Action: Oppose the Chai Feldblum nomination

Over at APP we're launching a project to stop the nomination of Chai Feldblum. I think AmP readers will have a special interest in our efforts because Belmont Abbey College is mentioned in the press release:

Today the American Principles Project and its sister organization American Principles in Action urged concerned Americans to contact their Senators over the impending confirmation of Chai Feldblum to a five year post on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). [read more.]

We have also written a "Simple Case against Chai Feldblum" laying out the case for why we oppose her nomination. 

Please join our efforts and take action in opposing her nomination here at American Principles in Action. There is also a Facebook group to help spread the word. 

If you want one example of why Chai is bad news for religious institutions (like Belmont Abbey College) in particular, take a look at this post: "Video: Chai Feldbum says Government should promote "gay sex is morally good."

I've written two posts for AmP on the situation of the EEOC persecuting Belmont Abbey College:

• Belmont Abbey College in hot water for daring not to pay for contraception 
  
• Surprise: Washington behind forcing Belmont Abbey to pay for contraception
  

Just imagine what would happen if Chai Feldblum is successfully appointed to the EEOC.

Luckily for Belmont Abbey College, they've retained the services of the Becket Fund. The Becket Fund is helping them out pro-bono, so if you want to support the Becket Fund's fine work then please click here and help support them.

I'm sure the Becket Fund wouldn't mind being put out of business (as far as defending religious institutions from government intervention), but looking at the times we live in, that's probably not going to happen any time soon.

Anti-Catholicism: Experts continue to question Catholics on the Supreme Court

A sad reminder of what Catholics in public office still face:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito voiced frustration Tuesday over what he called persistent questions about the court's Roman Catholic majority.

Alito aired the topic in a speech to an Italian-American law group in Philadelphia.

"There has been so much talk lately about the number of Catholics serving on the Supreme Court," Alito said in a speech to the Justinian Society. "This is one of those questions that does not die."

Alito complained about "respectable people who have seriously raised the questions in serious publications about whether these individuals could be trusted to do their jobs."

He said he thought the Constitution settled the question long ago with its guarantee of religious freedom.

Alito, 59, the son of an Italian immigrant, is one of six justices on the nine-member court who were raised Catholic, including new Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

... The Roman Catholic Church endorses positions on several high-profile legal issues, including abortion, the death penalty and gay marriage. Some commentators have argued that Catholics in the court's conservative voting bloc — Chief John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Alito — are likely to oppose abortion or otherwise apply Catholic teachings to their rulings. (AP)

Three quick thoughts:

• The elephant in the room here is social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. No one would complain about Catholics stacking the supreme court bench if they all were liberal on their views about these issues. No one complains about how many Catholics Obama has appointed to his administration, because all of his appointments agree with his liberal views on these issues. As I've said before, the kind of Catholic the President likes, is a bad Catholic (a "bad Catholic" is someone who actively dissents from the Church's teaching).
• Catholics on the supreme court who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage do not do so because they are Catholic, they do this because they can think. Catholic opposition to practices which harm human life and society are enlightened by faith through reason, not dictated by faith in opposition to reason. The bottom line here is that you don't have to be Catholic to oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. But it can help your conviction.
• The recent case of Sonia Sotomayor's nomination is a perfect illustration of the ulterior purpose behind this stupid claim that there are "too many Catholics on the supreme court." The fact that Sotomayor promised to uphold the unjust precedent established by Roe v. Wade - and was never fundamentally challenged to express her opinion about homosexual marriage - guaranteed that pundits would not go after her too much for her religion. If she promised to uphold the natural law conclusions about the dignity of human life and the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage, things would have been very different.

Bottom line: there is no reason to accuse Catholics of being bad for America. Such a charge is always a cheap-shot which ignores the substantive arguments that Catholics bring into the debate, and the long tradition of public service that today's Catholics are proud to continue.

It's time to face our arguments, not accuse our religion.

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.

What I'm reading today in Catholic issues and Politics

Dan Gilgoff's USNEWS & World Report blog is a great place to keep up on news relating to religion and US politics, as I've written before.

There's a little kerfuffle today about Kathleen Sebelius appearing on ABC's This Week over the weekend and repeating Obama's promises about abortion funding not being in his health care reform.

Quick take: nothing to see here. The status quo hasn't changed - the current health care reform will fund abortion.

Gilgoff also has an interview with the most conservative member of Obama's faith council, who won't even rule out resigning because he feels he's so ineffective there.

(As an aside, Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest is being honored with a meeting attended by "Domestic Policy Council Director Melody Barnes and White House Director for Public Liaison Tina Tchen, both of whom are strong abortion advocates" - strong abortion advocates, you know, like everyone in Obama's administration.)

At the end of this week I'll be attending the annual Values Voter summit, which Gilgoff describes this way:

Sure, the 2012 election is still a ways off, but the Christian right is about to begin flexing its muscle in the race, with a presidential straw poll scheduled for next week's big Values Voter Summit.

Spearheaded by Family Research Council Action, the summit has become the key annual get-together for conservative Christian activists. After splintering among a handful of candidates in the 2008 Republican primaries, from Mike Huckabee to Mitt Romney to Rudy Giuliani (that's right—Pat Robertson endorsed him) , some Christian right leaders are eager to consolidate movement support behind a single candidate in 2012.

Dan also has a poll for his readers, asking them which candidate they would support.

There is some chance that former congressman (Catholic) Rick Santorum will run for President in 2012.

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.

Sotomayor, sixth Catholic justice, nominated by Obama to Supreme Court

Consider this an open thread.

