Picture: Biden got his Wednesday Ashes

... and sported them during a cabinet meeting today ...

... and provided the rest of us with an opportunity for more penance today.

(I'll try to find a Pelosi-in-ashes photo for Friday.)

Sen. Biden given standing ovation at DC Mass

Jeff Miller puts this little escapade in the category of "things that make you scream":

"[Vice-President Elect Joe] Biden and his wife, Jill, sat in a pew reserved for him and his family toward the back of Holy Trinity Catholic Church, and listened as the Rev. Larry Madden, S.J., delivered a sermon about God as a constant anchor and the promise of hope and change for those who believe.

".... Toward the end of the 11:30 a.m. Mass, as one of the lectors urged those in attendance to welcome new members and visitors, some in the congregation laughed and then applauded, looking toward Biden. He eventually stood and acknowledged the response that included a standing ovation. (AP)"

My initial reaction was to go "Puke! Gag!" - But let's try to think about this a little more seriously...

This episode perfectly illustrates the contrast between "identity Catholicism" and "conviction Catholicism." By these two phrases I mean:

• "identity Catholicism" reduces the term Catholic to a merely technical description: in this way Joe Biden is a Catholic. He was baptized, attends Mass, puts "Catholic" on his questionnaire.
• "conviction Catholicism" identitifies that one allows their Catholic faith to shape their life, and therefore one actually tries to abide by it, in this way Joe Biden is not a Catholic: He is woefully ignorant of what his own faith teaches (as his Meet the Press interview made crystal clear), and shows little desire to put his faith into action when it comes to issues as fundamental as safeguarding human life, for a start.

So what do I see when I am told about a Catholic congregation giving Joe Biden a standing ovation? People who care more about "identity Catholicism" than about "conviction Catholicism." Yes, Joe Biden is technically "Catholic" in identity, but is he a Catholic to single out for the his conviction in the faith?

We have lots of work to do.

Oh, and Holy Trinity is within walking distance of my new apartment. Politics makes for strange neighbors.

"Biden experiencing troubled conscience over abortion, says Bishop Aquila"

Oh?!

Following the Fall meeting of the U.S. Catholic bishops in Baltimore, where they pledged not to yield ground to the incoming Obama administration on the issue of abortion, Bishop Samuel Aquila has revealed that vice president-elect Joe Biden is struggling with his conscience over his support for abortion.

... “The nice thing about Biden, at least he says his conscience bothers him, which is good,” Aquila said. (CNA)

I don't know what Bp. Aquila is referring to exactly, but I certainly haven't seen anything recently from Biden that would cause me to think he's suddenly experiencing a conversion on the issue. I mean, he's been in politics how long?

Absolutely, it's a good thing to have your conscience bother you when you are involved in doing something gravely wrong, but we've all seen politician after politician say "well, you know, I'm troubled ... but I'm going to do it anyway."

Some consolation, that.

Video: SNL on Joe Biden

SNL decided to spoof vice president elect Joe Biden:



I wonder what Joe Biden's comments on Meet the Press would receive on the "blunder scale"?

Update: Biden receives Communion, Pelosi stands-up Niederauer

Catholic Vice-President Elect Joe Biden and Catholic Speaker Nancy Pelosi have the shared dishonor of being pro-abortion politicians who have earned the rebuke of dozens of American bishops for their misrepresentation of their faith in a textbook case of scandalizing the faithful.

So what are they up to now?

Joe Biden is still receiving Communion, most recently (that we know of) in Tallahassee FL the Sunday before election day. Local bishop John Ricard took swift action and warned Biden to examine his conscience carefully before approaching the altar again. But hey, when do we next expect Joe Biden to be in Florida? It's served his purpose

Biden's home bishop Francis Malooly, meanwhile, the person most responsible for the formation and discipline of his parishioners, won't tell him to stop, saying "I won't politicize the Eucharist ... I don't want to alienate people. I want to change their hearts and minds."

Now while that's surely a noble aim, I don't see any results. The penalties of the Church, however, can also serve to change hearts and minds. Let's not forget that. If laws are never enforced, people will feel free to ignore them.

Speaker Pelosi, meanwhile - also still presumably presenting herself for Communion - promised her local Archbishop George Niederauer to sit down with him about her situation after he invited her. That public promise was made 68 days, 21 hours and 27 minutes ago. How do I know that? I've had a timer running since the day she made her promise. It's still ticking.

That's right, for over two months, this "ardent, faithful" Catholic - who regularly uses her faith as credentials in the exercise of her public office - couldn't even find time to fit in a sit-down with her bishop on a matter which has received national attention, both within and outside the Catholic Church.

Again, I'm looking for signs that progress is being made, that the pre-chosen methods are working.

But I'm not seeing it.

First update: Biden, Pelosi ... Kerry

There will be at least two, and possibly three prominent pro-choice Catholics in the Democratic establishment:

• Joe Biden is the Vice-President, and is unwelcome in his home diocese of Scranton, PA
• Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House, and Abp. Neiderauer has been waiting 61 days
• Now we hear that "Kerry refuses to rule out taking post under Obama"

Sounds like a full house to me.

Joe Biden: the first Catholic VP ... so what?

Paul Moses at Commonweal is happy about the forgotten "first" of the campaign, the first Catholic VP.

