Outrageous: Obama volunteer website promotes Planned Parenthood opportunities

If you're surprised, you haven't been watching who is President:

President Barack Obama promised when he was a presidential candidate in July 2007 that he would be a lapdog for the Planned Parenthood abortion business. Obama is now making good on that promise by promoting Planned Parenthood on his new volunteerism web site, Serve.gov. (LifeNews)

Ironically the search engine they use is called "All For Good". I typed in "Planned Parenthood" and "Washington DC" and found plenty of opportunities waiting for me.

Sure, this is bad. But of course I've come to expect this. President Obama believes in mainstreaming Planned Parenthood and its vision of "health care services" for women.

But let me take this new finding in a slightly different direction....

Ever notice how liberal Catholics who support the President are extremely vocal about any sort of charge made against the President which they think is unfair?

I think it is more revealing to observe their complete silence on other issues. Let's face it - the President supports the mission and organization of Planned Parenthood. That's the unavoidable conclusion to his political background, promises - and now - presidential administration.

So I probably won't be holding my breath waiting to see Catholics United, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Michael Sean Winters, and others of their ilk, hit the presses and airwaves with some sort of claim that the President isn't responsible for this sort of thing.

Well, maybe he isn't, but he sure is happy to see it happen on his watch. And he's less than silent about it.

Video: Guest co-host of the View serves up a needed Obama reality-check

I don't know much about Rachel Campos-Duffy, but I love what she had to say yesterday on ABC's the View:

In related news, L'Osservatore Romano at least came out with an article calling Obama's Nobel peace prize "premature."

Of course, the word "premature" still implies that the President is pursuing a host of policies that will eventually make him worthy of receiving a peace prize.

I don't agree with that.

Obama wins nobel peace prize, Vatican PR predictably disappoints

I'm not sure which has me scratching my head more, the fact that the Nobel committee granted President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, or that Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi says the Vatican received the news with "appreciation":

"The awarding of the Nobel Prize for Peace to President Obama is greeted with appreciation in the Vatican, in light of the commitment demonstrated by the President for the promotion of peace in the international arena, and in particular also recently in favor of nuclear disarmament. It's hoped that this very important recognition will further encourage that commitment, which is difficult but fundamental for the future of humanity, so that the desired results will be obtained."

Whispers makes the right point here, by quoting from former Nobel Peace Prize winner Mother Teresa:

"The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing -- direct murder by the mother herself."

So, in the Vatican's view (as Lombardi claims), someone who has only promised in words to establish peace, but has acted in deed to destroy the peace between mother and child (abortion, even late-term abortion), between scientists and new life (embryonic stem cell research), and between fruitful love and selfish sexual gratification (government-sponsorship of contraception, especially to school-age children) ... deserves this prize?

Here is the reaction I posted to Facebook:

"Well, it's official, the Nobel Peace Prize is MEANINGLESS."

PS - this photo from AmP reader Tomasino was too good to pass up:

Respected poll shows more Americans rejecting "right" to abortion in 2009

Signs of hope - a continued trend towards the pro-life position in our country - public support for abortion has dropped 11% since the same time last year:

Polls conducted in 2009 have found fewer Americans expressing support for abortion than in previous years. In Pew Research Center polls in 2007 and 2008, supporters of legal abortion clearly outnumbered opponents; now Americans are evenly divided on the question, and there have been modest increases in the numbers who favor reducing abortions or making them harder to obtain. Less support for abortion is evident among most demographic and political groups.

The latest Pew Research Center survey also reveals that the abortion debate has receded in importance, especially among liberals. At the same time, opposition to abortion has grown more firm among conservatives, who have become less supportive of finding a middle ground on the issue and more certain of the correctness of their own views on abortion. (Pew Forum)

The Obama tie-in:

The timing of this shift in attitudes on abortion suggests it could be connected to Obama's election. The decline in support for legal abortion first appeared in polls in the spring of 2009. Overall, roughly three-in-ten (29%) think Obama will handle the abortion issue about right as president. One-in-five Americans (19%) worry that Obama will go too far in supporting abortion rights, while very few (4%) express the opposite concern that Obama will not go far enough to support abortion rights.

Opposition to abortion remains connected to how serious people take their faith:

"...most people who regularly attend religious services continue to come down in opposition to abortion, while the large majority of those who rarely or never attend religious services still support legal abortion."

By the way, "regularly attend" typically translates in these polls to "attends weekly." In other words, people who merely attend Mass or Christian services *once* a week are far more likely to be pro-life.

Some amazing points are also made:

The poll finds that four-in-ten Americans are unaware of Obama's position on the abortion issue. Conservative Republicans, however, are more likely than any other group to know Obama's position, with 75% correctly identifying him as "pro-choice" rather than "pro-life."

It's stunning to me that 40% of Americans don't even know about Obama's position on abortion, and that 25% of Republicans evidently don't know he is pro-abortion.

Clearly, those of us in the pro-life movement have a great opportunity here for continuing to educate our fellow Americans about the issue of abortion, and Obama's radical position on it.

Catholic Medical Association comes out strongly against ObamaCare

While I was in Orlando I was privledged to meet several members of the Catholic Medical Association.

I am thrilled to see they have come out vocally against Obamacare because of its deep, particular flaws, and have also cautioned against any proposal which involves a government takeover of the private medical profession.

They have released a 3-page open letter to "Catholics and Catholic organizations", and - because I realize people tend to be daunted by larger documents - I'm excerpting the conclusion here:

"We must ensure that well-intentioned efforts to bring about “change” are not exploited to create a federally controlled system that promises health care for all, but creates an oppressive bureaucracy hostile to human life and to the integrity of the patient physician relationship. It would be better to forgo long-needed changes in health-care financing and delivery in the short-term if these would lead to a long-term, systemic policy regime that is inimical to respect for life, religious freedom, and the goods served by the principle of subsidiarity. Rather than accept such an outcome, we should take the time required to implement reform measures that are sound in both principled and practical terms."

The entire letter can be read here (PDF) through the CMA website. They have created a new section of their website dedicated to health care reform which I would urge you to visit.

This is a brave move by the Catholic Medical Association. Having met several of their members, I believe they are sincere Catholics who genuinely want to practice their profession according to their Catholic principles.

Obama: On Douglas Kmiec's complete moral meltdown

Prof. Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine University was the most visible Catholic apologist for Barack Obama in last year's presidential election. During that time, I frequently blogged about my profound disagreement with his pro-Obama advocacy, stemming from a false articulation and exposition of Catholic prudential principles.

After Obama was elected, Dr. Kmiec was awarded the ambassadorship to the Catholic nation of Malta.

Now, in his first interview with the Times of Malta, Dr. Kmiec displays what I can only describe as a complete intellectual meltdown. He describes his first encounter with Mr. Obama:

Even though there were areas of disagreement, Mr Obama pointed out the responsibility of government to provide a family wage, to care for the environment and to provide healthcare for the uninsured.

"When I thought about all these things, I thought 'this is my catechism come to life' because we are called to each of these things in the social teachings of the Church."

It is for that reason, Prof. Kmiec says, that he was convinced he had found a person of intelligence who had articulated a set of views and policies he could easily support.

Come again - the most pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage president in history, and Dr. Kmiec sees him as a "catechism come to life"? By that definition, what pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage politician is not a catechism come to life? Does Dr. Kmiec have no sense of objective assessment? Do words and actions mean anything to him? Or is someone "pro-life" simply through a subjective self-assessment with no correspondence to reality?

Dr. Kmiec's support of Obama has become more extreme as the evidence to support his views about the President have become more impossible to substantiate. If Dr. Kmiec truly thought this about Mr. Obama when he first met him, why did he withhold such high praise until now?

I would suggest it is because Dr. Kmiec is going for broke. After all, no one takes him seriously now who does not already agree with his unstated first principles (that abortion is a reality we just have to "live with", for instance) - so why not become explicit about how warped is his integration of Catholic moral teaching and prudential instruction?

I mean, what other conclusion can one come to when you read passages like this:

Prof. Kmiec admits that this approach to abortion is not the ideal solution, saying that poverty or not being married is no excuse to take the life of a child. However, he believes one should be realistic about the problem and if the abortion rate could be reduced - and some studies point out that tackling poverty could lead to fewer abortions - "this seems to me a good interim step".

"I prayed on this," he explains, pointing out that Pope John Paul II had said that Catholics must be clear on their stand on abortion but also that people in political life could sometimes do less than they would like to do as long as there were moves towards the protection of life.

"Mr Obama has taken some steps towards this, perhaps not as fast as some would like," he says.

This is delusional. Mr. Obama has "taken steps towards the protection of life ... not as fast as some would like" in Dr. Kmiec's view? In fact, Mr. Obama has taken steps in the opposite direction. And fast.

Consider: Mr. Obama has chosen to fund oversees abortions at US taxpayer expense. He has destroyed President Bush's faith advisory board and populated it with pro-abortion representatives. He has appointed not a single pro-life Catholic or political figure to any position of responsibility in his administration. He continues to lie about the existence of abortion provision in his multiple health care provisions (a fact verified by multiple mainstream news media organizations). He has not lifted a single finger when Democrats in Congress have thwarted repeated attempts by Republicans to exclude the expansion of abortion funding and coverage from these health care plans. He has not put a single conscience clause provision into writing. His Democrat-controlled Congress is poised to pass legislation that will drastically expand the federal funding which Planned Parenthood and other abortion mega-providers will receive annually. He has ended the federal ban on embryonic stem cell research. And these concrete examples are only those which come immediately to mind.

I was at the debate on life issues between Dr. Kmiec and Dr. Robert George at the National Press Club here in Washington DC earlier this summer. At one point, Dr. George asked Dr. Kmiec to name a single pro-life initiative that Dr. Kmiec knew Mr. Obama has proposed or supported. Dr. Kmiec could not. Several months down the road, there is still nothing one can point to. There is even more one can point to as evidence that Mr. Obama is not pro-life or pro-marriage. He has never made any secret of his pro-abortion stance. It is pitiful to defend someone who sees no point in defending himself on these and other issues.

This interview is also pitiful, as are the continued attempts by pro-Obama Catholics who try to argue that Mr. Obama - despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary - is a pro-life politician, or is a good example of a "catechism come to life." But Dr. Kmiec and his friends have learned that the best way to lie, is to repeat the lie.

And so, here we are, with more lies, or at least delusion.

Either way, I hope that sane individuals who have witnessed Kmiec's meltdown are taking note.

Dear Mr. President, go to Church.

I thought this was a fascinating read. Of course the mainstream media hasn't noticed the fact that Mr. Obama is too busy these days to attend weekly Christian services - I'm sure many of them could relate:

Dear Mr. President,

Remember all the analysis immediately after your election this past November regarding where you and your family would attend church? Newspapers and websites were filled with stories about where you would go, and numerous congregations in Washington invited you, your wife, and children to attend their Sunday morning services. Although Americans have usually displayed substantial interest in where their presidents attended church while in office, never before had there been such fascination with this issue before a president was inaugurated. At present, this focus seems ironic because you and your family have attended church in Washington only once—on Easter Sunday—since you took office (although you have attended a few services at Camp David).

... One excellent way to demonstrate your Christian commitment, which some Americans question, and provide spiritual nurture for yourself and for your family, is to attend church consistently. - Dr. Gary Scott Smith

What is the USCCB doing on Health Care?

Russell Shaw tries to figure out their strategy - if they have one:

Does the bishops' conference know something about health care and abortion that the rest of us don't? Otherwise it's difficult to say what to make of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' response to President Obama's speech to Congress last week. Even as the rest of the prolife community was continuing its criticism of abortion coverage in the plan, USCCB issued a news release welcoming Obama's claim that publicly funded abortion won't be part of it.

... It's hard to say exactly what that means, but it could mean the bishops won't fight very hard to keep abortion out of the health care plan provided it includes some sort of conscience clause they can live with. It may also mean that the bishops have received private assurances from the White House that if they play ball on health care, that's what they'll get. If this is what's going on, however, it's a risky game at best.

My advice: get your concession in writing.

Because, by my count, the promises made by Obama, his campaign and his administration to Catholics have been fulfilled precisely zero times. Conscience clauses? Abortion reduction? Supporting traditional marriage?

Name me one example.

update: Deal Hudson agrees that the USCCB is taking a "huge risk" here.

Baltimore Catholic Schools opting in to Obama schoolchildren address

Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Baltimore are opting in to Obama's speech intended for public school children, but Archbishop O'Brien is also respecting the decision of some parents to have their kids skip the President's video presentation. This from Abp. O'Brien:

Since news of the address was first reported, the Catholic Center and several Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Baltimore have been contacted by parents, teachers and others expressing a desire that parents be given the opportunity to request that their children be excused from viewing the address.

Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien, Archbishop of Baltimore, acknowledges the historic significance of the President’s speech and is fully supportive of the educational messages the White House says the President will deliver. However, he agrees that parents should ultimately have the right to choose whether their child views the address and will ask Catholic schools in the Archdiocese to communicate this to parents.

“We respect the rights of our parents to decide what’s best for their children in this matter and our schools will be asked to make arrangements for children not watching the program in an alternate venue in order to offer an opportunity for discussion about the role and responsibilities of the presidency and the value of education,” the Archbishop said.

Is your Catholic school signing-up to watch Obama's speech? Are you opting your children out of the presentation?

Related: "When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings"

Open topic: Bishop Joseph Martino resigns

Today Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, PA resigned, confirming a report I mentioned last week.

Unfortunately my current level of obligations prevents me from examining the decision in detail (for that, see Rocco's reporting), but I think it is important the AmP community is aware of it and discussing the fall-out.

Bishop Martino is a hated man for a simple reason - he has attempted to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, and to his episcopal vows.

A brief report from the Associated Press:

A Roman Catholic bishop in northeastern Pennsylvania says he is stepping down for health reasons.

Scranton Bishop Joseph Martino says he suffers from insomnia and crippling physical fatigue.

The 63-year-old leader of the Diocese of Scranton is resigning more than a decade before the usual retirement age of 75. He had led the diocese since 2003.

Martino had been heavily criticized by parishioners who felt alienated by his imperious leadership style and staunch defense of Catholic orthodoxy. Supporters say Martino was simply enforcing church doctrine.

Pope Benedict XVI appointed Cardinal Justin Rigali, who leads the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, to oversee the Scranton diocese until the Vatican appoints a new bishop.

A recap of his "controversial" actions as a bishop, as reflected by the Religion News Service:

The bishop burst into the national scene during the 2008 presidential campaign, when he frequently criticized Catholics -- including fellow bishops -- who suggested that abortion was only one of many issues by which to assess candidates.

Shortly after the election last November, Martino stood on the floor of the bishops' meeting in Baltimore and pledged to withhold Communion from Biden, who was raised in Scranton, because he supports abortion rights.

Martino later issued similar threats to Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., after he voted to confirm Kathleen Sebelius, who supports abortion rights, to head the Department of Health and Human Services.

Martino also warned Scranton politicians that he would close the diocese's cathedral on St. Patrick's Day if they honored any politicians who support abortion rights; he tried to shut down a local Catholic college's diversity program after it hosted a gay rights advocate; and he refused to recognize a local Catholic teachers union. He also presided over mass consolidations of schools and parishes, many of which were contentious.

"By the world's standards, perhaps I have not been successful,"
Martino said Monday. "But I have been faithful."

David Gibson - a religion reporter with whom I have disagreed in the past - writes in Politics Daily:

But church insiders say Martino had also worn out his welcome with his brother bishops and the Vatican. So his resignation may be further evidence that the U.S. hierarchy is divided between moderate voices and a more strident conservative minority that is struggling in the wake of Obama's success with Catholic voters.

Liberal Catholics are taking Bishop Martino's resignation as a vindication of their position, and as a sign from within the Bishops conference and from the Vatican that Bishop Martino's pastoral "style" is unnaceptable:

But it was an event in late October last year, on the eve of the presidential vote, as religious rhetoric was growing white-hot, that may have pushed Martino over the line in the eyes of many.

A parish was holding a regular voter-education forum on the election, featuring discussion of a document, "Faithful Citizenship," the election guide endorsed almost unanimously by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or USCCB. Martino showed up at the parish hall unannounced, causing a stir. Then he took the microphone and proceeded to critique the organizers for not using his own letter on abortion as the basis of the discussion.

When a nun at the forum reminded Martino about the document of the enitre bishops conference Martino responded, "No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese. The USCCB doesn't speak for me," Martino declared. "The only relevant document ... is my letter. There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable."

It was a bizarre episode and one that not only capped Martino's reputation as a divisive figure, but also seemed to set him against his other bishops -- a stance that may have been the ultimate cause of his downfall. Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia was named Monday by the pope to be the temporary administrator for the Scranton diocese, which comes under Rigali's purview.

Whatever the ins and outs of the internal church maneuvering, the upshot is that a leading voice in the anti-Obama wing of the church hierarchy has been silenced while both Obama and Biden continue to take center stage.

.... In addition, there are signs that some bishops are growing uneasy with the more strident and even partisan tone of many church leaders, especially in the wake of the shooting of Kansas abortionist George Tiller. The opposition of some bishops to health care reform -- which the pope has declared a fundamental human right -- as well as fallout from the fierce opposition by some to Obama's appearance at Notre Dame in May has also given some bishops pause.

.... "By the world's standards perhaps I have not been successful here," Martino concluded. "But I did what I thought was right.

Clearly not everyone agreed with that self-assessment, from Martino's fellow bishops on up to the pope. Where the hierarchy, and American Catholics, go from here is the question that remains unanswered.

Again, it pains me to be currently unavailable to pause and reflect on this episode at length, but in the meantime, I'd invite AmP readers to fill in the context and add their helpful observations to a debate that is shaping up to be central in defining the identity of American Catholics in the years to come.

For those who are interested, there is a Facebook group "I Support Bishop Joseph Martino" which has almost 500 members. I'm a member.

Photo: CNA.

Politics: Obama using faith-based office to politicize religion

Dan Gilgoff has an excellent article posted to US News & World Report entitled "Obama Has Dramatically Changed Role of Faith-Based Office." He has excerpted the most important part of his findings:

Yet some of the biggest questions surrounding Obama's office when it launched remain unanswered. The administration has not decided whether to allow religious groups to hire only fellow believers with federal funds, a hugely controversial issue. The outside faith advisory council, which will formulate proposals for achieving the office's policy goals—and for combating climate change and reforming the office itself—won't formalize its recommendations until next year. And the office is still devising metrics by which to measure its effectiveness, a subject of much debate during the Bush years.

So, in many ways, the office is a lame duck.

Simultaneously, however, there are more foundational concerns about this office coming to light:

Reinforcing its new policy role, Obama has brought his office under the purview of his Domestic Policy Council, delighting many faith leaders, particularly on the left. "The Bush office was totally disconnected from policy," says Wallis.

Such access has upset some on the left, who say religious leaders shouldn't be shaping government policy, and some on the right, who say the work amounts to politically inspired religious outreach. "We would have gotten killed for doing that," says Jim Towey, who directed Bush's faith-based office and notes that religious outreach in the previous administration was handled by the White House Office of Public Liaison, which reported to Karl Rove. "It looks like a political office now."

Bottom line: under the Bush administration, this office helped faith-based organizations pursue their public work (or "agenda") more effectively. In contrast, under Obama, this office harnesses the resources of these faith-based organizations to carry out Obama's agenda.

That's change I don't like.

Kennedy funeral: GIRM vs. Archdiocese of Boston

Mr. Obama is scheduled to give a five minute eulogy at Mr. Kennedy's funeral tomorrow.

This is a classic example for why it would have been good for the Archdiocese of Boston to follow the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which reads:

382. At the Funeral Mass there should, as a rule, be a short homily, but never a eulogy of any kind.

A eulogy can still be delivered, of course, at the cemetary.

The GIRM also says:

385. ...Pastors should, moreover, take into special account those who are present at a liturgical celebration or who hear the Gospel on the occasion of the funeral and who may be non-Catholics or Catholics who never or rarely participate in the Eucharist or who seem even to have lost the faith. For priests are ministers of Christ's Gospel for all.

In other words - the GIRM wants preaching to the congregation instead of the congregation (Mr. Obama) doing the preaching.

But this is what the Archdiocese of Boston proscribes:

18. Following the prayer after Communion and before the Final Commendation, only one speaker, a member or a friend of the family, may speak for not more than five minutes in remembrance of the deceased.

... and here we are.

Ripe for disaster: Obama to give eulogy at Kennedy Mass

I'm not sure what presents more opportunity for disaster - Mr. Obama giving the eulogy at a Catholic Funeral Mass for Mr. Kennedy, and in all probability warping Mr. Kennedy's record on the issues that are important to Catholics - or the prospect of Mr. Obama's senior administration, which is full of dissenting Catholics who should be ineligible to receive Communion - lining themselves up for it.

Luckily, I don't think I'll have time for TV or the news this weekend.

So much for conscience clauses for Catholics in medicine

President Obama has promised Catholics, on multiple occasions, a "robust conscience clause."

The fact that we need one is evident when you read about examples like this one, where a pro-life nurse forced to participate in an abortion was told she has no legal rights.

Now read the 1,000+ pages of the health care bill in Congress that President Obama supports, and find me a "robust conscience clause."

I'll save you the days of work - it isn't in there. So much for that.

Politics: Lies, and the Obama who tells them, and the Faux Catholics who let him

I like to consider myself a patient guy.

But this sort of stuff is infuriating to me:

• Obama, in his own BlogTalkRadio discussion with the "American Faith Community", cited the claim of funding of abortion as one example of the false claims that are being circulated by critics of his health care reform initiative."
• Obama's campaign organization - which is still alive and kicking months after his election into office - is humming the same false tune.

Now, the majority of Americans understand that abortion coverage is in the health care reform bill. This despite mainstream media organizations trying to deny and downplay it, and despite Obama's massive spin campaign.

But what really gets me about all this is how various fake Catholic organizations are helping Obama and his surrogates lie. Jack Smith is hot on their trail:

"The administration's ploy throughout the campaign and his presidency has been to seek or invent amenable decoys for the actual voices in faith communities that oppose his radical anti-life agenda. Many of these decoys are pure hacks like the folks at Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance. This is a shameful exercise by an American administration to displace legitimate political opposition by substituting staged conversations with supporters faking as faith groups - and presenting an in-house love fest as concensus building."

Obama and his supporters have perfected the tactic of claiming the other side is doing what they do better. In this case, Obama and his supporters have been shouting from the rooftops that the otherside is making up stories about what is in the current health care proposals.

Well, the joke is on us, because on the issue of abortion in health care, it's Obama and his supporters who are making. stuff. up.

Here are six facts which prove abortion is in the current health care legislation.

Can anyone imagine abortion not being included in this plan, which is predominantly supported by the left and far left, who take abortion-on-demand as a human right and (often) argue that universal health care is a human right?! The fact that they are silent on this issue logically means we must be vocal.

I'm all for arguing matters of prudence, for debating differences of opinion, for contrasting competing political viewpoints, but seriously .... this is a simple matter of facts. And the fact is that abortion is in health care. And shame on Obama, his surrogates and especially some Catholics for denying it.

Duh: PP President Cecile Richards in cozy with Obama

Barack and Cecile sitting in a tree, P-L-O-T-T-I-N-G. Seriously!

Barack and Cecile, you see, are buddies - they are, like, total BFFs (that means Best Friends Forever, if you're over 30).

Barack Obama is the President of the United States, and Cecile Richards is the president of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States. So they have a lot in common. They're both really important. Barack likes Cecile so much he puts his arm around her, which he doesn't do for many people. Cecile likes Barack and gets to wear his cute baby-doll rhinestone "Obama" t-shirts.

Barack invites Cecile over to the White House a lot. Like, more than once. They pretty much get to hang out and stuff all the time. It's kind of sick how much fun they get to have.

Cecile even gets to twitter little things like this afterwards:

"Just left the White House meeting on women's health care - they appreciate all the might(y) pp [planned parenthood] supporters speaking up for reform in the states!"

Cecile and Barack are cool like that. He really appreciates her. She said so. They both really want health care reform. They're really smart. I'm pretty sure Cecile is on Barack's Fave Five.

Cecile gets to heart Obama on Facebook, telling all her friends important stuff like this:

"Women need affordable health care that covers OUR needs ... Geez, we represent more than half the population here!"

Yeah Cecile, like duh.

Some folks totally make stuff up about them, like, that Cecile and Barack are such good friends because they do business together. Like how Planned Parenthood and all their supporters gave lots of cash to Obama and campaigned for him and stuff, and how he's all, like, giving them lots of money to Planned Parenthood whenever he can now that he won and gets to be a President, too.

But, I mean, can't friends help each other out?

Oh, and most the people who say that kind of stuff are just crazy pro-lifers who are jealous they aren't Barack's friends. Well - *news flash*, people - Barack can pick his own friends, and he decided to pick Cecile. So deal. Maybe if you tried changing and were cooler you could be his friend, too. So hey, try working on that. Okay bye.

