Report: Pope's social encyclical July 6 or 7, some key paragraphs revealed

I've fallen a bit behind on this story, so it's time to catch up. Here's the latest I've found:

The upcoming social encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI "Caritas in veritate" - Charity in truth - will bear the date of the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, June 29, but will likely become public on July 6 or 7, the Italian daily Corriere della Sera said on Saturday.

An article by Gian Guido Vecchi quotes what he claims are several original paragraphs of the Pope’s third encyclical. (CNA)

Especially of interest:

According to Vecchi, the encyclical will hardly be “good news to the liberals and bad news to the conservatives,” as claimed by some analysts who have not seen the text of the document.

“The Pope quotes Paul VI’s Populorum progressio, which in 1967 denounced the gap between rich and poor countries, but the encyclical also takes from Humanae vitae in criticizing abortion and contraception,” Vecchi writes.

The encyclical, in fact, is likely to say that “openness to life is at the core of every true development,” and regarding the ambiguous policies aimed at “reducing the need for abortion” by means of other social policies, the Pope warns that “if personal and social sensibility toward the welcoming of a new life is lost, even other forms of welcoming (life) useful to social life become fruitless.”

WoW.

Now to replace rumors with reality ... I'll see what more I can find out about the impending publication.

update: Pope Benedict announced today that he has in fact signed "Caritas in Veritas." It's only a matter of time now until we have the full text.

John Allen has published a preview of what he believes will be in the encyclical. Seems accurate to me.

Confirmed: Pope to meet Obama July 10 during evening audience

Mark your calendars:

Pope Benedict XVI will welcome U.S. President Barack Obama to the Vatican July 10 for an audience scheduled to begin at 4 p.m. Obama will visit Italy July 8-10 to participate in the Group of Eight summit, a meeting of leaders of the world's wealthiest nations. (CNS)

Since I'm a credit-where-credit-is-due sort of guy (or sure try to be), I agree with CNS' prediction:

Discussions between popes and U.S. presidents usually focus on common concerns regarding world events and the church's concerns over issues or policies with special moral relevance. So in addition to discussing ongoing tensions in the Middle East, especially the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the situation in Iraq, Pope Benedict likely will bring up his concerns regarding abortion policy in the United States and renewed government permission for embryonic stem-cell research.

Ya know, because there *are* concerns he can have about what Obama has been doing.

Liturgy: S. Africa protest over new Catholic Mass translation

There is a new translation of the Mass into English that will debut soon. From the large portions I've read, it is excellent: better and more faithful to the authoritative Latin text than our current translation.

Dissidents of the Church do not like it. To them, it represents "turning back the clock on Vatican II", or similar nonsense. In fact, it has been the intention of the Church since the Council that any translation into the vernacular should be faithful to the original Latin.

This Associated Press article is a preview of the resistance we can expect to the new translation:

A new translation of the Roman Catholic Mass that is to be introduced worldwide in a few years is getting an accidental trial run in South Africa, where some parishioners are complaining it's too hard to understand.

The controversy comes as Pope Benedict XVI travels Tuesday to Cameroon on his first papal pilgrimage to the continent that has the fastest growing congregation of Catholics.

Critics say the new, more literal word-for-word translation is part of an attempt to roll back the progress made decades ago when the church halted its insistence on Latin.

Before Communion, for example, the prayer "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you" becomes "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof." "One in being with the Father" becomes "consubstantial with the Father" in the Nicene creed.

And the congregation's response to the greeting that opens Mass with the priest saying "The Lord be with you," changes from "And also with you" to "And with your spirit."

In a misunderstanding, some South African church leaders started using the new version prematurely in some parishes, even though the English-language prayers won't be approved for global use for at least a couple of years. But instead of pulling back in the face of their mistake, they are continuing to use the liturgy.

Distribution of the prayers has fueled debate over whether the new translation — meant to more closely follow the original Latin text — will help deepen parishioners' prayer life or alienate them from the church.

"I think the church has been very lucky that the South Africans jumped the gun because it's showing the Vatican that there is going to be a worldwide problem when these new translations are put into effect," said Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest and senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.

