second - let me get this straight: Obama invites a few folks who happen to be pro-life to his inauguration and that means the debate about life issues is over?! Third, isn't it a problem in the first place that pro-lifers have had so little involvement in Obama's administration? Pro-life Catholics shouldn't have to pander for face time.

Also: you will see this insinuation of Ambinder's repeated by others which basically goes "isn't it time to move on?" It's an extremely patronizing misdirection which dismisses debate without even attempting a response ... because they'd much sooner have us stay quiet. Consider for a moment: how much attention do you think the media would be paying to Obama's position on life issues right now if this protest wasn't taking place?

New Archbishop appointment for St. Louis imminent?

I'm hearing independent reports that the next Archbishop of St. Louis could be announced tomorrow, or indeed - very soon. Whispers says the successor is "expected within days."

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

At any rate, if someone at Kenrick-Glennon seminary wants to contact me with an update, I'd be grateful.

St. Louis has had an Archdiocesan Administration (Bishop Robert Hermann) since Archbishop Raymond Burke was transferred to Rome last year.

update: no announcement today, but stay tuned....

Weigel, Schall, Garnett, others weigh-in on Obama invitation

National Review Online is hosting a symposium today entitled "A Moral Exemplar? Should the University of Notre Dame honor our most anti-life president?" with contributions from the likes of George Weigel, James Schall, S.J., Candace de Russy, Pia De Soenni, Richard Garnett, etc. Many notable quotes.

It's a mega-read.

Update: 20,000 sign ND petition, ND switchboards overwhelmed

As of 10AM, over 18,000 signatures have been gathered at http://www.notredamescandal.com/.

{update - 3,000 more have signed as of 12:00pm EST}

{update 2 - I'm told the petition is receiving 250+ votes every 3 minutes! CatholicVote.com is on board. }

LifeNews reports:

After LifeNews.com reported on the news, the switchboards at Notre Dame rang off the hook and eventually the volume of calls became too much to handle.

The voicemail message boxes for the university's president, vice-president, provost, assistant provost, and public relations director were all full by the end of the day on Friday. Operators suggested that callers try again today to reach top Notre Dame officials.

Papists, you are not alone in considering Notre Dame's invitation of Obama to be inappropriate.

Fr. Jenkins responds to criticism

In a Notre Dame Observer interview:

Jenkins made clear the University is not honoring the president for his stances on these issues, but for his leadership.

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

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

I'll respond later.

ND to also give Mary Ann Glendon Laetare Medal

Take with one hand, wink with the other (underlining mine):

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

“Both as a public intellectual and as a diplomat, Mary Ann Glendon has impressively served our Church and our country,” said Notre Dame’s president, Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C. “She is an articulate and compelling expositor of Catholic social teaching who exemplifies our University’s most cherished values and deserves its highest praise.” (ND Press Release)

It's going to be an interesting stage up there with Obama. Having served on the President's Council for Bioethics, Glendon probably won't claim abortion is above her pay grade. Ironic of Fr. Jenkin's to say that Catholic social teaching is Notre Dame's "most cherished value."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ND students submit letter asking Fr. Jenkins to challenge Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Against: Protest Obama as Notre Dame's 2009 Commencement Speaker (418 members)
• For: We Will Be Honored to Have President Obama at Notre Dame (327 members)
• Against: Tell Notre Dame to Un-Invite President Obama (190 members)

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

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

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

So much for a discernibly distinctive Catholic character.

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

Omnicoverage: President Obama invited to give Notre Dame Commencement

As is already well-known, Notre Dame University has announced that President Barack Obama will be its 164th commencement speaker on May 17th. He will at the same time receive an honorary degree in doctor of laws.

This news has sparked a wave of protest, starting with graduates of the institution, one of whom immediately wrote an open letter to their President Fr. John Jenkins.

The Cardinal Newman Society has also been a catalyst for protest, setting up an entire website (http://www.notredamescandal.com/) with an online petition and contact information for the university, to rescind the invitation. They also faxed a letter to local Bishop John D'Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend, notifying him of the scandal.

Now, for the record, I'm extremely pessimistic about Notre Dame rescinding the invitation. You simply can't deny a sitting President from speaking once you have invited him. The cat is already out of the bag.

What can and will happen, I hope, is a frank discussion in the public spotlight about a) the mission and identity of Catholic universities and b) a greater awareness of the anti-Catholic policies and legislation that Obama is currently pursuing. {update: Michael Paulson at his Boston Globe blog has picked this up.}

Simply put, Catholics and Notre Dame graduates are not going to take this one lying down: If Notre Dame does not dis-invite Obama, [ND graduate Joe] Scheidler says "the Notre Dame campus can expect a massive pro-life protest on graduation day." (source.)

This invitation comes at an ironic time for Notre Dame, as Kathleen Gilbert of LifeSiteNews notes that "The school's Center for Ethics and Culture recently established a pro-life fund in an effort to bolster Notre Dame's pro-life identity." Kathryn Jean Lopez says Notre Dame "... would rather be of this world than the one they supposedly exist to bring people toward."

I am one of the first public signers of the petition and invite you to join the list.

David Gibson at Commonweal thinks it's a "fine choice," but I strongly disagree. First of all, the comparison with Bush is a false one for many reasons, chief of which is that Bush, certainly prior to the Iraq War (when he was invited), was not repugnant to fundamental Catholic values and was not actively pursuing legislation which hurts Catholic institutions (for instance: repealing of conscience clauses, repealing the Mexico City policy, nominating Kathleen Sebellius). Granted, being President may entitle you to many things, but it does not mean that you are necessarily a model servant of the public trust, in Catholic eyes.

Second of all, if Notre Dame wanted a debate, they chose the wrong way to go about it (honoring the President and giving him a degree). If one must have a substantive debate with someone, you should have it before you roll out the red carpet for them. Notre Dame has vitiated its ability to have this debate by inviting Obama as their commencement speaker. Here I note my agreement with Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

On a related note, lest we have a short memory of these debates, it should be remembered that in May of 2006 Boston College managed to get 100 of its faculty members to sign a protest letter - originating from its theology department - upon the occasion of Condoleezza Rice's invitation as a commencement speaker, because, the letter claimed, her activity in the Iraq War supposedly conflicted with Catholic and Jesuit principles.

I'll be very interested to see if the same phenomenon of Catholic academic protest (and wider media interest) takes place in the coming days and weeks.

But I won't be holding my breath. In the meantime, sign the petition. And say a Hail Mary to Notre Dame.

[photo #1 credit: thegabester; photo #2 credit: slherbst01]

More on Condoms

Some follow-up links to the story we've been covering the last couple days:

• The Cathoholic: Condoms, the Pope & Africa
• NRO: Benedict Has It Right (good article)
• Kathryn Jean Lopez: Media coverage of papal comments on AIDS in Africa is March madness.
• Whispers: Damage Control, PopeTrip Edition
• Off the Record: African wife-beaters urged to practice "safe-sox"

Report: LC "town hall meeting" with vocations director

On March 9th I posted news forwarded to me by a member of Regnum Christi about the first-ever Interactive Teleconference hosted by Legion vocations director Fr. Anthony Bannon.

Fr. Bannon was one of the figures instrumental in the founding and expansion of the Legionaries and Regnum Christi in the United States, and has been with them for more than thirty years.