There are many, many links to follow on the Sotomayer announcement, but what is most interesting to me (and fellow papists), is her religious affiliation:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has much to distinguish her, but one element of her biography stands out in the world of those interested in religion and the public square: she is Catholic, and, if approved as a Supreme Court justice, she will be the sixth Catholic on the nine-member court. That is a remarkable accomplishment for American Catholics, who make up 23 percent of the nation's population, and will now potentially hold 67 percent of the high court's seats. Two of the justices are Jewish; the resignation of Justice David Souter, who is an Episcopalian, will leave, amazingly given the history of this nation, just one Protestant on the Supreme Court, 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens. (Michael Paulson at the Boston Globe)

I'll refrain from further comment at this point, but it would be unfair to deny the opportunity for AmP readers to weigh-in. So have at it.

As an important note, pro-life organizations are quickly responding to the nomination. Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life, says:

“A vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court Justice is a vote to strip Americans of the ability to choose for themselves how to regulate abortion. Our recent polling data speaks to this point of judicial activism and as a woman, I don't believe she 'represents' American women.”

Related: Carl Anderson, head of the Knights of Columbus, has a compelling op-ed today; "Golden Opportunity to Move Beyond the Legacy of Roe v. Wade" over at their news blog Headline Bistro.

Bishop tells outspoken CA priest to "cool it" on Obama sermons

Incendiary:

"San Diego Bishop Robert Brom has asked an outspoken Escondido priest to tone down his fierce criticism of the Obama Administration, prompting supporters of the priest to launch a letter-writing campaign to the bishop on his behalf.

On Feb. 11, California Catholic Daily reprinted an article – “100 Days or End of Days?” -- from the parish bulletin of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Escondido written by Pastor Richard Perozich. In the article, Fr. Perozich warned that “evil has acceded to power” in the Obama Administration. (To see the article behind the controversy, Click Here.)

Sources at St. Mary’s told California Catholic Daily that a family from the parish-administered St. Mary’s School had complained to the chancery about the article. An intermediary, acting on behalf of Bishop Brom, then contacted Fr. Perozich by telephone, sources said, and told him to “cool it.” Aside from that single complaint, sources said, “the overwhelming opinion of parishioners has been favorable.” (California Catholic Daily)

I have some personal experience of Fr. Perozich's energetic ministry style. While I don't agree with everything he said in his letter (I only had time to skim it), I think what is at issue is not so much what he said, but that he said it - people are not used to hearing their priests vocally "naming names" in this manner. Also, an important note: this is what Fr. Perozich said in a homily - he published it in his parish bulletin.

Still, the problem with impassioned rhetorical language about these issues is that such statements tend to come across as irrational, thus doing a disservice to the principled versions of these sentiments.

Obama's official faith tour ... flops?

The Christian Broadcasting Network had the scoop on the plan:

An official with Barack Obama’s campaign tells The Brody File that beginning next week the campaign will start an official faith tour in key battleground states called “Barack Obama: Faith, Family and Values Tour”. The subheading of the tour is as follows: “Voting ALL Our Values”

The Brody File is told that top faith surrogates will hit the trail for Obama. Some of those high profile figures include Former Indiana Congressman and pro-life Democrat Tim Roemer, Catholic legal scholar Doug Kmiec, and author Donald Miller.

But the early word from one source is that only 15 people showed up for the first event.

Can anyone add any details to this picture?

Biden Gave Average 369-dollars Annually To Charity

Geez:

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

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

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

So much for tithing.

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

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

And in case that sentence seems hazy to you:

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

Three-tenths of one percent of his income?!

Geez.

Friday Funny Cartoon

"Archbishop Chaput’s book makes NYT Best Seller List"

And he beats Joe Biden's book:

Just three weeks into the publication of “Render Unto Caesar,” Archbishop Charles Chaput’s new book has made the New York Times Best Seller list. The archbishop’s book is currently one place ahead of “Promises to Keep,” written by Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden. (CNA)

I see that having Render Unto Caesar as my AmP book of the month is making a difference! :)

Question: is Sarah Palin pro-contraception?

AmP reader Nicole raised the question, but the evidence I've been able to find so far is shaky.

The only source directly claiming Palin is pro-contraception that I've been able to find is an Anchorage Daily News article from 2006 (underlining mine):

In 2002, when she was running for lieutenant governor, Palin sent an e-mail to the anti-abortion Alaska Right to Life Board saying she was as "pro-life as any candidate can be" and has "adamantly supported our cause since I first understood, as a child, the atrocity of abortion."

Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life.

"I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life," she said.

So far I've not been able to find a single corroborating source for the claim that she is pro-contraception.

CNA, reporting on Feminists for Life's reaction to the news that Sarah Palin was the GOP VP-pick, quotes their President as saying the following:

Palin’s beliefs mesh well with Feminists for Life’s goal of “systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion” and “doing so through women centered solutions.” The vice presidential nominee explained that she believes “no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child.”

While Palin, a non-denominational Protestant, is anti-abortion, she is in support of contraception, a position that lies beyond the scope of FFL’s mission, [FFL President] Ms. Foster said.

Now, point #2: Palin appears to be pro-abstinence education.

There is, for instance, this response to a questionnaire she answered in 2006:

Question: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Sarah Palin: "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

The original source for this response has been taken down, but is still in the Google cache.

So... Sarah Palin is against teaching and distributing contraception in educational settings but is for contraception in general? How does that match up? Is she for teaching abstinence but, if that fails, allows resorting to contraception, especially within marriage? Sadly, that might be the most likely explanation.

In any case, I think it's an important question to ask, and as I've said, the public record is shaky, at best.

... is there more to the story?

Abp. Chaput continues to steal spotlight from DNC

The Washington Times reports:

In retrospect, maybe the Democrats should have included Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput in their convention activities after all.

The party was accused of deliberately snubbing the outspoken archbishop by failing to invite him to lead prayers or participate on its religion panels. Archbishop Chaput is the leader of Denver´s estimated 385,000 Catholics, the area´s largest religious denomination.

But Archbishop Chaput may have gotten the last laugh. Democrats are doing a slow burn over the archbishop´s headline-grabbing criticism of party bigwigs and his decision to schedule major events this week during the convention´s prime-time speeches.

Gosh, the DNC organizers must be so annoyed.

