Epic fail: LA Times claims fake catholic group's statement was issued by USCCB

Memo to the Los Angeles Times: fire Kim Geiger, and fire her editor while you are at it.

The Catholic News Agency has identified this article published five days ago by the Los Angeles Times which falsely attributes two quotes authored by the fake "catholic" group Catholics United to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

As of this writing, the error is still uncorrected on their website. Did the entire staff decide to take a vacation? 

This mistake is either laziness or manipulation on the part of the author, and to such a serious degree as to warrant a correction and an apology, and soon.

The error is also disturbing because it plays into the propensity of some news outlets to create/allow confusion over what is the true position of the US bishops on this sensitive and critical issue of health care reform. 

On the day of the health care debate last weekend I pointed out that the website Politico, which is very popular among DC political operatives and hill staffers, had misleading blog posts and a misleading cover story/headline for the majority of the day, claiming that the US bishops had "signed off" on PelosiCare. 

The danger here was that hill staffers would relay the misleading information they read on Politico to their bosses who would then go to vote on the floor thinking that the US bishops had signed off on health care reform in the format it was being voted on at that time, when in actual fact the bishops still opposed it.

In any case, an error of this magnitude should simply be corrected, and immediately.

The LATimes author can be contacted at kgeiger@latimes.com. {update - her email address has apparently been disabled or her inbox is full. - you can still email their complaints department readers.rep@latimes.com}

[Get Religion has also blogged on this boondoggle.]

Oh, and for the record, Chris Korzen and all his buddies at Catholics United, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and Catholics for Choice are a bunch of self-serving, duplicitous parasites and I'll be happy to debate their campaign of distortions and misinformation any time someone wants to sponsor it. I say this with all charity because it's the truth. They are paid to confuse and deceive Catholics and they should be ashamed for it.

Here's a taste of what Chris and his allies are up to - and it's not serving the Church.

L'Osservatore Romano issues fawning tribute to Michael Jackson?

What the heck is going on with L'Osservatore Romano these days? Who is commissioning these embarrassing articles, and who is allowing them to go to print?! 

Zenit reports on the latest debacle:

Michael Jackson will never die "in the imagination of [his] fans," the Vatican's semi-official newspaper said after news spread of the pop star's death.

Marcello Filotei wrote this Friday in L'Osservatore Romano, comparing the death of the 50-year-old "King of Pop" to that of Elvis Presley.

Jackson died Friday of cardiac arrest at a Los Angelus hospital.

Noting how Jackson was a "child prodigy" with an "extraordinary soul voice," Filotei acknowledged the pop star's many successes, such as his megahit 1982 album "Thriller," "known even by those unfamiliar with this genre of music." The album continues to rank as the best-selling album of all time.

The writer acknowledged elements of the singer's life that drew wide criticism, such as his many plastic surgeries that changed his appearance radically, his increasingly pale complexion, and the allegations of pedophilia in 1993 and 2005. Jackson settled out of court in 1993, and was found not guilty of all charges in 2005.

"But no accusation, however serious or shameful, is enough to tarnish his myth among his millions of fans throughout the entire world," wrote Filotei.

Imagine how strange it would be to see such an editorial in your parish newspaper. Well, the above piece is appearing in the "parish newspaper" of the universal Church. That last line of Filotei's, in particular, sends the wrong message by falling into the current hysterical, cult-of-personality ethos that Jackson's death has inspired among many.

Jackson, it should be noted, from all outside accounts, lived a tortured existence and the circumstances of his death should prompt an outpouring of fervent prayers for his soul, not these gushing, hollywood-esque bon mots about how his "myth" will survive "serious and shameful" accusations. All the artistic success in the world, we must realize, is a basket of straw if your personal life was a spiritual, human wreck.

I really dig Michael Jackson's music, but as a Catholic, I don't have to buy into the myth that great art makes a great man. Michael Jackson's best chance to "never die" is the mercy of Christ, not his best-selling record.