"Once again the Vatican isn't listening to the critics, and we're going to have another major embarrassment to the pope when these translations are put into effect and are forced on the people in the pews," he said.

For the record - every one of those changes is for the good. People should not have such a short memory when it comes to these things, just because the new translation takes a little getting used to should not mean we should never, as a universal Church, return to the beauty of the traditional prayer of the Church, which is older than a generation.

Resist dissenters like Fr. Reese - reclaim the beauty that is ours as sons and daughters of the Church!

update: Fr. Z agrees.

[Photo Credit: The Catholic Sun]

Get ready for a deluge of condoms & other contraceptives

All the pieces are lining up:

"The Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s research arm, released a pitch today for more taxpayer funding for ‘family planning services’ – contraception and abortion. Every dollar spent on ‘family planning programs’ saves the American people $4, the study says." - Read a response from the American Life League

LifeNews: "However, the report doesn't appear to square with the facts in places where the number of abortions have been compiled following extensive promotion of family planning."

Ross Douthat: "I admire the persistence with which Will Saletan argues for common ground in the abortion debate, and attempts to sell his fellow liberals on the notion that reducing the abortion rate belongs in the Democratic Party's agenda. But I remain unconvinced that his preferred method for such reductions - a dramatic new push, whether political or cultural, to expand the use of contraception in the United States - would produce anything like the results that he envisions."

"Congress increases "family planning" budget by $95.5 million to whopping $852 million" - Jill Stanek

"Democrats in Congress are not abandoning their overall goal. They plan to push soon for a major funding increase for Title X, the main federal family planning program, as part of broader legislation endorsed by President Barack Obama to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. The Guttmacher report provides ammunition for those who will advocate the funding increase." - AP

"Boston College Students Vote to Demand Free Condoms, Other Birth Control" - Cardinal Newman Society

[From an article promoting condom use]: "And learn to live with the guilt. Hey, I’m Catholic — you can learn to live with guilt. Potentially life-threatening infections and diseases, on the other hand, not so much."

Jindal is preparing for a 2012 run

Mark my words, Bobby Jindal's increasing national presence is a preparation for a Presidential run in 2012. If others have not said this before, you heard it here first. Oh, and I should also mention he's Catholic.

Get ready.

Vatican to receive briefing on Pelosi record prior to papal meeting

Pelosi is not denying that she rushed to pass this massive stimulus bill because she had to catch a plane for her europian tour - a tour that includes a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI.

No doubt she's looking for a quick photo-op with her Pontiff to convince her voters back home that everything is "okay" with her "identity Catholicism".

Some people, however, have a different plan in mind (underlining mine):

Fr. Tom Euteneuer, president of Human Life International (HLI), told LifeSiteNews.com that HLI will be briefing the Vatican "so they are aware of her dismal record on life issues.

"It is our hope that the Holy Father will not grant the floundering Speaker of the House what she surely wants and expects, a quick and valuable photo-op, but will rather give her a stern lecture on contraception and abortion and let her know that her eternal salvation is in danger," said Fr. Euteneuer.

"Further, this would be the perfect opportunity to formally excommunicate the Speaker, as she has done everything a public official possibly can to declare her lack of communion with the Holy Father and the Roman Catholic Church on every conceivable issue." (Kathleen Gilbert of LifeSiteNews)

To be clear, I don't think Pelosi is going to get excommunicated. It is, however, the perfect time for the pope to sit down with her and have that chat she so obviously needs to have about the teachings of the Church. You know, that chat she promised her Archbishop she would have him with him 162 days ago. So, no time for her Archbishop, but plenty of time to tour Europe?

Talk about a woman with dysfunctional priorities.

CDF to release important bioethics document on Dec. 12

We've been waiting awhile for this one:

A new Vatican instruction on bioethics, prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is scheduled to be published Dec. 12, informed sources said Wednesday.

The document, under discussion for at least two years, is expected to examine ethical issues in biological research and health care that have emerged in recent years, including the cloning and freezing of human embryos, stem cell research and new therapeutic possibilities.

