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.