Outrageous: Liberal Catholics trying to lay health care reform blame on US bishops

Hold on to your hats -I'm going to try to make something very complicated, well, a little less complicated.

This is about the ongoing struggle between democrats (and their friends) who want health care reform to include money for abortion, and pro-life Catholics who don't want money for abortions to be included in health care reform.

Here is a list of the most important players in this fight:
1) Cardinal Justin Rigali, head of the US Bishops' pro-life committee, and those who work for him
2) The leaders of the democrat party who are crafting health care legislation, and are eager to appease their pro-abortion supporter
3) Amy Sullivan (writing in TIME Magazine) and other media-type individuals (who falsely claim to present a "Catholic" perspective on health-care reform, like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good) trying to give cover to the democrats and malign the pro-life activities of Cardinal Rigali and other pro-life Catholics

The latest salvo in this ongoing fight comes from Amy Sullivan, who wrote in TIME Magazine this weekend claiming that the US Bishops have been sending mixed and confused messages to democrats in Congress, making it impossible for democrats to honor the Bishops' demands that money not go to abortions in health care reform.

She claims that democrats in Congress were taken by surprise when Cardinal Rigali wrote this on October 8th:

"However, we [bishops] remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously."

In fact, it is more accurate to say that Cardinal Rigali had seen through the democrat-sponsored Capps amendment as being nothing more than a shell game to sneak abortion funding into health care reform anyway, and so he wrote the above sentences with a clear message for the democrats in Congress: "enough is enough."

Eliminating money for abortion in health care reform would be as simple as approving any of the multiple pro-life amendments (such as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) which have already been offered. But no - democrats have voted down every single pro-life amendment which has been offered during the long course of these deliberations.

Which leaves us with a very cold, obvious fact: the reason there is abortion funding in the current health care reform proposals is because democrats put it there, and have repeatedly kept it there.

Sorry, Amy, you can't blame the bishops for this one.

If you are interested in this topic, do also read what Deal Hudson and Steven Ertelt have written. Deal Hudson takes a look at what may be happening internally at the USCCB during these negotiations, while Steven Ertelt has an expert source briefing us on what has been happening politically in Congress.

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.

People who don't support Obama are racists, liberal Catholic claims

I've discovered the application of Godwin's law which is most applicable to pro-Obama Catholics. It goes like this:

"As it becomes more difficult to defend Obama, the probability of a charge of racism approaches."

In all seriousness, Michael Sean Winters - a liberal Catholic who supported Obama during his presidency and continues to do so - actually wrote this in American Magazine about those who came to Washington DC for an anti-tax rally:

"It is becoming well nigh impossible to deny the racist overtones of these protests."

What, may you ask, is the strongest argument for this astounding claim?

"Many of the virtually all-white crowd on Saturday yearned for an earlier time with less government involvement in society."

You read that correctly: the fact that this crowd was predominantly caucasian (by Winters' account), proves that it must be racist. By Winters' logic, the United States Senate must be "racist" - it is "virtually all-white", after all.

Winters goes on:

"But, that earlier time [of less government involvement in society] recalls, for many of us, the memory of states’ rights being enforced through dogs and water cannons."

So let's parse this argument:

1. When there was less government involvement in society in America, there was also racial segregation
2. The anti-tax marchers want less government involvement in society (specifically, over-taxation and regulation)
3. ... the anti-tax marchers want a return to racial segregation.

That is Winters' argument, in three easy steps.

As I tweeted immediately upon being forwarded and reading Winters piece, "Liberal Catholics would do well to practice some fraternal correction." Let me explain:

Liberal Catholics will go ballistic when a conservative Catholic writer makes an absurd argument, and demand that fellow conservatives disown the maverick's argument. Because, on the whole, we strive to be reasonable and agreeable people, we typically do so. We can call one of our own out of bounds without feeling we've eroded our common arguments. We can call crazy "crazy" because we try to avoid it. Winters seems to be reduced to just writing crazy.

Well, in similar fashion, I'd like to see some "liberal" Catholic writers take Winters to the woodshed for this one. People who don't like Obama don't like him because they are racist - really?! Is anyone typically sympathetic to Winters prepared to defend this claim of his? There are many more people in America who did not attend this march who are sympathetic to the concerns of those who did attend. Are all of them equally guilty of the racism Winters ascribes?

I'll be waiting for such logical reflection on these claims Winters has injected into the debate.

But frankly, until Winters himself retracts this stupidity, I'll feel free to disregard him completely.

After all, I shouldn't give my time to someone who writes for a racist magazine like America.

I mean, just look at the complexion of that magazine's editors.

[photo - boston college]

Rewarded: Doug Kmiec gets his send-off to Malta

Douglas Kmiec, Obama's most devoted Catholic defender, was sworn-in yesterday as Obama's new ambassador to the Catholic country of Malta, and Dan Gilgoff was there.

As Gilgoff says, "The Obama administration's faith outreach operation can make for some pretty bizarre scenes."

It also provides an opportunity for Kmiec to utter some pretty bizarre lines, like this one: "We live at a time when even at some great universities, a spirit of narrow-mindedness sets in over a spirit of inquiry."

In this case, the "spirit of inquiry" that inspired Mr. Kmiec to support Barack Obama for President, has - lest we forget - resulted in not a single discernible step towards building a culture of life in this country, despite all of Mr. Kmiec's promises that Obama would do this. 

Instead, Obama has subsidized foreign abortions with our tax money, is attempting to "mainstream" abortion funding in his health care plans, will allow hundreds of millions of dollars to go to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, and has not introduced any sort of conscience protection for Catholic health care providers and doctors. And that's just a sample. I'm not even talking about euthanasia and same-sex marriage, also core issues of Catholic concern.

Of course, pointing out these sorts of facts does not get you an ambassadorship to Malta.

I'm just too "narrow-minded" to deserve that, I guess.

AmP Challenge: No more claiming the US Bishops are "partisan" on abortion

In the interest of dialogue with our liberal Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, I challenge them to explicitly and totally repudiate the pernicious claim that US Bishops, when they speak about abortion, are engaging in "partisan politics." This same claim is similarly made about American Catholics when they, essentially, mimic the talking points of the US Bishops.

The claim that US Bishops, and those who agree with them, are "partisan" when it comes to abortion is deeply hypocritcal, because such a claim is, itself, a partisan charge made exclusively by liberals.

How common is this theme of calling US Bishops and their supporters "partisan" when they speak about abortion? Well, it is very common (see below). Most recently, these liberal partisans have taken to using recent L'Osservatore Romano articles as proof that "their" side is the right one. Well, they are in for a surprise, as I will demonstrate.

Here are some of the chief offenders (note how they all claim L'Osservatore Romano is on their side):

• Joe Feuerherd at National Catholic Reporter: "Less than four months into the new administration we don’t plan a mea culpa. Rather, we agree with L'Osservatore Romano, that the administration has demonstrated thoughtfulness and moderation, even as some of its less temperate Catholic critics declare, "We are at War!"
• Michael Sean Winters of American Magazine: "Chaput sneers at Jenkins. He sneers at Obama. (I am assuming he sneers at L'Osservatore Romano which had a far different interpretation of the President's visit to Notre Dame.)"

And yet in L'Osservatore Romano's own June 5th edition, it said this:

"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."

L'OR is crystal clear: the interpretation that "the teachings of the U.S. episcopate on the inherent evil of abortion [is] an exercise in partisan politics" ... has "no foundation".