Pope Benedict XVI was head of the doctrinal congregation when both those documents were published. Addressing the congregation in January, the pope said the new problems included the freezing of human embryos, the selective reduction of embryos, pre-implant diagnosis, research on embryonic stem cells and attempts at human cloning. (CNS)

This document will be a follow-up to Donum Vitae (1987) and Evangelium Vitae (1995), both landmark statements from the Church on the literally life-and-death importance of bioethical decision and practice.

Another surprise for the Vatican's Nativity Scene this year?

Maybe-could-be:

This week the Vatican City government began work on the construction of a new Nativity scene that will be on display in St. Peter’s Square this Christmas.

During this past week, with the Church preparing to celebrate final holy day of the liturgical year, the solemnity of Christ the King, dozens of workers began building a curious thirteen feet tall semi-circular structure that partially surrounding the great obilesk in St. Peter’s Square.

CNA asked the Holy See’s Press Office about the theme chosen for this year’s Nativity scene. “The theme of the Nativity scene is chosen and implemented by the Vatican government, and only when the work is completed will the Holy See be informed of the theme,” Sister Giovanna Gentili, SFP, said.

Last year the Vatican government chose the new theme of the Holy Family in Nazareth instead of in Bethlehem. Due to the [un]usual, semicircular aspect of the preparations, many expect the Holy See to unveil another surprise this Christmas season.

Okay, Roman Papists ... send me photos!

Automatic excommunication for FOCA voters?

Matt Hadro of CNSNews.com tried to get Cardinal George to say as much, but he wasn't biting. Jeff Miller adds some helpful comments and Deal Hudson outlines some reasons why it should.

I think this is an interesting question to raise, but will become urgent should FOCA be introduced.

Did the pope predict this market crash back in 1985?

So say some:

Pope Benedict XVI was the first to predict the crisis in the global financial system, a ``prophecy'' dating to a paper he wrote when he was a cardinal, Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti said.

``The prediction that an undisciplined economy would collapse by its own rules can be found'' in an article written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became pope in April 2005, Tremonti said yesterday at Milan's Cattolica University.

German-born Ratzinger in 1985 presented a paper entitled ``Market Economy and Ethics'' at a Rome event dedicated to the Church and the economy. The future pope said a decline in ethics ``can actually cause the laws of the market to collapse.''

Pope Benedict in an Oct. 7 speech reflected on crashing markets and concluded that ``money vanishes, it is nothing'' and warned that ``the only solid reality is the word of God.'' (Bloomberg)

Here is the text of the article of Cardinal Ratzinger's that the report refers to.

Ph/t: AmP reader German.

On the end of Catholic Hospitals

Ed Morissey at Hot Air tells us how serious the bishops are about not allowing Catholic Hospitals to be forced into performing abortions under FOCA:

[The bishops will] shut them down and take the losses in order to prevent their use as abortion clinics. To do otherwise, the bishops stated, would be to cooperate in the evil of abortions.

What kind of impact would that have? The Catholic Church is one of the nation’s biggest health-care providers. In 2007, they ran 557 hospitals that serviced over 83 million patients. The church also had 417 clinics that saw over seven million patients. If they shut down almost a thousand hospitals and clinics nationwide, the US would not just lose a significant portion of available health care, but the poor and working-class families that received the health care would have fewer options.

Also, the Catholic Church runs this on a non-profit basis, spending vast sums of its money to ensure access for those unable to pay. That’s the kind of model that many on the Left believe should exclusively provide health care — and FOCA would spell the end of the major provider already in that model.

Notice that point about Catholic hospitals being non-profits? And to think that a common criticism of the Catholic pro-life movement during this election was that, somehow, we aren't serious about providing concrete medical care and assistance to the poor. Simply unbelievable.

So how serious are democrats and Obama about FOCA? Serious enough to push the Catholic Church in the US out of the health care industry?

Let's hope drawing these clear lines in the sand will give them pause. We're not blinking first.