Here's what Abp. Chaput has been up to ...

• The DNC schedules Clinton and Biden to speak on Wednesday night?

On the same night: "Archbishop Chaput drew hundreds to a signing of his newest book, “Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life,” at a bookstore about 15 miles from the Pepsi Center."

• How about three nights ago, the debut night of the DNC rally?

"Archbishop Chaput led a pro-life rally and prayer march outside a Planned Parenthood office in north Denver that started at 7:30 MST, about the same time as Michelle Obama, wife of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, was speaking to the convention."

Now that's guts, and brains.

I refuse to join Catholics United

Today, upon the occasion of Joe Biden's selection as Barack Obama's vice-presidential candidate, I received a press release from the executive director of Catholics United, which claims to be a ...

"non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting the message of justice and the common good found at the heart of the Catholic Social Tradition."

I wish I could agree this is in reality the case. First, let's take a look at their press release, briefly:

"Catholics United believes Senator Biden’s selection as vice presidential candidate is a positive development for Americans who respect leaders who have strong religious, family, and personal values. Senator Biden’s well-known commitment to his Catholic faith has inspired his advocacy on issues such as genocide, universal health care, education, workers’ rights, and violence against women. His faith has helped him to find solace during times of tragedy and crisis.”

Notably absent: defense of the unborn. I'm sorry, but nothing is closer to the "heart of the Catholic Social Tradition" than the dignity and right of all human beings to life. Next:

“We are optimistic that Senator Biden’s history of seeking practical means of addressing abortion will help move our nation beyond the divisive, acrimonious, and unproductive debate that has come to surround the issue. Senator Biden accepts his church’s teachings on human life and can work to advance these teachings in ways that Americans of all political persuasions can support.”

Biden's "practical means of addressing abortion" have been, historically, to allow and never restrict it. His choices continue the debate on abortion because he has not actually helped "address" the problem at all.

Now here's my favorite paragraph:

“Catholics United is especially hopeful that operatives on the far right will refrain from using Senator Biden’s faith and the teachings of the Catholic Church as political weapons in the coming campaign. Faith and values should be used to unite Americans behind solutions to the key challenges of this age – war, poverty, lack of health care, and a looming climate crisis – and not as partisan wedges to divide voters.”

You've got to be kidding me. Clearly this organization defines the "heart of the Catholic Social Tradition" to be silencing the actual "teachings of the Catholic Church," ignoring the need to live one's faith even in the public forum, and excluding the defense of human life from the "key challenges of this age."

For an organization that claims to be non-partisan, why exactly does everything in these three paragraphs seem like it is lifted directly from this year's democrat playbook on faith and religion?

Not convinced? The author of this press release, Chris Korzen...

• recently took part in a Democratic conference call (along side promininant pro-Obama Catholic Douglas Kmiec) to prepare for the upcoming national convention. [source]
• is the guy behind the defunct "Catholic Voting Projet", which Karl Keating accurately pointed out claimed to be run by "nonpartisan," [indeed - 'committed' Catholics] but their web site has a clear bias in favor of John Kerry." Karl Keating systematically destroys Korzen's claims to be non-partisan and "Catholic".
• frequently tries to marginalize conservative Catholics, claiming them to be GOP shills.
• writes for ultra-liberal Huffington Post claiming that McCain is getting a free ride for flirting with pro-abortion politicians, and this somehow shows that he isn't truly pro-life.
• again, writes for ultra-liberal Huffington Post, this time claiming "Extremists Pressure Catholic Bishops to Use Communion as Political Weapon"

Okay, enough links. My point: Chris Korzen is yet another liberal democrat masquerading as a "non-partisan/big-tent" Catholic.

Honestly, just look through the Catholics United recent posts and try to find a single post that isn't critical of republicans and supportive of democrats.

(All of this is bad enough, but I really start scratching my head when Catholics United and Chris Korzen are uncritically included, for instance, in CNS blog coverage ... did they do no research?)

I don't get angered by liberals disagreeing with the social teachings of the Church. I don't get especially angered at Catholics dissenting from the teachings of the Church, as long as they admit they are dissenting. But I do get angry, and cannot tolerate, when liberal Catholics falsely claim their opinions to be in harmony with the Church's social teaching when in fact they are not.

That's really the only reason Catholics United deserves any of my time. And I refuse to join them.

Video: Pro-Obama ad features Catholic theologian Lisa Cahill

AmP Reader Damian of Conservathink notes the inclusion of Catholic theologian Lisa Sowle Cahill in a pro-Obama ad which implictly criticizes John McCain's poor marriage record. This ad played on CNN (and possibly MSNBC) during Saturday's values forum.

Over at ultra-liberal haven Daily Kos, someone from the Matthew 25 Network - the team that put this ad together - claims it is "the first time clergy have appeared in a [television] commercial to speak out in support of a Democratic Presidential Candidate." It describes Cahill as "one of the biggest names in Theology Today. Lisa Cahill is a major voice for Catholic Women, and will be a great voice for Barack in the coming month."

Cahill made it onto the AmP radar last November when she "predictably [made] the case for continuing the status quo in regards to the USCCB's public instruction on voting, pro-abort politicians, receiving Communion, etc." Obviously, the USCCB did not follow her advice in their publication of Faithful Citizenship.

Well, Cahill is back in the public eye:

She is described in this video as a "Catholic theologian", or at least Boston College thinks so.

This is her script:

Cahill: "He understands the pressures families are under. And what it takes to help families thrive."

Unfortunately, one of Obama's solution to the pressures families are under ... is to abort their offspring, even through partial birth abortion.

Matthew 25, meanwhile, promises "In the coming months you will see more ads spots in various formates on Torture, the Poverty, the AIDS crisis, and the Environment from us."

... and yet no mention of moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research.

Ph/t: Hot Air, which asks:

Exit question: Which opportunistic reversal is more shameless? Democrats suddenly deciding that infidelity is a serious electoral issue or Democrats suddenly deciding that no, on second thought, military experience isn’t essential in a commander-in-chief?