Here are my observations of the conference call he conducted last night, numbered for convenience:

1. There was a moderator of the conversation that introduced Fr. Bannon. People calling-in were given the option of submitting a question. Some of these questions were submitted to Fr. Bannon by the moderator (scroll down). It was promised that every question would eventually receive a response from Fr. Bannon or one of his assistants.
2. Fr. Bannon began with a clarification of what the call was, and was not. He said it was not a news conference and he would not be discussing or answering questions about the "unexpected events" and "total surprise" of the "serious failings of the father founder" which he went on to say were "difficult to accept, but accept them we must." [These parts felt recited and measured.]
3. He said the time was not yet mature to discuss these matters and promised that the Legion was in constant contact with the Holy See. He said there were facts that still need to be investigated. Prudentially and without rushing. He promised they were working on it.
4. [This sounded more ad-libbed] He emphatically stated that "we’re deeply sorry and apologize to anyone who has been hurt or scandalized by these actions. Our directors are quietly trying to get in touch with possible victims." He went on to apologize again for the scandal caused to "you."
5. "Many of you have gotten in touch with us to say you are praying for us, so let me express my gratitude for your prayers over these past weeks."
6. "One of the main reasons that you have supported us is our fidelity to the Holy See. That part of our spirituality is not about to change nor will it ever I hope."
7. He promised that anything the Holy Father saw as appropriate (in terms of taking action), "we will do that and do it happily."
8. [It was evident at this point that he was in fact going to discuss the situation at some length.]
9. "First point, our trials have been a blessing. You have been very kind to us." He said the Legion has received many accolades including from many quarters in authority in the church.
10. He said the apostolates were growing tremendously. "All of this is good." But at the same time: "We are human and this is therefore a danger. We can get overconfident, begin to feel superior." He said there was a real danger of "losing the focus" and that "the present situation has helped bring us back."
11. He continued: "This experience of weakness has brought us back to the core of what we are doing as priests. We must review our actions to make sure no one except Christ is at the center of our lives. A better awareness that it is Christ we are following, and no one and nothing else."
12. These points are perhaps the most interesting of what he said: "Our constitutions were approved 25 ½ years ago. It was like the church took our charism out of our hands. Received from God, and taken out of our hands and our founder’s hands. For those 25 years, not even he could change them without going through a process."
13. [I'm paraphrasing:] The church has guaranteed ours as a valid charism, and protects it. It is a valid path to holiness. Regnum Christi was approved in similar fashion 4 years ago.
14. We work to do what the church has approved in order to make it a reality. [At this point it felt rather distinctly that he was reading from a prepared statement. Though perhaps rephrasing things in his own words. It was very fluid.]
15. He concluded by saying, in effect, "We want to make sure we are what we are supposed to be, in what the Church has approved."
16. (I forget exactly how long this opening statement took to complete, but I believe it was about 8 minutes.)
17. Next, he overviewed the situation of Legionary formation in the United States. "Vocations are up this year" was the bottom line. But he spoke at length and in great detail. He talked a lot about how happy the seminarians are.
18. He said formation of Legionary priests faces two challenges: fostering commitment to the vocation they have chosen on the side of the seminarians, and providing for the financial needs of their education on the side of the formators.
19. At this point, the moderator came back on the line and asked five survey questions of the listeners, which I paraphrase: a) how vital is the work of the legion to the future success of the Church? b) in addition to vocations, what are you most interested in -
    Youth family programs; Schools/education; Work with poor abroad? c) what age group are you in? d) have you ever met a legion priest or seminarian? e) are you interested in a future teleconference?
20. Following this, roughly 30 minutes of the moderator asking questions from the listeners while Fr. Bannon responded. The questions: a) “how come the Legionaries aren’t assigned to parishes like regular priests?” b) “Should parents be allowed to see those in the novitiate more often?” [Fr. Bannon explained that the novitiate is "Almost like a year or two of contemplative life."] c) "how has the economic downturn affecting the legion in the way you operate?" [Fr. Bannon said it has affected them as much as anyone else, so seriously. They are looking to expand their donor base, I gathered] d) "how much time does the Legion spend supporting human life and against abortion, etc?" e) why does it take so long to reach ordination?" [The gist of Fr. Bannon's answer: because they are not ordained until they are ready to act as priests.] f) "We’re in a period of spiritual warfare. What should we do and what is the Legion doing?" [Here it was interesting to note that I believe Fr. Bannon slipped at one point into saying "John Paul II told the founder ... I mean, told us ..."] g) "do the Legion receive funds from anyone besides private donors? Do the dioceses?" [This question, perhaps because he did not understand it, I don't think Fr. Bannon ended up answering. He spoke about collaboration between the Legion and local dioceses instead.]

I've not posted most of the spiritual insights and attitudes that Fr. Bannon expressed. I had the impression I was in the presence of a holy man, very dedicated to his mission of forming priests.

He often thanked the listeners for supporting the Legion. He said "God’s providence is always there, and he will bless and help us" and asked that "we may have the perseverance to do what we need to do". He prayed that he could "Serve you and serve souls better" and promised to pray for the listeners in his prayers and Masses. He said God was very present to us now.

Afterwards the moderator returned to the line and thanked everyone, saying he thought it was an excellent way to be "close to you." People whose questions were not answered were invited to leave a voicemail.

I'm not sure that I have any commentary to add except one observation: it's a pity that this conversation had to be conducted about such pressing issues as the formation of seminarians, the financial stress of our times and on the Legion, and the future of the Legion in relation to the Church ... without any up-front discussion of the Maciel scandal. Clearly it is on people's minds, clearly they are looking for answers, and Fr. Bannon could not (read, is not allowed at this point to) give any.

Let us pray for priests and seminarians of the Legion, for the consecrated lay members of Regnum Christi, and for Maciel's victims, that a forthright solution will be pursued to these too-long-festering wounds.

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

Damian Thompson proposes that he was:

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

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

The CNS blog meanwhile reports on a clarification issued by Vatican spokesman Fr. Lombardi, this after CNS's own John Thavis claimed Pope Benedict to have said the distribution of condoms "only increases the problem of AIDS."

... now, this is not the end of the story. Here's why:

The Vatican press office has royally flubbed its handling of these situations before.

I remember breathing a sigh of relief last year during the pope's in-flight interview on his way to the United States that nothing went wrong, because things did go wrong in 2003 during the pope's in-flight interview on his way to Brazil. The Vatican press office's solution was to issue a toned-down version of the pope's remarks about Mexican lawmakers the next day.

The Vatican press office might have decided to apply that same solution today. Especially since, from what I've seen, Fr. Lombardi has not specifically claimed that the mainstream media's reporting of the pope's words was in fact erroneous.

One thing we can be sure about: because the Vatican has denied claims made by the mainstream media about what the pope actually said, you can bet that the mainstream media sources are going to go back to their audio/video recordings of the interview and double-check what he said.

So be prepared - possibly - for an audio or video clip of the Pope, well, misspeaking.

Then again, this could just be media bias. Time will tell. Stay tuned. And be aware of the history, too.

update: Ruth Gledhill agrees about the comments (though I don't agree with her about condoms).

update 2: sure enough.... "It looks like some idiot in the Vatican press office tampered with the Pope's quotes. Time for sackings"

Blowup in Madison: Bp. Morlino Dismisses Feminist Pastoral Associate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roundup: MSM coverage of the Connecticut Rally

Closing down shop for the day, but before I head out the door:

• Reuters: "Thousands of Roman Catholics demonstrated in Connecticut on Wednesday against a state government proposal to shift control of parish finances to lay officials from priests and bishops."
• AP: "Thousands of Roman Catholics descended on the Connecticut statehouse Wednesday, as simmering resentment over bills they consider anti-Catholic reached a boiling point with a recent legislative attempt to give parishioners more say over parish financing."
• John Talleos brings up some good points in the Hartford Conservative Examiner
• Glen Beck had a roundtable on Freedom of Religion, with transcript and video

An update on Caritas-Centene

From White Coat Notes, the Boston Globe's medical blog:

State regulators today voted to accept a controversial bid by a Massachusetts Catholic hospital chain and a secular health organization to provide health insurance to low income residents.

... The vote came after Caritas-Centene assured the panel that women will have "ready access" to timely family planning services, with no primary care physician referral required. They also promised creation of a toll-free 800 customer service number that will provide women information about where they can get family planning and reproductive services -- and, in an emergency, will provide transporation to the nearest approriate facility.