(Oh those photos at the top? Yeeaah ... I didn't take them. Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood did. My bad!)

White House health care "Reality Check" page ignores abortion

The White House has launched a page on their official government website where citizens can "get the facts about the stability and security you get from health insurance reform."

They call it "Health Insurance Reality Check."

Gee, I wonder where they got this idea from?

[It's amazing that, under Obama, the White House has become its own advertising engine. We must be in uncharted territory here with the White House becoming a proponent of partisan legislation. 

I mean, can anyone imagine "www.WhiteHouse.gov/iraqwar" being considered a correct use of the Oval Office when Bush was president? Wouldn't Bush have been criticized for overreaching the proper roll of the Executive branch?]

Notably absent from the "reality checks" is one on the claim that abortion is included in the legislation.

I mean, it's going to be pretty hard to "reality check" so many facts.

update: I'm happy to see Steve Ertelt at LifeSite has picked up on this telling omission. 

Why are Catholic organizations supporting Obamacare? Follow the money.

[update 3 - in fairness, please also scroll to the bottom and see the links supplied.]

Last week I was scratching my head trying to figure out the reasons why Catholic organizations (such as Catholic Charities USA, The Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and the Catholic Health Association) are "rushing anti-life health care reform".

One of the reasons I'd like to be able to rule out very quickly is that they are doing so out of self-interest, because they have significant financial stakes in this debate.

It becomes hard to rule this possibility out when I find out that Catholic Charities just received $100,000,000 in government money on July 20th - it's first federal contract ever:

Catholic Charities USA has received a five-year, 100 million dollar federal contract to aid in disaster relief throughout the United States. The contract is the charity’s first ever federal contract.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its Administration for Children and Families (ACF) section awarded the contract to Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA), a 100-year-old service organization.

The contract allows HHS to issue task orders to the agency for aid in connection with a specific disaster. The agreement became effective on July 20, a Monday CCUSA press release says. (CNA)

It becomes still more difficult to rule out this troubling possibility when I discover - through Jack Smith's original and incisive reporting - what sort of organization, and compensation, obtains over at the Catholic Health Association:

CHA does not represent patients or the poor. Their board is composed of, and Sister Carol represents, the very highly compensated chief executives of large health care conglomerates throughout the country. Lay-led corporations such as San Francisco-based Catholic Healthcare West and St. Louis-based Ascension Health run dozens of hospitals across numerous states which at one time were directly operated by religious orders.

The executives at these companies are compensated as you'd expect the heads of large corporations to be compensated. In the last year figures are available, the head of Ascension Health made $1,756,790 plus $599,744 in deferred compensation and benefits. Catholic Health East's top exec made $1,185,000 plus $693,000 in deferred compensation and benefits. Both execs are on the board of CHA, where they are joined by numerous execs from similar health systems.

But the biggest fish is Lloyd Dean, former Chair and current Speaker of Membership Assembly on the Board of Trustees at CHA. Dean is head of Catholic Healthcare West with 41 hospitals and clinics in California, Nevada and Arizona.

In 2006, the last year figures are available, Dean made $4,001,892 and the Chronicle of Philanthropy named him the second highest paid non-profit executive in the United States. Dean's compensation, according the the Chronicle of Philanthropy, is based in part on "improvements in the organization's finances". As well it should be. Dean also has made gobs in his position on other boards, including Wells Fargo & Co. Dean is non-Catholic and a donor to both the DNC and the Obama campaign.

This is not to begrudge these executives their salaries. It is only to point out that it is their interest that Sister Carol serves. And she serves them very much as a peer.

Democrats have been claiming that the resistance to their proposed health care reform plan is being organized by well-funded insurance organizations. Well, here are some well-funded trade associations who seem very interested in seeing the democrat proposal come to fruition.

So why is no one talking about that?

In a related vein, I was pleased to see that the Knights of Columbus are taking the right sort of action:

Delegates to the 127th annual convention of the Knights of Columbus Aug.6 adopted a resolution declaring opposition to “any health care reform legislation that does not explicitly exclude abortion coverage for any health insurance plan, public or private.”

On Tuesday in his annual report to the convention, Supreme Knight Carl Anderson had sounded a similar note, saying, “Health care reform must be abortion free.”

The resolution on Defending the Right to Life also called on “legislators everywhere to adopt legislation protecting the religious conscience rights of doctors, nurses and other medical professionals, guaranteeing their right to refuse to participate in abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide or any other practice that is destructive of innocent human life or that conflicts with their sincerely-held religious beliefs.”

The resolution reaffirmed the commitment of the 1.78 million member Knights of Columbus “to unconditional support for the right to life and full protection in law for every human being from conception to natural death.”

That sounds much closer to an authentically Catholic starting point for health care reform.

update 2: I am being made aware of statements by these organizations which commit themselves to supporting only pro-life legislation. That's excellent, but what we have in our hands right now is anti-life legislation, and I believe many Catholics believe that, in supporting Obamacare, they are following the advice of these Catholic organizations.

So clearly we have some communication issues to straighten out over the next month.

I will be posting more on this topic soon.

update 3: here are statements from Catholic Charities and St. Vincent De Paul (PDF). 

The latest letter (July 30th PDF) from the Catholic Health Association's Advocacy wing is woefully-inadequate. We should focus our demands on CHA for them to clarify their position immediately.

In the crosshairs: Let's defeat the DeLauro-Ryan scam bill!

This bill (HR #3312) needs to be defeated, and with your help, I think we can.

Pro-abortion groups are throwing all of their weight behind it, and they are trying to pick up enough "pro-life" defectors to make the case to the rest of us that it represents "common ground" legislation....

.... It isn't. It simply throws $700 million dollars to pro-abortion organizations. And they already get plenty.

"But wait!" They'll say. "This isn't funding abortions." Sure it is, it's funding abortion providers. Their argument is like saying a piece of legislation doesn't fund drinking, it funds bars. You know, because plenty of people go to bars to access the valuable nutritional content of pub food, so we're just giving money to the bars so they can put on more happy hours.

I will provide information about HR #3312 and why it is important to defeat it. If you scroll to the bottom of the post you will find action items to make sure that it is defeated. 

Please link to this post if you are convinced. Let's get a lot of people involved on this one.

===

Summary/Analysis:

HR #3312 in summary reads: "To provide for programs that reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, help women bear healthy children, and support new parents." 

It is currently in committee, and is waiting to get to the floor of the House to be voted upon. Tim Ryan (D-OH) sponsored the bill, along with 12 other democrats, notably Rosa DeLauro (D-CT).

The main thrust of the bill is to increase Title X funding for Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups. It also mandates that Medicaid would universally cover both abortion and contraception. 

How much money are we talking about? As I said above, $700,000,000.00. That's right: seven hundred million dollars. If you had seven hundred million dollars dangling in front of you, and weren't scrupulous, wouldn't you think of a really clever argument to argue that you deserve it?

The bill includes enough other provisions to make the excuse that it isn't another veiled attempt to pump more money into these for-profit organizations. The bill provides heavy coverage for contraception, with the argument being that this will reduce abortions.

A country saturated in contraceptives, however, does not drive down the number of abortions. Efforts in the UK to increase contraception access have only resulted in the deepening of the abortion epidemic.

The bill's sponsor, Tim Ryan, who is Catholic, claims to be pro-life. He is not, or at least, he never votes pro-life. He recently voted to have taxpayers in DC fund abortions. As Jack Smith writes, "In the current and last sessions of Congress Tim Ryan had the exact same voting score from National Right to Life as Rosa DeLauro - 0." Jack Smith provides more background here.

Who likes this bill? Radical pro-abortion lobbies like NARAL. It's a ruthless cycle: abortion groups lobby for more money, so they can propose further legislation ... that gets them more money. Meanwhile the "powerful" pro-life movement continues to chug along on blogs, email lists, and concerned folks like you picking up the phone and sending emails to your representatives. I know, we have so much to gain, right?

Anyway, when a movement runs out of ideas and arguments, they can do two things: have a hard think about their position or attempt to co-opt/shut-up the opposition. The pro-abortion lobby has chose the second option. "Faith in public life" is a good example of marginalizing pro-lifers and claiming a consensus for their position when there is not one. Some Christian pastors have come out in support of the bill, but not one Catholic priest has voiced support for it. Because faithful Catholics understand that contraception and funding abortion providers is not going to drive down the number of abortions in this country, or promote a culture of life.

In fact, as I blogged about last week, the USCCB has taken the unusual step of specifically targeting this bill as unacceptable, calling it the "Planned Parenthood Economic Stimulus Package of 2009."

And if you want to know Pope Benedict's mind on the issue of governments promoting contraception, read what I wrote about that on July 8th. (hint: he's against it.)

If you are reading this far, you are probably interested in this sort of thing enough to be curious about the strategic opportunity here. 

In the wider picture, the DeLauro-Ryan bill is a preview of coming attractions: What DeLauro-Ryan floats as legislation, should it pass, is the type of "solution" the Obama administration will offer to the problem of abortion in White House-sponsored initiatives. 

In other words, Obama's long-awaited solution to the number of abortions is - not surprisingly - to further fill the coffers of the radical pro-abortion lobbyists and organizations which helped him and his associates win the White House and Congress. Sadly, it's still true in much of American politics that to find out what's happening, you have to follow the money. In this case it goes abortionists --> Obama --> abortionists (through Congress).

But if this bill is defeated, we may still have the chance of proposing counter-solutions acceptable to true pro-lifers, from people who sincerely want to see the number of abortions reduced by supporting women and helping them make the right choice, which is always to protect innocent life and give it the same chance we all deserve.

===

Action: 

The most effective thing you can do is call your congressional representative and tell them simply "Vote NO on the DeLauro-Ryan bill." If they want a reason: "It funds pro-abortion organizations which already receive too much federal funding." If they want an alternative bill to support on this issue, there is one (see below). The congressional switchboard is 202-224-3121 (don't hang up if it keeps ringing, it takes time for an operator to help you, but it will happen eventually). But you can also be completely done with the call in under a minute. The staffs are courteous and are there to take calls from people like you on issues like this.

You can also send a short email to your representative through this official form. Simply write the same thing and heck, give them the link to this post if they want to know why.

If you want help spread the word around the web, you can refer folks to this post, join a Facebook group I created (Stop DeLauro-Ryan) or Twitter about it (I propose the hashtag #stopryan).

As far as an alternative proposal, there is a good bill already in Congress, introduced by Lincoln Davis (D-TN) - HR #2035 which reads in summary: "To provide for programs that reduce abortions, help women bear healthy children, and support new parents." 

It is supported by Cardinal Rigali (head of USCCB pro-life) and numerous other Catholic and pro-life organizations, as Jack Smith explains. It is also bi-partisan: in the House it has 28 democrat and 12 republican co-sponsors! That's common ground, because pro-lifers can actually support it, on both sides of the aisle.

[photo credit: Third Way]

Prof. Kaveny needs a re-write on Pope and President

University of Notre Dame Law School:

M. Cathleen Kaveny, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, addressed the question “Why does the American Catholic leadership seem to be focused on abortion, while the Vatican appears willing to view that issue as merely one among many on which to judge a political leader?” in a New York Times blog.

Evidently, on a planet far, far away, Obama is still the man he claimed to be in his campaign ads. Sadly, the far, far away planet is the writing dens of notable, liberal Catholic academics like Prof. Kaveny. Well, I would challenge her that she needs to update her fact sheet and move beyond the campaign rhetoric of Mr. Obama and actually take a look at the facts. Reality, after all, has a habit of exploding poor arguments.

Reading through her comments, she makes a very convincing case - if we didn't have the experience of the last six months to jolt us out of these false hopes. Let's take a look at a few of her claims with red correction pen in hand:

From different vantage points, [the pope and president] are both grappling with the same challenge: how to protect and promote human dignity in an era of increased globalization, how to work together to solve the problems like the worldwide economic crisis, global warming, and food insecurity.

Let's see, so far Mr. Obama has repealed the Mexico City Policy (funding oversees abortions), removed restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, passed a failed cap-and-trade bill which has negligible international environmental impact at huge domestic cost, allowed an abortion mandate into his socialized health care policy, and - in the eyes of many - failed to support the people of Iran and Honduras in their struggle for a more just government.