With that said, will Joe Feuerherd again "agree with L'Osservatore Romano" on this point about US Bishops and those who agree with them? Will Michael Sean Winters cease his sniping at Archbishop Chaput and other teaching bishops, or will he do a 180 and himself "sneer at L'OR" now that the newspaper isn't agreeing with his liberal talking points?

If they don't take up this challenge, we can be sure of three things:

1. The entire time they were agreeing with L'Osservatore Romano, it wasn't because they were trying to be faithful Catholics, it was because L'OR was agreeing (they thought) with their liberal talking points
2. They are in fact selectively picking-and-choosing what things they agree with the Vatican on, again filtering what they hear and agree with through a partisan, liberal a priori position
3. They themselves are guilty of engaging in the sort of "partisan politics" which they have accused the US Bishops and those who agree with them of embracing. This is text-book hypocrisy.

To make my case even stronger, I'd ask AmP readers to send me examples of Catholic columnists claiming that the US Bishops are engaging in partisan politics, and especially of recent examples where they claim L'Osservatore Romano is in effect "taking their side." I'd also ask AmP readers to note when this claim is made, in its various forms, from this point forward. I intend to call them on it every time they do it.

Why am I being so blunt about this? Well, certainly there here are many, many things wrong with the current state of debate between liberal Catholics and other Catholics when it comes to the issue of abortion and politics in America, but with this challenge, I hope to begin systematically rooting-out and definitively putting-to-rest one of the most pernicious and offensive of these errors.

I think such charges against our bishops are corrosive to constructive dialogue. Let's at least agree that when they speak about abortion, they are speaking from the heart of the Church, not a partisan talking-points page.

update: readers have asked for more proof of my claim that some notable individuals have systematically set themselves up against the bishops on the issue of abortion, along partisan lines. I have removed my quotation from Stephen Schneck for lack of further evidence. More proof for the other two:

• Joe Feuerherd (Feb 22, 2008 - Washington Post): "[Bishop Doran] is not alone among Catholic bishops in his attempt to anathematize the Democrats, to make the party and its candidates illegitimate in the mind of the electorate." ... "Sounds like I'll be voting for the Democrat -- and the bishops be damned."
• Michael Sean Winters (April 30, 2008 - America Magazine): "I hope the bishops who are in such high dudgeon about Obama will demand that Dr. Glendon be forbidden from receiving any Catholic honors until she renounces her association with the Bush administration."

And for good measure, I've re-added a third:

• Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ (November 7, 2008 - Washington Post): "This division between the vocal, partisan bishops and the silent, nonpartisan bishops will be a major issue at the Baltimore meeting."

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report: Vatican has rejected 3 Obama picks for ambassador

The Washington Times reports on Italian newspaper rumors (underlining mine):

The Vatican has quietly rejected at least three of President Obama's candidates to serve as U.S. ambassador to the Holy See because they support abortion, and the White House might be running out of time to find an acceptable envoy before Mr. Obama travels to Rome in July, when he hopes to meet Pope Benedict XVI.

Italian journalist Massimo Franco, who broke the story about the White House attempts to find a suitable ambassador to the Vatican, said papal advisers told Mr. Obama's aides privately that the candidates failed to meet the Vatican's most basic qualification on the abortion issue.

... He said the Vatican recognized that a foreign nation is free to appoint the ambassador of its choice but that the pope is free to reject a proposed envoy if he believes the candidate would "fail to improve relations" with the Catholic city-state.

Mr. Franco, who has close connections at the Vatican, added that the rejection of the Obama candidates "would suggest that, at least so far, none of the potential Democratic diplomats were considered fit to 'improve relations' with the Holy See."

In tandem, Headline Bistro adds (underlining mine):

A longtime John Kerry supporter is about to land the prized position of U.S. ambassador to Italy, and Caroline Kennedy may join him nearby as ambassador to the Vatican, an Italian news magazine has claimed.

In an April 2 article in Panorama, journalist Carlo Rossella predicted that 60-year-old David Thorne, a donor to the Obama campaign and brother-in-law of former presidential candidate John Kerry, will be given the post, per the request of Kerry himself.

And in a report that will drop like a bombshell among Vatican watchers, Rosella also asserted that Caroline Kennedy – her own hopes to rise to the U.S. Senate dashed for now – has been suggested as the Obama administration’s ambassador to the Holy See.

It’s an ironic tangle of State Department, campaign and even marriage connections that only adds fuel to speculation over who will represent the United States in two of the State Department’s most high-profile posts.

Video: Hadley Arkes debates Doug Kmiec

From Moral Accountability:

The Matthew J. Ryan Center at Villanova University has posted the video recordings of the Cicero Podium Debate between Professor Hadley Arkes (Amherst College) and Professor Douglas Kmiec (Pepperdine Law School). This event took place on February 13, 2009.

Part I:


Part II:

I hope to have a chance to watch some of it later this evening.

WaPo Op-Ed: Does Obama risk losing Catholics?

Finally some mainstream awareness that Obama is no friend of the Catholic Church, despite what he says:

[During the November election,] a number of Catholic thinkers set out a "pro-life, pro-Obama" position -- disagreeing with Obama's pro-choice views but trusting in his moderate instincts and conciliatory temperament.

So far, Obama has done little to justify this faith. His initial actions on life issues -- funding overseas abortion providers, removing restrictions from federally funded medical experimentation on human embryos, revisiting conscience protections for pro-life health-care professionals -- have ranged from conventional to radical. And this may be one reason Obama's support among Catholics has eroded

... Catholics are having second thoughts, but it could get much worse. If the president and Congress are not careful on several issues, these concerns could open a major rift between the Catholic Church and the Democratic Party.

... Obama's Catholic supporters would feel betrayed and discredited -- and rightly so. The Catholic hierarchy and Catholic health professionals would feel assaulted by the president -- and they would be correct. And President Obama would not need to worry about future invitations from Notre Dame. - Michael Gerson in The Washington Post

Mind you - there's another alternative: Obama and the democrats could seriously revisit their commitment to abortion "rights."

In the meantime, the Church is not backing down. And she has a good history of not blinking.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal details the fine work of CatholicVote.com (to which I contributed during the election as a blogger) and other online innitiatives promoting a culture of life online.

Front-group Catholics United slips into attacking Bishop D'Arcy

I have zero patience for Catholics United.

It's a front organization that abuses the name "Catholic" for anti-life interests, and is moreover funded by pro-abortion advocates like the billionaire George Soros, as others have exposed.

So I wasn't surprised to find out that their executive director Chris Korzen issued a press release today welcoming ND's decision to invite Obama.

It's not hard for Catholics United to think of ways to criticize orthodox Catholics of exploiting the faith for political ends ... because that's exactly what Korzen and company do. The difference is Korzen and co. (falsely and hypocritically) claim the other side is doing it.

So how do you prove which side is disingenuous? Simple enough: you wait for one side to slip.

And Korzen and co. just did.

Here's some of what he said:

As a Catholic, I am deeply disappointed by the knee-jerk opposition to Notre Dame’s decision to confer an honorary degree on President Obama and invite him to give the 2009 commencement address. President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame will be nothing short of an honor for all Catholics.

Attacking Notre Dame is simply disingenuous and reflects a larger pattern of manipulation of the Catholic faith for political advantage.

Regrettably, the individuals leading the charge against Notre Dame are partisan operatives who routinely use a single-issue analysis to divorce the Catholic faith from its longstanding commitment to social justice and the sanctity of all human life.