Now that's a new take on Obama's "new politics."

And do note that this video is an example of Obama's outreach efforts to Catholics and other Christians. Does it strike you as genuine?

nota bene: Obama's prime vice presidential candidate is a pro-abortion Catholic - Tim Kaine.

"Massachusetts House repeals law restricting same-sex marriages to residents"

The homosexual lobby moves quickly:

In what marriage advocates called “part of a cynical strategy to inflict same-sex marriage on the unwilling citizens of other states,” the Massachusetts House on Tuesday voted by a margin of 119 to 36 to repeal a 1913 law that blocked marriage licenses from being granted to same-sex couples from out-of-state.

The Senate approved the repeal earlier in July, meaning the measure now requires one more procedural vote in each chamber of the legislature before it is sent to Governor Deval Patrick, who has said he will sign the measure.

Massachusetts became the first state to permit homosexual marriage in 2004, but then-Governor Mitt Romney ordered town and city clerks to follow a 1913 law that prohibits couples from marrying if the unions would be illegal in their home states.

At the time, Romney argued that repealing the law would turn the state into the “Las Vegas of gay marriage.”

The Catholic Action League denounced the House vote in a Tuesday statement, calling it “part of a cynical strategy to inflict same-sex marriage on the unwilling citizens of other states without the consent of the electorate.” (CNA)

And Catholics helped:

Doyle also lamented Catholic politicians’ involvement in passing the law.

“Today, a majority of Catholics in the Massachusetts House of Representatives voted again in favor of homosexual marriage. There is a growing sense of outrage among faithful Catholics over the conduct of nominally Catholic politicians who repudiate fundamental Catholic moral teachings about the sanctity of human life and the integrity of traditional marriage. There is also a growing sense of urgency that this scandal must be brought to an end.”

AmP Speaking Appearance: Madison, WI Theology on Tap

Sharp-eyed readers have noticed that this event is already featured on the AmP sidebar. Today I received a copy of the ad the Cathedral Parish in Madison is running in satirical newspaper (and locally-published) The Onion:

Click here for larger version. If anyone wants to help spread the word, here's the PDF file. More info here.

Mark your calendar and invite your friends, and see you in Madison!

Picture: The Obama New Yorker Cover

Being talked about, oh, just about everywhere today:

Okay, so it's pretty straightforward. The New Yorker folks decided to take every scare-mongering claim about Obama and his wife Michelle and turned it into a cartoon, as a satire (with one exception - see below).

Thing of it is, most every liberal websites and blogs aren't laughing, and neither are Obama's folks.

Of course, the New Yorker satirist/cartoonists failed to include any depiction of Obama's (and Michelle's) pro-abortion track record. After all, burning flags and pictures of Osama Bin Laden are one thing, but corpses of aborted infants?

I guess that's just too much satire even for New Yorker staffers.

Plus, it's not satire.

Obama's director of Catholic outreach dodges Catholic radio

Nick Thomm, who recently facilitated my appearance on Al Kresta's program, was recently given the run around by the director of "Catholic Outreach for Obama":

Mark Linton, director of Catholic Outreach for the Obama Campaign, refused to appear on a Catholic radio show to explain Obama’s views regarding abortion and address his accusations of supporting infanticide.

...

After successfully contacting Hudson, Thomm was unable to find a contact number for Linton on the party’s website. When he contacted Obama’s Senate office, he told that they couldn’t give out Linton’s phone number and that he would have to send Linton an email.

After sending Linton an email on Monday afternoon and another Tuesday morning, Thomm called Senator Obama’s office once again to try and reach Linton in time for Kresta’s 4 p.m. (ET) radio show.

Thomm explained that when he called Obama’s senate office he told the Obama staffer, “we have no choice but to think that he’s trying dodge us. He’s supposed to be a National Catholic Outreach coordinator and we’re a Catholic radio show, so who’s he doing outreach to?” (CNA)

Meanwhile, McCain's folks are actively courting the Catholic vote:

John McCain is preparing to ramp up his efforts to reach out to Catholic voters with a “very, very aggressive” campaign, spearheaded by his newly created Catholic Outreach Coalition.

Frank Donatelli, the Deputy Chairman of the Republican National Committee, spoke to reporters and Catholic media on a conference call this morning about the efforts that the McCain campaign is planning to reach Catholic voters.

Donatelli described the Catholic Outreach Coalition, chaired by Sen. Sam Brownback and Frank Keating, as “first-rate” and said that it will be “very well-funded.” (CNA)

Why the disparity? Why does the McCain campaign seem so much more "at home" talking to Catholics about the issues that matter most? And why does Obama's supposed appeal among religious voters seemingly falter when it comes to Catholics? And finally, why do Obama's defenders rarely, if ever, consent to debating their candidate's positions in a free public forum?

And finally, why isn't the answer to all these questions "because Obama's platform is less acceptable to Catholics than McCain's platform, and Obama's people know it."?

Okay, have at it.

Photo: South Carolina plans license plate for Christians

Coming to a highway near you? Perhaps:

Unless a federal court intervenes, South Carolina drivers may soon be able to profess their Christian faith with a state-issued license plate.

The state plans to issue plates featuring a Christian cross and the words "I Believe," but a group advocating the separation of church and state says that goes too far.

A similar design had been considered by Florida's lawmakers, but it was rejected there because of concerns over separation of church and state.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State {anyone else find this title ironic?}, which includes Christian, Jewish and Hindu clergy, filed a federal lawsuit last month. The group contends that the plates violate the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against government favoring one religion over another religion or non-religion.

... Lynn's group said in a news release "that other religions will not be able to get similar license plates expressing differing viewpoints, nor can a comparable 'I Don't Believe' license plate be issued. (CNN)

Would you buy one?

Religion and Politics: the big (and changing?) picture

Plenty happening here, and quickly. Again, too much to go into at this point, but here's what I'm reading:

First off, Obama is off to a 15% lead in recent polling.