I find this "first" meaningless except in the most basic sense.

Think about it - if Joe Biden followed his Church's teachings he probably would not be where he is today. Can you imagine, for instance, a pro-life democratic vice-presidential candidate or nominee these days?

So congratulations, Joe Biden, when given a choice between your Catholic principles and being elected to the second highest office in the land, you made your choice. Some Catholic example he's set for us.

Top 10 Faith Factors in the Election

Steven Waldman's list mentions Catholics in points 4 and 5:

4. Will Catholics Ignore Their Bishops?
The overall Catholic vote has gone with the popular vote winner every election since 1968. Catholic bishops have been urging Catholic voters to vote for antiabortion candidates, but a majority of Catholic voters now favor abortion rights so it remains to be seen what influence the church will have. (Sen. Obama is also winning with the 100-year-old-nuns bloc.) Another factor in Sen. Obama’s favor: a higher percentage of the Catholic vote will be Latino this year.

Last election, President Bush won Catholic voters 52%-46%.

5. Can Obama Finally Bowl a Strike With Skeptical White Catholics?
During the primaries, Obama did poorly with white Catholics, often working-class ethnics or their offspring. Remember his feeble attempt to curry favor through bowling? They tend to be culturally conservative and haven’t voted for a Democrat since 1996. On the other hand, they’re especially concerned about the economy this year, and Sen. Biden has been trying to bond with them as a fellow “cultural Catholics.”

Point of reference: In 2004, Bush won 56% of white Catholics, Kerry 43%

My thoughts:

4. While a majority of Catholics might favor abortion rights (what poll claims this, by the way?), I would argue that a majority of Catholics would identify more with McCain than Obama on the issue. The question is how much weight they will give to abortion at all. As for Latino voters - I would guess them to be more conservative on the issue of abortion than other Catholics.

5. I think the success of Senator Biden's Catholic outreach is hovering somewhere near zero. Catholics who do take their faith seriously couldn't care less for his "cultural Catholicism" and Catholics who don't take their faith seriously I don't foresee being seriously swayed by it, either.

Tuesday will tell.

Time perpetuates "Biden = Catholic Vote" meme

Tucked into this Time magazine story about Joe Biden being hidden away from reporters (even more than Sarah Palin) in the final days before November 4th, an explanation for his selection:

"Whereas McCain's pick of a running mate was a big move aimed at jolting the race, Obama had hoped instead to bolster his foreign policy credentials, give him a second chance with white Catholics and, above all, do no harm."

On the ground, one Catholic reacts at a Joe Biden rally:

"Mr. Biden calls himself Catholic, and he's causing a scandal in the Catholic Church because he's saying the Catholic Church doesn't know what it's talking about," Haskell said. "And he's pro-abortion."

"The Catholic Church has always said that life begins at conception. ... God's pro-life."
One of the signs the women were waving read, "Bishops excommunicate Biden!!!" One had what appeared to be a photo of an aborted fetus. Another read, "Real Catholics are pro-life." (Ocala)

Whoops.

Cartoon: Joe Biden at Mass

For full-size version, click here or click on the cartoon:

By John Francis Borra, SFO. Used with permission.

Joe Biden's new bishop not letting him get away with it, or is he?

Whispers:

In response to Senator Joe Biden's comments on abortion in a recently-unearthed 2007 interview with his hometown paper [I discuss it here - AmP], the Democratic VP nominee's bishop -- Wilmington's Fran Malooly -- penned a letter to the editor run in this morning's News-Journal.

... Biden's name will appear twice on the First State's ballot next week, both as part of the Democratic ticket and for re-election to the Senate seat he's held since 1972.

The beginning of Bishop Malooly's letter:

In his interview with The News Journal published Oct. 19, Sen. Joe Biden presents a seriously erroneous picture of Catholic teaching on abortion. He said, “I know that my church has wrestled with this for 2,000 years,” and claimed repeatedly that the Church has a nuanced view of the subject that leaves a great deal of room for uncertainty and debate.

This is simply incorrect. The teaching of the Church is clear and not open to debate.

Biden famously tried to call himself a "John XXIII sort of guy" (as opposed to a "John Paul sort of guy" - seriously) ... well, here's what bishop Malooly has to say about that claim:

The Didache, probably the earliest Christian writing apart from the New Testament, explicitly condemns abortion without exceptions. It tells us there is a “way of life” and a “way of death” and abortion is a part of the way of death. This has been the consistent teaching of the Church ever since.

... It was the teaching of Pope John XXIII as well as Pope John Paul II. It is the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI and the bishops of the Church, including me as shepherd of this diocese. (underlining mine)

The bishop's conclusion:

We hope Sen. Biden will carefully listen to the Church’s 2,000 years of testimony on abortion and that he will join in the defense and promotion of the sanctity of life.

This is good stuff. It also raises a question in my mind: is this the most he can do? Is the Bishop already "firing on all cylinders", or is this (necessary) preparation and groundwork prior to imposing a canonical penalty? What more would Biden have to do (or could do) to deserve such a recourse?

update: Rocco pursues this line of questioning:

As for refusing the Eucharist to the potential vice-president, Malooly told the diocesan Dialog in an interview on his September arrival that "I do not intend to get drawn into partisan politics nor do I intend to politicize the Eucharist as a way of communicating Catholic Church teaching.