Dan Gilgoff of US News & World Report thinks Korzen and co. were unprepared for the ND backlash, and (my take:) in their rush to inject their unique style of rhetorical-spin into the debate, made a misstep. Gilgoff asks:

The White House and liberal Catholic groups appear to have been caught off guard by the furor over President Obama's forthcoming appearance at Notre Dame. Catholics United, a progressive Catholic group with close ties to the White House, has just released a defense of Notre Dame and Obama's appearance there.

... [but did Korzen mean to] include the Catholic bishop of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, who has blasted Notre Dame for hosting Obama [as a "partisan operative"]?

Until now, the new breed of progressive Catholic groups has been careful to avoid attacking the Catholic hierarchy, lest it appear that they're at odds with their own church. On Notre Dame, it looks like they're coming into conflict with church officials. Another sign of an action plan developed hurriedly, at the last-minute?

Actually, this is not the first time Catholics United has run afoul of the clear teaching of the Catholic hierarchy, especially on life issues. Alternately, having helped deliver the Catholic vote to Obama in last November's election, complacency might have brought with it sloppiness. Lying, after all, takes longer than truth-telling.

Nevertheless I would submit that duplicity on the scale practiced by Korzen and co. simply cannot stand up to sustained scrutiny. So yes, please Chris, continue sending out those press releases.

(And for once, perhaps Doug Kmiec made the smart move and decided to remain silent on this one.)

"Some Catholics Disappointed in Obama"

Only some:

He garnered the majority of Catholic votes in the 2008 election, but a number of Catholic groups now say President Obama is showing a complete lack of regard for their beliefs.

They count his decisions to lift restrictions on abortion and stem cell research among the most offensive.

... "President Obama has already reached out and won the Catholic vote," Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, said.

"That's what happened in the last election in spite of the very loud voices of some extreme uber-Catholics who really want to paint this black and white picture -- to engage us in this endless culture war," he said.

O'Brien, whose group supports access to contraception and abortion, said Obama presented Catholic voters with a social justice agenda they can support. (FOX politics)

"Extreme uber-Catholics" - hey, I like the sound of that!

"American Papist: Extreme Uber-Catholic." =)

update: Back to Obama: "President Barack Obama Offends Mentally Disabled With Special Olympics Remark" & "Offensive Joke, Offensive Treaty".

Oh *come on*, Kmiec!

Quit dragging your faith into everything (including the mud), stop making interminable excuses for your woefully ill-considered support of Barack Obama as a "pro-life" candidate, and -finally- cease trying to honestly make us believe that forcing taxpayers to fund groups that promote and perform abortions abroad is a pro-life move.

I've spilt my ink on Kmiec, but at this point, he seems convinced that he can win this debate by talking-over-and-longer-than everyone else. Well, if he wants to respond to the arguments raised against his positions, we'll talk. I'd be happy to debate him, in fact. My email is public.

In the meantime, however, I've stopped listening. I'm too busy trying to build an authentic culture of life with whatever meager means are at my disposal to patiently defuse another of Kmiec's thought-bombs.

Breaking: Abp. Naumann responds to Sebelius appointment/Brownback endorsement

John Norton at Our Sunday Visitor has an excellent, timely interview with Abp. Naumann on Kathleen Sebelius and Senator Brownback, etc. Some pull quotes follow.

On Sebelius' claims of a "pro-life" record:

Archbishop Naumann: I think that’s very, very dishonest and not at all accurate. It’s true that abortion dropped during her term as governor but I don’t think she really had anything to do with it, although she likes to take credit for it. And in fact, during that time she vetoed measures that could have helped prevent abortion.

On Obama's choice to pick Sebelius, and Sen Brownback's going along with it:

I personally find it offensive that he would choose a pro-legalized-abortion Catholic to head this office. I think, as I interpret Sen. [Sam ] Brownback’s and Sen. [Pat] Roberts’ support of sorts for the nomination — it’s simply saying we elected President Obama with the positions he took. We can’t expect that he’s going to appoint someone to these cabinet positions that do not share his views. And in a sense I can understand that. When there is a pro-life president, we resent if there is an effort to try to prevent the president from appointing people who share his vision. So, I can understand why they might acquiesce, I guess, is the best way to put it, to her appointment.

Finally, as a bonus, what he thinks of the organization Catholics United:

Archbishop Naumann: I don’t think they have much impact and I don’t pay much attention to them personally. And I think from what you just read, they’re either not very honest or they’re not very competent in the research that they do.

Actually, they're both: competent and dishonest. They know what they are doing.

Also, on a related note, Matt Bowman has an excellent article in the American Spectator today:

But the most intriguing component of Sebelius's nomination is her Catholicism. Not that Catholic abortion supporters are rare -- see Obama's failed nominee to HHS, Tom Daschle. But Sebelius is significant as an attempt by Obama to foment a civil war within Catholicism to neutralize its pro-life efforts.

Like a shrewd general, Obama is using Catholics themselves as his ground troops.
Two dozen prominent Obama supporters quickly launched a letter supporting Sebelius, and claiming that they are Catholic and pro-life. The letter's signers are the same liberal Obama Pro-Lifers from his presidential campaign, led by Professor Doug Kmiec and the Soros-funded group "Catholics United."

The first step to responding to these sorts of attacks is to realize that one is being attacked. Kmiec, Sebelius, et al. are making a concerted effort to destroy the connection between being Catholic and pro-life.

A critique of more weak Kmiec speak

Don't let the cutesy blog title fool you, keeping tabs on Kmiec is always serious business. Kmiec, of course, is the most prominent "pro-life" Catholic supporter of Barack Obama. What has Kmiec been up to lately?

Back in late January, Kmiec explained his abortion views at a Pepperdine faith forum. He confirmed once again that "he thinks his name may possibly be considered for the position of Vatican Emissary in Obama's administration."

Kmiec seemed to suggest that he believes in delayed hominization (underlining mine):

"Abortion is an intrinsic evil that can be justified under no circumstances. The Church takes the position it does … not because of the Bible - although it believes in the inerrancy of the Bible - but also … as a matter of objective scientific fact that this human zygote is human, and if you don't interfere with it, it will become a person, and by virtue of that, it's entitled to legal protection."

The Church does not teach when the zygote becomes a human person, but it does teach that the zygote ought to be treated "as a human person" from the first moment of its conception. It does not say that the zygote becomes a human person at some later stage of development, as Kmiec does here.

One freshmen seemed to get what continues to escape Kmiec:

"What really stood out to me was hearing … that Obama wanted to limit abortions, [when] that very day, the Mexico City Policy was reversed," said [Seaver freshman Mimi] Rothfus.

Yes, reality can have a harsh ring to it sometimes.

On the 10th, Kmiec published an article in Sojourners, talking about Obama's new Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. He says "President Obama is off to a fine start." I have so much to say here, but will limit myself to one quotation:

"Many Catholics, including myself, were disappointed by the president’s reversal of the Mexico City executive order, which blocked foreign aid to groups that include abortion referrals among their health services. The president’s rationale was motivated by Third World conditions, and we need to ask ourselves how we in opposition would formulate an answer for the millions of non-Catholics who were at risk of fatal illness in developing countries for lack of non-abortifacient, contraceptive services that were swept within the previous policy."

Wrapped up in this dense block of verbiage is a very simple message: third world countries need contraceptives, Kmiec thinks. He evidently needs to review his Church teaching: artificial contraception is universally wrong, based on the natural law. It's not just wrong for Catholics, ergo, Catholics ought not promote artificial contraception to anyone.