Forget sex, the media knows that attacking the Catholic Church sells

First, the lie is spread around with a press release headline: Ohio Catholic Priest Comes OUT as a Drag Queen with a Billboard Dance Hit.

Then it builds with more sensationalism in the press release itself: "In celebration of Gay Pride Month, Big Mama Capretta reveals the surprise truth about her identity. By day, Capretta is none other than Father Anthony, a proud practicing Catholic priest from Columbus, Ohio! Big Mama Capretta's new hit single 'Big Mama's House' is currently #25 on the U.S. Billboard Club Play dance chart."

Next, the Advocate, an "award-winning LGBT news site", basically copies down the press release and offers it as "news", contributing to the believability of the lie begun by the press release.

Finally, huge entertainment blogs take the Advocate "story" as "news" and run with it. My personal favorite? Perez Hilton who pipes: "If the church ever wants to point fingers again, they should start in their own backyard."

Well, sorry to rain on the parade, but this guy has been "out" since the 1980's, and the Catholic "Church" he is part of is actually the Columbus Community of Charity Independent Old Catholic Church, an "all-inclusive and welcoming congregation" .... yadda, yadda, you know the story (actually, oddly-enough, attendance at their "masses" are "open only to membership." So much for being inclusive).

In other words, Father Anthony is as much a Catholic priest as calling myself "DJ-AMP" makes me a musical artist. 

Now, with these facts in hand, let's look at what is actually happening each step of the way in this story:

1) A PR firm realized the only way to promote this guy is to spread the claim he's actually a priest of the Catholic Church. This is false advertising because he is not a Catholic priest, and they knew that.

2) LGBT news sites happily continue the rumor because it plays into their stereotypes about priesthood, hypocrisy in the Church, etc. Never mind that it takes about five minutes of research to dismiss the lies spread by the press release. The Advocate is not even trying for journalistic integrity.

3) Celebrities like Perez Hilton who - idiot that he is - have a significant force in shaping today's pop culture, continue to perpetuate myths and lies about the Catholic Church. Remember this gem of a quote: "If the church ever wants to point fingers again, they should start in their own backyard." Try to imagine for a second if Perez Hilton had said that in reaction to a press release claiming a Hasidic Jew was a transvestite, etc.

Oh that's right, such things will never happen, because anti-Catholic prejudice is still acceptable, LGBT news sites aren't bound by the facts, and press firms have realized that when sex can't sell, attacking the Church will do.

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

George Neumayr writing for Catholic World Report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevermind the Vatican, the AP needs to learn how to Google

Plenty of people (rightfully) pointed out awhile back that the Vatican press office (especially) could do a better job using basic internet search techniques to avoid embarrassment.

Well, just to keep the playing field fair, let's note that even the Associated Press seems to be internet research-impaired at times.

At the end of an AP article treating Obama's response last night to a question about the Notre Dame controversy and where abortion is on his priority list, author David Alexander (with editing help by Mohammad Zarghm) concludes:

"Several bishops also have criticized the university for the decision."

... several?! Try fifty-five.

Now, I may study theology, but I also have enough elementary math skills to be pretty sure that "several" is less than 1/10 of the actual number of bishops who have criticized Notre Dame. And it's not like I'm the only person who has been keeping track (so has LifeSite, for instance) ... in other words, these 50+ statements generate quite a large internet footprint.

A logical Google search of "notre dame obama bishop" yields plenty more than several results.

Okay, I won't belabor the point further. C'mon, AP - use Google.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Tomasic tries to cast Abp. Chaput in a bad light

John Tomasic, writing at the Colorado Independant, tries to do a hit job on me and Archbishop Chaput:

"Rejoicing in the anti-Obama speech campaign, “American Papist” blogger Thomas Peters referenced Chaput’s letter-writing call-out in real time at the blog. Peters later blogged his hope that Bishop D’Arcy employ the “nuclear option” and “remove Notre Dame’s Catholic identification.”"