"It is critical to keep the lines of communication open if the church is going to make her teachings understood and, please God, accepted. It is my belief that Catholics of all occupations have the same duty to examine their own consciences before determining their worthiness for the reception of communion.

"I think I will get a lot more mileage out of a conversation trying to change the mind and heart than I would out of a public confrontation. That might not make some people happy who feel there ought to be a confrontation but I have to follow my own conscience and try to do what I can for the long term."

I disagree with this approach. Denial of the Eucharist is not a decision dictated by "partisan politics", it is prompted by very sound theology which teaches that receiving the Eucharist in a state of grave sin is harmful to the person receiving it, and also represents a sacrilege of the Eucharistic presence, as Abp. Raymond Burke has persuasively demonstrated.

With Biden as VP, Deleware comments significant after November

IF Senator Biden becomes the Vice-President of the United States then his recent comments about his views on abortion as a Catholic will have a bearing on the discussions at the upcoming meeting of the American bishops.

Just a little observation. The fact that the interview is old does not matter because Biden has never retracted his comments or clarified that they do not coincide with Church teaching. He's on record, out of communion.

A corroborating view.

Video: Biden mouths off, double standard at work

Joe Biden opened his mouth again:

Joe Biden warned that America's enemies would test Barack Obama with an international crisis within six months if he's elected president - a shocking comment John McCain eagerly pounced on yesterday to claim Obama isn't ready to be commander-in-chief. (NYP)

Video:


Just remember that as we form our opinions. Palin has her drawbacks but Biden is no knight, either.

Biden claim: "I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy."

I don't understand how someone can seriously say this about themselves:

"I was raised as a Catholic, I'm a practicing Catholic, and I'm totally at home with the Catholicism that I was raised in and this whole culture of social responsibility, reaction to abuse of power, the whole notion that there is collective civic responsibility. It's the Catholic consciousness that I'm totally comfortable with."

... only to spew this nonsense:

"It is not choice. It's always a very, very, very difficult, difficult decision. I know that, my church has wrestled with this for 2,000 years.

We've always believed from the outset that abortion is wrong. But throughout the years, debated the degree to which it is wrong. There are always cases where it is never a first choice. It is always viewed as a dire decision. But throughout the church's history, we've argued between whether or not it is wrong in every circumstance and the degree of wrong. Catholics have this notion, it's almost a gradation.

We have mortal sins, venial sins, well, up until Pius IX, there were times when we said, 'Look, there are circumstances in which it's wrong but it is not damnation. Along came Pius IX in the 1860s and declared in fine doctrine, this was the first time that it occurred that it was absolute human life and being at the moment of conception. It's always been a debate."

And then conclude by saying:

"I take my religion very seriously."

(... just obviously not enough to study it.)

Oh well, I guess I'm just no Joe Biden.

Another jem:

"I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy."

At least that puts him ahead of John Kerry, who claimed he was a "Pope Pius XXIII" kind of guy.

Ph/t: Whispers.

Video: SNL on the VP debate

Easing into Monday, something to lighten the load....

Tonight's VP Debate - Predictions

This post will morph into an open thread (+live blogging maybe) when the debate starts tonight at 8pm. Here's what I'm reading to prepare:

• Weekly Standard: Palin v. Biden on Abortion
• CNN: Palin, Biden ready to face off in St. Louis
• Margaret Cabaniss: It's debate time!
• AP: Debate offers high risks, big rewards
• Deal Hudson: I Predict a Palin Victory Tonight
• HotAir: Palin to Biden: Bring it on (video)

I do think Palin will exceed expectations.

What are your predictions/thoughts?

update: Yes I did watch the debate, but unfortunately at a location away from a blogging apparatus. I'm still forming my opinion. I would note quickly that Biden, true to form, reminded us of his pro-abortion stance by saying one of his reasons for objecting to the nomination of Robert Bork as a supreme court justice was that he might have opposed Roe. (Heaven forbid, right?)

Brian Burch at the CatholicVote.com blog said in response:

"I couldn’t help but recall the recent letter of Cardinal Francis George, who wrote: “one cannot favor the legal status quo on abortion and also be working for the common good.” Biden clearly supports the legal status quo, and presumably, expanding the legal status quo (with Sen. Obama) in favor of the Freedom of Choice Act."

I think Palin handled herself very well, especially considering her relative inexperience (five weeks on the national scene against Biden's +30 years), and the low expectations she was greeted with as a result of her recent imperfect interviews. I knew she could do better than those one-sided interviews revealed, partly because I pulled up archived video of her previous debates when running for Governor of Alaska, which helped tremendously in her victory then.

The reaction I'm seeing on the right is extremely positive (which is to be expected), and even on the left, begrudgingly complimentary. What about "average joe six-pack" and America's hockey moms?

Well it seemed like they just loved it.

Finally, while Palin relied heavily on McCain campaign talking points, her personality did shine through from time to time. Biden, on the other hand, only had his talking points, and those change depending on the election cycle, his current campaign, and recent polling. As far as the debate itself, he did have more knowledge of the facts (noticed how much it focused on foreign policy - to Biden's clear advantage) and benefited from some early Palin stage jitters.