Also on the 10th, Kmiec published an article in the National Catholic Reporter. The substance:

Today the church has strategically (might it be said, prudentially in light of the perspectives of other faiths?) chosen to take incremental steps to conform human law to God’s, and perhaps that means that all of us -- the church included -- need to more charitably assess efforts to promote the choice for life premised upon social and economic support. Such support, at a minimum, should physically and materially strengthen the community, and perhaps an economically recovered America will also be spiritually revived such that the Supreme Court will once again describe us, as it did pre-Roe, as a “religious people whose institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being.”

Once again I find myself mystified by a Kmiec argument. The fact of the matter is that under the Obama administration we can look forward to a farther widinening gap between God's law and human law on the issue of abortion. The legal limitations set on abortion will be gradually rolled back. Obama has promised this. Furthermore, I see no guarantee that economic prosperity will cause spiritual rebirth. Typically, it would seem to me, the opposite is the case. Finally, Kmiec's wait-and-see approach is a very handy way to dismiss opposition to Obama's here-and-now problematic solutions (e.g., reducing problem pregnancies by expanding contraceptive access).

I predict that as Obama's presidency continues, and as he is allowed to implement more of his program, Kmiec's tenuous arguments will continue to appear more and more threadbare. Kmiec will, as a result, be forced to more desperately stretch his rhetorical justifications over the contradictions between what Obama is actually doing, and what Kmiec would have us believe he is about.

Finally, last week, on the 12th, Kmiec had a public debate with Hadley Arkes at Villanova University. I'm trying to track down a report of how it went down.

And that's the "weak Kmiec speak" news.

update: Adam Raha at Sober Inebriation:

Upon contacting Villanova University, I was told by Anne Hischar that the debate will be aired in its entirety online at www.matthewryancenter.org in about two weeks.

Time: Obama can't keep both pro-life & pro-abortion camps happy

Color me not surprised:

Amy Sullivan, National Correspondent for Time Magazine, says that during the election season pro-Obama religious liberals felt "thrown under a bus" by the Obama campaign.

Many had gone out on a limb to say Obama favored abortion reduction. But the campaign then went into a minor panic after Sarah Palin's selection, fearing she would help attract independent women to the Republicans. So Democrats began running ads emphasizing traditional support for abortion rights sans abortion reduction. This infuriated pro-life Obama supporters who had gone out on a limb.

Subsequently, Obama and Joe Biden talked more about abortion reduction. But in an interview we did for Trinity Wall Street, Sullivan -- the nation's foremost expert on the religious left -- argues, that Obama will have a difficult time retaining the trust of pro-life Obama voters, while still satisfying his pro-choice supporters. (Steve Waldmen)

I wonder if this makes me the "nation's foremost expert on the religious left."

Because I've been saying this since day one.

Second priest says Obama-voters should confess

Just to get both coasts involved.

The AP report was so short (and the reporting so horrible) that I have to pick it apart.

My comments in [brackets]:

A Roman Catholic priest has told parishioners they should confess if they voted for Barack Obama because the president-elect supports abortion rights. [I'm sure he asked them to confess the sin of voting for Obama, not confess that they voted for him.]

The Rev. Joseph Illo said parishioners at St. Joseph's Catholic Church shouldn't risk losing their "state of grace" by receiving Communion sacrilegiously. [No, I'm sure the priest said those who commit a mortal sin are thereby deprived of the "state of grace". Seriously, this counts as religion reporting?]

He delivered the message in a Nov. 21 letter and at Mass. [I bet it was a bulletin.]

In an interview last week with the Modesto Bee, Illo said he sent the letter because Catholic teaching requires that people go to confession when they commit a mortal sin. [Wow, I actually don't have see anything worth correcting in this paragraph - good job, AP reporter!]

The Most Rev. Stephen Blaire, bishop of the Stockton diocese, disagreed with Ilo. Catholics were not in need of confession if they voted for Obama after considering many issues, the bishop said. He also said Catholics should not be compelled to disclose how they voted to their priest. ["After considering many issues" - now there's an oversimplification that completely does away with the substance of the debate.]

Saturday, Illo said he would make a statement about his letter at services this morning. [Protestants have services, Catholics have Mass. They are different.]

You know the reporting is bad when you can actually discover the truth of the situation past the obvious blunders the actual report contains. That's how obvious the facts are, facts which escape the persons paid to report this news! It just goes to prove William Shneider's famous quip: "The press ... just doesn't get religion."

I've created a whole category for this sort of reporting. I call it, "stupid reporting."

Kmiec for Vatican Ambassador?

A double dose of stupid this week from Michael Sean Winters.

Last Friday I took apart Winters' attempt to claim that Tom Daschle's appointment as Secretary of HHS was a "step in the right direction."

Now I find that Winters is arguing that Doug Kmiec would be a good choice (indeed, the "perfect candidate") for US ambassador to the Vatican.

Oh boy, here we go again. Luckily, we don't have to go far....

Longtime associates of Professor Kmiec denounced him, often in ways that lacked all charity, suggesting bad logic or bad motives or both. There is no better way to answer those who argued that no Catholic could vote for Obama in good conscience than to see the man who wrote the book (literally!) defending the proposition that Catholics can and should vote for Obama being received in the Sala Clementina by Pope Benedict XVI!

Winters implies that "longtime associates" turned on Kmiec. In fact, Kmiec turned on them. Kmiec turned himself around several times. For instance, after originally supporting the Republican Mitt Romney, Kmiec then supported Obama. After originally claiming "beyond life issues", Obama was a good choice for Catholics, Kmiec went on to claim the Obama was the natural choice, "upon even a moment's reflection." In other words, which side in this debate has been "longtime" in their position? That's right - not Kmiec.

As for the "lacking all charity" jab, Kmiec continually hides behind a smokescreen of holier-than-thouness, without ever engaging his opponents in substance. In fact, Kmiec's normal tactic is to claim that anyone criticizing him, de facto, must be speaking uncharitably. The reality that the criticism might be founded in reason and fact, seems to conveniently escape him. Having watched this debate closely, most interlocutors seemed to be trying their best to reach Kmiec, scratching their heads all the while. They've demonstrated an over-abundance of charity, considering they are dealing with someone who they genuinely believe is undermining the cause of defending unborn life in our country.

And it is so untrue for Winters to claim that the Kmiec-critique contained "bad logic, bad motives or both." In fact, Kmiec seemed to run from a debate with intellectual Catholics whenever he could. He refused to publicly dialogue with bishops, he continually turned down opportunities to debate his position with prominent pro-life Catholics, opting instead for a well-funded, whirlwind tour of Catholic campuses where he rallied for Obama. Controlled Q&A sessions with liberal undergraduates is not where you test the mettle of your position. And shilling for a candidate who raised the ire of an unprecedented number of American bishops is not good credentials for a diplomatic appointment to the Holy See.

Oh, and Winters last claim that Pope Benedict's meeting with Kmiec would somehow be an endorsement of Kmiec's position is simply ludicrous. The Pope takes what he gets, and I'd love to see Winters come out and say that the Pope's meeting with Mary Ann Glendon (the current Republican ambassador) is somehow an endorsement of her entire public career. For someone who claims so much knowledge of what the position of ambassador entails, it's amazing that he would have these sort of blindspots still.

... okay, that's just one short paragraph of Winter's post that I've decided to answer.