Let's get the facts straight. First, I don't "rejoice" at anti-Obama speech. Instead, I rejoice at Catholic bishops upholding Catholic teaching, which always defends the rights of the innocent, and especially the helpless. Second, I never expressed "hope" that Bishop D'arcy would employ the "nuclear option", I said: "I don't think it will happen in this case, but down the road ... next time .... somewhere else .... it's worth reading up on the possibility." (see the difference?)

Here is one more taste of the journalistic backlash Archbishop Chaput receives on his home turf for trying to defend the unborn: "The archbishop is likely back in Denver now. Look for him to appear at a major local news outlet soon, if he hasn’t already."

And why, exactly, shouldn't an Archbishop make media appearances? Notice how Tomasic doesn't even try to grapple with what Chaput is saying. For Tomasic, the mere fact that an Archbishop is speaking out publicly about current issues strikes him as inappropriate.

Well, guess what, freedom of speech applies to the leaders of the Catholic Church, too.

Gay Catholics call Pope's condom comments `amazingly insensitive'

Like, amazingly:

Nicole Sotelo, Communications Director of Call To Action, said, "Catholics throughout the world understand that condoms save lives. We must stop making orphans of children throughout the world because of misinformation. To this day, the Vatican bans the use of condoms by Catholics. This is just morally wrong." (Dallas Morning News Religion Blog)

Thanks for the guidance.

Text/Video: Cardinal Pell on the New English Mass Translation

The UK Catholic Herald has "omnicoverage" today on the story I highlighted and commented on yesterday ("S. Africa protest over new Catholic Mass translation").

Video of Cardinal Pell on the issue:



Polished article: "'Nothing is being thrust upon anyone': Cardinal George Pell talks to Luke Coppen about the new English Mass translation, the SSPX and being a 'lightning rod' in the Church". {Also a full transcript of the interview.}

And they're even on Twitter and Facebook.

Folks, that's how it's done nowadays. Good show!

Was Pope Benedict misquoted on condoms in Africa? Maybe not.

Damian Thompson proposes that he was:

The Vatican has just published its transcript of the Pope's comments about AIDS in Africa and it turns out he said that condoms risk making the problem worse.

Maybe it doesn't make much difference, but the English-speaking press had the Pope saying that it "even aggravates the problems". Not quite the same resonance; not as headline-worthy.

The CNS blog meanwhile reports on a clarification issued by Vatican spokesman Fr. Lombardi, this after CNS's own John Thavis claimed Pope Benedict to have said the distribution of condoms "only increases the problem of AIDS."

... now, this is not the end of the story. Here's why:

The Vatican press office has royally flubbed its handling of these situations before.

I remember breathing a sigh of relief last year during the pope's in-flight interview on his way to the United States that nothing went wrong, because things did go wrong in 2003 during the pope's in-flight interview on his way to Brazil. The Vatican press office's solution was to issue a toned-down version of the pope's remarks about Mexican lawmakers the next day.

The Vatican press office might have decided to apply that same solution today. Especially since, from what I've seen, Fr. Lombardi has not specifically claimed that the mainstream media's reporting of the pope's words was in fact erroneous.

One thing we can be sure about: because the Vatican has denied claims made by the mainstream media about what the pope actually said, you can bet that the mainstream media sources are going to go back to their audio/video recordings of the interview and double-check what he said.

So be prepared - possibly - for an audio or video clip of the Pope, well, misspeaking.

Then again, this could just be media bias. Time will tell. Stay tuned. And be aware of the history, too.

update: Ruth Gledhill agrees about the comments (though I don't agree with her about condoms).

update 2: sure enough.... "It looks like some idiot in the Vatican press office tampered with the Pope's quotes. Time for sackings"

Morning dose of uninformed feminist anti-Catholicism

It's like they all write out of the same playbook - after dozens of half-truths and a generous portion of twisted logic, this Winnipeg Sun commentee's conclusion: "It's almost like the Church gets off on female suffering."