Call me cynical, but sophism seems to be the key to political survival these days.... and woe to us.

I'm also very pleased to see the healthy debate proceeding in this comment box - keep it coming!

(Oh, and the beginning photo/caption on this post was hilarious!)

Biden bad, Palin good, for Catholic vote

Biden bad - the author claims that 55 bishops have responded to Biden thus far?!

Palin good - note that regular Mass attendees choose against Obama more often.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep, no problem here.

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

Biden Gave Average 369-dollars Annually To Charity

Geez:

(Washington, DC) -- The tax records of Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife indicate they gave an average of 369-dollars a year to charity during the past ten years. "USA Today" reports the records were released by Barack Obama's campaign.

They show the couple made 995-dollars in charitable donations last year, which amounted to about three-tenths percent of their income. It was the highest amount in the past decade.

The Bidens reported making nearly 380-thousand-dollars last year. The figure includes 71-thousand-dollars in royalties from Biden's memoir, "Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics." Biden spokesman David Wade says in an e-mail that the couple also contributes to their favorite causes with their time as well as their checkbooks. (source.)

So much for tithing.

See what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about this:

"...The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his abilities." (#2243)

And in case that sentence seems hazy to you:

"The obvious lack of specificity in these [precepts], however, should not be taken as a sign that they may be, for all practical purposes, ignored. Sunday collections, annual appeals, spontaneous offerings, bequests and wills, and so on are all ways that Catholics have to satisfy this precept of support." (CanonLaw.info)

Three-tenths of one percent of his income?!

Geez.

Updated: 12 (14) bishops have responded to Sen. Joe Biden

Here is the updated list of bishops who have responded to Sen. Joe Biden (in somewhat chronological order):

1. (Bishop Joseph Martino) of Scranton (Biden's hometown) in a local newspaper interview, before Biden made his Meet the Press comments, re-stating his earlier-held position
2. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, CO
3. Bishop James Conley, his auxiliary, joined him
4. Bishop Robeert Morlino of Madison devoted his Sunday homily to it (mp3 here)
5. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC
6. Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa, OK
7. Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, PA
8. Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, CT
9. Bishop Fran Malooly of Wilmington, DL (Biden's diocese)
10. Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo, ND
11. (Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin, TX linked to the USCCB in his Friday E-pistle)
12. Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, IA
13. Bishop Paul Coakley of Salina, KS in his newsletter
14. Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston, MA on his blog

{Last updated - September 14th. Please send me tips & corrections! Try checking your diocesan website.}

The number of bishops who have responded to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's comments is currently at 26.

More bishops respond to Joe Biden

Sen. Joe Biden's home bishop, recently-installed W. Francis Malooly, has issued a statement:

"Earlier today, our United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a statement to clarify remarks recently made by Senator Joseph Biden. They explain the truth of the matter in a clear and concise way. As your Bishop, I want you to understand our Church teaching, embrace it and promote it.

[he quotes the USCCB statement]

It is my intention to build a supportive and trusting friendship with Senator Biden and as many public officials as I can. I will do my best, with your prayers, to assist him and all public officials as well as all citizens in our Diocese and beyond to understand how crucial the sanctity of human life is to a just society in the State of Delaware, the Eastern Shore of Maryland, and our entire nation."

Justin Cardinal Regali, who co-authored the USCCB statement, has also published his personal comments in the diocesan newspaper of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo addressed Biden's remarks in a letter sent to his priests:

"Senator Biden, and all others who mistakenly claim that the beginning of life is a matter of religious opinion confuse matters more by implying that the time of when life begins is a matter of faith, and not that of science, the natural law, or truth,” Bishop Aquila wrote. “Any person who has studied biology, whether they are a Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Christian, agnostic or atheist, knows that human life begins at the moment of conception.” (CNA)

Here is the updated list of bishops who have responded to Sen. Joe Biden.

Ph/t: Whispers.

Noted: four reasons Biden might have talked

Fr. Thomas Williams:

"I have come up with only four possible reasons that Sen. Biden or his advisers would have thought this was somehow a good idea, assuming that they did think about it before accepting the invitation."

Read the four reasons, and his responses to them, here at NRO.

Open thread: Kerry v. Biden

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

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

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

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

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

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

May they be commended, and the Holy Spirit thanked.

Text: USCCB responds to Joe Biden

As I predicted last night, the US Bishops have published a response to Senator Joe Biden.

{update: the text is now available on the homepage of the USCCB website.}

Here it is (underlining mine):

BISHOPS RESPOND TO SENATOR BIDEN’S STATEMENTS REGARDING CHURCH TEACHING ON ABORTION

WASHINGTON - Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman, U.S. Bishops Committee on Doctrine, issued the following statement:

Recently we had a duty to clarify the Catholic Church’s constant teaching against abortion, to correct misrepresentations of that teaching by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on “Meet the Press” (see: here). On September 7, again on “Meet the Press,” Senator Joseph Biden made some statements about that teaching that also deserve a response.

Senator Biden did not claim that Catholic teaching allows or has ever allowed abortion. He said rightly that human life begins “at the moment of conception,” and that Catholics and others who recognize this should not be required by others to pay for abortions with their taxes.