Winters similarly displays a certain unexplainable myopia in his presentation of the situation. Again:

Notwithstanding the sparring over abortion, Kmiec’s influence in the campaign grew from there – helping the campaign draft platform language supporting economic assistance that would encourage the decision of a pregnant woman to choose life, writing his book explaining why Obama might be voted for in good conscience (the book ranked #1 for a number of weeks in its category on Amazon), and then personally carrying the message to the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.

I have to wonder where Winters is getting his statistics. Currently Kmiec is ranked #31 in Political Reference and #59 in Government Elections. By contrast, Archbishop Charles Chaput's book, Render Unto Caesar, which I have talked about often and represents the most comprehensive, authoritative refutation of Kmiec's argument, is currently (still!) #1 in Catholic Inspirational, #1 in Roman Catholicism, and #1 in Church & State.

If Winters is really serious in claiming that Amazon rankings are a measure of the influence and level of acceptance an individual's arguments merit ... well, Catholics who are reading, read Chaput, not Kmiec.

A final observation:

Kmiec has shown no interest in an administration appointment.

What sort of interest should Kmiec show? When was the last time, when asked, anyone being considered for a post said "yes, I'd be thrilled to accept it, and eager"? Again, Winters says things he presumes are arguments, but upon reflection, turn out to actually be counter-arguments.

In other words, if Kmiec is uninterested in an appointment, he has a very funny way of showing it - because throwing oneself into the pro-Obama movement is an unlikely way to remain hidden from view in an Obama administration (which would make Winters wrong). And if Kmiec is interested in an appointment ... well, everything he has done makes sense, and, again, Winters is wrong.

Regardless of what happens to Kmiec, it's encouraging to see that Winters is already laying the groundwork for his canonization cause. In the meantime, Kmiec should focus on fixing his credentials.

update: I'm not surprised and pleased to see that a certain official of the Vatican's Secretary of State agrees with me.

[photo credit: ProLifeProObama]

Taking Catholics for Choice to the Woodshed

Fr. Z does it for me.

The nerve of their president Jon O'Brien:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association may be behind the new rule, but their support does not reflect the fullness of Catholic teaching and the views of Catholics.

Fr. Z called what Jon O'Brien wrote "evil."

I'd have to agree:

One hopes that the bishops are not suggesting that the only well-formed conscience is one that is in lockstep with their own interpretation of Catholic teaching. That would, in fact, be the antithesis of a well-formed conscience.

Actually, the catechism says:

no. 1794 - A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith.

In other words, the phrase "well-formed conscience" is an objective not a subjective description.

Obama hasn't been to Church since Nov. 4th

Politico:

President-elect Barack Obama has yet to attend church services since winning the White House earlier this month, a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors.

On the three Sundays since his election, Obama has instead used his free time to get in workouts at a Chicago gym.

Asked about the president-elect's decision to not attend church, a transition aide noted that the Obamas valued their faith experience in Chicago but were concerned about the impact their large retinue may have on other parishioners.

"Because they have a great deal of respect for places of worship, they do not want to draw unwelcome or inappropriate attention to a church not used to the attention their attendance would draw," said the aide.

Both President-elect George W. Bush and President-elect Bill Clinton managed to attend church in the weeks after they were elected.

Doug Kmiec was quoted over the weekend as saying Obama has "far more in common with our great faith tradition than any political administration in recent memory."

Well sadly, if our legacy is "skipping out on Church whenever possible" then ... yes, yes Obama does.

Update: SC priest "repudiated" for his pastoral letter?

Joseph Abrahams at Fox News claims so, and cites a new statement from the Apostolic Administrator of the Charleston Diocese Msgr. Martin Laughlin (who's standing in until a new bishop is appointed), who said:

"Father Newman's statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church's teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated""

You can read his full statement here (PDF). Also:

A video from Laughlin has likewise been posted by the diocese. According to one well-placed source on the ground, the understanding also included Newman pulling his statements from the parish site (a development which had reportedly taken place later Friday evening; the St Mary's site was inaccessible, ostensibly due to a heavy number of hits). {Whispers}

LifeSiteNews has the reactions of some prominent bishops.

I said in my first post on this story that I was surprised that the diocesan spokesman took a position in support of Fr. Newman. Frankly, I think it's above his pay grade, and obviously Msgr. Laughlin had his own ideas. (update: of course, one would hope the spokesman was not acting in good faith, and then subsequently contradicted by Msgr. Laughlin.)

My AmP Poll asking the question "Do you agree with Fr. Newman's Letter" is currently registering 69.5% yes, 21.1% no, and 9.5% undecided with 749 votes registered. I think it's very clear where the majority of AmP readers stand on this question.

But perhaps I should clarify my position: while one might agree or disagree with the substance of his letter, I would still say the prudence of the letter remains doubtful. Msgr. Laughlin also said that Fr. Newman's actions "diverted the focus from the Church’s clear position against abortion." That's really what's at issue here: how to pastorally yet powerfully and effectively preach this message.

That said, I'd rather see a few mistakes committed out of zealousness then witness continuing silence caused by cowardice. If we're trying to balance on the edge of a knife, there's a better side to err on.

AmP Poll: Was SC priest right to suggest confession for Obama voters?

You can vote in the AmP Poll at the bottom of this post. But first, the details....

Michael Paulson at Articles of Faith:

The pastor of St. Mary Catholic Church in Greenville, SC, is urging parishioners who voted for Barack Obama not to present themselves for Communion unless they go to confession first because they have cooperated with "intrinsic evil'' by voting for a candidate who supports abortion rights over a candidate who does not. The Rev. Jay Scott Newman told the Greenville News that he doesn't intend to deny anyone Communion, but made it clear that his view is that Obama voters should not present themselves without seeking penance first "lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.''

The relevant passage from Pastor Newman's letter:

Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.

Before I get into the reactions, my four observations:

1. not quite: The common teaching on this matter has been that it gravely wrong to vote for a pro-choice candidate because you support their pro-abortion stance. This is the common conclusion drawn from, for instance, Cardinal Ratzinger's famous letter. Fr. Newman seems to be arguing that an Obama vote in this case is wrong not because it representes formal cooperation, but because it is a case of material cooperation (because their vote helped elect him)
2. actually: People who vote for a pro-choice candidate despite there being a pro-life candidate in the running, circumstances being equal, I would say have a poorly-formed conscience ... however, that does not mean they are culpable of any sin if they honestly attempted to inform their conscience, or were misled by third parties, etc.
3. moreover: individual parish priests should take the lead from their bishops when it comes to the pastoral implications of forming the consciences of their parishioners. There's a reason why no other priest in America has apparently done something like this - a priest ought not to exercise this level of admonition about issues still genuinely up for discussion.
4. finally: it seems to be that a nation of Catholics that elects Obama by a majority needs education, guidance and leadership about its faith. There are good and bad ways to go about it, and telling people they have just committed a mortal sin isn't the best way. Try teaching them for four years, and if this keeps happening .... well, that's another story.

Now here's an interesting thing, the parishioners don't seem too upset, at least according to Fr. Newman. Remember who we are hearing this from, of course. I wonder if the parish leans heavily right?

More amazingly, one could conclude the local diocese of Charleston has Fr. Newman's back:

"Stephen Gajdosik, spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Charleston, told The News that calling parishioners who voted for a candidate who supports legalized abortions to penance is a question of how best to deepen a flock's relationship to God and a move left up to local priests. He said such a move is appropriate and in line with church teaching."