Board officials promised close monitoring to make sure the promises are kept.

Full backstory posted this morning. Cardinal Sean explains himself on his blog (I love saying that):

There has been a significant amount of public dialogue concerning my statement yesterday (as copied below) about the proposed arrangement involving Caritas Christi Health Care with the Commonwealth Care Program.

To be perfectly clear, Caritas Christi will never do anything to promote abortions, to direct any patients to providers of abortion or in any way to participate in actions that are contrary to Catholic moral teaching and anyone who suggests otherwise is doing a great disservice to the Catholic Church. We are committed to the Gospel of Life and no arrangement will be entered into unless it is completely in accord with Church teaching.

Recognizing the complexity of the proposed arrangement, I will ask the National Catholic Bioethics Center to review the arrangement and to provide me their opinion.

There's, well, plenty of comments.

LifeNews adds an action item:

Contact Caritas Christi and urge it not to begin doing abortions or referring for them:

Caritas Christi Health Care,
736 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02135, (phone) 617-789-2500, CCR.Webmaster@CaritasChristi.org

update: Catholic Culture adds:

However, the cardinal's claim was contradicted by representatives of Commonwealth Care, who assured state officials that their program would provide "ready access" to all of the services mandated by the government program, including abortion.

Under the Commonwealth Care system, abortions will not be performed at the Caritas Christi hospitals. But women who wish to procure abortions will be given a telephone number to call for information on where abortions are performed, and, if necessary, transportation to those sites.

Exclusive: Legion discontinues controversial "Prayer for Fidelity"

I have it on good authority that the "Prayer for Fidelity" said by Regnum Christi members has been officially discontinued.

This communique originated from Fr. Scott Reilly, the Legionaries of Christ Territorial Director in Atlanta, Georgia.

Fr. Reily appears to be a catalyst in making information known within Regnum Christi. He was one of the first priests to begin informing various Regnum Christi sections about Maciel's misdeeds.

I am also told that a new prayer is being composed, although I do not know who is responsible for that task.

Here is the text of the discontinued prayer, with parts I found interesting in bold:

Lord Jesus, you have entrusted to us the mission of furthering the Legion and Regnum Christi, and making them grow healthy and vigorous for the good of all people and of your Kingdom. This mission comes to us as an utterly free, unforeseen, mysterious reality, out of all proportion to our abilities.

Since the Legion and the Movement will be vigorous and will flourish as long as the spirit of our founder is present and active in our lives and behavior, we ask you to open our eyes to the urgency of learning, assimilating and passing on the doctrine, spirit, apostolic methods, genuine traditions, discipline and lifestyle of the Legion and Regnum Christi, just as our founder has made them known to us, since this is our responsibility.

Lord, help us to adhere totally to the charism you inspired in our founder.

You have chosen to give us a role in your plan of salvation, and we have the possibility of fulfilling it, step by step, for the good of the Church and of humanity, or of making it fail deplorably. So, we ask from you what you ask of us: faith, great faith in your work, love for it, trust in its mission, docility, loyal collaboration, humility, a sense of responsibility, and fidelity. Amen.

An encouraging move.

update: welcome, SpiritDaily readers, my complete coverage of the Legion scandal is documented here.

Photo source.

What is Caritas Christi up to?

This story has been simmering for awhile but I only just now had a chance to do a treatment.

AmP reader Jeanne gives us a fantastic opening brief:

Caritas Christi Health Network (which owns the remaining Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts) wants to partner with Centene Corp. - a St. Louis based health network - to put a bid in for government subsidized healthcare. Ostensibly, this is for the sake of allowing lower-income people greater access to healthcare.

The catch is that if the venture were to accept government money, then they would be required by Massachusetts state law to cover abortions. (In the words of Connector Authority spokesman Dick Powers: "Health plans must provide covered services. Covered services specifically include abortion services.") On March 5, 2009, Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley released a statement, saying that, "...Caritas Christi Health Care has assured me that it will not be engaged in any procedures nor draw any benefits from any relationship which violate the Church's moral teaching as found in the Ethical and Religious Directives." And while it is true that Caritas Christi Health Care does not plan to directly offer any of the so-called "family planning services" that would be mandated by the state, they are planning on providing referrals for such services. The plan is this: Caritas would refer the patient to another facility, knowing that said facility would then direct her to physicians who will perform abortions, prescribe contraception, and so forth.

Despite his protestations to the contrary, lot of people believe that the Cardinal is being intellectually dishonest in how he is presenting the situation and that the partnership would amount to the Catholic hospital system cooperating with a provider of abortion services. In the face of public outrage over this partnership, the Cardinal is submitting the situation to the National Catholic Bioethics Center. It will be interesting to hear their opinion of this situation.

The Catholic Action League has been very vocal on this issue, saying in their most recent press release that Caritas Christi is "stonewalling".

Michael Paulson of the Boston Globe did an in-depth story on March 4th, and had a symposium of moral theologians weigh-in yesterday. Together they've compiled a tome of contributions.

Sadly, however, from my brief survey of the names chosen, there appear to be many theologians who don't think with the mind of the Church on this complex issue.

Breaking: RNC head Steele says abortion is a "choice"

In an interview with GQ, Michael Steele, the new head of the Republican National Committee says abortion is a choice.

This is very dissapointing news, if it turns out to accurately portray his view on abortion:

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.

Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.

Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

As a Catholic, Mr. Steele should know better.

More from CMR and Politico.

Photo: GQ.

update: Steele, under fire, walks back 'choice' remark (read to the bottom for Tony Perkins comment)

First Take: Video of Bp. Lori at CT Catholic Rally

You're getting this content practically as it is uploaded:
Broadcasting Live with Ustream.TV

Action Item: Resources for Catholics rallying in Hartford tomorrow

Even though the offensive anti-Catholic bill has been pulled, the planned rally is still happening.

You can find the official rally schedule of events I've uploaded here. It includes everything you could possibly need including sponsored bus schedules, text of the bill, planned rally songs, you name it.

Elizabeth Ela of (KofC-run) Headline Bistro will be twittering live updates from the rally:

http://twitter.com/Headlinebistro

Please, if you are able, attend the rally and support the free exercise of our religion! Thanks, papists.

Flash: Anti-Catholic CT pulled! Update: Rally still a GO!

UPDATE - THE RALLY IS STILL A GO!

Looks like they didn't want this one blowing up in their face:

controversial bill that would change the way the Catholic church governs itself has been pulled and a public hearing planned Wednesday on the issue postponed until its constitutionality can be determined.

The hearing had been expected to draw hundreds of people, many of whom where angry about what they view as the state's inappropriate and perhaps unconstitutional incursion into church affairs.

At a press conference this morning at the legislative office building, Tom Gallagher of Greenwich, who has long advocated that lay people be given greater responsibilities within the church, said he has asked Rep. Michael Lawlor and Sen. Andrew McDonald, co-chairmen of the legislature's judiciary committee, to put off the hearing until Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has reviewed the matter.

Lawlor and McDonald agreed. "At the request of the proponents who are advocating this legislation, we have decided to cancel the public hearing for tomorrow [and] table any further consideration of this bill for the duration of this session,'' the lawmakers said in a joint statement. (Hartford Courant)

Caught 'em red-handed. Well done, everyone. Remain vigilant. {update - rally still a go!}

The two proponents of the bill are now trying to claim that they were simply following Connecticut legal precendent which employs specific legislation for particular religious institutions.

In other words, what began as a precedent for their actions has now also become their justification. In fact, they are trying to claim that they believe this precedent of preference "doesn't seem right."

Well no kidding - then why in the first place did they introduce a bill that took advantage of the precedent?

Because it was useful to their ulterior purpose of coercing the Catholic Church in Connecticut.