Thanks for the words of wisdom, Mindy.

... oh, what's that? She also feels confident to weight-in on the Williamson controversy?

"Obviously, [rehabilitating a Holocaust-denier] is not what the Pope intended. The head of the world's most powerful top-down church isn't used to a backlash from the rank and file. Well, now the poop has hit the Pope."

Hmm, I guess it doesn't take much to get published these days, as long as you're anti-Catholic.

A dose of NYT snarkiness in reaction to the pope's letter

Rachel Donadio of the New York Times gets snarky {my comments in brackets}:

Pope Admits Online News Can Provide Infallible Aid {Haha. Get it? INFALLIBLE aid. I'm so clever.}

The letter released Thursday in which Pope Benedict XVI admitted that the Vatican had made “mistakes” in handling the case of a Holocaust-denying bishop was unprecedented in its directness, its humanity and its acknowledgment of papal fallibility. {not to be confused, of course, with the Pope's charism of infallibility when speaking authoritatively on matters pertaining to faith or morals. Just so we're clear.}

But it also contained two sentences unique in the annals of church history. {unique, sure. important - well, maybe.}

“I have been told that consulting the information available on the Internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on,” Benedict wrote. “I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news.” {They could start with subscribing to AmP. Oh wait, they probably already do! ;-) }

In other words: “Note to the Roman Curia: try Google.” {Wow, Rachel, you're about the seven hundredth person to make that suggestion. What incisive advice!}

The Vatican, a 2,000-year-old monarchy built on the ruins of the Roman Empire and run by octogenarians, has officially recognized the demands of the 24-hour news cycle, not a 24-century one. {Oh brother - where did this line come from? I mean, ya know what? The Church will be here in another 2,000 years - and the New York Times won't be. You can quote me on that.}

In his disarmingly human letter, Benedict acknowledged the “avalanche of protests” elicited after he revoked the excommunication of four schismatic bishops in January ... {it's "disarmingly human" only to someone who doesn't know the Pope. C'mon - you're writing for the New York Times for pete's sake - have you been any paying attention at all to who this man is?!}

... In the ensuing weeks, the pope said he had not been aware of Bishop Williamson’s views at the time he revoked the excommunication, and he repeatedly condemned anti-Semitism.

But the criticism did not stop, as Catholics and Jews alike questioned the pope’s moral authority. {His moral authority?! How was it a question about his moral authority?! That's a new one to me. I think some people specifically asked if the Pope endorsed Williamson's kooky views on the Holocaust. That's it.}

... Speaking to reporters at the Vatican on Thursday, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Benedict had taken the criticism to heart. “He demonstrates that he was touched and that he listened to what was said, even on the Internet,” Father Lombardi said. {It's where the game is being played now.}

The rest of the article is rather ho-hum.

Video: Bill Clinton thinks embryos aren't fertilized

Oh enlightened one, enlighten us!

(if the video gets taken down, you can also find it on CNN here.)

... nevermind.

It's simply objective science that frozen embryos are fertilized. No one disputes this. What an idiot.

And why doesn't Dr. Gupta correct him? Some interviewer. Obama offered him Surgeon General.

Ph/t: Unborn Word of the Day.

CT Dem. accuses Catholic leaders of "smear campaign"!

Outrageous:

Democratic state Rep. Robert Godfrey, a Judiciary Committee member, accused Catholic leaders of a smear campaign.

“The Bishop [Lori] doesn’t want anyone to see the diocese’s books and how the money is spent,” Godfrey told CNSNews.com. “He is trying to smear the co-chairs. It’s very sad. The public is outraged over a fiction. The scheduled hearing tomorrow was cancelled because the Capitol Police were sweating crowd control.”

Crowd control issues?! Because us Catholics are so rowdy when we get together....

[/sarcasm]

Photo: the NYT's odd choice of a Dolan photo

I'm not sure why the New York Times chose a photo of a "napping" Abp. Tim Dolan for their homepage:

"What - long plane ride, Timmy?"