David Gibson, meanwhile, sees in recent data a shift by Catholics away from the Republican party.

CNA takes a look at the numbers on its own.

On the major networks, commentators are making their play, and hard. Matthew Balan at News Busters takes a look at a few of these episodes, most of which I actually managed to catch live as I was travelling today.

Now if I could just get an uninterrupted space of time to reflect on all this. Help me out and start us out.

Obama, Dobson, Catholics & Evangelicals: a recap

With a scant four months to go before the presidential election, things are popping into high gear.

First off, Dobson rips Obama for intentionally distorting Scripture.

Deacon Fournier looks at what's happening, and has some good stuff to say.

Frank Schaeffer, meanwhile, surveys the situation from a polar-opposite perspective.

William McGurn, however, gets closer to the real heart of the issue in the WSJ.

With stories like this likely to proliferate and grow, I'm going to hold off throwing my two cents into the ring until I've had a bit of time to do the homework. This won't be the last story on these topics, to be sure.

"Catholic League declares end to Rev. Hagee controversy"

Proof that, yes, apologies can put some things to rest.

Or at least should.

Not like we'll see any apologies on this one, however.

John Allen on what to take away from the pope's visit

And not just what the media can take away - what the Church should take away, too.

Sure, there is lots of details and (perhaps) foreign jargon and categories in Allen's piece.

But bottom line: good things happened, and there is potential for better things to take place.

Christian Post suggests Obama believes "Jesus Christ Not the Only Way to Heaven"

Jennifer Riley interpreting recent comments made by Barack Obama:

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that Jesus Christ is not the only way to heaven during a campaign event in North Carolina.

While answering a question about his Christian faith, Obama said he believes that Jesus Christ died for his sins and through God’s grace and mercy he could have “everlasting life,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

But he also believes Jews and Muslims and non-believers who live moral lives are as much “children of God” as he is, according to The Associated Press.

As an example, he spoke about his late mother who was “not a believer.”

The author seems to imply that Obama's comments should provoke a sharp response from Christians. I think, however, that she is missing a helpful distinction: while it is true that anyone who is saved from original sin is saved only in Jesus Christ, it is not true that every person need explicitly believe that truth in order to be saved.

This teaching answers the quandary posed by the hypothetical "noble pagan" or "noble savage" dilemma ("how can those who never had the opportunity of knowing Jesus Christ be saved from their sin?"). All Catholics can certainly hope that a Jew, Muslim or athiest might be saved in the mercy of Christ, while clearly we should also wish that they might come to know and believe in Jesus Christ if it is possible.

However, when pressed, would Obama say that Jesus is always the unique savior of every human being, even if He is only "clearly perceived in the things that have been made" (Rom 1:20)?

That's a question I can't answer for him.

Open Thread: Obama's speech

Quote: "I Can No More Disown [Rev. Wright] Than I Can Disown the Black Community"

CNN coverage.

Here is video (runs about 35 minutes):



Here is the full text of his speech.

Huge live-blogged post from MM.

My comments when I get a chance to watch it later tonight.

Info: "Role of Religion in Remaining Primaries"

A good article from the Christian Post.

[photo: AP Images / The News & Advance, Kim Raff]

Michigan Primary Open Thread

update, 9:05pm: Fox has called the primary for Romney, with McCain 2nd and Huckabee 3rd.

Ron Paul might get 4th....

==========

This post will be updated later once the returns are announced. In the meantime - it's open season.

"Who do you favor among the republican candidates, and why?" might be a good place to start....

My previous posts on the 2008 Presidential Race might also prove apt fodder for this sort of thing.

update 2: You can watch live, streamed video of the returns on CNN right here @ 8pm EST.

update 1:

• Yahoo! Photos slideshow of the Michigan primary
• Yahoo's interactive political dashboard for Michigan
• MSNBC: McCain, Romney in tight race as Mich. votes
• FOX: Angling for Gold, Mitt Romney Makes Final Plea in Michigan

Topical links:

• Rasmussen reports helpfully tell us Michigan is a toss-up between McCain and Romney.
• Meanwhile, Huckabee probably has a lock on 3rd, and Ron Paul might grab 4th ... Thompson and Guiliani somewhere in there at 5th/6th - how dismal.
• RealClearPolitics offers national polling numbers for the Republican canditates. McCain surging.

Media coverage:

• Romney Makes Final Michigan Pitch
• Independents Help McCain in Michigan
• National Review: The Real McCain Record
• NYT blog: An Uncommitted Vote?
• MSNBC blog: Romney's Mo' In Michigan
• USA Today: Romney seeks to place first in his native state
• U.S.News&WR: Romney Loves Michigan; Will It Love Him Back?

Oh well, one of those intense nail-biters that ... will be decided despite all our efforts in 24 hours anyway.

Breaking: Tom Monaghan endorses Mitt Romney

Tom Monaghan is the pizza tycoon who founded Domino's Pizza. While he is currently building a town and school in Naples, FL, he started his business and spent his career in Michigan, where Mitt Romney desperately needs a win come next Tuesday's primary.

Ironically, however, Monaghan has managed to rub so many Michiganders the wrong way that I can't forsee that his endorsement would help the Romney campaign very much at all. Indeed, it might hinder.

On this point, I disagree strongly with Hugh Hewitt who says that "Monaghan's decision to announce today is a clear signal to social conservatives that it is time to chose and get in the game" or again when he says that Monaghan is "leading the way that social conservatives should follow."

Frankly, I don't know anyone who considers Monaghan a political weathervane, let alone a mover and shaker. Monaghan has completely uprooted his empire from Michigan and gone south to Florida. And such a move can hardly be understood as a resounding vote of confidence in Michigan.

Monaghan's last endorsement, of pro-life Senator Sam Brownback, went promptly nowhere.