Breaking: Cardinal Pell becomes first Cardinal to recommend Legion intervention

As I previewed yesterday, Cardinal George has gone on the record with the UK Catholic Herald:

Cardinal George Pell has become the first senior Church figure to call for outside intervention to tackle the crisis afflicting the Legion of Christ.

The cardinal, speaking in Oxford last week, said a Church authority external to the Legion should investigate its founder's corruption and re-examine its charism.

He said: "I think there should be an intervention, perhaps a visitation or something like that. I don't know what the facts of the matter are, the alleged corruption, if that's the word, on the part of the founder, to what extent there was a cover-up, to what extent the whole rationale of the order [should be] re-examined, but I think it should be sponsored by some extra-Legionary Church agency."

Expected: Cardinal Pell to call for Vatican oversight of Legion

I'm hearing reliable reports that during Cardinal Pell's recent visit to England he said on the record that he thinks the Legion can't possibly be expected to sort out its own affairs and that some sort of Vatican involvement is needed, probably in the form of an apostolic visitation.

Stay tuned....

Related: "Cassandra Jones" pens a lengthy summary of the Maciel scandal in Spero News Forum and claims that the Legion is delaying its response due to an internal debate over its "charism".

update: as expected: "Cardinal backs intervention in Legionaries crisis".

Posted: LC donor invitation to "town hall meeting" with vocations director

Forwarded to me by a member of Regnum Christi. This was sent out to select members this morning:

After the image cut-off the phone number and details are given, along with the text "We look forward to you joining us! ~ Sincerely yours in Christ, Fr. Anthony Bannon, LC."

Can you guess what the questions from donors will be about? Notice that the questions follow after updates on vocations and the contributions of the Legion to the Church. Good news first, bad news last, I guess.

Fr. Bannon used to be the North American territorial director of the Legion and is among those who strongly denied charges brought against Maciel, claiming they were an attack by surrogates on John Paul II.

Alert: New Connecticut Bill Attacks Church Independence

Update: Anti-Catholic CT pulled! Rally still a GO!

Connecticut lawmakers moved this week to directly attack the self-governing rights of the Catholic Church.

The Diocese of Bridgeport is calling on Catholics across the state to mobilize and "fight the irrational, unlawful, and bigoted Proposed Bill #1098/2009":

This past Thursday, March 5, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced a bill that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith.

This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and the Bishop would be effectively excluded.

This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.

The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion. (source: Bridgeport Diocese)

Here's what you can do:

We urge you to call and e-mail Sen. McDonald and Rep. Lawlor:

Senator Andrew McDonald:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-1420; Home phone: (203) 348-7439
E-mail: McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov

Representative Michael Lawlor:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-8267; Home phone: (203) 469-9725
E-mail: MLawlor99@juno.com

We also ask you to come to Hartford this Wednesday, March 11, to be present at the public hearing. Details on bus transportation will be available on Monday. If you would like to attend, contact your Pastor.

Even though it is named "An Act Modifying Corporate Laws Relating to Certain Religious Corporations" the bill in fact names the "Roman Catholic Church or congregations" in the state as the only party in question.

On top of it being an outrageous violation of the First Amendment it is also particularly anti-Catholic, and the politicians who have introduced and supported this bill should be strongly rebuked not just by Catholics, but by all Americans who hate religious discrimination and "hate legislation."

One particularly-offensive line in the bill (underlining mine):

"The corporation shall have a board of directors consisting of not less than seven nor more than thirteen lay members. The archbishop or bishop of the diocese or his designee shall serve as an ex-officio member of the board of directors without the right to vote."

That's right - archbishops and bishops under this bill would be stripped of their power to govern.
The General Counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says "I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a bill that’s so blatantly unconstitutional. It targets the Catholic Church explicitly and exclusively, and attempts to use the civil law to alter Church governance, particularly to divest the bishop of authority." Tom Hoopes calls it the "Miter-box Bill", because bishops should just box their miters if it passes.

The blog Catechism on Call says:

Right now we don’t know who sponsored this bill. The Catholic Key Blog notes that the dissident Catholic Group “Voice of the Faithful” has often promoted the idea of “trusteeism” or lay members hiring and firing pastors. But, to be fair, we don’t have evidence they are behind this legislation.

Regardless of where this idea came from - we do know who was willing to put it into practice. One wonders if the Church could take some sort of legal action in response to this unlawful intrusion. You can keep up to date on the bill's progress here. Paul's comment on Fr. Z's blog here is very helpful if you want to get a handle on the the legal in's and out's of the situation.

I'm happy to see the Diocese of Bridgeport rallying Catholics. I have not yet seen any activity on the Connecticut Catholic Conference website or the Archdiocese of Hartford or the Diocese of Norwich. The Knights of Columbus are headquartered in New Haven and will be very active I'd wager. I'll be chasing down these threads next.

update: Here (forwarded to me) is the justification for the bill given by one of the legislators who introduced it, Mike Lawlor:

... the current state statutes governing Roman Catholic corporations ... were enacted in 1955. SB 1098 is a proposal to make changes in that law, which was suggested by parishioners who were the victims of theft of their funds in several parishes, and these parishioners feel that the state's existing Roman Catholic Corporate laws prevented them from dealing with the misuse and theft of funds.

I agree with you that the whole notion of having a statute governing the church seems like an intrusion on the separation of church and state, but the current law does that already. Perhaps we should repeal the whole thing, but if we are going to have a corporate law of this type, it probably should make sure there cannot be deception of parishioners.

The Diocese of Bridgeport's statement responds to this claim of financial improprieties:

The Pastors of our Diocese are doing an exemplary job of sound stewardship and financial accountability, in full cooperation with their parishioners.

For the State Legislature — which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this fiscal year — to try to manage the Catholic Church makes no sense. The Catholic Church not only lives within her means but stretches her resources to provide more social, charitable, and educational services than any other private institution in the State. This bill threatens those services at a time when the State is cutting services. The Catholic Church is needed now more than ever.

We reject this irrational, unlawful, and bigoted bill that jeopardizes the religious liberty of our Church.

Connecticut: "keep your state out of our church!"

update 2: for the newest updates on this story, click on this tag.

Friday Legion Thread

From what I'm hearing, the clarification statement by the Legion won't be released anytime soon.

From what you're hearing, how are members of Regnum Christi handling the news now? Are people leaving the movement? Are they scaling back their personal involvement/financial support? How much weight are they putting on the clarification? Is the Maciel scandal still being discussed, or have most people moved on?

I realize I'm asking these questions in the third person, but obviously we have many RC members among us.

New Legion Thread

Before the previous thread passes 1,000 comments, I'm starting a new one. For fresh discussion:

• Damian Thompson: Is it time to dissolve the Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi?:

"The Vatican is taking far too long to sort out the crisis caused by the collapse of the Legionaries of Christ and their lay arm, Regnum Christi, following the revelation that their supposedly saint-like founder, Fr Marcial Maciel, led a double life. Why has Pope Benedict XVI said nothing?"

• Fr. Benedict Groeschel: This Is Not the Legion of Anybody Except of Christ:

"Now: "You all need reform!" We ALL need reform! When do we need it? Every single day, no matter what goes on. Send anybody around to me who says, "They need reform!" and I'll tell them, "Wake up, smarty!" Our Divine Savior says, "The time has come, and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the good news." And that is something that must go on every single day."

(.... I'm tracking down other developments at the moment, so please stay tuned in the meantime.)

A little blip on the Maciel scandal story

Karna Swanson writes in (Legion-run) Catholic news service Zenit that Archbishop O'Brien will not close a Legioniary academy and "does not plan to ask the congregation to leave his archdiocese." This in response to an article published this Wednesday where Abp. O'Brien, among other things, said the Legion stifles the free will of its members and lacks transparency.

But what is most interesting to me in this Zenit article is its summation of the Maciel scandal situation:

A month after the Legion of Christ revealed that its founder had a relationship with a woman and fathered a child, the congregation has yet to reveal more about the findings of its internal investigation, or its path forward.