(I mean - can you imagine Obama getting a front-page photo like that?!)

update: FOXNews.com does it even worse!

Kmiec's epic fail in Time magazine

When I found out Doug Kmiec had shot out an article for Time magazine in the wake of Pelosi's meeting with Pope Benedict, I geared myself up for yet another point-by-point critique of his flawed arguments.

This time, however, I don't even need to take the trouble, because the entire premise of Kmiec's latest piece is factually in error. To see why, first I will summarize Kmiec's argument.

Kmiec says:

"If you read [the pope's statement to pelosi] carefully, the statement is actually quite radical — perhaps unintentionally so. The brief message — just two short paragraphs — draws no distinction between the moral duties of Catholic policymakers and Catholic judges to work against abortion.

As a lifelong Catholic, Pelosi could not feign surprise at being called upon by the Church to use her gift for persuasion to restrict abortion legislatively, or at least not to be its advocate. But until now, the Church had not formally instructed judges in a similar fashion. As written, the Pope's statement has the potential, at least theoretically, to empty the U.S. Supreme Court of all five of its Catholic jurists and perhaps all other Catholics who sit on the bench in the lower federal and state courts."

Kmiec spends the rest of his time flushing out the implications of Pope Benedict's supposed admonition to "jurists" telling them to, in Kmiec's words "undertake an activist, law-changing role."

Out of this mistaken interpretation, Kmiec tries to create a lose-lose scenario where jurists are stuck between the rock of Peter and the hard place of their judicial oath.

Kmiec next handily provides a solution to his self-created dilemma, saying the Vatican should renege its statement and re-introduce the distinction between jurists and legislators.

.... now comes the reality check: the Vatican statement does include the necessary distinction in terminology.

From an AmP source with extensive experience in Italian legal matters:

"... giuristia is not the word an Italian author would use when referring to a judge. He would use giudice. A giurista is someone who attends to he law as a matter of profession, most frequently a lawyer, or a professor of law. But a giudice is a magistrate who evaluates the merits of an argument in a case or controversy.

In American law, distinctions between words carry great significance; and in Vatican press releases, the spokesmen for the Holy See select their words very carefully. In this instance, the press office elected to use the more vague term giuristi rather than the specific term giudici. However, Kmiec misses this critical distinction."

Kmiec's "missing" of this critical distinction creates his entire argument. Consequently, once it is made clear that the Vatican did use its words right, Kmiec is left out in the cold, actually saying nothing.

Re-reading Kmiec's piece then becomes comical once you realize his premise is false: the statement is not, in fact, "quite radical - perhaps intentionally so" ... it is actually quite logical -intentionally so. The statement is not a "sharp break with the past." The Church's teaching is aware that the responsibility to defend life ought to be "applied in light of the scope of office."

Proceeding in the same vein, someone in the Vatican office did not "in the rush of the event [...] mistakenly included the judicial terminology" ... it was Kmiec who, in the rush of trying to publish in Time, didn't bother to double-check his Italian-language comprehension skills.

(.. and this is the man who hopes to become the U.S. ambassador to the Holy See?!)

So, if Kmiec hasn't actually illumined a "surprising" and "overlooked" aspect of this recent statement, what can we learn from his writing?

I'd offer this observation: Kmiec is predisposed to seeing difficulty and crisis whenever one attempts to bring one's Catholic faith into politics. Because of this pessimism, his initial reaction to the Holy See's communique was not to check his translation or try to understand what the Holy See was saying, but instead to criticize it and call on them to change.

In reality, however, the Church's admonition to public servants is reasonable, is informed, and is livable.

You just have to give it a chance - and yes, even pull out your English-Italian dictionary once in awhile.

End of the week chuckle post

Only, in this day and age, the chuckle posts contain quotes from real articles:

Catholic Denomination Says Gay Priests Are OK

An alternative Catholic denomination is ordaining openly gay priests, but will such rogue religious groups ever be recognized by the papacy?