Yes, the two men may be grappling with the same challenge, but how has Mr. Obama performed? Politics is absolutely about different groups seeking to right the same problem, but what matters is who comes up with the better solution, and who follows-through. Prof. Kaveny can assign the same legal problem to all of her students, but only those who reach the correct conclusions should receive high marks. Prof. Kaveny wants to give Mr. Obama a perfect score for just walking into the classroom. 

The Vatican, in my view, respects Mr. Obama as a man of moral seriousness, who in turn respects those who disagree with him on serious moral issues such as abortion.

Okay, can I ask an awkward question? Just what the heck does "moral seriousness" mean? No one, to my knowledge, is claiming that Mr. Obama is a morally "unserious", as if he's some sort of clown. We can all agree someone is morally "serious" and still conclude that they are philosophically, prudentially wrong. Prof. Kaveny is a legal scholar - would she give a student an "A" simply for being "morally serious" were he or she to make a legal claim in an academic paper for chattel slavery being just? Of course not! All the "moral seriousness" in the world isn't worth a hill of beans if you are seriously wrong in your moral conclusions.

Cardinal Cottier is impressed by the fact that Mr. Obama recognizes the tragic nature of the abortion choice, and the fact that he is committed to finding ways to reduce the need for — and therefore the numbers of — abortions. He highlights that Mr. Obama is committed to protecting the consciences of healthcare workers who morally opposed to abortion.

First of all, Prof. Kaveny is happy to selectively quote Vatican officials, finding the ones that she thinks supports her argument. But second of all,  Mr. Obama has never - to my knowledge - committed himself to reducing the number of abortions. That would mean he has to admit there is a problem with a woman expressing her "choice" to have an abortion. And he is too much enmeshed in the pro-abortion agenda to ever say that. And just try to make the point with an abortion advocate that reducing the need for abortions equals reducing the number. They will never admit this, for the same reasons Mr. Obama cannot and has not. Finally, search the new health care bill for a "robust conscience clause." It doesn't exist. So what world is Prof. Kaveny still living in? It doesn't look much like the real one you and I are inhabiting. 

Prof. Kaveny, in other words, makes two claims without providing any proof for them. And she also commits a logical fallacy when she presumes that reducing the need for abortions would result in reducing the number of them. It's almost as if she has never engaged a pro-abortion advocate in debate on this issue. Abstract conclusions make little difference when we are facing practical problems with real people. Especially these abstractions are contradicted by the concrete details.

Okay, three points seems enough. Of course, there are other areas where I profoundly disagree with Prof. Kaveny's essay. To conclude, she needs to update her talking points and respond somehow to the actual events which have transpired in the last six months. Until some liberal Catholic can do that, we're still playing word games. Just like Mr. Obama wants to see us do.

My take on Obama's Health Care news conference

I've written about last night's prime-time news conference on health care by Obama over on APP:

"On Snake Oil, Straw Men, and Blue Pills"

As I wrote, "Amazingly, the crux of the debate is not even ideological or philosophical, but factual."

And, I'll add here - what singular question was singularly absent from the evening's proceedings? That's right: abortion funding and democratic leadership refusal to remove it.

Because, of course, that topic would just get us distracted.

Obama on federal funding for abortion: "Let's not get distracted"

Yesterday Katie Couric asked Obama the question that Catholics and other Americans are very worried about:

Katie Couric: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?

President Obama: What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we're still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station. (CBS)

I explain why I think Obama's response is deeply flawed over at this American Principles blog entry.

Briefly: how are we to take seriously Obama's claim that he wants to reduce the number of abortions in America when his attitude about the single-greatest expansion of abortion access in our nation's history is ... "let's not get distracted"?!

update: and now that I think about it for a few more seconds- if Obama doesn't want abortion to "distract" us, why not simply rule out covering them with taxpayer dollars? That strikes me as a very simple fix.

Picture: Sotomayor photoshopped into Guadalupe Image

... 'cuz it's cool to make fun of Catholic stuff. (/sarcasm)

NewsBusters reports:

With the start of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination confirmation hearings the topic of abortion naturally arises – not only because it one of our most polarizing legal and social issues, but also because Sotamayor claims to be Catholic, a religion that adamantly and explicitly teaches the evil of abortion.

And while her Catholicism scares some liberals, others are using it as a selling point, and in doing so desecrating a holy image of the Virgin Mary. Felix Sanchez, the CEO of D.C. government and public relations firm TerraCom and chairman of the National Hispanic Foundation for the Arts, has updated his Twitter page with a background of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Over Our Lady’s face, the likeness of Sotomayor has been superimposed (shown at right).

The patron saint of all the Americas, Our Lady of Guadalupe has a special place in the hearts of Hispanic Catholics, especially Mexicans (which Sotomayor is not). But Sanchez seemed to use the image to appeal to all Hispanics and to promote his plea to “Confirm Sonia Maria Sotomayor,” as his Twitter page says.

Yesterday, NARAL officially backed Sotomayor.

While elected officials who claim to be pro-life hem and haw about how difficult it is to pin down what Sotomayor actually thinks about abortion, one of the most pro-abortion groups in the United States is perfectly happy to take a wild guess.

Oh yeah, and shame on Felix Sanchez.

Urgent: Abortion in Obama's Government Health Care Plan

Here is some common ground on the abortion issue I'm willing to offer: I'm not going to pay for them.

The White House continues to dodge the issue.

The US Bishops have released a statement which says:

“No health care reform plan should compel us or others to pay for the destruction of human life, whether through government funding or mandatory coverage of abortion. Any such action would be morally wrong.”

Sr. Mary Ann Walsh is also blogging away: "Making sure the legislation is abortion-neutral takes one huge obstacle out of the way [of reforming health care]."

For the record, on prudential grounds, I think the health care "reform" bills being pushed through the House and Senate ought to be completely scrapped.

But I am sure Catholics would agree with me on this: we cannot allow our government to foot the bill (with our tax dollars) when anyone in this country wants to have an abortion.

On an important related issue, Jack Smith gives us an update on the Ryan-DeLauro bill:

The Ryan-DeLauro Bill looks to be presented as the President's much vaunted "common ground" approach to reducing abortion - appealing to both pro-life and pro-choice leaders. Problem is, it is sponsored by two pro-choice legislators. By his consistent moves in the last two legislative sessions, Rep. Ryan has given up any claim to being pro-life. As we mentioned above, he is actually working against pro-life Democrats.

This Ryan-DeLauro bill is meant to derail any truly common ground approach to aid women in crisis pregnancies and their families. In its previous incarnations the bill is top heavy with hundreds of millions for Planned Parenthood and lite on actual support for women. Its unveiling this week will reveal whether it gives more to Planned Parenthood and abortion providers than before.

That is my fear and should cause concern for all who have supported common ground efforts to reduce abortion. Now more than ever, it is critical for Democrats and Republicans to show support for the Pregnant Women Support Act written by Democrats for Life and strongly supported by the USCCB.

So, to recap: no taxpayer-funded abortion in government health care bills, and no large-scale sneaking of taxpayer-money to the major abortion providers in this country.

If forcing all Americans to pay for abortions they know are morally wrong counts as "common ground" in these people's minds, then they were never actually serious about reducing abortions in the first place.

action: if you are looking to do something about all this, consider taking a few moments to sign this petition circulated by the Susan B. Anthony List: "Tell the Senate Abortion is NOT Health Care."

Open topic: Is Obama's (Catholic) pick for Surgeon General pro-abortion?

This is an important story but one I don't have a great deal of time to delve into at present. Hopefully AmP readers can work towards some conclusions in the comment box after I present what I've found out (which does not appear to be very encouraging).

First what happened....

NYT: "President Obama selected Dr. Regina Benjamin, an Alabama family physician, as the U.S. surgeon general on Monday, announcing the appointment during a ceremony in the Rose Garden."

AP: "Benjamin became the first black woman and the youngest doctor elected to the American Medical Association's board. She also received the Nelson Mandela Award for Health and Human Rights in 1998, and Pope Benedict XVI awarded her the distinguished service medal Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice."

That last point raised my eyebrows when I first read it.

Catholic News Service was quick to point out: "Dr. Regina Benjamin, a member of the board of trustees of the Catholic Health Association, is being nominated as surgeon general this morning."

Then this factoid emerged (via LifeNews): "Obama Surgeon General Pick Regina Benjamin Wanted Docs to Learn Abortions"

Original reporting at McClatchy Newspapers gives more cause for concern: "President Barack Obama's nominee for surgeon general is a Catholic best known for founding an Alabama clinic that treats the poor, but her lesser-known support for abortion rights puts her at odds with her church and some of the groups that have praised her work.... White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said that Benjamin "supports the president's position on reproductive health issues. Obama supports abortion rights and public funding of contraception and sex education."

Now, Benjamin's nomination for surgeon general requires Senate confirmation the Associated Press reports. So there is some chance of influencing the process.

CNA and Whispers both have long posts on the subject. Fr. Z adds this quote from the Catholic League: "Dr. Benjamin should not wait until the Senate considers her appointment to let the public know where she stands. As a practicing Catholic, she cannot chair a committee that would support mandated abortion coverage in employer insurance plans."

In the meantime, my initial take ... yet another pro-abortion Catholic pick by President Obama ... which adds support to my frequently-stated claim that the kind of catholic the Obama administration likes ... is a bad catholic.

Taxdollar-paid abortions are too much for Winters, as they should be

I usually disagree (strongly) with Michael Sean Winters over at America magazine.

Today however, he got an issue (mostly) correct. 

As background, yesterday I laid out very clearly how both the House and Senate versions of Obama's health care bill will allow federal taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and how Democrats are trying to hide this fact from the general public.

Three more important points to realize:

1. If left unchanged, this legislation would bring about the biggest expansion in abortion access since Roe v. Wade. The stats clearly show that whenever federal funds are made available for abortions, more abortions happen. It makes Obama's promise to reduce the number of abortions meaningless.
2. A majority of Americans oppose the idea of making all Americans (including those who oppose abortions) pay for procedure. This is an unpopular, left-wing agenda position that the Democrats are sticking to right down the line.
3. Democrats have thwarted several attempts by Republicans to include a clause saying abortions are to be excluded from the covered procedures. The Democrats, in other words, have had many chances to fix this and have categorically chosen to keep abortions under the umbrella of federal funding.

Well, all of the above is too much for Michael Sean Winters, who writes:

"... To be clear: I have never voted for a Republican in my life. My mother told me my right hand would wither and fall to the ground if I did. But, if the President or my representatives in Congress support federal funding for abortion in any way, shape or form, I will never vote for them again and I might risk my right hand in the next election by voting for their opponent.

So, call your Senators and Representatives. Call the White House. Many of us pro-life Democrats have given the President the benefit of the doubt on the abortion issue because of his repeated commitment to trying to lower the abortion rate, a commitment he reiterated to Pope Benedict XVI last week. All the good will he has earned among Catholic swing voters, and all the arguments on his behalf progressive Catholics have mounted, all could be swept away if abortion is part of a federal option in health care. Politics is the art of compromise, but on this point, there can be none."

I could use this as a selfish opportunity to point out that, on multiple occasions, I have exactly predicted that this would happen: that Obama and the Democrat leaders in congress are more chained to the liberal agenda (which necessarily includes unlimited access to abortion, at least according to the current model of Democrat preferment) than they are concerned about promoting an authentic culture of life. 

But I don't care about being right. I care about babies and my tax dollars being spent to kill them, and more of them dying because my tax dollars are available to make that killing less of a hassle.

So, I readily join Michael Sean Winters in drawing this line in the sand. May it be the first of many lines drawn closer and closer to the minimum standards the Gospel of Life calls us to boldly make.

Important: Is the White House mocking pro-lifers?

AmP reader Chris emailed me:

You may remember sometime ago there was an empty envelope campaign where folks on the side of the unborn were encourage to send an empty envelope to the white house, with the message "this envelope represents a life lost to abortion" or something along that line. My wife sent an empty envelope. In our mailbox today, was an empty envelope with the return address "The White House, Washington, DC, 20500." There is no message inside nor on the back. It is hand-addressed to my wife

Here is a picture of the letter she received:

She blogs about the experience here (the comments are also interesting). 

I'd be interested to find out if others who sent empty envelopes to the White House received an empty one back. It's an odd coincidence, to say the least.

If some snarky intern did indeed think this would be a fun way to get back at pro-lifers, I think Chris and his wife are owed a second letter - an official apology.

Recap: Obama's meeting with the Pope

Plenty of encouraging signs here, let's go through them.

First, the official Vatican take:

In the course of their cordial exchanges the conversation turned first of all to questions which are in the interests of all and which constitute a great challenge for the future of every nation and for the true progress of peoples, such as the defence and promotion of life and the right to abide by one’s conscience.