From the press release:

[Monaghan:] "It is an honor for me to endorse Governor Mitt Romney for President. He is a proven leader and has demonstrated his effectiveness in multiple arenas - in his successful business ventures, the running of the Olympics and in politics. I had first hand experience of Mitt's effectiveness and expertise during the sale of Domino's Pizza to Bain Capital," said Tom Monaghan. "Most importantly, Governor Romney is a man of principle. As someone who values the importance of faith in one's life, I recognize in Mitt his deep religious convictions which will serve him well in facing the critical moral issues facing our society. I believe he will stand firm on the pro-life issues and for the traditional family values that our country was founded on and which are so critical to the future of our nation."

With today's announcement, Governor Romney said, "Having known Tom since 1998, I am proud to have his support in this critical election. As a successful business man, he has also been a strong supporter of conservative causes across the country. His philanthropic work has touched the lives of millions."

I wonder who initiated the endorsement - Romney or Monaghan? I'm betting Romney.

Google news feed.

Reuters: "Huckabee seeks Catholic support"

Concord, NH:

Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee sees his conservative religious base as reaching beyond evangelical Protestants to Catholics as well.

Huckabee, an ordained Baptist preacher, won the Iowa caucus last week which kicks off the nominating process for the November presidential election, largely because of support from the state’s numerous evengelical community.

While campaigning in New Hampshire — where he is hoping for a solid third place finish in the state’s Tuesday primary — Huckabee told reporters on the bus on Monday that he felt his broad message resonated with many Catholics.

I just can't shake my unease about him. He managed a 3rd in NH yesterday. He's polling first or tied-for-first in upcoming Michigan and South Carolina. But McCain and Romney are putting up a fight.

Romney's speech: text, links, commentary

Busy day for me, so I can't comment at present. Here's the goods:

• Video excerpt
• Full text
• Reuters: Romney vows Mormon church would not run White House
• AssociatedPress: Romney: No Religious Test for President
• WashTimes: Romney notes 'common creed'

He only says the word "mormon" once. I think that tells plenty.

update: Jimmy Akin ain't impressed.

Romney pulls a Kennedy

Plenty of coverage to follow, but in the meantime, here's the superlink. He will speak Thursday.

• Via Mark Shea, "Drawing the Line for Mormons - A Closer Look at the LDS Church"

Really, there's far too much pre-coverage to report. Best to just sit tight and see what happens.

Knowing Romney, I would estimate "precious little." But if he feels he's playing for keeps, who knows?

If at first you don't succeed - ignore.

Andrew Greeley of the Chicago Sun-Times publishes an editorial today that follows a classic pattern:

• If the bishops say something I agree with, we should listen, even if no one else does.
• If the bishops say something I don't agree with, we shouldn't listen, because no one else does.

Case in point:

Let us assume that there are different candidates next November, maybe Michael Huckabee and Barack Obama. Does anyone think that the outcome of such an election could be affected in the slightest by a statement about abortion from Catholic bishops? No one who has studied Catholic attitudes and voting patterns over the past couple of decades could possibly believe that. Bishops have historically exercised political influence over the faithful that would not lead a pack of starving vampires to a blood bank.

The false premise here is the phrase "the last couple of decades." Well, let's try to expand our historical conciousness just a bit farther. Historically for most of American history, up until the last couple of decades, the public opinion of Catholic bishops held a very great weight in public discourse. For one thing, they taught clearly on the issues. Now, they are again teaching - um - less hazily on the issues.

Yes, it's terrifying that Catholics might listen. So terrifying that we should remind them they are not currently.

After all, it doesn't take much effort to lead a bunch of starving vampires to a blood bank (I'm guessing).

"Cardinal's criticism is met with silence by Democrats"

In 1935, Governor James Michael Curley was pushing hard for a bill to create a state lottery. The bill looked like it would sail through the Legislature. But on the eve of the vote, the afternoon papers carried stories of Cardinal William Henry O'Connell denouncing it.

"The next morning, it went down to crashing defeat," said James O'Toole, a history professor at Boston College.

It is the "mirror image," he observed, of the dynamic now. Last week, after Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley said the support of church members for Democrats "borders on scandal" because of the party's support for keeping abortion legal, most of the state's leading Catholic Democrats responded with silence. - Boston Globe

I think the democrats are hoping it all goes away. After all, they've succesfully marginalized the voice of the Catholic Bishops on moral issues for some time now and don't want to see it return.

Come on, boys, keep pushing!

Pope prayers for Bangladesh and rejects "recurring messianisms"

Amid news that Cyclone Sidr has left thousands dead in its wake, Pope Benedict said today:

"In renewing my profound condolences to the families and the whole nation, which is so dear to me ... I appeal for international solidarity, which has already moved to assist with immediate necessities. I ask that every possible effort be made to succor these sorely tried brothers."

The cyclone affected more than 2.7 million souls, and the death toll could reach between 5-10k. The U.S. is sending $2.1m in aid.

Not to diminish the magnitute of the current situation, but another storm in 1991 left over 143,000 dead. Rescue efforts appear to be going well. More from Associated Press. [update: the most recent reports paint a bleaker picture: here & here.]

Pope Benedict also rejected "recurring messianisms that claim the end of the world is imminent, saying instead that "history is ongoing, and involves human tragedies and natural calamities."

He continued, and CNA relates:

"Reflecting on the Gospel reading for this Sunday, the Holy Father recalled that, since its inception, the Church "prayerfully lives in the care of its Lord, scrutinizing the signs of the times and keeping the faithful on guard against the calls of messianisms, which from time to time announce the imminent end of the world".

""Actually, the Pontiff said, history must take its course, which also involves human tragedies and natural calamities. As time develops, the design of salvation that Christ has already taken effect in his incarnation, death and resurrection [becomes clearer]. This mystery is continually announced by the Church and actualized in her preaching, with the celebration of the sacraments and the testimony of charity."

Faced with the problems of life, "do not be afraid for the future," said the pope, who urged parishioners to accept "the invitation of Christ to face everyday events trusting his love."