In a recent service that looked nearly identical to a traditional Roman Catholic mass, four priests were ordained at Yale’s Dwight Chapel in New Haven, Conn. But three of the new priests are openly gay men, something the Catholic Church has refused to allow.

My internal "errors-per-sentence" counter is going crazy!

CNS reporter gushes over Maciel's legacy in Mexico

Catholic News Service has finally published something regarding the Maciel scandal: a glowing report of Maciel's legacy in his hometown of Cojita, Mexico.

And when I mean glowing, I do mean glowing. Only two paragraphs talk at all about what Maciel did, the second and the last. Here's one paragraph:

So when allegations of sexual abuse of young men surfaced against the priest and, more recently, the acknowledgment by the Legionaries of Christ that their founder fathered a child, many in Cotija failed to allow the news to negatively color their views of the late Father Marcial Maciel Degollado.

Let's be clear: these are "allegations" of sexual abuse of young men only in the sense that we do not know which ones are true. Some of them are true.

There are 49 words in the above paragraph. The other ~800 are devoted to praise.

The article ends this way:

"I think that God should be the final judge," said Rosa Maria Rangel, who runs a cheese store. She added that few in Cotija held negative opinions of Father Maciel, prompting one young employee to object. When asked why she held a negative opinion, Leobardo Medina, 26, responded, "For what he did."

Again, we need to be clear: no one is claiming to know definitively the final state of Maciel's soul. We are only, in fact, just learning the full extent of his grave earthly sins. It shouldn't be surprising that a man as powerful as Maciel, who was synonymous with the Church to the people who knew him, and about whom these allegations only recently were admitted to as being true in any form ... should end up having "few negative opinions" among the general populace at this point.

Finally, Leobardo (why the masculine word ending if she is a woman?) has it right: one can hold a negative opinion about Maciel "For what he did." We can have negative opinions about people known to have gravely sinned against and injured their fellow men and women.

Let's review what Maciel did:

• Broke his priestly vows in having a sexual relationship with a woman, whom he conceived a child with
• Evidently misused Legionary funds - monies given to him in trust by the Church
• Sexually abused young boys in his charge, over an extended period of time
• Betrayed his fellow Legionary brothers and consecrated lay women through his actions
• Deceived the members of the movement whenever he did any of the above things

Any man who does these sorts of things, and dies without ever publicly repenting or seeing to the good of the order he left behind, would give me cause to form a negative opinion about him.

(Oh, and by the by - the story's author, David Agren, has written for Regnum Christi. I mean, you'd think that factoid would be worth a disclosure, would you not?)

Papist Quote of the Day

From an AFP article entitled "Vatican official accuses Obama of 'arrogance'":

"Fisichella is president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, one of a number of so-called pontifical academies which are formed by or under the direction of the Holy See."

*Ahem* - "so-called"?! That's exactly what it's called.

I guess any body that dares to criticize Obama's decisions must be relegated to "so-called" status.

AP writes about big, scary "secret Vatican confession tribunal"

The AP decided to celebrate Halloween in January I guess with a story entitled "Vatican secret confession tribunal opens up". It begins:

"One of the Vatican's most secrecy shrouded tribunals, which handles confessions of sins so grave only the pope can grant absolution, is giving the faithful a peek into its workings for the first time in its 830-year history."

Shock! Horror!

"Confessions of even the most heinous of crimes and sins — such as genocide or mass murder — are handled at the local level by priests and their bishops and are not heard by the tribunal.

Its work involves those sins that are reserved for the pope — considered so serious that a local priest or bishop is not qualified to grant absolution, said Cardinal James Francis Stafford, an American who heads the Apostolic Penitentiary."

Eeek! Gasp!

"Taking up nearly an entire city block, it is just steps away from one of Rome's most profane piazzas — Campo dei Fiori, filled with bars catering to tourists and college-age Americans studying abroad."