"Newman said, "An uninformed vote is an irresponsible vote," and that no informed voter this year could have mistaken the candidates' abortion positions." [source.]

Charleston currently does not have a bishop, instead they have an interim apostolic administrator.

Anyway, let's talk about it. Is Fr. Newman, strictly-speaking, right or wrong? And if he is right, was he right to go about it in this way? After all, how you preach the truth is important as well. Oh and vote:

Poll stats here.

On letting Doug Kmiec have it

Many, many people are tiring of Doug Kmiec's incessant need to argue against people while never actually responding to the substance of their counter-arguments. Kmiec also displays an incredible presumption whenever he claims to be more concerned about the lives of America's unborn than our very own bishops. (I mean - really? - what do they have to gain? Not much. What do you have to gain? Well, apparently something you find very worth it.)

Archbishop Chaput charitably responds to Doug Kmiec's open letter to him, corrects Kmiec's claim that they are friends ("[we] have had little contact in the past"), notes that there are "serious falsehoods and misdirections in Prof. Kmiec's ''prolife'' advocacy for Sen. Obama" and concludes by saying "I look forward eagerly to Prof. Kmiec's vocal advocacy against these profoundly unjust policies" in the future Obama administration.

In other words - the ball is in Kmiec's court, so he should take some time off from the lecture circuit if that's what it takes to free up his schedule to purse the reduction in abortions he has promised under an Obama presidency. Fumare, however, sees something else in Kmiec's future:

What will be Kmiec's reward from Obama's New Hope America? My guess: He will head up a new "pro-life" special commission in the Obama administration that will be charged with the task of "reducing abortions, by reducing unwanted pregnancies."

It will be the equivalent of the Faith Based Initiatives program - a program that made it seem like the Bush Administration was pro-Christian, but was intended to do nothing except keep the Evangelicals in the Bush camp. This new "Pro-Life" program will serve to do the same thing for the Obama Pro-Lifers: keep them in the Obama camp for 8 years.

Ross Douthat tries to give Kmiec the best possible read and comes up with this:

I suppose I could find a thing or three to agree with in Kmiec's longer list of ideas for how the party he abandoned could win back his vote. But frankly, I don't see the point. I understand that the pro-life position on abortion does not command majority support in the United States and that people of good will can disagree on the subject. And I have no doubt that the Republican Party can profit from greater dialogue between its pro-life and pro-choice constituents—and do a better job, as well, of addressing itself to both pro-lifers and pro-choicers who aren't already inside its tent. But I can't begin to fathom why the GOP should consider taking any advice whatsoever from a "pro-lifer" who has spent the past year serving as an increasingly embarrassing shill for the opposition party's objectively pro-abortion nominee.

"Increasingly" is the only charitably way I can describe Kmiec's latest, in which he marvels at the election of Obama in an America that used to deny that African-Americans were human persons with rights. The response is, of course, that we elected someone who thinks unborn humans don't have rights. But once again, reality seems to have little effect on Mr. Kmiec.

update: Good heavens. In response to Douthat's entirely reasonable observations, Kmiec responded with an embarrasing attempt to dodge the accusations by accusing Douthat of ... I dunno, "uncharity"?!

In response, Tucker Carlson really did have it, and really let Kmiec "have it":

Hey, Doug. Toughen up. Seriously. I've read suicide notes that were less passive-aggressive than this. Let's review what actually happened: You argued that Obama is not a pro-choice extremist. Ross disagreed. Rather than respond with a counterpoint, you got hysterical, dismissing Ross as a hater, even fretting about the future of his soul. Come on. Get some perspective. And for God's sake, stop whining.

... I understand it must have hurt when Ross accused you of shilling for Obama. On the other hand, he's right. You did shill for Obama. That's not Ross' fault. Don't blame him.

But if you are going to blame him, do it directly, like a man, without all the encounter-group talk and Pope quotes. People often attack the religious right, sometimes with justification. But as you just reminded us, there is nothing in the world more annoying than the religious left.

What Tucker doesn't point out, and I will, is that Kmiec also is guilty of substantive factual errors in his contribution ("54 percent of the Catholics in America saw exactly what I see in Barack Obama" ... sorry, 54% of those who voted may have seen this") as well as completely unintelligible lines like "[Obama's] party commitments have not let his mind free of ill-considered measures like FOCA" (what?!) and then, typically, Kmiec accuses others of what he has himself done: "It is better to be part of that honest effort than the passive, smug Republican partisan complacency that thinks of the defense of human life as just another issue to be ranked and, worse, ranked lowly" (but that's what you yourself have in fact done, Kmiec - clearly!).

I'd say more, but I have to go catch a plane. It's about time for a Kmiec-free few days.

What we must prepare for in the years ahead

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

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

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

What have I missed? Am I overplaying anything?

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

Doug Kmiec has seen my YouTube interview

Or so Kmiec implies in the public letter he wrote to Abp. Chaput yesterday (who has responded here).

You can watch the YouTube interview Kmiec refers to right here. Now that we know what the political future holds, it is helpful to see where Abp. Chaput predicts the cultural and religious future of our nation is headed.

As for Kmiec's 11th-hour letter to the Archbishop, I have a few observations:

• I dislike his tone. This is not a dinner party disagreement. Human lives are literally at stake in this debate.
• Kmiec ignores the issues he can't handle. He has his own idea of what this debate is about, and constantly refuses to move away from his talking points. This is not what happens in a debate - this is instead a propaganda tactic. Has he ever spoken about FOCA, for instance?
• Kmiec calls for collaboration in what is already happening and Catholics are already doing, as if he had thought of the idea. Supporting women who face problem pregnancies? Check. Finding ways to make adoption an alternative over abortion? Check. A Human Life Amendment? (seriously?!) Well, check that too. Sure, more could be done in these three areas - but Obama is against many of these proposals and they will be harder to achieve when he is President! How can Kmiec hope for these when the candidate whom he supports is against them? It's schizophrenic. I simply don't see the logic here.

And as for Kmiec's comment that "Intemperate language and hyperbolic argumentation may play well on the blogs", two things:

• There might be intemperate language and hyperbolic argumentation out there. But there is also sound, logical critique - critique that Kmiec has never been able to answer to my satisfaction. I should start a counter for every time he claims to be a martyr and treated unfairly when people disagree with him or criticize his position. A man of his experience shouldn't need me to tell him to get over it and move on.
• I'd be happy to debate or interview Doug Kmiec in person anytime he wants. How's that?

Finally, see my 4th conclusion that I write about in this post. That prediction is now a reality....

update: stop the presses, Archbishop Chaput has responded himself.

Game point: Responding to the "pro-life Obama" argument

Ryan T. Anderson & Sherif Girgis have done us a service over at Public Discourse:

The Obama apologists are at it again, this time attacking Archbishop Charles Chaput for speaking out against their candidate's pro-abortion views. But the latest salvo from Doug Kmiec is a tangled web of falsehoods and fallacies.

Doug Kmiec is at it again. His most recent Obama propaganda piece is titled ''Why Archbishop Chaput's Abortion Stance Is Wrong.'' As far as we can tell, Kmiec, a legal scholar who identifies as pro-life, has never written an article titled ''Why Senator Obama's Abortion Stance Is Wrong.'' We await such an article. In the meantime, Kmiec has offered a pro-Obama reply to Archbishop Chaput's wise counsel that Catholics vote with a view to securing the equal protection of the law for all people, born or unborn. Kmiec's answers to the Archbishop can be divided without remainder into three categories: the irrelevant, the false, and the fallacious. Exposing their failure shows that the pro-life case against Obama is decisive.