Reference was also made to immigration with particular attention to the matter of reuniting families.

The meeting focused as well upon matters of international politics, especially in light of the outcome of the G8 Summit. The conversation also dealt with the peace process in the Middle East, on which there was general agreement, and with other regional situations. Certain current issues were then considered, such as dialogue between cultures and religions, the global economic crisis and its ethical implications, food security, development aid especially for Africa and Latin America, and the problem of drug trafficking. Finally, the importance of educating young people everywhere in the value of tolerance was highlighted. (source)

Conscience clauses and life issues front-and-center. Good, good. These are, of course, the areas of greatest disagreement so they deserve to be given especial attention, in addition to their objective importance.

Hilary White, LSN's Rome Correspondent, gives us some more useful tidbits:

Pope Benedict gave US President Barack Obama a surprise gift of the Vatican bioethics document "Dignitatis Personae," and discussed the ethics of abortion and embryo research in their first meeting in Rome this afternoon.

... At the end of the meeting, Pope Benedict told the president, "A blessing on all your work and also for you." The president responded, "Thank you very much. We look forward to a very strong relationship."

... The Vatican has made unusual accommodations for the visit, scheduling it in the late afternoon before Obama proceeds to a visit to Africa and allowing extensive live video coverage. The tradition-conscious Vatican normally schedules such meetings for midday.

Now how about Obama's response? Here also there are some encouraging signs:

"Oh, what we discussed earlier," said Obama, referring to their closed-door discussions. "I will have some reading to do on the plane."

Obama was given the instruction to help him better understand the church's position on bioethics, Msgr. Georg Ganswein, papal secretary, told journalists in the pool covering the visit.

Also:

Father Lombardi said he spoke with the pope after the meeting and the pope "seemed extremely satisfied with how the meeting went."

He said the pope found Obama to be "attentive and ready to listen."

"The president explicitly expressed his commitment to reducing the numbers of abortions and to listen to the church's concerns on moral issues," he said.

Note: reducing abortions. period. none of this deception "reduce the need for abortions" language.

Most of these important details are also being picked up by the mainstream coverage.

Now ... we wait and see. Obama has made promises to the pope about reducing the number of abortions, about listening to the Church's moral teaching, and about having a strong relationship with the Vatican. 

I pray that he holds fast to these promises.

Prepare for the Obama-Benedict meeting spin

As this post goes live, Barack Obama will be meeting for the first time with Pope Benedict XVI.

I will be shocked shocked if the mainstream interpretation of this meeting does not include such conclusions as a) the meeting was an unmitigated success involving two enlightened individuals b) the meetings was a validation of Obama's presidency and major parts of his agenda and c) the meeting was a refutation/dismissal of the widespread criticism Obama has received from dozens upon dozens of Catholic bishops and hundreds of thousands of American Catholics.

Of course it is none of these things. It is a meeting of the most powerful man in the world with a Pope who is charged with safeguarding the universal Church.

Surprises may happen, of course, remember how well the Vatican handled the visit of House Speaker (and convenience Catholic) Nancy Pelosi? Obama's visit to the Holy Father will take place on the pope's home turf.

The early word from the Obama administration is hardly encouraging. Instead, it's more of the same. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, himself a Catholic, said yesterday: "The President often refers to the fundamental belief that each person is endowed with dignity." 

I'm sorry but I almost want to stop reading there because, of course, Barack Obama totally ignores the teaching of the Church that unborn children also are endowed with dignity. It's like someone claiming as common ground "we all agree not to shoot people between 2pm and 12pm", and then shooting them precisely at 1:59PM. Such a person can't claim to be against shooting.

Anyway, we'll see.

Also of note: Dan Gilgoff wrote a piece yesterday "How Meeting the Pope Can Change Obama's Rocky Catholic Narrative". 

I think it's analysis is superficial. The substantive and fundamental disagreements between Obama and Pope Benedict won't be solved with a single meeting. There is also an inability to grasp that what American bishops do is not what the Pope is charged to do, when it comes to relating to the American President. 

The fact that the pope and American bishops may treat Obama in different ways does not show that they hold different opinions about him, but that they have diverse ways of dealings with the problematic he presents.

Even on the international stage, I hardly think the pope has any cause to be impressed with Obama's track record so far. The President, after all, has quickly seen to the federal funding of international "reproductive health" initiatives, which basically equal contraception and abortion - both soundly condemned by the pope in his most recent encyclical.

Also, President Obama has managed to side with the dictator in both significant conflicts currently taking place in troubled counties (Iran and Honduras). This is hardly the tactic that the pope would probably consider appropriate when he speaks about how a just government should serve as oppose to exploit the common good of its citizens.

And climate change? Please. The current Cap & Trade bill being introduced in the Senate is widely-agreed to have almost zero impact on the global environment, and will instead only leverage more taxes on average Americans, reducing the possibility of their human development. And an economically weaker America has diminished potential to do good in the world.

I could go on, but hopefully my point is coming across. I fail to see what the Pope and President Obama have in common, save good words. Only Pope Benedict's words are true and he follows up on them through action.

Picture: Obama's gift to Pope Benedict - St. John Neumann's stole

In about an hour Barack Obama will present this gift to Pope Benedict XVI:

The Philly Enquirer:

The owners of the DiCocco Family St. Jude Shop are getting to be experts at this. When there's a presentation for the pope, call the store in Havertown.

Twice in the last 15 months, the store owners have been tapped for their Benedict XVI know-how.

The first time, they helped supply a specially made chair the pope used during a U.S. visit. This time, they assisted the White House in finding a gift for him.

That present will be given to Benedict as part of President Obama's visit to the Vatican tomorrow.

The box will contain a stole that had been draped around the enshrined body of St. John Neumann in Philadelphia for nearly 20 years.

AmP reader John clarifies:

I suppose the headline isn't wrong, but I wouldn't describe this as "St. John Neumann's stole" since he didn't wear it while he was alive. As I understand it, his body was first displayed in the '60s when the cause for his canonization was underway. When the shrine was renovated in the late '80s, they dressed it in modern, polyester, Gothic-style vestments. Last year, Cardinal Rigali had them replaced with silk Roman-style vestments like the saint would have worn when he was alive. I guess the stole the president is giving to the Holy Father is classified as a third-class relic, which ain't nothin', but it struck me as odd. Still, I guess it's better than the box-set of DVDs he gave the British PM (which couldn't even be watched on the other side of the pond).

I wonder what other gifts Obama has brought for the Holy Father?

You can find out more about the stole here at the Redemptorists website.

Fr. Z., I might add, is none too impressed.

During a recent trip to Baltimore I actually visited one of the parishes St. John Neumann pastored. Very cool. It's a small (Catholic) world.

Noted: Barack Obama to meet Pope Benedict at 10AM EST tomorrow

I'll be updating the AmP countdown above to make sure the time is correct (Eastern Standard Time). 

Many Catholics, including myself, are praying for a successful meeting. I will post details about the meeting as they become known tomorrow.

Breaking: Doug Kmiec appointed ambassador to Malta

That is what Catholic News Service is currently claiming via Twitter.

Malta sounds like a fun vacation spot. Kmiec is at long last getting his payback from the Obama administration for his protracted support.

Of course, Malta is a 98% Catholic country which bans abortion and protects marriage by law. Since Kmiec is good at catching the drift of the prevailing winds, Malta actually seems like a good choice for his exile. It'll be easy for him to argue the status quo.

Report: Obama meets with Catholic reporters

As I reported earlier today, this morning Obama met with representatives of Catholic newspapers, and CNS has a report.

The list of organizations in attendance was a who's-who list of liberal Catholic print publications, with just enough Conservative publishers to appear balanced (actually, just one - the National Catholic Register, because Vatican Radio isn't American and CNS is USCCB-sponsored, and therefore an obvious choice). 

Anyway, not only were liberal publications National Catholic Reporter and America magazine invited (which I predicted), but also Commonweal and Catholic Digest. A religion reporter from Washington Post was invited as well. Of course, no invitation was extended to Catholic World Report or Our Sunday Visitor - they might ask awkward questions, you see. 

As for what was said, it is so discouraging to see that Obama continues to bring up the example of Cardinal Bernardin unchallenged. Today he told the Catholic reporters that "his encounters with the cardinal continue to influence him, particularly [the cardinal's] "seamless garment" approach to a multitude of social justice issues." 

Obviously, Obama is choosing to be selectively influenced, because Cardinal Bernardin himself went on record with the National Catholic Register in 1988 and said: ""I don't see how you can subscribe to the consistent ethic and ... [feel] that abortion is a 'basic right' of the individual."

Cardinal Bernardin went on to say in that same interview:

"I know that some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don't hold anybody's feet to the fire just on abortion. That's a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it."

Now, if ever there was a golden opportunity to ask Obama what he would say in response to these words of Cardinal Bernardin's, it was this morning when the current publisher of the same magazine which originally published the Cardinal's words - Fr. Owen Kearns of the National Catholic Register - was seated at a table where Obama, once again, began to claim the mantle of Cardinal Bernardin.

... but I bet you it didn't happen. And that's why people like me are not invited to Obama's meetings. Because there are some questions he can't handle, and his team knows who to invite to ensure those questions don't get asked.

Some "listening session."

update: National Catholic Register's Tim Drake with Fr. Owen Kearns take on the meeting. Each participant was allowed to ask one question. I'd like to hear what was asked, and how Obama responded.

Noteworthy: Obama meets with Catholic press today

Fascinating, noteworthy news from National Catholic Register's Tim Drake:

[Today] at 10:45 Eastern time, the president is hosting a round table at the White House for members of the Catholic press.

The National Catholic Register’s publisher, Father Owen Kearns, will be among eight religion reporters and editors in attendance at that gathering.

The purpose of the gathering, according to Chris Hensman, press secretary with the National Security Council, is a “preview of the president’s upcoming visit with Pope Benedict XVI.” The president is meeting with the Pope on July 10.

Father Kearns just received the invitation to the meeting yesterday via e-mail. At this point, there isn’t a complete list of the media who will be in attendance, but our understanding is that it’s strictly Catholic print media, not radio or television.

According to Father Kearns, the meeting is unprecedented. He has not previously met a sitting U.S. president, nor has he been previously invited by the president to a White House gathering for members of the Catholic press.

When Father Kearns asked the purpose of the round table, he was told, “It’s for the president to inform us, to listen to concerns, and to answer questions.”

The meeting is not a press conference.

“It sounds like what we would call a listening session,” said Father Kearns.

This move provokes many questions for me. What are the other eight organizations invited? Why did the Obama team think this would be a good move? How is the Obama team preparing for his meeting with the Pope in eight days? Does he see these organizations as a resource to prepare for that meeting and to ensure he says the right things?

And why just print organizations (and not widely-read Catholic blogs - *cough, cough*)? Could it be because some of Obama's most staunch defenders are liberal print publications such as National Catholic Reporter and America magazine? I'm surprised, if they were invited, that they have not trumpeted the fact yet. 

On the other hand, this was done under extremely short notice.

Well, time will tell, so check back here later in the day.

And PS - for future reference, I'm just right up the street from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and can pass CIA clearances. 

I'm just sayin'...

After six months in DC, the Obamas are still looking for a Church

On Tuesday Amy Sullivan claimed in Time Magazine that the Obama family had settled on Camp David (well outside DC):

The Obamas have finally ended the speculation about which D.C. church they would join - by picking none of them, Amy Sullivan reports in Time magazine. Instead, President Obama has reportedly decided to make the same choice as George W. Bush, and worship at Evergreen Chapel, the nondenominational church at Camp David.

Given that the Obamas have appeared comfortable and even eager to be out in the city and part of the D.C. community, there had been some expectation that they would join a local church. They had even visited a couple of D.C. churches already. (DCist)

However, a White House spokesman quickly issued a statement repudiating Sullivan's claim (good work, Amy):

The President and First Family continue to look for a church home. They have enjoyed worshipping at Camp David and several other congregations over the months, and will choose a church at the time that is best for their family,” Deputy White House Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki said in a statement. 

In addition to services at Camp David, the President and Mrs. Obama have attended a local Baptist church and celebrated Easter at St. John’s Episcopal Church across the street from the White House. Word that the Obamas would attend the Baptist church became public, drawing a large crowd and making it difficult for regular church attendees to find seats. And tourists inside the church reportedly snapped pictures of the President while he attended St. John’s. (Christian Science Monitor)

I know Catholics can sometimes "parish shop" when they get into a new city, but Barack and Michelle seem to denomination shop. In the meantime, they don't appear to be losing much sleep over being liturgically homeless.