AsiaNews.it also posts a summary.

"Many who claim that the end of the world is near"? I wonder if this applies to those who are saying:

• "The effects of climate change have become so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action will do. There is no time to waste." - The UN Secretary General
• [The report is] Saying [alarming possibilities are] less likely to occur, but if it does we are fried.” - Dr. Verolme, director of the World Wildlife Fund’s Global Climate Change Program
• These scenes are as frightening as a science fiction movie, but they are even more terrifying because they are real." - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, again

I wonder.

Guy Fawkes, the 5th of November, Ron Paul & $4.2 Million

Noteworthy Ron Paul news:

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $4.2 million in nearly 24 hours.

Paul, the Texas congressman with a libertarian tilt and an out-of-Iraq pitch, entered heady fundraising territory with a surge of Web-based giving tied to the commemoration of Guy Fawkes Day.

Fawkes was a British mercenary who failed in his attempt to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. He also was the model for the protagonist in the movie "V for Vendetta." Paul backers motivated donors on the Internet with mashed-up clips of the film on the online video site YouTube as well as the Guy Fawkes Day refrain: "Remember, remember the 5th of November." - Associated Press

Who's giving from among the 21,000 new donors, according to USA Today?

• The "Old Right," [such as] Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater Republicans.
• Gun-rights supporters (... Paul [is] "probably the strongest supporter of Second Amendment rights in the Congress").
• Progressives who want to end the Iraq war and are "sick of what they're getting from the Democrats."
• Social conservatives who oppose abortion.

This coming from Ron Paul spokesman Jesse Benton. Notice that last contingent?

The article also states that Ron Paul is "an outspoken opponent of abortion and the war in Iraq, and wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service."

A clarification from the Ron Paul camp in the NYT:

Mr. Paul did not support blowing up government buildings. “He wants to demolish things like the Department of Education,” Mr. Benton said, “but we can do that very peacefully, in a constructive manner.”

For my part, I feel it's almost obligatory as the AmericanPapist to laud the Ron Paul campaign's choice to embrace a famous papist plot as a spur to their own endeavours, but sadly certain inescapable historical particulars make such a reckless blanket endorsement from me far from laudable.

If you want a more intellectual treatment of this particular question, however, Catholics for Ron Paul has several excellent posts on the topic. See? This is why CFRP is such a useful endeavor. Praise and encouragement to all my fellow contributors. And let's continue to honestly discuss Ron Paul and the merits of his candidacy and platform.

Vatican continues to demand religious freedom for Christians in Muslim countries

... because freedom of religion has to work both ways:

A Vatican representative, speaking at a meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), has demanded recognition of religious freedoms in Muslim countries.

Msgr. Anthony Frontiero, the American-born Vatican representative at the OSCE, said that respect for religious freedom would entail allowing Christians to worship freely, and ending policies that bar Muslims from changing their religious affiliation.

The Vatican envoy's statement came after an Islamic leader had pushed for more concessions to Muslims living in Europe. Last week at an OSCE meeting in Madrid dedicated to the problem of "Islamophobia," the secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr Mousa, demanded that the Catholic cathedral in Cordoba, which was once a mosque, be opened once again for Islamic prayer services. [CWNews]

As for giving back Mezquita (or more properly, the Cathedral of the Assumption of the Virgin), let's talk about Hagia Sophia first, hmm?

Update: Pelosi defends refusal to put "God" on flag certificates

Backstory here. The Openers blog updates us:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today defended the Architect of the Capitol's refusal to permit use of the word "God" on official certificates enclosed with flags flown over the U.S. Capitol.

...Asked about the issue today at a press luncheon, Pelosi said the architect's policy was adopted because "people were asking for statements that not only were religious, beyond using the word God, but political as well."

..."It's not about being anti-religion," Pelosi said, noting that each day in the Capitol starts with a prayer. "It is just about what the architect thought was appropriate for him to proclaim in a certificate."

... [Re. Michael turner] said members of Congress vet the appropriateness of messages constituents request with the flags, and their discretion should be sufficient.

"We have the responsibility for these common sense issues that might arise with flag inscriptions and this one is basic," Turner said. "The architect has decided the word 'God' is offensive. This rule should not be allowed to stand."

Liberals decry government TV ad promoting teen abstinence

The latest TV public service message produced by 4parents.gov tries to support parents in talking to their kids about sex, and about "waiting 'till marriage" to have it.

I've been reading through the criticisms this ad has been receiving on such liberal blogs as Think Progress (not the most uplifting material, mind you, and often very vulgar).

It's amazing how hopping mad they get about the idea of the government promoting abstinence. (And also: what exactly is so wrong with telling parents to talk to their kids about sex?)

Their first general motif is "no one can be expected to make it to marriage without having sex, therefore the only option is to give them prophylactics." In the same sentence as criticizing "fundamentalists Christians", they themselves operate on a fundamentally false a priori.

Their second claim is that a recent federal report (large PDF file) concluded that current abstinence programs have had no effect on rates of sexual activity. From this report they have decided that all abstinence programs are futile, thanks to their enlightened humanism.

Actually, what the report demonstrates is that the current abstinence programs, trying to operate within a deluge of opposed mass media, lack of parental involvement, and virulent advocacy from groups like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the like ... are not working.

Reading through the report's Conclusion, there's plenty facts in it that the liberal blogs fail to mention. For instance, abstinence programs do not - as some have claimed - increase the chances of contracting an STD (p. 83). Neither is it accurate to say that there have been no gains in promoting abstinence. Instead, the report claims these gains are not statistically significant.

There are also gains in correct knowledge about STDs and the myths surrounding birth control (many teens apparently have been led to believe that birth control pills prevents STDs - it doesn't. And they accuse us of spreading misinformation).