The news broke early this month that Father Maciel had led a double life. Jim Fair, the U.S. spokesman for the congregation, issued a statement to the press confirming that the founder of the Legion and its lay movement Regnum Christi engaged in activities that "weren’t appropriate for a Catholic priest."

Catholic News Agency reported Monday that sources in the Vatican assured a statement is expected soon from the Legionaries of Christ, and that the congregation is actively analyzing its situation in conjunction with "several cardinals" of the Holy See.

While admittedly only quoting and re-publishing CNA's scoop, it would seem the author of this Zenit article finds the report at least worth repeating. It's my best guess that this is where things currently stand - several Cardinals are actively involved in figuring out what to do about this mess. This solution is what many people have been calling for - Vatican oversight and intervention.

Numerous questions present themselves at this point - who is involved? Rode? Bertone? Others? Who will publish the statement? Will it be released by the Legion or the Vatican? What figures of authority will publicly comment on it? Will other US bishops besides Archbishop O'Brien react independently after the statement is released?

As we reflect on possible answers, let's not forget to pray for the parties involved.

Friday Maciel Thread

Because the last post on this subject is approaching 500 comments - let's start fresh here, with a firm amendment to clearly speak the truth with charity, so that our comments inform and encourage others.

The Legion: What is happening behind the scenes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illumination on any of these points would be appreciated.

Open thread: What approval does the Legion *now* enjoy?

As we wait for the Legion's promised "serious clarification" statement, I'll continue to select what I find to be compelling comments which will provide a starting point for further discussion.

Today's comments originate from someone claiming to be a Legionary priest, who says:

I am an active LC priest, dismayed by the silence and passivity of many of my brothers. Outrage at this entire situation and our hapless leaders' response to it is the ONLY acceptable position.

I find particularly dismaying our superiors' reliance on the argument that runs something like this: "We know all is well in the LC because the Pope has tols us how much he esteems us and Cardinal Whoseewhatzit and Cardinal Whatzhisname have been visiting our centers saying how wonderful we are."

How could that type of reasoning convince anyone? Least of all those of us who lived through the LC's halcyon years under Pope JPII?

Fr. Maciel was praised publically and privately by the Pope and other Vatican officials time and time again during the 80s and 90s when he was actually living the double life we now recognize with horror. The Pope said lots of nice things about us then when the Founder was in the act of duping us all.

How could anyone's praise or approval of us now be a sign that all is well? We've already seen that Popes and Cardinals can be fooled and manipulated. We already know that the LC does its best to show them only what the LC wants them to see.

The only thing that can save the LC is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Full disclosure, full transparency and full renunciation of its policy of deception.

It doesn't matter who approves of us or disapproves of us if we are not truthful with ourselves.

I'll add a point to these thoughts. Fr. Alvaro has claimed that the Legion and/or Rome only recently discovered the fact that Maciel had a daughter twenty-two years ago. This means that all the previous conversations Fr. Alvaro claimed to have had with Cardinals, and Pope Benedict, and all the encouragement he claims to have received from them, were given without their knowing about the full extent of Maciel's deception.

One must then wonder how the Vatican is re-evaluating the status of Maciel and his inner circle in the light of this "recent" discovery.

A revealing question to ask: how many bishops and cardinals have spoken publicly encouraging the Legion to carry on with business as usual after this news was made public?!

Find me one.

And if indeed not one has thrown their hat in with the Legion, what are we to make of all these claims that "the Vatican" completely endorses their current activity? If these Cardinals and Pope Benedict are so eager to support the Legion, why has not a one of them said so in public?

(Also of interest: A Jesuit studying to become a priest compares Ignatian Obedience and the Legionaries.)

Published: RC director encourages members to offer "spiritual bouquets"

Someone has created a website to offer "Spiritual Bouquets" for LC priests and RC consecrated members. I'm told it began as a Facebook group and crossed-over onto a full website. The individual who registered the website lives in Connecticut, near where the Legionaries of Christ are based in the United States.

This email was sent by a national-level director of Regnum Christi to their women members:

Many of you have told me about the beautiful initiatives of individuals and local sections and cities to support your local legionaries, consecrated, and the Church as a whole during this difficult time. Thank you for your love for Christ and the Church!

One city decided to start a website to gather a spiritual bouquet in gratitude for the vocations of the Legionaries of Christ, and Consecrated members. It is http://www.spiritualbouquet.net/. I wanted to share it with you in case you’d like to participate, and in any case, to encourage you to pray for the perseverance of all priests, consecrated and religious, and for Our Church. Below is a message from the organizers:

“Let us join the thousands of other Regnum Christi Members from around the world by offering up a spiritual bouquet for the Holy Catholic Church and especially for the Legionaries of Christ and the Consecrated Men and Women of Regnum Christi in gratitude for their vocations and as a means for their perseverance in faith.

You can include the number of Masses, Rosaries, Holy Hours and sacrifices that you would like to offer up on the website. The website will keep a runny tally of all the prayers and sacrifices offered. (This is a continuous spiritual bouquet so you can later go back and offer more if you would like.)

The spiritual bouquet will then be sent to Pope Benedict XVI, Fr. Alvaro and the Legionaries of Christ priests and Consecrated Men and Women of Regnum Christi so they could see the continuous number of prayers and sacrifices offered for them and the whole Catholic Church.

Not our will, but God’s Will be done. Let us entrust this into the hands of Our Mother.”

God Bless, you are all in my prayers.

Yours in Christ and the Movement,

[name]

Note how "movement-centric" this innitiative is, with no mention of those outside the movement who have suffered, beginning with Maciel's own victims. This is how the petition reads:

"Considering the painful times that we suffer together as the Mystical Body of Christ and a Regnum Christi family, please join in gathering and assembling spiritual flowers. This spiritual bouquet of prayers and sacrifices will be offered especially for the Legionaries of Christ and the Consecrated Men and Women of Regnum Christi in gratitude for their vocations and as a means of perseverance in faith. Not our will but God's Will be done."

The website also contains a quotation from a speech Pope Benedict XVI made during his visit last year to the United States. I will quote a line from this speech (that appears on the website):

Charisms are bestowed by the Holy Spirit, who inspires founders and foundresses, and shapes congregations with a subsequent spiritual heritage."

Maciel certainly left a heritage.

update: from "Dominus Flevit" in the comments:

The spiritual bouquet is quite revealing. The immediate, overriding concern of the LC leadership is clearly the retention of its priests and RC consecrated members ("perseverance").

The leadership realizes what the Deep Denial crowd does not: A significant number of LC priests are likely to head for the exits over the next several years, if not sooner. Some of them (Fr. Berg?) may even make noisy exits. That in turn will shake what remains of the faith RC members have in the Movement.

This catastrophe could be averted with a thorough and credible housecleaning, including identification and removal of all LCs who knew or should have known of Maciel's double life. Sadly, the LC leadership doesn't look capable of taking the steps necessary to salvage credibility.

Today: Pelosi meets the Pope

Associated Press photo, taken during Pope Benedict's visit to Washington DC last year:

I'm not prone to hyperbole, but when I see this photo, the first thing I think of is "Kiss of Judas."
Nancy Pelosi, in her record of public service, has continually worked against the common good of humanity as proclaimed and defended by the Catholic Church. She is a vigorous supporter of abortion on demand, and has even claimed that her activity in this regard is a defensible action in light of Church teaching. She touts her Catholic credentials (especially around election time), yet shows no desire to ever act on her Catholic convictions (presuming she has a clue what those are). If you need to read more, I've written scores of posts about her.

What does she want out of her meeting with Pope Benedict? Street credit. She wants the photo-op to wave in front of her conscientious Catholic questioners, to say "see, the pope doesn't have a problem with me - why do you?"And you know what? She'll probably get what she wants. Evil often does.