However, the Senator’s claim that the beginning of human life is a “personal and private” matter of religious faith, one which cannot be “imposed” on others, does not reflect Catholic teaching. The Church teaches that the obligation to protect unborn human life rests on the answer to two questions, neither of which is private or specifically religious.

The first is a biological question: When does a new human life begin? When is there a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment? While ancient thinkers had little verifiable knowledge to help them answer this question, today embryology textbooks confirm that a new human life begins at conception (see www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact298.shtml). The Catholic Church does not teach this as a matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact.

The second is a moral question, with legal and political consequences: Which living members of the human species should be seen as having fundamental human rights, such as a right not to be killed? The Catholic Church’s answer is: Everybody. No human being should be treated as lacking human rights, and we have no business dividing humanity into those who are valuable enough to warrant protection and those who are not. Even this is not solely a Catholic teaching, but a principle of natural law accessible to all people of good will. The framers of the Declaration of Independence pointed to the same basic truth by speaking of inalienable rights, bestowed on all members of the human race not by any human power, but by their Creator. Those who hold a narrower and more exclusionary view have the burden of explaining why we should divide humanity into the moral “haves” and “have-nots,” and why their particular choice of where to draw that line can be sustained in a pluralistic society. Such views pose a serious threat to the dignity and rights of other poor and vulnerable members of the human family who need and deserve our respect and protection.

While in past centuries biological knowledge was often inaccurate, modern science leaves no excuse for anyone to deny the humanity of the unborn child. Protection of innocent human life is not an imposition of personal religious conviction but a demand of justice.

Masterful. My comments wouldn't really add anything.

Total number of bishops who have spoken (counting Abp. Wuerl's comments to his priests and Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa's statement - in both cases scroll down the page): 7:

• Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver
• Bishop James Conley of Denver
• Bishop Fran Malooly of Wilmington, DL (Biden's diocese)
• Cardinal Justin Rigali
• Bishop William Lori
• Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC
• Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa

update: The AP picked up the story, and Drudge linked to it.

Biden mouths off about embryonic stem cell research

Joe Biden mouths-off (why do I feel this is the first installment of a very long running series?):

“I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have … the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability,” said Biden, who’s wife is a teacher. “Well guess what folks? If you care about it, why don't you support stem cell research?” (First Read)

Antangonize people for following the teaching of the Church, good one. I presume, of course, that he is talking about embryonic stem cell research, the only type of stem cell research that people object to on moral grounds.

But wait a minute though ... isn't this forcing your personal beliefs on others, Biden?

Ya know, the way you said you couldn't force a personal belief when it came to abortion?

Ph/t: AmP reader Mark.

Related: SBA List President Statement Regarding Senator Joe Biden’s Comments Questioning GOP Commitment to Protecting the Disabled

Update: Biden skips Mass where new Bishop speak out against him

Once again, my low expectations are wonderfully surpassed.

Reader John V notes that Biden, as I predicted, skipped town:

"Looks like you were right. [Biden] was in Wilmington yesterday, but had to go to Green Bay today."

And it's a good thing, too. I wouldn't have wanted to present myself for communion after this homily by Bishop Malooly:

... Mary’s mother, St. Anne, carried a very special life in her womb which serves as a vivid reminder that every life is special. We will continue to stress the constant teaching of the Church that each person must respect every life from conception to natural death. And we will continue to seek the intercession of Saint Thomas More for Statesmen, Politicians, Supreme Court Justices, Judges and Lawyers—that they may be courageous and effective in defending and promoting the sanctity of human life, the foundation of every human right, the foundation of our love for the poor.

While Bishop Fran Malooly does not name Joe Biden (or Nancy Pelosi) by name, anyone who has been keeping up on this story knows what's being said quite plainly.

Nor is the St. Thomas More reference a throw-away line, I would argue. In his new book on Catholic voting, Abp. Charles Chaput spends an entire section talking about the example of St. Thomas More.

Coincidence? Perhaps. But lest we forget, St. Thomas summed up his witness in one line before his martyrdom:

"I die the King's good servant - but God's first."

Deja Vu: Biden-Gate has begun ... complete coverage

Just when the furor over Nancy Pelosi's comments on Meet the Press had subsided...

Obama's running mate Joe Biden has today been asked the same question, in the same forum, and has given essentially the same answer.

Complete coverage here.

(for regular coverage, scroll down or return to the homepage)

Breaking: Chaput responds to Biden

Today on the Archdiocese of Denver website, the following news item:

Denver bishops release letter to faithful, stress importance of accurate moral reasoning by public servants

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. and Auxiliary Bishop James D. Conley have released a new letter to the Catholics of northern Colorado, titled “Public Servants and Moral Reasoning.” In the letter, they reaffirm the importance of informed moral reasoning when discerning public action, especially in regard to Catholics who serve their country on the national stage. Click here to read the full letter (PDF file)

The last two paragraphs sum-up Archbishop Chaput's position:

In his Meet the Press interview, Sen. Biden used a morally exhausted argument that American Catholics have been hearing for 40 years: i.e., that Catholics can't "impose" their religiously based views on the rest of the country. But resistance to abortion is a matter of human rights, not religious opinion. And the senator knows very well as a lawmaker that all law involves the imposition of some people's convictions on everyone else. That is the nature of the law. American Catholics have allowed themselves to be bullied into accepting the destruction of more than a million developing unborn children a year. Other people have imposed their "pro-choice" beliefs on American society without any remorse for decades.