Required reading for those who are still up in the air, or who know folks who are.

Related:

• "Barack Obama Wants Pro-Abortion Judges, "Pro-Life Catholic" Kmiec Says" (LifeNews)
• Doug Kmiec takes Archbishop Chaput to task for his remarks on voting (CNA)
• Catholics And Pro-Abortion Candidates (American Catholic)
• Obama sees Justices Breyer and Souter as judicial models (CNA)
• good: An open letter to our fellow Catholics on Election Eve
• AP Does Final Disservice to Voters, Hides Barack Obama's Pro-Abortion Stance (LifeNews)

The fight for your Sunday morning parish parking lot

This Sunday, the last one before next Tuesday's election, folks will likely be placing flyers on cars parked in Catholic parish parking lots around the country.

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is trying to stop that phenomenon. They want to keep people in the mindset they already have, and they don't want their minds changed last minute.

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good has been roundly criticized by many Catholic bishops, such as Archbishop Chaput and Bishop Martino. They areinvolved with the Democratic party and have been charged with taking money from prominent pro-abortion activists.

Anyway, here is what they are telling their members to do this weekend (underlining mine):

"We are asking our supporters to join us this Sunday to keep our parishes from becoming partisan battlegrounds in this election. Here's what you can do to help:

• Inform your Pastor today of your concern that outside groups may try to flyer cars during Mass on Sunday and encourage him to instruct the ushers to monitor the church parking lot during the worship service.
• Volunteer to monitor your own church parking lot this Sunday, and ask others to join you in monitoring their church.
• If you do encounter people in the parking lot, respectfully ask them to leave and remove their literature, and inform the ushers immediately.
• Refrain from distributing, on any Church property, any election materials except those approved by the USCCB (Faithful Citizenship), your local bishop or State Catholic Conference. Do not distribute any partisan campaign literature or voter guides (even non-partisan guides).
• Do what you can this weekend to help safeguard our Sunday Mass as a sacred time that should never be used for political gain."

Did you get all that? Monitoring the lot, enlisting ushers, removing flyers?

What do you think about this? Do you take the side of Catholics in Alliance or do you think it's fair for other groups to try to get their message out?

What this email tells me is that Catholics in Alliance is primarily trying to neutralize other members of the Church who wish to provide information to their brothers and sisters in Christ on important issues. But I do realize there are other dynamics involved here, which is why I'd like to have your input as well.

So please discuss.

update: LifeNews notes that Catholics United is encouraging the same tactics:

CU spokesman James Salt emailed his pro-Obama team Thursday night and called the literature drops a "final act of desperation" by the "religious far right" and falsely claimed that the distribution of pro-life information "defies" the Catholic bishops -- who have said the pro-life issue trumps all others in the election.

"The goal of this activity is to convince Catholics that it's immoral to vote for candidates who don't subscribe to the right's narrow agenda," Salt claims.

Salt says Catholics United is heading up the campaign to "put the brakes" on the literature drops.

CNA also weighs in.

So, three nuns write a letter to a newspaper ...

... and the punchline to the joke is: "Because they think they know theology!"

The context:

Three paragraphs of dripping, swarmy sarcasm from these three nuns, penned in response to Archbishop Charles Chaput's noble efforts to defend the unborn. And then this little gem:

We also appreciate the respect for primacy of conscience in our decision-making, as enunciated by Josef Ratzinger, now our current pope, Benedict XVI, who wrote: “Over the pope, as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else — if necessary, even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.”

Nice pull quote, sisters. But clearly it needs context. Otherwise, as I'm sure we'd all agree - ahem, I'm sure we'd all agree - the unfettered primacy of conscience would allow you to do, well, anything.

It would allow you, for instance, to support abortion.

... oh wait, you do.

It would allow you, for instance, to support gay marriage.

... oh wait, you do.

It would allow you, even, to deny that all salvation is through Jesus.

... oh wait, you do.

With that in mind, read their closing statement:

"We are making our ballot choices as adults and as faithful citizens who have weighed the issues in light of the gospels and the justice teachings of our church. We encourage all Catholics to do likewise."

Yes sisters, you clearly set a wonderful example of faithful citizenship lived in the light of the gospels, informed by the justice teachings of our church.

Tell me, what do the gospels say about lying?

On the lies that pro-Obama Catholics tell

Well, some Bishops and writers aren't letting them get away with it.

First, a writer:

During this election cycle a study on abortion released by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good has received plenty of attention from Democrats and Barack Obama supporters.

The spin is that state pro-life laws only have a small impact on abortion rates, and increasing welfare expenditures is the superior way to reduce abortion.

But in today's National Review Online, Professor Michael New of the University of AL and the Witherspoon Institute identified - surprise - errors in the study's methodology.

New conducted a proper analysis of the exact same data used by CACG and found pro-life laws - specifically public funding restrictions and informed consent laws - are effective at lowering abortion rates.

New also found the amount of money spent on welfare appears to have only a marginal impact on the incidence of abortion.

Second, a bishop:

The Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania has continued educating its members on the importance of life during this election season. In a new video titled, “The Catholic Church and Life Issues,” the diocese refutes claims by groups such as Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good that Catholics can vote for a pro-choice politician.

The video, which is posted on the Diocese of Scranton web site, discusses the importance of defending human life this election, though some groups are targeting Catholics to convince them that the issue is not one of relevance. (CNA)

The video:



Now if only we had the resources to get this message out to as wide an audience as these Soros-funded front-groups can.

Oh, and before I forget, guess who is on board with these groups offering an "alternative pro-life position" ... Fr. Thomas "Nothing New" Reese. (Why "Nothing New", you ask?)

From Thomas Reese, SJ .... nothing new.

Over at Busted Halo Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ succeeded in fooling me into excitement for about as long as it took me to read beyond the first line of his article "Something New in the Abortion Debate":

"After decades of debate over abortion, something new has occurred this year."

Unfortunately, what follows is a catalogue of the old. AmP readers have already seen me respond to each and every argument Reese proposes, because Reese simply repeats what has already been offered by the Catholic pro-Obama advocates.

A brief highlight reel:

"after many years of insisting that abortion be legal and safe, the Democrats are finally emphasizing that it should be rare"

Nope: they actually removed that language (and added a promise to fund all abortions sought).

"The traditional pro-life strategy has been to try to make abortion illegal."

Nope - this is a falseminimilization of the comprehensive pro-life movement (see: Amy Welborn).

"A small group of Catholic pro-lifers, exemplified by Douglas Kmiec and Nicholas Cafardi, has concluded that criminalization is a failed strategy.

Nope - the bishops disagree.

"[they say]the most successful strategy to actually reduce the number of abortions is to vote for Democratic candidates."

Nope - and *blech* - prove it. You can start by responding to this.

"there is no difference between the positions of McCain and Obama on stem cell research and gay marriage."

Nope - McCain is certainly different on the question of embryonic stem cell research.

"they are a small minority among bishops since there are over 180 other dioceses where Biden is welcomed to go to Communion."

Nope - outright denying Communion, maybe, not speaking out against Biden? Plenty.

At this point Reese actually switches over to quoting Catholic pro-Obama websites. I guess we can conclude that he identifies and supports their arguments. But at least he has the honesty to say:

"If the Democrats do not deliver, the pragmatic pro-lifers [what Reese calls himself] will be left out on a limb."