Deal Hudson makes two suggestions to salvage this:

• Benedict XVI should use the opportunity of the visit to make a strong public statement about the attack on unborn life being waged by the new Congress and the new administration.
• Pelosi's ordinary, Archbishop Niederhauer of San Francisco, should issue a public statement strongly critical of Pelosi as a Catholic politician. He should include a statement that if she presents herself for communion he will deny it to her.

The Anchoress says: "Truthfully, there is no down side to this meeting." But I have to disagree: clearly, while grace can make good things come of it, you can't get around the reality that for many Catholics who are unsure about these issues, they will take Pope Benedict's obligation to meet with a U.S. representative as a tacit support for her radical dissenting views on the protection due human life, etc. Again, if the pope doesn't think it's important (so they will falsely conclude), why should I? Even political writers are aware of what is at stake with this meeting.

Pewsitter.com has an online petition (~2,000 signatures, currently) asking for communion to be withheld from Pelosi which they explain here. Their goal is 1 million signatures. It's a bit of an 11th hour solution.

Let's pray for Pope Benedict today, and for Nancy Pelosi, and for the children in the balance.

update: full update on what happened today ... here.

President of Mexican Bishops calls on LC to apologize

It's taken some time for me to get up to speed with the Maciel situation in Mexico. There is sadly very little cross-over between English and Spanish language journalism. The results of my search, however, do not disappoint.

To begin with, the President of the Mexican Bishop's Conference (CEM) has called on the Legionaries to apologize to Maciel's victims (underlining mine):

The Legionaries of Christ will have to ask pardon from the sex-abuse victims of Marcial Maciel, because this would be a sign of reconciliation, said Carlos Aguiar Retes, the president of the Mexican Bishops' Conference. In a statement yesterday, he condemned the fact that Maciel, a priest from Michoacan, led a double life. The president of the Bishops' Conference (CEM) said that yes, the Legionaries should ask pardon from those who denounced Maciel, founder of the Legionaries, for having sexually abused them, "because it certainly helps a lot when a person accepts his responsibility, for this is the principle of reconciliation. In this case the priest has already died and the congregation should make the apology as an institution. This is the principle of reconciliation." (All translations by a reliable AmP reader. Original Spanish text here.)

Archbishop Retes continues (underlining again mine):

For Aguiar Retes, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ "was a public person who had his freedom and, lamentably, we now know about this conduct." The Legionaries, the ecclesiastical leader added, have confronted this situation. They were the ones who made the information public. "No other source made this information public," he said, and he clarified that "this revelation was a very great act of courage, which hopefully will help them purify themselves internally." This situation will not affect the works of the religious order which Fr. Marcial Maciel founded, because they have spoken with the truth and "the truth purifies, and since they are doing this with transparency, that will help a lot to heal the wound, since it is undoubtedly a very serious wound."

Sadly, I do not share the Archbishop's view of the matter at present, unless there are LC Spanish-language apologies and acts of transparency which I have missed.

Nonetheless, I completely agree with Abp. Retes that accepting responsibility, apologizing and speaking the truth in full transparency are the appropriate actions in this situation - actions that will heal this "very serious wound." I think the Legionary leadership has a long way to go still.

Here is more from Archbishop Retes, as well as a quick overview of what is being talked about south of the border. This from the Spanish-language magazine Proceso {my comments in brackets}:

The Catholic Church "did not hide" the sexual affairs of the priest Marcial Maciel, according to astatement made today by Carlos Aguiar Retes, president of the Mexican Bishops' Conference (CEM). {I believe there have been charges in Mexican media that this was a Church cover-up}

In this way, the highest authority of the Mexican Catholic hierarchy – which brings together more than 100bishops from the country – distanced itself from the signs which were indicating that the Church always covered up for the controversial founder of the Legionaries of Christ.

In the press conference, Aguiar Retes made this clarification because the Legionaries themselves last week made public the news that Macielhad "at least" one daughter. In last week's edition of the magazine"Proceso," Javier Bravo, the spokesman for the Legionaries in Mexico, did not wish to clarify how many children Marcial Maciel had, nor how many mistresses. {See the incredible lack of transparency at work here? If Maciel had only one mistress, the LC spokesperson should deny multiple affairs. If Maciel had more, the LC spokesperson's silence on the question probably evens out to the same thing in the end.}

The most widely spread version of the story is that he had a daughter who currently lives in Spain, although also it has come to light that over the course of decades he maintained sexual relations with various devoted women. {There is not a source given for this claim. Again, I am unable to definitively dismiss this rumor because the Legion remains silent on these typs of follow-up questions.}

A third article in Proceso drops a bomb:

Javier Bravo, spokesman for the Legionaries in Mexico ... revealed that, even before the death of Marcial Maciel last January 2008, the Vatican already had in its possession an ample documentation about the amorous affairs of Maciel. [He also said that] the Vatican was planning on making this information public, and indicated this to Father Alvaro Corcuera, successor of Maciel at the head of the Legionaries. {note plural "amorous affairs", again.}

This is simply stunning news if it is true. It contradicts what the Legion has been saying that they found out first and went to the Vatican. It also contradicts the claim that the Legion spontaneously brought this information to its rank-and-file members.

For if the Legion's hand was indeed "forced" by an understanding that the Vatican was going to make this known anyway, then the Legion was actually granted permission by the Vatican to spread the news in their own way first (and we are witnesses to how that has worked out).

Most of these above-cited stories have only been out a day or so.

And I must say, once again, these confusions will continue to exist as long as the Legion maintains its silence.

{update: it's probably best to take this post with a couple more grains of salt than usual. I'm operating in a language that I don't speak natively and I don't have as sure a grasp on the reliability of sources.}

Noted: Georgia Students/Parents Informed re: Maciel

The Archdiocese of Atlanta newspaper:

The most visible presence for [the Legion in Georgia] is Pinecrest Academy, a 900-student independent Catholic school in Cumming. Five Legionaries of Christ priests are on the board of directors of the school, according to its Web site.

School officials met with a large group of parents on Thursday, Feb. 5, to discuss the news about the order’s founder, Father Marcial Maciel.

I'm being informed that similar parent-teacher (and then student) conferences are being held at Legion schools across the United States. I haven't heard about any specific content being discussed beyond what the Legion has already admitted to regarding its founder.

One member's account of the response:

"The reactions [RC member Vigil] has seen range from “bewilderment, (in) others anger at feeling duped, and (in) still others a certain holy detachment and faith that makes you wonder if they are in denial since unwavering praise of ‘Father Maciel’ was never far from their lips,” he wrote in an e-mail.

... Vigil said that despite the scandal, the Catholic practices entailed in his commitment as a member of Regnum Christi are solid and he looks to the Holy See for ongoing evaluation of the soundness of its spirituality."

Silence is often construed as consent - but is the silence from Rome this time actual consent?

What the head of the Legion is saying to members

This Sunday I was invited to attend a Sunday Mass of healing celebrated by Fr. Alvaro Corcuera, the General Director of the Legionaries of Christ (and direct successor to Marcial Maciel) at a local Catholic parish.

I have published my observations here.

I have also published the widely-distributed thoughts of a Regnum Christi member who was in attendance.

Taken together, they provide both an internal and third-party view of what Fr. Alvaro is saying about the Maciel situation.

This information is especially helpful because public, official statements by the Legionaries have - up to this point - been very scant.

Fr. Alvaro often speaks of the Legionary as a family. I publish this with a hope that the promises he has made within the family will also be abided by outside the family.

update: welcome, UK Telegraph readers. Complete information about the Maciel scandal here.

Maciel admission timed for SSPX controversy?

Many people have been asking what prompted the Legionaries to choose this time for publicly acknowledging the veracity of allegations against their founder Maciel.