In new plan, White House faces choice between Catholics or abortion groups

Dan Gilgoff, with his dependable, informative coverage of things religious/political, notes that as the White House prepares to debut its abortion plan, "packing" is becoming a "major issue":

As the White House readies its plan for finding "common ground" on reproductive health issues and reducing the need for abortion, a major debate has emerged over how to package the plan's two major components: preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion.

Many abortion rights advocates and some Democrats who want to dial down the culture wars want the White House to package the two parts of the plan together, as a single piece of legislation. The plan would seek to reduce unwanted pregnancies by funding comprehensive sex education and contraception and to reduce the need for abortion by bolstering federal support for pregnant women. Supporters of the approach say it would force senators and members of Congress on both sides of the abortion battle to compromise their traditional positions, creating true common ground that mirrors what President Obama has called for.

But more conservative religious groups working with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships say they would be forced to oppose such a plan—even though they support the abortion reduction part—because they oppose federal dollars for contraception and comprehensive sex education. This camp, which includes such formidable organizations as the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, is pressuring the White House to decouple the two parts of the plan into separate bills. One bill would focus entirely on preventing unwanted pregnancy, while the other would focus on supporting pregnant women.

The White House declined a request for comment. Advocates for both plans say the administration has offered no hint about how it will come down on the matter. But with the White House expected to announce its plan on abortion and related issues this summer, advocates on both sides are strenuously lobbying for the plan, arguing that it offers the only true hope for common ground on very thorny issues. (Read full article here.)

The Obama team is silent about what it plans to do.

Bottom line:

For the White House, the decision about which tack to take is largely a question of whom it feels more comfortable alienating: religious groups like the Catholic bishops, which it has been trying hard to win over, or abortion rights groups, a key part of the Democratic base that it doesn't want to lose.

As I said in my extended look at Reproductive Health Reality Check's "common ground forum", the new pro-abortion tactic is "[not to] reduce abortion, [but] to reduce the "need" for abortion, often through recourse to contraception." And they will never rule out abortion. In fact, the RHRC's twitter feed yesterday promoted "ensuring universal access to family planning" (a euphemism for contraception and abortion) as common ground!

So what does this "new way" boil down to for us? Catholics giving in on contraception. The radical abortion agenda will not back down one step, so their "common ground" is a mask for us to compromise our principles.

Just look at the thoughts expressed in the ultra-liberal Daily Kos, which specifically targets Catholics:

On the subject of Reproductive Freedom, there can be no common ground between the militant anti-abortion religious right, including the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and those of us who believe that people have the right to use any method of birth control they choice, up to and including safe, legal abortion.

While most of Catholics in this country and much of the rest of the world believe as I do, that girls, women and their sexual partners should have this right, the Roman Catholic hierarchy would rather women die of AIDS, and they and their children die of hunger, rather than a sexual partner use condoms or themselves use artificial methods of birth control or be able to attain a safe, legal abortion.

This sort of thinking is the same type that is held by the owners of Planned Parenthood, and the powerful pro-abortion interests in this country.

Secondly, it's a liberal orthodoxy that universal access to contraception (and honestly, pushing contraceptives on sexually active people, starting young) will reduce the need for abortions.

However, I've heard it argued that the actual data reveals that countries with expanded access to contraception actually have more need for abortions. I would tend to agree with this analysis, because who of us thinks that American youth *don't* have enough access to contraception?! Frankly, the people who don't use contraception for religious reasons are the same people who are far, far less likely to seek an abortion.

But it would help if I had the research at my finger tips. So if you know where it is online, please send me the link and I'll post it on AmP.

There is currently a lobbying battle waging between pro-abortion groups and the USCCB over which plan the Obama team chooses, as Gilgoff reports. We need to be active in supporting the USCCB and combating the tactics of the pro-abortion groups, who only offer a common ground that hurts Americans, born and unborn.

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.

Ad asks Obama: ‘If fatherhood begins at conception, when does life begin?’

Smart move from Family Research Council (background from CNA):



And smart not because it scores "political points," but because it challenges Obama and the pro-abortion movement to face the contradictory nature of the two things they are trying to say. The only conclusion that they can arrive at - but they avoid it at all costs - is that they honestly believe you can end human life when it is inconvenient. That's an inhuman solution.

The video above already has over 100,000 views. It's a powerful message.

"Badethics": Obama Plans to Replace Bush’s Bioethics Panel

Piece by piece, the group of ethical, biomedical policy advisors that Bush assembled is being dismantled by Obama's administration:

Members of the President’s Council on Bioethics were told by the White House last week that their services were no longer needed and were asked to cancel a planned meeting, a council staff member said Wednesday.

The council was disbanded because it was designed by the Bush administration to be “a philosophically leaning advisory group” that favored discussion over developing a shared consensus, said Reid Cherlin, a White House press officer.

President Obama will appoint a new bioethics commission, one with a new mandate and that “offers practical policy options,” Mr. Cherlin said. (New York Times)

Call me a realist, but I'm pessimistic about the new council Obama will appoint. It's extremely telling what Cherlin had to say about the current members of the council: the replacement of "consensus" over philosophical "discussion", to my mind, means that Obama is not open to discussion on biomedical issues when he's already decided what his policy is going to be. 

However, such a mode of operating renders a bioethics council meaningless - in other words, a council that does not conduct rigorous philosophical discussion is nothing more than a rubber-stamping beauracracy.

This shift of emphasis and vision by Obama is especially troubling considering what promises he has made previously about having a more "ethical" administration that takes into consideration the wisdom of the "experts."

So are experts merely consensus-takers, in Obama's mind?

update: Peter Augustine Lawler, one of the council members who was just given his notice, has published his "Reflections on my Termination". A sample:

I was assured that "President Obama recognizes the value of having a commission of experts in bioethical issues to provide objective and non-ideological bioethics advice to his Administration." It's hard to deny that three shots were being taken here at the Bush Council. It was non-expert, unobjective, and ideological. I couldn't help but think that I, in particular, was being called an amateur faith-based ideologue, as I was by various Democrats and techno-libertarians during the election of 2004 when I was appointed, although it's doubtful that the man who signed the letter actually knows much of anything about me in particular.

There's actually a fourth shot, I think. For Obama, a valuable Council does nothing but offer advice to the administration. The Bush Council was actually given the additional mandate of public education, of developing a national dialogue on controversial bioethical issues.

How much notice was the council given to cease-and-desist? Oh, about 24 hours.

Related: "A Dim Future - After disbanding the President’s Council on Bioethics, what kind of advisory body will Obama put together?" in Catholic World Report online.

Full disclosure: the founder of the American Principles Project, which I recently joined, was founded by Dr. Robert George of Princeton, who served as a member of the President's council.

A clarification from L'OR about its favorable Obama coverage?

Maybe, but not enough yet:

The Vatican newspaper has once again emphasized that when it comes to the Obama administration and pro-life issues, the Vatican and the U.S. bishops are in full agreement and that no compromise is possible on the right to life.

The newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, said it was a mistake to view its press coverage of Obama — which has been positive on many issues — as evidence that the Vatican is following a “different strategy” than the U.S. bishops in dealing with the new administration.

The comments came in the newspaper’s June 5 edition, in an article criticizing the Obama administration’s restoration of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

The newspaper appeared to be defending itself against accusations by some U.S. Catholic commentators that its editorial line was too soft on Obama. (CNS Blog)

I wouldn't say "too soft". I'd say "out of touch with reality." But here is L'OR's clarification:

"It is appropriate to underline that in reporting on recent statements and initiatives of the president of the United States, L’Osservatore Romano has certainly not intended to express appreciation for his positions on questions of ethical importance.

... Obviously the Holy See and L’Osservatore Romano have been, are and will be fully at the side of the U.S. bishops in their commitment in favor of the inviolability of human life in whatever stage of its existence. Other interpretations have no foundation, especially those that have wanted to use the newspaper’s articles to make it appear that the teachings of the U.S. episcopate on the inherent evil of abortion were an exercise in partisan politics, supposedly in contrast with a different strategy of the Holy See.

... President Obama has shown himself to be open to dialogue and the U.S. bishops have welcomed this possibility in a positive manner. But in doing so, they have reaffirmed, and quite rightly, that in dialogue no compromise is ever possible on the fundamental question of the right to life."

Three replies, one for each of the paragraphs quoted above:

1) What L'OR has said certainly leaves it open to exactly that question. What could it have been praising except questions of ethical importance?

2) L'OR expressly denies the claim made by some (mostly pro-Obama liberal Catholics) that "the teachings of the U.S. episcopate on the inherent evil of abortion were an exercise in partisan politics". I'm waiting for pro-Obama liberal Catholics to apologize for continually making this charge. Now is a time for them to prove that they themselves weren't engaging in partisan politics. I'm not holding my breath.

3) Again we are confronted with the problem of dialogue. President Obama has "shown himself to be open to dialogue", L'OR claims. Well, no he hasn't. Because he has shown no openness to re-examining his position that abortion is a fundamental right of women. The technical description for this state of affairs is a dead-lock. It will continue as long as the bishops maintain their position (i.e., forever), and as long as Obama maintains his (forever, barring our vigorous activity to promote a culture of life at every level of our society and also ... well, prayer and fasting).

I'll limit myself to these thoughts at present. But I am happy to see some clarification come from L'OR. Their statement creates the possibility for charitable correction as well as honestly assessing the facts.

NCRegister: 3 Things Obama Didn't Say in Cairo

Tom Hoopes has a brilliant re-keying of several passages in Obama's speech to a muslim audience in Cairo earlier this week:

Obama told his Muslim audience: “[W]e must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors.”

Hmmm … here are three things he didn’t seem to want to say openly in Cairo: He didn’t praise doubt, or promote LGBT, or read the Koran’s next verse.

[Read the jarring parallelisms Hoopes sets out to prove these three points.]

David Corn in MotherJones has a perfect phrase to describe what Obama is doing:

"Ultimately, Obama is calling for universal acceptance of a relativistic, ecumenical, multicultural view of human nature and the world."

The problem at the center of Obama's position, of course, is that it is premised on a relativistic world-view. This core despair of truth irrevocably flavors his ecumenical, multicultural outreach, vitiating it of the effectiveness it could have if it were objective.

Calling all bad Catholics - Obama has a position for you

Sure enough, months after taking office, Obama is quietly, but systematically, staffing his offices with "bad" Catholics:

President Barack Obama has rewarded the head of a fake pro-life Catholic group that was responsible for misleading voters about his abortion position to a top Health and Human Services post. The nomination is seen as political payback for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG).

Obama named former CACG executive director Alexia Kelley to head the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Kelley is also a former advisor to the John Kerry presidential campaign and Kerry is a strong abortion advocate. (LifeNews)

Maybe "bad" Catholics is too strong, how about simply "bad advice" Catholics:

CACG also released a voter guide in 2006 that was condemned by pro-life groups for misleading Catholics on abortion.

The CACG booklet argued “we often must vote for candidates who hold the ‘wrong’ Catholic positions on some issues in order to maximize the good our vote achieves in other areas.”

There's a simple label for this sort of thinking: "proportionalism."

Unfortunately, proportionalist thinking seems to be the best way to earn a spot in Obama's administration.

White House proclaims June to be LGBT pride month

The proclamation:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

Full text here at whitehouse.gov.

Obama names theologian Miguel Diaz as ambassador to Holy See

From the AP:

A Hispanic Roman Catholic theologian who was an adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign will be nominated to serve as the next U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, the White House announced Wednesday.

Miguel H. Diaz, 45, an associate professor of theology at St. John's University and the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota, would be the first Hispanic to serve as ambassador to the Vatican since the United States and the Holy See established full diplomatic ties in 1984. Diaz was born in Havana.

The CNS Blog has the press release from Diaz's university. Articles of Faith has his White House bio. Apparently he consults for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. With this sort of association, it comes as no surprise to learn he is an Obama supporter ... and a supporter of Kathleen Sebellius.

I thought Patrick Archibold had a good line: "President Obama continues to build his Vichy Catholic government that pretends to be against abortion while supporting those who support it." (Vichy? Ouch.)

Michael Sean Winters jumps in with a typo: "The immediate takeaway is this. Diaz is a pro-life Democrat so his mere presence at the Vatican will disprove the contention of some conservatives that there is no such thing as a pro-life Catholic."