John Allen on the future of U.S-Vatican relations

On the whole, I support John Allen's contribution:

"For the record, nobody from the Obama transition team has solicited my advice about relations with the Vatican, and I would frankly be surprised if the question were yet on their radar screen. Others, however, are already speculating about how things might shake out; on Wednesday, for example, Reuters moved a story predicting a “tricky” relationship between Rome and the Obama White House because of the abortion issue. As a thought exercise, I decided to pen an open letter to the president-elect about U.S.-Vatican ties over the next four years."

Allen also tells a story from the Clinton years I found worth repeating:

Finally, one last piece of unsolicited advice: Mr. President-Elect, whatever else you do, please try to avoid repeating the mistakes of the last Democratic administration with regard to the Vatican.

In his memoirs, former Vatican Ambassador Raymond Flynn tells a depressing story from 1994 illustrating what I mean. During the lead-up to the U.N. conference on population in Cairo in 1994, Pope John Paul II called Flynn to the Vatican on a Saturday morning to personally request a telephone conversation with President Clinton. Flynn relayed the request urgently to the White House that afternoon, and got no response. He called again on Sunday and on Monday, both times with no results. Frustrated, Flynn then got on a plane to Washington on Tuesday. He cooled his heels outside the president’s office that night and most of Wednesday. Finally, he was admitted to the White House’s pre-Cairo war room, where he was told by Assistant Secretary of State Timothy Wirth that “nobody is getting a chance to lobby the president on this one.” Dumbfounded, Flynn explained that the Bishop of Rome is not a lobbyist, and that it would be seen as a profound act of disrespect if the president wouldn’t even get on the phone. After almost a week, Clinton finally agreed to take the pope’s call.

The episode was symptomatic of a basic disinterest within the Clinton team about the Vatican, which at times shaded off into hostility. The result was that the U.S.-Vatican relationship during the Clinton years was more often defined by predictable differences than by imaginative areas of common purpose.

For what it’s worth, Mr. President-Elect, my advice is to get on the phone if the pope calls. Better yet, initiate the conversation yourself. You might be surprised about where it goes.

It's no secret that the Clintons were basically jerks to Pope John Paul II when they could get away with it.

What we must prepare for in the years ahead

It's not overstating the situation to claim we have witnessed a "sea change" in American politics.

Here's what I consider to be the distinct concerns of American Catholics looking into the years ahead. Moving from general observations to particular/pressing concerns, I would list them as follows:

• A new liberal majority which, sadly, is often antagonistic to the free practice of our Catholic faith as it effects our public activities. I'm only saying this is always the case, but it will be more often.
• Obama is the biggest Presidential supporter of abortion rights since Roe v. Wade was passed. This is a problem. He has made promises to the pro-abortion crowd which they won't forget.
• The ongoing contradiction of Vice-President Biden and Speaker Pelosi claiming themselves to be faithful "in communion" Catholics while they advocate the destruction of unborn human life.
• Freedom of Choice Act, repeal of the Hyde Amendment (which has up to this point prevented American taxpayers and Catholics in particular from directly supporting abortion with their tax dollars), new Supreme Court Justice nominees which for all intents and purposes will have to pass a Roe v. Wade litmus test, a new openness to gay marriage, coercion of Catholic hospitals which attempt to retain conscience clauses, de-funding of crisis pregnancy centers, etc. And that's just the life issues.

What have I missed? Am I overplaying anything?

Related: I recommend reading the last three paragraphs of Greg Sisk's post.

Picking up the pieces (recap post)

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

Okay, on to ballot innitiatives....

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

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

We've got our work cut out for us.

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

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

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

On the papal horizon: hope for Africa

Zenit:

Benedict XVI will make his first trip to Africa to give hope to peoples that suffer violence and poverty, says a Vatican spokesman.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, affirmed this on the most recent edition of Vatican Television's "Octava Dies."

The Holy Father announced at the end of the world Synod of Bishops his plans to travel to Angola and Cameroon next March, an announcement that Father Lombardi called "an important piece of news."

Hope, surely. But the Pope's third encyclical will be released by then and could provide the theme for his Africa trip, much like his second encyclical provided the theme for his visit to the United States.