The liberal blogs also, conveniently, fail to mention that final summary paragraph of the report:

This evaluation highlights the challenge faced by programs aiming to reduce adolescent sexual activity. Nationally, about half of all high school youth report having had sex, and more than one in five students report having had four or more sexual partners by the time they complete high school. One-quarter of sexually active adolescents nationwide have an STD, and many STDs are lifelong viral infections with no cure. Findings from this study speak to the continued need for rigorous research on how to combat the high rate of teen sexual activity and its negative consequences.

Given this situation, the liberals' answer is ... more condoms?! My, that's facing facts honestly.

Granted, I'm not trying to endorse abstinence programs as they are currently taught. I know very little about the situation. I do know, however, that addressing the cause of a problem (sexual promiscuity) is better than addressing the symptoms of a problem (teen pregnancy and rampant STDs), so - in theory - abstinence, simply from an abstract point of view, would seem better suited to addressing the probem.

Of course, at the same time, abstinence cut-off from an adequate understanding of human sexuality, marriage, family, anthropology and theology is a very weak construct. No wonder it's failing.

Pro-abortion democrats' statement on excommunication still drawing fire

As it should.

LifeSiteNews adds more & Fr. Pavone says they should resign:

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, responded, "Faithful Catholics, as well as those in the pro-life movement from every denomination, have had enough of this double-talk. It is not possible to advance 'respect for life and for the dignity of every human being' while tolerating the dismemberment and decapitation of the human beings still in their mothers' wombs. These legislators do not only contradict their faith; they contradict the very meaning of public service, and should not be in public office any longer. If they cannot muster the will to protect defenseless children, they should resign. We don't need public servants who can't tell the difference between serving the public and killing the public."

Fr. Pavone added that Priests for Life will deliver to the offices of these legislators detailed medical descriptions of the abortion procedures and will challenge them to publicly acknowledge that when they say "abortion," they are talking about the same thing described in those medical texts, that is, the dismemberment and decapitation of tiny humans. Priests for Life will likewise share this information with every Federal and State legislator in the country

This topic has been previously blogged about here.

The Comedy of Errors Continues

Update: Thanks to reader "jvaskov" for finding the full text of the statement.

From The Hill:

A group of House Democrats yesterday publicly repudiated the Pope’s recent suggestion that politicians who support abortion rights should be excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.

Eighteen House Democrats, led by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), are responding to Pope Benedict XVI’s statement that indicated he would support Mexican bishops if they were to excommunicate Mexican legislators who voted last month to legalize abortion in Mexico City.

...

“We are concerned with the Pope’s recent statement warning Catholic elected officials that they risk excommunication and would not receive communion for their pro-choice views,” the lawmakers said in a statement issued yesterday. “Advancing respect for life and for the dignity of every human being is, as our church has taught us, our own life’s mission.”

...

“I’ve always thought also that those bishops and archbishops who for decades hid pederasts and are now being protected by the Vatican should be indicted,” said Catholic Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who spoke to reporters last week.

...

The House Democrats’ letter mirrors a “statement of principles” that 55 Democrats, encompassing a broad ideological swath of the caucus, signed last year [and which I blogged about here.]. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), who is Catholic, signed the letter, as did anti-abortion rights Reps. Bart Stupak (Mich.) and Jim Langevin (R.I.).

First, before Rosa DeLauro and her seventeen compadres got too worked up, they might have listened to the subsequent clarifications that came from the Vatican. Now they just look foolish and uninformed for protesting something that they aren't (currently) actually being threatened with. It does raise an interesting point, however. Perhaps they thought that Pope Benedict withdrew from his comments about excommunication because of pressure, and were hoping to further pressure Pope Benedict from his comments regarding denying oneself the Eucharist (though, in fact, as I understand it, he is on solid ground with the later but shakier ground on the former. You're invited to read a far more informed analysis of that situation here).

Second, their absurd statement about the fact that "Advancing respect for life and for the dignity of every human being" is "as our church has taught us, our own life’s mission" completely begs the question about their pro-abortion stance, and really, throws it in the recipient's face.

Third, how exactly would excommunication "offend the very nature of the American experiment"? I presume they are talking about separation of church and state. Well, if one's religion is a personal issue (as they continually argue), then how can a censure (or less than that - an admission of unworthiness to receive the Eucharist) in that personal arena have effects on the person's public and political persona? Sorry - you can't have it both ways. Either your religion and personal opinions matter or they don't.

At any rate, I'm so tired of this kind of defiance (really, this gunning for a fight) from these flagrantly pro-abortion Democrats. And seriously, with this kind of manifest, public opposition to the Church's teachings and authority to guard the Sacraments as well as apply medicinal penalties, how can any of the politicians who signed this document be given the Eucharist?!

(If anyone finds the full document please give me a head's-up. thank you.)

Update: Day Two links...

• CWNews: House Democrats rap Pope's stand against pro-abortion pols
• CNA: Giuliani says he will not challenge Pope on abortion-Communion
• LifeSiteNews: Pro-Abortion Members of Congress Blast Pope Benedict on Excommunication

And from the other side...

• Daily Women's Health Policy: House Democrats Respond to Pope's Comments About Politicians Who Support Abortion Rights
• Los Angeles Times ed: Vatican putting a spin on the Pope
• Relgion News Service: Catholic Dems protest Pope's abortion comments

And actually, Maggie Gallagher had some good words to give:

The truth is these amateur Washington theologians have it exactly backward. Separation of church and state does not mean elected officials get to tell religious leaders to whom they must give religious sacraments, on pain of public excommunication from "the American experiment."

You want to know what "separation of church and state" means on this issue? Consult a Mormon venture capitalist. At the first GOP debate earlier this month, Chris Matthews asked former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney what he says to Roman Catholic bishops who withhold communion from Catholic politicians, and whether they are "interfering with public life?"

Romney shot back: "I don't say anything to Roman Catholic bishops. They can do whatever the heck they want. Roman Catholic bishops are in a private institution, a religion ... I can't imagine a government telling a church who can have communion in their church. We have separation of church and state, and it's served us well."

Amen to that.