If we claim to be Catholic, then American Catholics, including public officials who describe themselves as Catholic, need to act accordingly. We need to put an end to Roe and the industry of permissive abortion it enables. Otherwise all of us - from senators and members of Congress, to Catholic laypeople in the pews - fail not only as believers and disciples, but also as citizens.

Bishops who have responded to Biden so far: 3.

update: Fr. Z notes...

"Hugh Hewitt today read Archbp. Chaput’s entire response to Sen. Joe Biden. He concluded that if you are a devout Catholic, you cannot vote for Sen. Biden, because you would be cooperating in evil. No mincing words from him. He just laid it out in stark terms."

There, that wasn't too hard, was it?

Commentary: Abortion and the New Democratic Platform

Michael Sean Winters of the America Magazine election blog has an interesting post today entitled "Note to Dems: Shut Up!"

I agree in substance with his first part:

First, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi demonstrated that she wasn’t paying attention during theology classes when she matriculated at Trinity College. Now, Sen. Joe Biden has managed to wade into the treacherous waters of making pronouncements on what the Church does, and does not, teach about when human life begins. The Democrats’ vice-presidential candidate, who has a mixed record on pro-life issues, went further than he needed to go on "Meet the Press" yesterday, mentioning Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica as if he were an expert, but quickly demonstrating that he is no theologian.

Note to Democratic candidates: You are not running to become theologian-in-chief.

I want to believe, but remain wary, of his next claim:

And, in the event, the platform you just adopted has something genuinely new and important to say about abortion, and theological speculation is just going to step on that platform.

The Democrats, for the first time, called for policies that will reduce the number of abortions by preventing crisis pregnancies in the first place and by providing assistance to women facing crisis pregnancies so that they can carry their child to term. The GOP removed similar language from their platform, keeping their traditional but so far unsuccessful call for overturning Roe v. Wade.

Winters' sets out perhaps the best argument the DNC has going for them right now when it comes to attacting pro-life voters (otherwise known as "practicing Catholics"). But let's follow the strands.

Steve Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, agrees and disagrees with Winters:

The Obama campaign had been arguing that the candidate was charting a third-way approach to abortion: supporting abortion rights but promoting policies that would reduce the number of abortions.

Pro-life liberals were therefore deeply disappointed to hear that after the Palin announcement, the Democrats started running a radio ad [MP3 file] about abortion that made no mention of abortion reduction, instead just stating the Democrats' support for abortion rights. "Unless the Obama campaign will stop emphasizing abortion rights and strongly address the major common cause issues with a spirited vision and practical details, the Republicans can continue to scoop up a ton of votes," said Joel Hunter, a moderate evangelical who gave a benediction at the Democratic convention.

Waldman goes on to claim that Biden and Obama are both re-adjusting their language:

This Sunday, the Democratic ticket seemed to emphasize a new approach. On Meet the Press, Joe Biden went farther than the platform or Obama had gone before: "what we're going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care, the assistance and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children."

A Democratic candidate pledging to "reduce considerably the amount of abortions" -- that's the phrase that pro-life liberals have been yearning for.

On This Week with George Stephanopolous, Obama returned to talking about abortion reduction (and also clarified his above-my-paygrade gaffe [watch video]). He said his paygrade line was "too flip" and that "as a Christian I have a lot of humility about understanding about when does the soul enter. All I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions."

Now I wish these words could be taken at their face value (would that the democrat party did become truly pro-life!), but the simple fact of the matter is that Biden receives a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Committee, and Obama was "Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007." Have they had a change of heart since they earned these ratings?

In 2007, Obama promised NARAL that his first act as President would be to "sign the Freedom of Choice Act." On the 35th Anniversary of Roe V. Wade, Barack Obama on his campaign website still says:

"Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it's never been more important to protect a woman's right to choose...With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women's fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election."

"Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

"When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president."

And where does Joe Biden stand on this issue? He co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act in the 102nd and 103rd congresses. "FOCA would overturn hundreds of state laws on the books that limit abortion."

Here's what I'm seeing: when Obama or Biden (or Pelosi, for that matter) are addressing a general audience, they talk about wishing to bring down the number of abortions, provide alternatives, etc. They also "helpfully" suggest expanding access to contraceptives, but we'll leave that aside for now.

When, however, Obama or Biden have a pro-choice audience, they are unabashed in their support for abortion-on-demand. (Can you imagine, for instance, Barack Obama or Joe Biden telling Planned Parenthood - which receives huge amounts of federal funding - that they should begin encouraging their patients to carry their children to term?)

Nor is this double-talk confined to the democrat higher ups (though even their practice of it should give us pause), the specter of Roe v. Wade being repealed is regularly used, up and down the party line, to intimidate people - and women especially - into voting for a democratic candidate. I showcased a classic example of these scare tactics a week or so ago at the DNC convention itself.

Back to my main point: in order to truly make a case before the entire American people that the DNC has changed its views on abortion, their Presidential candidate must be willing to repudiate the support of radical pro-abortion lobbies and interests. If he cannot do that, then this change in the DNC platform remains a classical case of politicians and political party wanting to have it both ways.