Leon Suprenant on the November meeting

Good words:

At their semi-annual meeting November 10-13th in Baltimore, the United States bishops will discuss the “practical and pastoral implications of political support for abortion.” Some might question the timing of this discussion, coming days after a national election featuring a candidate whom Princeton professor Robert George described as being the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the presidency. At the same time, better (barely) late than never, and perhaps the timing will allow for a candid discussion relatively free of USCCB-speak (read “Faithful Citizenship”) or charges of partisanship.

In my own discussions with bishops regarding this issue in the weeks leading up to the November meeting, I have urged them to consider these three concerns.

Read them here.

It bears repeating: Bishops who speak, speak this way

At least in the overwhelming majority of cases. Bishops who are not adopting this strong rhetoric calling Catholics to vote an informed conscience on the issue, particularly, of abortion can be counted on one hand.

Another case in point to close-out the day: Bishop Robert Carlson of Saginaw whose statement (PDF) treats the presidential election as well as pro-ESCR Proposal 2 in Michigan (which I have discussed here).

Since I see no need to reduplicate work already done well, please see Fr. Z's analysis of the document.

On supporting one another in pursuit of the good and true

Doing the right thing often isn't easy.

Bishop Robert Vasa, in his most recent column, tells us one way that he is encouraged:

It might be a perception that my boldness regarding pro-abortion politicians is courageous but in truth I only follow the lead of those who exemplify a boldness far greater than my own. The bold speaking out on the part of Archbishop Raymond Burke regarding the contentious issue of Catholic pro-abortion politicians and Holy communion emboldens cowards like me to follow his example. The firm and measured response of Cardinal Egan and a variety of other Archbishops and Bishops to misleading statements of the Speaker of the House emboldens others, like myself, to shake off the shackles of fear and to stand with them.

Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, on Comending the Bishops:

Faithful Catholics in the US have been both stunned and gratified by the recent show of episcopal strength in dealing with the heretical nonsense of “Catholics” in public life who clearly misrepresent the Church’s teaching on vital issues.

... The trend is truly heartening. Let’s pray that it continues! Much more could be done, of course, but I am grateful that more bishops are standing up to strengthen and protect the faith of millions.

... [I would mention] the strong pro-life stances of Archbishops Burke (now in Rome) and Chaput (Denver) as well as Bishops Vasa (Baker, OR), Farrell and Vann (Dallas, TX), Martino (Scranton, PA) and Mallooly (Wilmington, DE) who are representatives of a group of other bishops who have made their voices heard forcefully on the Catholic voting issue.

... Thankfully, there are many more examples of episcopal courage that we could add to the reflections but suffice it to say that there seems to be a new wind blowing through the College of Bishops all around the world these days.

... We also need to thank them personally when they speak out in order to encourage them to do even more! Now that the example has been set, let us hope that other bishops and priests will have the audacity of our hope in Christ to go out and do the same!

What they said.

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.

Defendin' Palin

George Marlin does his best over at The Catholic Thing:

Governor Sarah Palin is driving liberal and conservative members of the eastern establishment bonkers.

Because Palin is a working mother of five, didn’t abort her Down syndrome child, is the main bread winner in her family, gave a terrific acceptance speech, held Biden’s feet to the fire in the vice presidential debate, attracts large crowds at campaign rallies, and is good-looking – liberal feminists are frothing at the mouth.

In their quest to destroy Palin, these self-appointed guardians of the women’s rights movement have discarded all the rules of civility and fair play.

Update: AmP News Pilot

Thank you, thank you, thank you to everyone who has sent in feedback after watching the pilot episode of AmP News.

Special thanks to the 36 people (at most recent count) who have subscribed to the AmP News YouTube Channel, making us the 6th-most-subscribed YouTube reporting channel this week!

We are now in the process of taking your tips and recommendations into account as we decide how best to move forward.

In the meantime, however, I can predict that a very exciting AmP News feature will be coming your way soon!

You know it's bad....

.... when GOPers are already planning the 2012 comeback.

And heeeeeeere's Bobby!