I presume Winters meant "pro-life Democrat." And instead of stereotyping what he claims "some conservatives" think (none that I've met, by the way), how about sticking with the case at hand. In other words, Diaz, who thinks Kathleen Sebellius (a woman who never met an abortion she wouldn't suppor) is "a woman of deep faith." Claiming such a person as Diaz is "pro-life", well, gets me scratching my head.

Whispers has good coverage of this nomination as well.

It will be interesting to see if Mary Ann Glendon, the former US Ambassador to the Holy See, will make any comment about Diaz's appointment tomorrow. If she does, I'll be there blogging and twittering it.

Live Coverage: Doug Kmiec, Abp. Dolan, Robby George, Mary Ann Glendon

Tomorrow (Thursday) will be an incredibly busy day of AmP live-blogging/twittering.

Starting at 9:30 AM I will be covering a symposium hosted by CUA's School of Law, starting with Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan, then at 10:00AM the keynote address of Mary Ann Glendon.

In the afternoon, at 1:35PM I will be covering the keynote address of Prof. Robert George, Director of the Madison Program at Princeton University and the founder of the American Principles Project, and perhaps sticking around for the closing remarks of Archbishop of Washington Donald Wuerl at 3:30PM.

At 4:15PM I will be at the public launch of the American Principles Project event in downtown Washington DC.

Promptly at 5:00PM I will be live-blogging an extremely important debate between Doug Kmiec and Robert George at the National Press Club on the topic: "The Obama Administration and the Sanctity of Human Life: Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues?, What is the Right Response by 'Pro-Life' Citizens?"

The debate will be moderated by Mary Ann Glendon and will conclude at 6:30PM.

As you can see, it's going to be an extremely full day. Keep it tuned here and over at my AmP Twitter page for the latest updates. And please spread the word among those who might be interested in these topics.

Papist Quote of the Day: William McGurn in WSJ

Contrast:

"In the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian, there is a wonderful photograph of Father Ted Hesburgh -- then Notre Dame president -- linking hands with Martin Luther King Jr. at a 1964 civil-rights rally at Chicago's Soldier Field.

Today, nearly four decades and 50 million abortions after Roe v. Wade, there is no photograph of similar prominence of any Notre Dame president taking a lead at any of the annual marches for life.

Father Jenkins is right: That's not ambiguity. That's a statement."

Props to the Wall Street Journal for publishing this.

Related: "Notre Dame's Useful Service" by Bevil Bramwell, OMI in the Catholic Thing.

Graphic: More americans pro-life than pro-choice for first time

This is a picture of hope:

Gallup:

A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

Now look at this line:

It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction.

Let's hope opinion catches up to voting.

I will be updating this post soon, but wanted to have this out there ASAP.

Update with related links:

• SBA: Obama and Congress on Collision Course with Public Opinion on Abortion
• LifeNews: Majority of Americans Pro-Life on Abortion, Highest Levels in 15 Years

Open thread: What will Obama say at Notre Dame?

Tom McFeely is trying to get a make an educated guess based on how Obama handled his first commencement speech of the season at Arizon State University:

During his speech, the president joked about the controversy that erupted there over the secular college’s decision not to grant him an honorary degree, on the grounds that he had yet to accomplish enough as president to warrant that honor.

“I learned to never again pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA bracket,” he said, referring to the school’s basketball team, CNN reported. “It won’t happen again.”

Said Obama, “President [Michael] Crow and the board of regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS.” (NCRegister)

McFeely also notes this monumental irony about ASU's choice to not grant an honorary degree:

"ASU declined to grant Obama the honor of an honorary degree on the grounds he hasn’t done enough to earn one, whereas Notre Dame is conferring the identical honor even though Obama has done far more than enough, through his promotion of abortion, to disqualify himself from ever receiving such an honors from an authentically Catholic institution."

Headline Bistro also analyzes how Obama attempted to use the stress of the ASU situation in his favor:

"Not only did the president address that head on, but he wove it into his advice for the graduates – “No matter how much you’ve done, how successful you’ve been, there’s always more to learn, always more to achieve,” he said. “You too cannot rest on your laurels … your own body of work is also yet to come.”

Will Obama do similarly at Notre Dame? With major newspapers now joining the bandwagon and printing stories on the Notre Dame-abortion-Catholic Church drama, the lack of even an allusion to the debate would be just as obvious as an actual statement during his address on his support for abortion."

Well, ladies and gentleman, it's about time to place your final bets. Commencement is, after all, in 2 days.

Text: Letter of Catholic leaders to Obama over anti-Catholic Harry Knox

Here is the text of the letter signed by 20 catholic leaders (including myself, and probably by the time of publication, many more) sent to Obama over the outrageous appointment of anti-Catholic bigot Harry Knox to the President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships:

On April 6, you named Harry Knox to your Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. You claim to have created this Council, among other things, to “bring everyone together – from both the secular and faith-based communities.”

Harry Knox is the hate-filled antithesis of this noble objective. Knox is a virulent anti-Catholic bigot, and has made numerous vile and dishonest attacks against the Church and the Holy Father. He has no business on any Council having to do with faith or religion.

We do not know if you or members of your Administration were aware of Knox’s deplorable, abusive attitude towards the Church and Pope Benedict XVI when you named him to the Council. We assume you were not. But since then, there have been numerous press reports on Knox’s loathsome, and clearly bigoted rhetoric, so there no longer is any excuse for your failure to act. We can remain silent no longer.

As Catholics, we call on you to remove Mr. Knox from his position and to formally disassociate yourself from his militant anti-Catholicism. Failure to do so will result in the tainting of your Faith-Based Council—and indeed, your entire administration—as anti-Catholic. We urge you to give this matter your immediate consideration.

I'll try to keep track of its reception.

update - I forgot to mention, I believe this above letter was combined with a second page excerpting some of Knox's most offensive quotes. It's easy to find them on the internet as well.

L'Osservatore Romano's baffling take on Obama, and Winters' misleading take

George Neumayr writing for Catholic World Report:

"L’Osservatore Romano’s sympathetic front-page editorial by Giuseppe Fiorentino about Barack Obama’s first 100 days is baffling (full text available here). On every contested issue related to the natural moral law, Obama is advancing dangerous policies. Yet this editorial blithely says that even “on ethical issues…Obama doesn’t seem to have confirmed the radical changes he had aired.”

Yes, he has. [find out how here.]

... It is more than a little disturbing that an editorial as ignorant as this one could appear in the Pope’s newspaper. At the very moment orthodox Catholics in America are reeling from Notre Dame's honoring of Obama, they wake up to find this editorial softpedaling his record. Et tu, L'Osservatore Romano?"

On a related issue, I've been accused at times of having a political bias which effects my reporting of Catholic news, and especially Obama news. "Liberal" Catholics will often accuse "conservative" Catholics of loving the GOP more than the Catholic Church, or at least paying attention to the former more when it comes to political issues.

What I always try to bring the discussion back to, when accused of this, are the facts of reality: what a given politician is actually saying and doing. This is an objective measure which I hope guides my reporting and should guide all of our critical thinking on these issues. Otherwise how are we to apply the teachings of the Church when we cannot even accurately assess the record of the person we are examining?

Michael Sean Winters is particularly guilty of unfairly condemning "conservative" Catholics as partisan, when in fact they are trying to be faithful. I find this deeply ironic, considering, as I've pointed out several times before, and will now point out again below, Winters' own reading of current issues is more often guided by political/ideological affiliation than the reality of what, well, a given politician has actually said and done.

For instance, see what Jack Smith of The Catholic Key blog (run by the staff of the newspaper for the Diocese of Kansas City) said yesterday about Winters' claims.

I'm not going to quote him because it is the volume of details that Smith reveals which matters most here (as in the Neumayr article above). In other words, taking the time to do the research and the background reading is important, because otherwise we'll be taken in by what the "experts" are trying to make us believe. Or, for that matter, what Winters wants us to believe.

Justice Souter to step down in June, pro-abort replacement a given

It's all across the internet.

Politico: "Supreme Court Justice David Souter plans to retire this year – giving President Barack Obama his first chance to shape the court in his image, according to Democratic sources."

New York Times:

"Justice Souter, who was appointed in 1990 by a Republican president, the first George Bush, but became one of the most reliable members of the court’s liberal wing, has grown increasingly sour on Washington and intends to return to his home state, New Hampshire, according to the people briefed on his plans. One officials said the decision might be announced as early as Friday."

... During a campaign debate last fall, Mr. Obama said the selection of a new justice would be “one of the most consequential decisions of the next president.”

... On the always explosive issue of abortion, he said he would “not provide a litmus test,” but added, “I am somebody who believes that Roe versus wade was rightly decided.”

So we can expect someone in the mold of another Souter. Obama will continue his track record of not being at all "conflicted" about abortion "rights" when it comes to practical decisions like Supreme Court nominees.

{update - Blogger Thomas More thinks this could be good news.}
{update 2 - changed "pro-choice" to "pro-abort" in blog title. Thanks for the catch.}
{update 3 - "Specter's Defection Could Help Republicans Block a Nominee to Replace Souter"}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[photo credit: CNN]

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

Huh? Vatican newspaper: No radical changes in Obama's first 100 days

In counter-point to my previous post, John Thavis of Catholic News Service:

"The Vatican newspaper said President Barack Obama's first 100 days in office have not confirmed the Catholic Church's worst fears about radical policy changes in ethical areas.

"On ethical questions, too -- which from the time of the electoral campaign have been the subject of strong worries by the Catholic bishops -- Obama does not seem to have confirmed the radical innovations that he had discussed," it said. (CNS)

Just because Obama has not (yet) delivered on his most extreme promises (including promises to repeal all restrictions on abortion access in America), does not by any means rule out that his administration is far more pro-abortion/embryonic stem cell research than the previous one. And good heavens, we're only 100 days into his presidential term and he's had his hands full with the economy.

Contrast the above editorial with what Cardinal George, the President of the US bishops, said after meeting with Obama and discussion abortion with him:

"I think on the life issue he's on the wrong side of history," the cardinal said. "I think he has his political debts to pay, and so he's paying them."

"[Obama] said we weren't exporting abortion," the cardinal said. "I said, 'Yes we are.' He would say, 'I know I have to do certain things here. ... But be patient and you'll see the pattern will change.' I said, 'Mr. President, you've given us nothing but the wrong signals on this issue.' So, we'll see, but I'm not as hopeful now as I was when he was first elected."

Hoping things will change is one thing, but ignoring all the signs that they won't is delusional.

Meanwhile, frog in pot of boiling water reports: "Feeling pretty good so far!"

{NB: because I see some people already making this mistake in the comments thread - this is a Vatican newspaper, not the Vatican. I'm waiting to track down the exact author, context, etc.}

Obama's First 100 Days ... of promoting abortion

Get anywhere near a TV or news website today and you'll be hearing about Obama's 100 days.

It will be interesting to see how often his project of expanding reproductive rights (a euphamism, of course, for promoting abortion) - let alone funding for embryonic stem cell research - will be mentioned as an achievement.

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser:

"President-elect Barack Obama spoke of finding 'common ground' on abortion policy, but abortion advocates groups clearly have an open door. It's only been 100 days, but President Obama has managed to check off ten of the fifteen demands of the abortion industry. This is the most aggressive, pro-abortion administration in decades. Yet pro-life activists are more energized than ever to defend women and unborn children at every opportunity. The Obama Administration should be prepared – commonsense abortion policy like the Hyde Amendment will not be repealed without a fight by pro-life Americans."

{update: she also provides a detailed list of what Obama's administration has done.}

More on Obama's already-significant pro-abortion legacy detailed at LifeNews.

Cardinal George reveals details of conversation with Obama

Let's get right into it (underlining mine):

Cardinal George offered a candid assessment of his 30-minute meeting with the president at the White House March 18.

"I think on the life issue he's on the wrong side of history," the cardinal said. "I think he has his political debts to pay, and so he's paying them."

Cardinal George said his conversation with the president was polite but substantive.

"It's hard to disagree with him because he'll always tell you he agrees with you," he said. "Maybe that's political. I think he sincerely wants to agree with you. You have to say, again and again, 'No, Mr. President, we don't agree (on abortion).' But we can agree on a lot, and we do, and that's why there is so much hope. I think we have to pray for him every day."

Cardinal George said he told the president he was concerned about his decision to rescind the Mexico City policy, which resulted in providing taxpayer money to fund abortion overseas.