Sadly, it's all the same for the present and future victims of abortion.

Sen. Joe Biden follows in Pelosi's footsteps

On today's Meet the Press, Barack Obama's Catholic running mate Joe Biden is confronted with the same question asked of Nancy Pelosi two weeks ago.

His response is not a surprise to those who know Joe Biden's record on abortion and his attempts to reconcile it with his Catholic faith.

But it is a surprise that he still tries to mount this defense after Pelosi-Gate. You would think he might have paused.

The video of his response (transcript and commentary below):



You can find the full transcript here.

Before we take a look at Biden's defense, I must note this important point:

This is developing into perfect storm. Rocco reports via the Deleware News-Journal, that tomorrow Joe Biden's new bishop Fran Malooly will be installed, and Joe Biden plans to attend the Mass.

(Malooly knows it is coming, too:

Malooly said he won't be surprised if the media ask him about the best-known member of his new diocese -- Sen. Joe Biden, who is running for vice president.

Biden, a 35-year member of the Senate, has said he believes in Catholic teachings on the sanctity of life but has often voted in favor of abortion rights.

"I'm anxious to have a chance to speak with him as I would any politician," Malooly said at a farewell reception in Parkville, Md., last Sunday.

He'll seek to understand Biden's point of view, much as he did with Maryland politicians. And Malooly said that he will share the scope of Catholic pro-life teachings with Biden.

A sizable number of Catholics hold beliefs that go against church teachings, the bishop said.

"I have to work on everybody, not just Joe Biden," Malooly said.

Biden has been invited to the installation, but as of late Friday, Biden's staff still was trying to work out the candidate's schedule so he could attend.

I see nothing in Malooly's comments which would lead me to believe he intends to use his installation Mass as an opportunity to begin publicly defending the teachings of the Church on this topic.

Abp. Chaput, it should be remembered, has told the Associated Press that Joe Biden, because of his support for abortion, should refrain from taking Communion.

Archbishop Sambi, as the apostolic nuncio, would also have an opportunity to say something officially.)

Now let's take a look at the content of Joe Biden's argument.

(In answer to the question: "As a Roman Catholic, when does life begin?")

"I'd say, "Look, I know when it begins for me." It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church."

The old mantra: "I personally believe..." Being "prepared to accept" is a reluctant phrasing.

"But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths--Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others--who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life--I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society."

Same argument: "I believe one thing. Other people believe another thing." Joe Biden is willing to sacrifice what he believes are human lives because other people believe they are not human lives (or believe they may kill them). That's really his position, in essence. And look at the example he uses to defend it next:

"And I know you get the push back, "Well, what about fascism?" Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism's all right? Fascism isn't a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea."

This is the most incredible part of his defense. He claims that "Fascism isn't a matter of faith" but claims that abortion is a matter of faith! But this is the truth: the evil of abortion is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of reason. This is what must be taught him, publicly. (I further expand my commentary on his "fascism argument" below.)

Tom Brokaw, to his credit, goes for the throat with his next question:

Brokaw: "But if you, you believe that life begins at conception, and you've also voted for abortion rights..."

Biden: "No, what a voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it's a moment of conception. There is a debate in our church, as Cardinal Egan would acknowledge, that's existed. Back in "Summa Theologia," when Thomas Aquinas wrote "Summa Theologia," he said there was no--it didn't occur until quickening, 40 days after conception."

Brokaw is right to point out that Biden has admitted to allowing the killing of lives he believes in faith are human. Biden's Augustine is Aquinas. But both theologians were working with an equally antiquated biology, and both men equally, constantly condemned the evil of abortion. This is a red herring that Biden offers.

Back to the core of Biden's argument:

"How am I going out and tell you, if you or anyone else that you must insist upon my view that is based on a matter of faith?"

Like Pelosi did at this point, Biden now falls back to his talking points. You can stop listening at this point:

"How am I going out and tell you, if you or anyone else that you must insist upon my view that is based on a matter of faith? And that's the reason I haven't. But then again, I also don't support a lot of other things. I don't support public, public funding. I don't, because that flips the burden. That's then telling me I have to accept a different view. This is a matter between a person's God, however they believe in God, their doctor and themselves in what is always a--and what we're going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care, the assistance and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children."

My general observations:

• Despite the notable differences, it's uncanny how similar are Biden and Pelosi's statements
• Biden has claimed that the evil of abortion is a matter of faith, not reason (science, logic, biology, etc)
• Biden has claimed a Catholic can believe life begins at conception and yet allow (and promote) abortion
• Biden has claimed it is better to respect the opinions of the majority than to prohibit them from killing human life. To avoid violating a conscience, he will take a life. He must be answered.
• Biden has claimed that "no decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea." He has arbitrarily created a tautology that claims no decent religious person thought fascism was a good idea, but chooses not to also propose that "no decent religious person thinks abortion is a good idea." Essentially, Biden re-writes the historical record as he sees fit, and the fact that some people may claim to be faithful and pro-abortion means they must be correct, while others who claimed to be faithful and pro-fascism must be wrong. His explanation, with some extraction, is that people could condemn fascism for reasons besides those of faith.