Myth: Catholic grassroots support Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This November: the big picture

Jim Manzi writing for the American Scene notes that this November, it's not just the presidency up for grabs. The democrats are also set to control both houses of congress, the only question is by how much:

The exact size of the majority in the House is not as crucial as it is in the Senate, where a key point is reached right around 60 seats for Democrats, which, in theory, allows them to prevent a filibuster. Given that the marginal Democrats and marginal Republicans are not reliable party-line voters, getting very close to 60 will prevent some filibusters, hitting 60 will prevent a lot, and getting even slightly past 60 will prevent yet a lot more.

What is the likelihood of this happening?

Five Thirty Eight says:

Senate projections are little changed from our last update six days ago. We currently project the composition of the new Senate to be 56.7 Democrats, 41.3 Republicans, and 2.0 independents; this is not significantly changed from 56.6-41.4-2.0 last week. We furthermore show the Democrats as having a 32 percent chance to control a 60-seat caucus (counting independents Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders), up incrementally from 30 percent last week.

Also look at this Senate Map.

MN is exactly tied, while GA, MS, and KY are "barely" GOP. NC, OR and AK are "barely" DNC.

Why is it important to prevent a filibuster-proof DNC majority? From the perspective of building a culture of life in America, such a democrat majority would far increase the chances of radical legislation such as the "Freedom of Choice Act" of making into into law.

That's really bad news.

update: like it was planned by a higher power, Family Research Council has released its 2008 Congressional Voter's Guide - highly recommended, and spread the word.

In Obama's crosshairs: Abortion alternatives

LifeNews:

Pregnancy centers across the country that provide women with abortion alternatives could be shut down or face severe regulations if Barack Obama wins next month. That's because a bill targeting pregnancy centers could easily be approved in a pro-abortion Congress and land on Obama's desk.

Obama has already promised pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL that he will be their lap dog in the White House and these are the groups leading the effort to pass the bill.

Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey reintroduced the bill in April in the Senate and issued a statement alleging that pregnancy centers mislead women by giving them information on abortion's risks and alternatives.

The so-called "Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act" would place burdensome regulations on pregnancy centers.

It would also force the Federal Trade Commission to create and enforce rules to prohibit deceptive practices that pregnancy centers say they never use to reach women -- such as advertising under the "abortion services" section of the phone book.

I don't think it's that unlikely a scenario. Pregnancy centers are a huge factor in immediatly, effectively reducing the incidence of abortion in this country. They are, morever, in the eyes of Planned Parenthood and professional abortion providers - "competition" in the reproductive services market. And we all know that PP doesn't mind bending and breaking the rules when it can get away with it.

"By 2015, deaths will surpass births in the EU, study reveals"

The suicide of the West.

One to watch: 6-year-old "Nennolina" advances towards sainthood

CNA reports:

An Italian girl who died of cancer at the age of six and a half could soon become one of the youngest saints canonized in recent years.

On Monday Pope Benedict XVI signed papers confirming the “heroic virtues” of Antonietta Meo, who was born in Rome in 1930.

According to Vatican Radio, Meo, nicknamed “Nennolinia,” was a cheerful girl who was diagnosed with bone cancer at the age of five and as a result had to have a leg amputated. She accepted her fate and, wearing a heavy prosthetic leg, continued to play with the other children at her kindergarten.

She wrote many prayers in the form of letters which, according to Vatican experts, reveal a “truly extraordinary life of mystical union” with God. In one of the letters she wrote: “Dear baby Jesus, you are holy, you are good. Help me, grant me your grace and give me back my leg. If you don't want to, then may your will be done.”

Meo died on July 3, 1937.

Church authorities are generally cautious about proclaiming young children saints. But in 1981 the head of the Vatican Congregation for Saints said “'It is possible to speak of a human being being precocious in their sense of good and evil.”

... If canonized, Antonietta Meo would be the youngest canonized saint who did not die as a martyr.

Call it a hunch, but I think she has a really good chance of rapidly becoming beatified and sainted.

Fr. Z. has a short post on her, and there is a Nennolina website (in English here).

Vultus Christi has the text of what Pope Benedict recently said of her, including: "I hope that her cause of beatification may be brought quickly to a happy conclusion." Read the full text here.