"He said we weren't exporting abortion," the cardinal said. "I said, 'Yes we are.' He would say, 'I know I have to do certain things here. ... But be patient and you'll see the pattern will change.' I said, 'Mr. President, you've given us nothing but the wrong signals on this issue.' So, we'll see, but I'm not as hopeful now as I was when he was first elected." (CNS)

Update: Expert commentary on Glendon's noble refusal

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

Fr. Raymond J. de Souza at NCRegister:

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

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

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

Ed Peters at Canon Law Blog:

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

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

I say, God bless Ambassador Glendon.

Photo: Artist depicts Obama wearing crown of thorns

'The Truth' by Painter Michael D'Antuono which will be unveiled on President Obama's 100th Day in Office at NYC's Union Square. (PRNewsFoto/NOAH G POP FAM)

Yes, it's needlessly provocative/offensive. That's not, however, what I find intersting. After all, everyone expects modern artists to do something like this. But what does it say about our country that this depiction generates such interest, on any level besides the (to me, obvious) level of it being a blasphemous comparison of Obama's sufferings to those of Christ.

I typically don't link to WorldNetDaily, but if this is of interest to readers they have a treatment posted {update - link fixed. sorry about that!}.

Video: Hillary Clinton Advocates Exporting Abortion

From the SuzyB blog:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was questioned by the House Foreign Affairs Committee today. This video shows highlights of the pointed questions by pro-life Representatives Chris Smith and Jeff Fortenberry, as well as Clinton's responses.

Hillary: "... we are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive healthcare."

No change here.

More from the Cathoholic on why this is significant here.

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

Joseph Lawler writing for AmSpec passes along a fascinating report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update: Embryonic Stem Cell Research

LifeNews gives us two:

• Obama Admin Releases Proposed Guidelines Opening Door to Embryonic Stem Cell Research Funding
• Pro-Life Group Calls Obama Embryonic Stem Cell Research Guidelines a Human Cloning Bait and Switch

I'll continue to track the story.

"Georgetown Says It Covered Over Name of Jesus to Comply With White House Request"

Revealing on so many levels:

Georgetown University says it covered over the monogram “IHS”--symbolizing the name of Jesus Christ—because it was inscribed on a pediment on the stage where President Obama spoke at the university on Tuesday and the White House had asked Georgetown to cover up all signs and symbols there.

As of Wednesday afternoon, the “IHS” monogram that had previously adorned the stage at Georgetown’s Gaston Hall was still covered up--when the pediment where it had appeared was photographed by CNSNews.com. (CNSNews.com)

Flash: Obama to give speech at Georgetown U. today

The President evidently has a penchant for Catholic universities:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will deliver a major speech on the economy Tuesday, April 14th, at Georgetown University. The speech will take place at 11:30 AM EDT in Gaston Hall.

The President will discuss how each step his administration has taken to confront this economic crisis fits within his broader vision of how we move this economy from recession to recovery and ultimately to prosperity. He’ll also talk about the significant work that remains to be done to get the economy moving forward once again. [WhiteHouse.gov]

This speech will be taking place a few blocks from where I live.

I, however, will be in New York City today preparing for Archbishop Dolan's Installation activities.

If I had a chance to ask a question, I would ask how Obama thinks pushing Catholics and Catholic Hospitals out of the health care market (by revoking conscience clauses and enacting FOCA-like legislation) makes any sort of economic sense and will help lead us to "prosperity."

Hopefully someone asks him.

"White House confirms it got 2 million red envelopes" against abortion

I wonder how many AmP readers sent in a red envelope?

The White House mail office has confirmed it received a "deluge" of as many as 2.25 million red envelopes symbolizing the empty promise of lives snuffed out in abortion in a massive campaign that was larger than most White House mailing movements in the last 35 years. (WND)

Take the numbers with a grain of salt. Suffice it to say: lots have been sent.

Obama abortion call staffed by ... abortion advocacy leaders

Incongruity, Brian Johnston asks?

Last Friday, three Obama staffers held a conference call ‘with both sides’ of the abortion debate; the supposed goal - reduce the number of abortions.

There is something just a little odd here. The first question one must ask is well, “Why?” “Why would one want to reduce the number of abortions? What is wrong with abortion that there should be fewer of them?”

... While there were both pro and anti-abortion groups on the conference call, the supposed ‘peacemakers’ from the President’s “team” were each former abortion advocacy leaders - one from NOW, one from EMILY’s list, and the third a pro-abortion political operative. These were Mr. Obama’s ‘peace’ representatives. (LifeSite)

update - on a roll: President Obama Puts More Abortion Advocates on White House Faith Council

Today: White House conference call on reducing abortion

We've been waiting for the White House to fulfill its promise (featured also in the Democratic National Convention platform) of reducing abortions in America.

Tomorrow is the first concerted effort to do that:

I've learned that the White House will kick off its much-discussed plan to reduce abortions tomorrow morning with a conference call to religious leaders and abortion-rights advocates that will feature key White House aides. The call reflects the White House plan to bring faith-based groups, including conservative ones, together with pro-abortion rights organizations to reduce demand for abortion. Until now, those two camps have frequently been at loggerheads. - Dan Gilgoff

It's hard for pro-life groups not to be at loggerheads with individuals like Melody Barnes "who served on the board of directors of Emily's List, a group that has spent nearly $250 million promoting pro-abortion candidates" and also served on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood (LifeNews).

Make no mistake: Catholics want to reduce abortions in America. This should be easy common ground for us. At the same time, we understand that the way towards reducing abortion is not (outrageously) to remove restrictions on abortion access (as many of Obama's supporters have advocated), and also not to increase the distribution of contraception (it's immoral, offensive to Catholic values, and does not adequately address the underling cause of problem pregnancies).

So I'm holding out hope for this conference call, without holding my breath.

update:Dan Gilgoff reports on what happened:

This morning's White House conference call kicking off its abortion-reduction initiative focused largely on asking participants to submit information about abortion-reduction programs that have already worked at the local level. Led by President Obama's chief domestic policy adviser, Melody Barnes, the White House announced that it would sponsor a series of meetings in coming months in search of common ground on abortion reduction. The meetings would include both supporters and opponents of abortion rights.

"Barnes said that the White House was not going to try to change anybody's mind on abortion and that she knew people had long-held convictions on various sides of the debate," one participant on the call, an abortion-rights foe, tells me. "But she said her assignment from the president was to seek common ground to prevent unintended pregnancies, including teen pregnancy; to reduce the need for abortions; and to support families for whom economic concerns were an issue. They also talked about promoting adoption."

No word from the White House on how many people joined the 15-minute call. Participants were in listen-only mode.

Also, he says Obama's Faith Advisory Council will meet for first time next week.

Hope?

I need to find out who was in on the call and who is on the council.

Hillary Clinton to receive Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood

Honestly, I can think of few things more offensive than a "Margaret Sanger Award".

Glad to see our Secretary of State is bending over backwards to receive it:

Doing a rare domestic political event, and continuing the Obama administration's forceful, if understated alliance with abortion-rights groups, Hillary Clinton will receive an award from Planned Parenthood Friday night in Houston, the group says.

"The 2009 Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) Margaret Sanger Award, the organization’s highest honor, will be presented to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been a champion of women’s health and rights throughout her public service career," according to the release.

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards is an old Clinton ally, and women's health was a central issue for her in the Senate. Her appearance, though, suggests she's raising her profile a bit beyond what had been, to date, a determined effort to keep her focus entirely on her new portfolio. (Politico)

Family Research Council forcefully (and succinctly) makes the case that it's outrageous for Hillary to accept such an award even if you disagree about abortion. Planned Parenthood engages is many illegal practices, and Margaret Sanger - its founder - was an evil eugenicist. And yet because of Planned Parenthood's financial ties and sympathetic ideology, the organization remains on the inside track of this administration.

Bishop Aymond on ND award: "does not live up to its Catholic identity"

Bishop Aymond of Austin, TX has added his episcopal voice to the debate over Notre Dame's invitation:

Statement regarding the University of Notre Dame

As was announced recently, the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind., is presenting President Barack Obama with an honorary degree and have asked him to give the commencement address.

I, along with many other Catholics, express great disappointment and sadness that a Catholic university would honor someone who is pro-choice and who holds many values contrary to our Catholic belief.

In the midst of such a sad situation, as Catholics we must continue to be pro-life and to proclaim with even greater strength the values of Christ and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

In my opinion, it is very clear that in this case the University of Notre Dame does not live up to its Catholic identity in giving this award and their leadership needs our prayerful support.

Ph/t: Aggie Catholics.

Video: Greek Orthodox Church Head compares Obama to Alexander the Great

Oh please, this is so November 5th:

Still waiting for him to cut the Gordian Knot of abortion. I pray he does.

But I don't have much hope he will.

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

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

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

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

Report: Obama aide to put pressure on Vatican over Abp. Burke

A scoop from Austin Ruse at the Catholic Thing:

A reliable source tells me that someone representing the Obama administration is about to put pressure on the papal nuncio to the United States to get Archbishop Raymond Burke to be quiet. The Obama complaint is that Archbishop Burke, who is now head of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, has supported another bishop in his chastisement of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for her support of abortion.

The pressure won't work, of course. Burke is just too smart, and tough. But Obama and his representatives are coming dangerously close to interfering in internal Church matters. More than anything else, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution was intended precisely to protect religious bodies from meddling by the state, even covert meddling by the White House like this. Obama and his pet Catholics should back off – and fast.

This action was evidently planned even before Abp. Burke's Randall Terry interview on Communion.

"U.S. abortion, vasectomy rates rise as economy falters"

Absolutely heartbreaking:

Doctors in the U.S. are reporting an increased demand for abortions or vasectomies during the recession.

A pregnant woman in Oakland, Calif., told her doctor she walked to the medical centre in flip-flops and tears to save bus fare after her boyfriend lost his job. She was seeking an abortion to prevent what would have been her fourth child.

"This was a desired pregnancy — she'd been getting prenatal care — but they re-evaluated expenses and decided not to continue," Dr. Pratima Gupta told the Associated Press.

"When I was doing the options counselling, she interrupted me halfway through, crying, and said, 'Dr. Gupta, I just walked here for an hour. I'm sure of my decision.'"

In Illinois, Planned Parenthood said it performed a record number of abortions in January, many of them motivated by economic worries, said CEO Steve Trombley, who declined to give exact numbers. (CBCNews)

Abortion is not the answer to economic hardship. Many organizations provides help to women facing crisis pregnancies. Feel free to post links to them in the comment box.

I want to be very careful how I phrase this next question. I am not trying to make any sort of political capital out of this. I just want to raise the issue that Obama and the democrats made a huge deal during the election that they wish to provide tangible aid to women facing crisis pregnancies. I agree this is a very good thing (I disagreed that it is the only thing we can do to eliminate the scourge of abortion in this country).

That said ... what's happened to this priority? Are we aware of ongoing efforts by the Obama administration to supply aid to these women? Surely in a time when every conceivable industry is getting a bailout, funds should stop flowing to mega-abortion mills like Planned Parenthood (referenced in the article above) and start flowing to pregnancy counseling centers (which provide ultrasounds, immediate care and advice, and adoption alternatives).

Pope John Paul II famously said that "a nation which kills its own children is a nation without hope." Obama, of all people, with his administration and supporters, should understand what the pope is saying. Yes you can.

And if you reading this want to do something about this right now, support the ArborVitae women's and pregnancy help center in Ann Arbor, MI (right by the University of Michigan campus). I know some of the people involved there and, like many pregnancy counseling centers across the U.S., it's always in need.

"White House Reacts to Obama-Notre Dame Debate"

LifeNews:

Reacting to the news that local Bishop John D’Arcy will not attend the event because of Obama's strong pro-abortion record, White Hose spokeswoman Amy Brundage shrugged off the criticism.

"Notre Dame is one of the first universities President Obama will visit as president and he is honored to address the graduating class, their families and faculty of a school with such a rich history of fostering the exchange of ideas," she said in a statement.

Brundage said Obama understands not everyone will agree with his pro-abortion views.

"While he is honored to have the support of millions of people of all faiths, including Catholics with their rich tradition of recognizing the dignity of people, he does not govern with the expectation that everyone sees eye to eye with him on every position," she added.

"[T]he spirit of debate and healthy disagreement on important issues is part of what he loves about this country," Brundage continued.

I wonder what is going on behind the scenes. A lot I'd imagine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a mega-read.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ND students submit letter asking Fr. Jenkins to challenge Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much for a discernibly distinctive Catholic character.

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

Omnicoverage: President Obama invited to give Notre Dame Commencement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breaking: Obama to give commencement at Notre Dame!

new post alert: President Obama invited to give Notre Dame Commencement (omnicoverage)

original post....

This is a shocker.

The nation's premier Catholic institution of higher learning is