And I think, perhaps most importantly...

• Biden has claimed, "There is a debate in our church, as Cardinal Egan would acknowledge, that's existed."

This is not a true statement, if Biden is referring to a debate about the evil of abortion. There has never been a debate about the serious evil of abortion. Cardinal Egan would not acknowledge Biden's claim in this sense. Besides, debate does not authorize dissent. Nor does debate mean there is any ambiguity in what a faithful Catholic must actually believe and how a faithful Catholic must act. If Pelosi was wrong about this, so is Biden.

By my count, twenty-seven bishops have now responded up Pelosi's denial of Church teaching.

How many will come forward and correct Biden's equally-lethal separation of faith from reason and action?

[Photo Credit: NBC's Meet the Press]

update - other places to find good commentary on this story:

• Catholics Against Joe Biden: Joe Biden Channels Nancy Pelosi on Meet the Press --another "teaching moment" for the Catholic Bishops?
• The Curt Jester: Abortion poisions everything including reason
• What Does the Prayer Really Say?: First Pete and then Re-Pete: Biden follows Pelosi down the slope on Meet The Press

update 2 - 9:30pm: Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, WI already devoted today's Sunday homily to this topic. You can hear the audio here (MP3 file) and read Rocco's short intro here. Jeff Miller transcribed a segment of it - truly the flood gates are opening.

I'll be giving a Theology on Tap talk on the topic of "Faith in the Ballot Box" at the Cathedral parish of Madison, WI on Septebmer 18th. It looks like the Bishop is going to help me with talking points.

update 3 - 8:30am, Sep. 8th: The New York Times takes note:

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic nominee for vice president, departed Sunday from party doctrine on abortion rights, declaring that as a Catholic, he believes life begins at conception. Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic nominee for vice president, departed Sunday from party doctrine on abortion rights, declaring that as a Catholic, he believes life begins at conception.

While Mr. Biden’s views may not be new to Democrats in his circle, his comments, in an interview on “Meet the Press” on NBC, came at a time when his party is confronted with a new face: Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, whose anti-abortion stance and decision to give birth just five months ago to a baby with Down syndrome have revved up the conservative base of her party.

update 4 - 3:30pm, Sep. 8th: Archbishop Chaput of Denver has responded, learn more here.

Report: Biden risks refusal of Holy Communion

An important historical note. It remains to be see if the point becomes contemporized (underlining mine):

Scranton native Sen. Joe Biden would likely feel at home any day of the week in Northeast Pennsylvania. Well, any day except possibly Sunday.

The Most Rev. Joseph F. Martino, bishop of Scranton, has strongly supported refusal of Holy Communion for politicians who campaign for or vote in favor of abortion rights.

When asked whether the Democratic vice presidential candidate would be refused Communion should he tour the region, the diocese held firm to its past statements.

“I will not tolerate any politician who claims to be a faithful Catholic who is not genuinely pro-life,” Bishop Martino said in a pastoral letter Sept. 15, 2005, and reiterated this week.

“No Catholic politician who supports the culture of death should approach Holy Communion,” Bishop Martino said. “I will be truly vigilant on this point.”(Scranton Times)

Also, Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, makes an unwelcome appearance in the article:

Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, said Mr. Biden’s leadership on issues like health care and economic justice “constitute a policy that’s consistent with human life.”

He said ending abortion is an important theological issue for Catholics, but he questioned whether criminalizing abortion was the correct public policy to achieve that. “I think we need to start asking different questions,” Mr. Korzen said.

Who, exactly, in this debate has ever claimed that criminalizing abortion is the Catholic position? Removing the legal right to abortion-on-demand is not equivalent to prosecuting everyone who procures an abortion.

But of course, one shouldn't expect Chris Korzen to stay on topic.

Flashback: A democrat explains faith & abortion

In the past few days, AmP readers have been forced to suffer through reading, re-reading, and even trying to make sense of Pelosi's rambling, garbled explanation of the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion.

And although I hate to ask you to do something similar once again - this is very important, I think.

Give this statement a read and see what you think:

[Question: Why do you hold a pro-choice position on abortion?]

Answer: "... Even within our own [Catholic] church, there’s been debates about life, you know, from, from “Summa Theologica,” Aquinas, and 40 days to quickening and right to, you know, you know, Pious IX, animated fetus doctrine and so on. So this—the, the, the decision’s the closest thing politically to what has been the philosophic divisions existent among the major confessional faiths in our country. And that’s why, I think, that’s why I’ve come to the conclusion some long time ago, over 25 years ago, that is the—it is the [pro-choice] template which makes the most sense."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? It sounds very similar to Pelosi's recent comments. Only this isn't Pelosi...

It's Joe Biden, Barack Obama's Vice-President selection.

John-Henry Weston editorializes:

The August 24 Meet the Press interview with Nancy Pelosi which has received condemnation from Catholic leaders around the nation is little more than a repeat of Biden's own comments on Meet the Press last year. The massive reaction from the Catholic hierarchy against Pelosi's theologizing on abortion should also be applied to Biden.

I don't mean to get off-topic: Pelosi is currently in the hot seat. But let's not lose sight of the fact that her untenable position is, sadly, shared - in one form or another - by many currently-active politicians.