But, let it be noted, it's not just Reese & Co. who will be left out on a limb if the "democrats do not deliver" - it will be hundreds of thousands of children cut off from the tree of life.

That, too - sadly - is nothing new.

"Pro-Obama Catholic claims pro-lifers adhere to ‘pelvic theology’"

Oh my, what a classy charge to make:

Bill Roth, president of the Catholic Democrats political action committee, recently spoke about pro-life Catholics who strongly oppose the idea that voting for Barack Obama is a viable Catholic option, describing them as followers of “pelvic theology.”

Roth made the derisive comments while speaking to Rick Maese, a journalist from the Baltimore Sun. Maese reported Roth's remarks on Saturday in the Baltimore Sun article “Democrats again face the Catholic challenge.”

Roth, who claims to promote “civility” in intra-Catholic disagreements about abortion, told Maese that the American Roman Catholic Church is split between "believers in social theology" who are most concerned about poverty, health care and war, and "those with a firm adherence to pelvic theology," who are driven to the polls by issues such as abortion and same-sex marriages. (CNA)

While Austin Ruse provides the calm and reasonable response, I find myself wondering if a swift kick in the heinie to Mr. Roth would be considered a suitable expression of pelvic rhetoric.

Sed Contra: Pro-Life Laws, Politicians produce results

Michael J. New at Public Discourse (which is dishing out the good stuff):

During the past 35 years, the pro-life movement has made real progress. The number of abortions has fallen in 12 out of the past 14 years and the total number of abortions has declined by 21 percent since 1990. These gains are largely due to pro-life political victories at the federal level in the 1980s and at the state level in the 1990s which have made it easier to pass pro-life legislation.

Thank you, pro-Obama Catholics, for giving us the occasion to revisit these important facts.

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

Whispers:

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

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

The beginning of Bishop Malooly's letter:

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

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

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

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

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

The bishop's conclusion:

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

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

update: Rocco pursues this line of questioning:

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

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

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

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

The List: Prominent Pro-Obama Catholics

I was trying to find a list of prominent Catholics who have endorsed Barack Obama for President but couldn't, so I figured I would make one.

I think such a list would be useful because, should Obama win, it will allow us to retroactively judge the accuracy of the claims and predictions they are making now.

Obviously, this will be a work in progress as I gather the names and review their arguments, so in the meantime, please drop tips in the combox or send them to me in an email.

I hope to have a fairly complete list published sometime over the weekend. Thanks in advance for all your assistance!

[photo credit: Flickr user "odonoughue"]

On Keeping/Kicking Kmiec Out

One bishop (Most Rev. Lawrence E. Brandt, JCD, PhD of Greensburg, PA) is trying:

Yesterday afternoon I received word that Seton Hill University had extended an invitation to Mr. Douglas Kmiec to speak on its campus regarding faith and politics. I have attempted in vain to reach the President of Seton Hill, Dr. JoAnne Boyle in this regard, but to no avail.

As the teacher of authentic Catholic doctrine in the Diocese of Greensburg, I feel compelled to state in view of this situation that Mr. Kmiec distorts Catholic teaching by making it synonymous with his own personal views. There is no “other” Catholic position except the one which appears in authentic Church documents. His misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine do a grave disservice to the Catholic community and far beyond.

I seriously question the good judgment of the University administration in allowing him a platform on campus.

... Is it any wonder then that not only the demonstrators at the event, but many others as well, consider his presentation an offensive trivialization of the institution's declared Catholic identity!

In a related vein, I wonder how this will go?

Decide in Faith: A Presidential Forum

Now you will have the chance to ask some questions! All questions will be based on Catholic Social Teaching! Questions submitted on this web site will be reviewed nd selected for the forum by a panel of Catholic college students and young adults!

Featuring Catholic Surrogates from the Presidential Campaigns // Senator Obama: Professor Douglas Kmeic, Author, Former Advisor to President Reagan // Senator McCain: Brian Palmer (R-Romeo) // Panel: College Students and Young Adults // Moderated by Fr. David Buersmeyer, Pastor of SS John and Paul in Washington, MI

An AmP Shout Out to the person who prints out one of the many arguments I've made against Kmiec's position and asks it during the debate. Audio/video would be a plus, too.

update: Seton Hill University says it will release a statement soon.

Partisans accusing the non-partisan of partisanship

I would argue that this is essentially the situation that obtains when pro-Obama Catholics tell bishops to stop speaking out about the urgent evils of abortion and other life issues.

Those with far more experience and wisdom in these matters agree. From Mirror of Justice:

[Cahill] publicly rebukes a number of American bishops because of the proper emphasis that they have placed on the abortion issue. Yet, she fails to address that the candidate whom she has publicly endorsed will make as his first priority the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act that I addressed yesterday in a posting at Mirror of Justice. She decries that “when the Catholic church [sic] is perceived to be cheerleaders [sic] for one political party a rich faith tradition is badly damaged and loses its prophetic voice.” I do not recall any of the bishops that she has critiqued having endorsed any candidate or political party; rather, they have spoken clearly on the profound evil of abortion and how the Catholic electorate needs to consider this weighty issue. By contrast, she is the one, from her position as a university teacher, who has been a “cheerleader” of a particular party and its presidential candidate.
Her assertions are mystifying until she reaches the conclusion of her brief essay. Then her double standard of “freedom for me but not for thee” becomes clear, and the mystery disappears. She concludes her posting by stating that, “Catholic clergy should reaffirm their essential role as moral leaders, and leave partisanship behind.” What she does not seem to understand is that they have; however, she is the one who has taken up the cause of partisanship which does not appear to trouble her in the least.

When Pope Paul VI concluded the proceedings of the Second Vatican Council in 1965, he stated to the civil leaders of the world that the Church asked only one thing from them: freedom. Apparently, Professor Cahill expects this freedom for herself, but she is unwillingly to grant it to those whose duty it is to teach and lead the Church to which she professes that she belongs. What she has asserted for herself and denied others, including the Church’s leadership, is the real disturbing trend for both religion and democracy as we approach November 4. - RJA sj

My question: when will one of them respond to this counter-criticism? When will one of these vocal "bishop-hushers" answer why they are not in fact using a double-standard methodology?

I'm waiting, and it seems like I'm always waiting.

Just Awkward

In this NYT article which describes the "infighting" taking place between liberal and traditional Catholics leading up to the November election, I can't help but feel awkward everytime Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good are mentioned. For instance:

The liberal groups are trying to distribute their material through direct mail and at meetings of lay Catholic groups.

Alexia Kelley, executive director of Catholics in Alliance, said her organization was spending more than $250,000 on radio, print and billboard advertisements in Scranton and other heavily Catholic areas. The advertisements emphasize what Ms. Kelley described as the broader spectrum of Catholic concerns about the “common good,” including health care, jobs and home foreclosures.

Why awkward? Because I'm trying to figure out how much of those funds came from pro-abortion hyper-activist George Soros. Even when they deny it has, they say they would accept it.

I mean, it really takes the wind out of their sails whenever they try to claim this is "infighting" between sincere Catholics.

Actually, "poaching" strikes me as the more accurate term to describe their efforts.

Quote of the Day: "Nimble Catholics"

From a Chicago Tribune piece on pro-Obama Catholics:

"Catholics have, historically, been nimble at finding loopholes in church doctrine, ways to deftly excuse themselves from the guilt of lesser sins skipping church, swearing, eating meat on Fridays. Abortion is a much steeper hill to climb."

This gives me a new phrase: "Nimble Catholics."