Joan Desmond, a widely-published Catholic journalist, is hearing a consistent answer:

Contacts in Rome, who sought to protect their sources during this sensitive time and would not go on the record, report that the on-going controversy over Bishop Williamson - one of the four schismatic bishops whose excommunication was lifted by the pope, but who still denies the existence of the Holocaust ... continues unabated and has made it difficult to work out an intervention by the Vatican. Only the Americans in the Legion have broken ranks in a noticeable way, attracted the public support of prominent Catholics, and appear committed to commencing a thorough house cleaning of the Legion, followed, possibly, by the "re-forming" of the order with new superiors in place.

My contacts assert that the convergence of these two big news events--the outrage prompted by the Bishop Willliamson affair, followed shortly afterwards by the new revelations regarding Father Maciel's "double life" -- was no accident: the order's superiors and their ecclesial allies took advantage of the crisis surrounding Bishop Williamson to minimize the impact of the new disclosures regarding Maciel. The Mexican superiors, I'm told, believe the present tempest will blow over and the Legion will pull itself together and go on as before. (The Cathoholic - updated 3:30pm)

It certainly seems that amidst the hubbub surrounding the SSPX story, coverage of the Maciel scandal has been slim-to-none, except for the notable exceptions chronicled on these pages.

update: welcome, New Advent readers. Complete coverage of the Maciel scndal here.

Dr. Grisez's Comment on Fr. Berg's Letter {AmP exclusive}

Dr. Germain Grisez, Flynn Professor of Christian Ethics at Mount Saint Mary’s University in Emmitsburg, Maryland, has published his official comment on Fr. Thomas Berg's letter to Regnum Christi members.

Dr. Grisez asks that this comment, published first here on AmP, be widely distributed.

Important links:

• Dr. Grisez's new comment on Fr. Thomas Berg's letter
• Fr. Berg's original letter to Regnum Christi members
• Dr. Grisez's first open letter to the Legionaries of Christ (which has been widely distributed and quoted at-length in EWTN's interview of two Legionary priests.)
• George Weigel has also called for Vatican intervention in this matter
• My complete coverage of the Maciel scandal is available here

Posted: Fr. Thomas Berg's Letter to Regnum Christi

Several blogs have broken the embargo that Fr. Berg requested be kept on the private letter he wrote to pastorally assist Regnum Christi members.

I will now post it in hopes that it reaches more of its intended audience. It's very instructive for us as well. Fr. Berg, it will be remembered, also published a shorter, public statement last Friday.

It was very brave of him to send this. He is clearly motivated out of a deep concern for his Regnum Christi family, beyond all else:

To my beloved Regnum Christi Family

A personal note from Fr. Thomas Berg, LC offering guidance and warmest companionship in the midst of this intense suffering.

Dear everyone—

Christ's peace.

I write to you this Sunday morning with my heart in my hand. I know personally that so many of our priests, section directors, have been working for hours on end, meeting with groups of RC, first to break the horrible news and then to accompany them, often themselves reduced to the point of tears. Then there have been the endless follow—up phone calls, private conversations. Believe me, we have all been trying to do everything possible to reach out to all of you personally.

But my heart aches because our best efforts have not been enough. I want to reach out to you as a brother and friend this morning and try to assure you, if nothing else, that we are here. I know further efforts are underway to attempt to respond more adequately and formally to the confusion you all feel, not to mention the hurt and betrayal. I beg you, in the midst of such pain and hurt, please bear with your directors.

At the same time, however, I also beg you forgiveness for the disastrous response which this crisis has received from our upper LC leadership. There is no other way to say it: in so many respects, Legionary superiors have failed, and failed miserably to respond adequately to this crisis, and not surprisingly, have engendered in many of you and understandable lack of confidence. Those are the facts and your reaction is natural and reasonable. With all my heart, on their behalf, I apologize. Our superiors are human instruments; I know in their hearts they have trying to do the right thing, under inhuman pressure. Please understand that.

I am not making any excuses, however, for the fumbled media responses (which I believe have been too often unfairly attributed to Jim Fair our communications director who needs your prayers and has earned a very high place in heaven for what he has had to endure this week), for the appearances of being less than forthcoming, for the lack of information, for the confusion of messaging. For that, there is no excuse in a way, and tragically is largely due to the ineptness of many of those in leadership positions to respond with expertise and diligence in a crisis management situation like this.

But it is more than just crisis management. The thing I am most pained about—I share this as a brother—is the near absence of but fleeting suggestions of sorrow, and of apologizing for the harm done, both to alleged victims of Maciel, and, frankly, to all of you. I am deeply, deeply sorry, and I personally apologize with my heart in my hand to each and every one of you.

I understand your feelings of betrayal. For twenty-three years I have loved and tried to follow Christ in the Legion. I can say before God, in spite of my many human frailties, I have been faithful. I have also, more than many of you to be honest, gone out on limb after limb, trying to defend Maciel. I have lived my priesthood always with that cloud hanging over me, always having to essentially apologize for being a Legionary. You feel betrayed? You feel rage? I can only say that the rage, and raw emotions that I have felt these past days (the hardest days of my entire life, emotions like I have never experienced) are only a glimpse of the unspeakable hell that victims of priest sexual abuse must go through. My thoughts and my heart have been so often with them these days…

I know that many of your are utterly confused about what you are feeling and about where we go from here. In no particular order, let me offer my advice and counsel as follows:

1. Most of you are going through the stages of mourning. Understand that and know what that means. This is a very useful site.

2. Keep talking to your section directors. Let them know how you feel. Let them know if you are satisfied with their response to you.

3. Many of you might find it to be a wonderfully freeing and healing experience to offer acts of reparation for those suffering the effects of priestly sexual abuse. You might also find it healing to reach out to persons who, in any way, have found themselves hurt by their experiences with the Legion or RC.

4. For your own spiritual needs right now:

a. Remember you are free to speak with anyone, inside or outside the Movement about your pain, your reactions to this tragic news, and for ease of conscience to speak to whomever you believe can best help you at this time. I would encourage you to reach out to and find guidance from priests whose holiness and sound judgment you trust, whether Legionaries or not.

b. Your spiritual experiences—even when they came through the letters of the Founder—are valid, and real. God was working through those instruments. The sad revelations about Maciel do not change that. Try to thank God for the past, and sing his praises for the way he has done in your lives through RC. Prayer of thankfulness will help you. Prayer of thanksgiving for this deliverance he has given us now, and for the purification which we are undergoing will also be very helpful.

c. If you still find the letters of the founder helpful in prayer, feel free to use them. But it is certainly OK to leave them aside. Remember that in many ways, the spirit and charism we have lived is Pauline. Continue to nourish your spirit on the letters of St. Paul.

d. In your meditation, go back to the bedrock truths of your life and ponder them serenely before God and let him use that meditation to soothe your hearts: the Incarnation of the Son of God, the Redemption, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, your Baptism, your call to a more deeply committed Christian life, and a loving meditation ("Mary meditated on all these things in here heart") of all the wonders God has done in your life.

e. I also recommend using The Better Part by Fr. Bartunek, and any other spiritual writings be Legionary priests. You might find those helpful. Your section directors should also be able to point you in the direction of other sources on which to nourish your souls. Share your ideas with each other.

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

And remember: "Entrust your life to the Lord, and He will act."

Let's pray for each other. With all my love, gratitude to all of you for your fidelity.

In Jesus,
Fr. Thomas Berg, LC

If you are looking for the face of the future of the movement - look to Fr. Berg.

Update: Argentine seminary ousts Holocaust-denying bishop

Progress:

Roman Catholic bishop whose denials of the Holocaust led to Vatican demands he recant has been removed as the head of an Argentine seminary.

The ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X said in a statement e-mailed Monday to The Associated Press that it has dismissed British Bishop Richard Williamson as director of its seminary in La Reja, outside Buenos Aires.

"The statements from Monsignor Williamson do not in any way reflect the position of our congregation," said Father Christian Bouchacourt, the society's South American superior. "A Catholic bishop cannot speak with ecclesiastical authority except on matters concerning faith and morality. Our brotherhood does not claim any authority over other questions." (AP)

Related:

• NYT: Bishop Who Denied Holocaust Ousted
• CNA: Pope Benedict and German Chancellor discuss Holocaust comments (also AP)
• AP: Jewish group optimistic about Vatican-Jewish ties

Maybe this one can be quietly put to bed soon.

Former LC/RC Spokesman for North America apologizes

Jay Dunlap was hired by the Legionaries of Christ in 1998 to respond to the first public allegations of Maciel abuse published in the Hartford Courant and later the National Catholic Reporter:

It is now clear that Father Maciel did in fact abuse his power and abuse young people in his charge. I personally apologize to his victims and to anyone who was misinformed by statements I made, in this forum and in others. How awful for victims to be taken from their families as children, suffer such abuse, and then to be disbelieved!

This paragraph threw me for a loop (underlining mine):

Last month, Cardinal Franc Rode, prefect of the Vatican office that oversees religious congregations like the Legionaries, appeared in several Latin American countries encouraging Legionaries and Regnum Christi members to carry on their service to the Church. He did so fully aware of what Father Maciel had done and what the Legionary leadership was doing in response.

Wait - hold on a second. Cardinal Rode knew what Father Maciel had done? If the cardinal knew a month ago, how did the Legionaries just find out about it? It still seems like we are dealing with conflicting timelines.

More:

The Holy See has the extremely difficult task of trying to keep numerous Legionary institutions from collapsing.

I trust the Holy See realizes that it cannot fulfill this task by only working behind the scenes. Some public statement is necessary.

Conclusion:

The survival of these institutions and the good work they have done depends now upon the sustenance of the Holy Spirit, if the organization can be purged of any elements of the culture of deception which enabled Father Maciel to get away with so much for so long. That purging appears to be underway.

Appears? What information is this based on? I would agree that the most recent statements of Legionary priests have been an improvement upon the ones being made at first, but the leadership of the LC is still maintaining a stony silence.

Despite all my questions, I found this to be a good apology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other story: Pope Benedict and the SSPX

My intensive coverage of the Maciel situation put all other stories on the back burner in the past 48 hours.

But there is something else important happening: the ongoing controversy surrounding Pope Benedict, the SSPX, and Bishop Richard Williamson.

It's another complicated situation, so I'll try to summarize and shed some lights on where things stand now:

Liberal Catholic theologian Hermann Haering's call for the pope to step down, I think, is preposterous.

Things got more serious when German Chancellor Angela Merkel rebuked Pope Benedict and asked him to "clarify unambiguously that there can be no denial and that there must be positive relations with the Jewish community overall."

The pope's brother, Fr. Georg Ratzinger, shot back: "[the pope] doesn’t need me to defend him. But it angers me how unjust and badly informed the people who are attacking him are."

I'd of course, agree with Fr. Ratzinger. Of course Pope Benedict supports positive relations with the Jews. He's been working for that his entire ecclesiastical and papal career!

So how did we get here? Two things: a) bias against the Church and b) admittedly poor handling by the Vatican. This is not the first time the Vatican has badly bungled the handling of a delicate situation, and it is frustrating - to say the least - that this still regularly happens.

Vatican expert Sandro Magister explains:

A few days after the events, the lifting of excommunication from the four Lefebvrist bishops is increasingly manifesting itself at the Vatican as a double disaster, of governance and of communication. In the disaster, Pope Benedict XVI found himself to be the one most exposed, and practically alone.

{Magister reviews Pope Benedict's deep theological understanding and teaching about the issue of SSPX reconciliation, etc.} But little or nothing of this {papal explanation} was stated in the decree issued on January 24 by the Holy See. In the "vulgata" diffused by the media, with this decree the Church of Rome was simply clasping the Lefebvrists to its bosom.

{Now the twist:} Then, to make the misunderstanding worse, there came the uproar over an interview with one of the four bishops granted clemency, Richard Williamson of England, in which he supported ideas denying the Holocaust.

In the media all over the world, the news read as follows: the pope clears a Holocaust denier bishop from excommunication, and welcomes him into the Church.

Magister's hypothesis (underlining mine):

The question comes naturally: was all of this really inevitable, once the pope had decided to lift the excommunication of the Lefebvrist bishops? Or was the disaster produced by the errors and omissions of the men who are supposed to implement the pope's decisions? The facts point to the second hypothesis.

The decree revoking the excommunication bears the signature of Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the congregation for bishops. Another cardinal, Darío Castrillón Hoyos, is the president of the pontifical commission "Ecclesia Dei," which, ever since its creation in 1988, has dealt with the followers of Lefebvre. Both of these cardinals have said that they were taken by surprise, after the fact, by the interview with Bishop Williamson, and that they were never aware that he was a Holocaust denier.

At this point Magister goes on to describe one failing after another. Two main points:

• "The media release of the decision also seems to have been entirely negligent. The Vatican press office limited itself, on Saturday, January 24, to distributing the text of the decree, in spite of the fact that the news had already leaked out a few days earlier, and a fiery controversy was already growing around the statements denying the Holocaust made by Williamson.... And yet, if nothing of this was done, it was not the fault of the Vatican press office and its director, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, but of the offices of the curia from which they receive their orders. These offices of the curia converge in the secretariat of state."
• "So then, throughout the entire affair of the lifting of the excommunications for the Lefebvrist bishops, the secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, despite his highly active and outspoken nature, distinguished himself by his absence. His first public comment on the question came on January 28, during a conference in Rome at which he was speaking. But more than words, what were lacking from him were actions equal to the gravity of the situation. Before, during, and after the issuing of the decree. Benedict XVI was left practically alone, and the curia was abandoned to disorder. The fact that Benedict XVI has given up on reforming the curia is now before the eyes of all. But it is conjectured that he compensated for this non-decision by entrusting the leadership of the offices to a tough, dynamic secretary of state, Bertone. Now this conjecture has also been shown to be lacking. "

Magister's final point:

"Bertone's personal devotion to Benedict XVI is beyond all doubt. Not so that of the other curia officials, who continue to have free rein. It is possible that some of them deliberately oppose this pontificate. It is certain that most of them simply do not understand it, do not measure up to it."

Wow, that's alot to take in. Given this state of affairs, it should not surprise us that there has been no official Vatican reaction to other current controversies - notably the Maciel meltdown. Quite simply: they have their hands more than full.

Magister's analysis jives with John Allen's Jan. 30th column: "The Lefebvrite case: What was the Vatican thinking?":

On the lecture circuit, I'm sometimes asked for my opinion about the Vatican's communications strategy. My glib answer generally is, "As soon as they have one, I'll be glad to tell you what I think of it."

The line usually draws a few chuckles. However, this week's furor over the lifting of the excommunication of four traditionalist bishops, including one who's a Holocaust denier, offers a reminder that the lack of PR savvy in Rome is actually no laughing matter. {Read his entire column.}

While the Vatican Information Service released a brief communique on the subject today, they are also taking more drastic measures, including, apparently, demanding that Bishop Williams recant.

It's pretty evident that Vatican officials from top to bottom really dropped the ball on this one, and gave the detractors of the Church a clear opportunity of working against her in the court of common opinion. I say this because it's nothing new for people to attack the Church in public, it is something out of the ordinary for Vatican officials to be so pell-mell in their response, up to and including pointing the figure at one another.

(I think it's worth noting, as Whispers does here, that the release of Bp. Williamson's Swedish TV interview might have been timed to embarrass the pope. Nonetheless, Williamson's record is far older than this interview and the situation could have been avoided altogether.)

I hope this is a serious reality check. And maybe it's time to hire a couple research assistants. I know how to use Google pretty well.

And because Pope Benedict is so very alone on this - and unjustly being attacked - I would ask readers to sign this petition to publicly support him.