Oh the humanity!

... so okay, the Vatican has a tribunal that deals with absolving very grave sins. It's called the Apostolic Penitentiary, but don't let the name fool you: sins are kept here (for a time), not sinners. And yes, because many of the crimes in question involve the sacrament of confession, it's not surprising that the subject matter is often kept, well, secret.

Oh yeah, and Italians don't go to confession much. That's a problem too, but it has nothing to do with the Apostolic Penitentiary. And it's pretty clear to me that the AP reporter (with visions of Dan Brown running through his head, no doubt) was just looking for material to fill-out his spook piece on the big, bad Vatican A.P., and chose the topic of promoting the sacrament of confession.

The ironic thing, of course, is that the Apostolic Penitentiary is actually a tribunal of mercy (not of punishment), that dispenses forgiveness from God for these horrible crimes according to the laws of the Church. The Apostolic Penitentiary is one of the few tribunals that keeps running even when the Pope is dead and a new one has not yet been elected - because the Church continues to dispense to mankind the means of salvation even when she is without a visible head.

Cash offered to addicts, alcoholics who agree to sterilization

This is so offensive to the dignity of the human person!

Instead of attempting to cure the cause of people's ills, some are attempting to nullify the inconvenience these people cause to the rest of society:

Folks at downtown's Ronstadt Transit Center on Tuesday afternoon had a way to make a quick $300.

The only stipulation was that the people be drug addicts or alcoholics who agree to long-term birth control.

The group Project Prevention, started by Barbara Harris in 1997, has so far paid more than 2,800 men and women across the nation.

.... Acceptable long-term birth control includes tubal ligation, Depo Provera shots and IUDs for women, or a vasectomy for men. (Tuscon Citizen)

Here's how Project Prevention responds to criticism:

"Those who oppose what we're doing should be willing to step up and adopt a few of the babies," Harris said. "These women can't raise these children."

Don't bother mentioning why people might oppose this.

I wonder how these unfortunate addicted people are going to use this $300 ... oh, that's right.

Pope Benedict XVI under-fire for 'negative' statements

Who the heck does Marco Politi think he is?

Pope Benedict XVI has come under fire from a leading Vatican watcher as "The Pope who says No" following a series of "negative" Vatican statements on homosexuality, the disabled and bio-ethics.

Marco Politi, the veteran Vatican correspondent of La Repubblica, said this was "yet another papal no" after Vatican opposition to UN declarations on the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the rights of the disabled, on the grounds that they could be seen a sanctioning gay marriage and abortion.

"It is one veto after another" Mr Politi wrote. "Not to this, no to that. No, no, no". He said the Vatican was clearly aware that under Pope Benedict it was acquiring a reputation for "banning everything", since it had issued a "pre-emptive statement" noting that "on a superfical first reading" the document on bio-ethics "might give the impression of being a collection of prohibitions". "But that is precisely the public perception", Mr Politi said. (UK Times Online)

Oh brother, nothing new here. Mr. Politi risks acquiring a reputation for "missing the point of everything".

As I first heard my parish priest say, behind every No of the Church (and of God), is a deeper Yes. The Church affirms the dignity of the person and denies those procedures which endanger it.

And the rest of the article is a catalogue of inaccuracies. It always really gets me the way the UK tabloids can be so anti-Catholic, and specifically anti-Pope. I realize this was an Italian journalist, but the UK tabloids are always seem eager to pick this sort of trash reporting up and republish it.

I have to say, finally, that the published comments made in response to the UK Times article reveal a wonderful example of faithful Catholics actively defending the Church and the Pope online. Good for them!

Newsweek nonsense equates "Jesus has two (Immaculate) Mommies"

Mike Fragoso over at the FRC blog writes a first-class response to Lisa Miller's laughable attempt in Newsweek to deconstruct the traditional Christian vision of Marriage. A sample of Fragoso's response (underlining mine):

[Miller] elides much of the New Testament, and her history is reliant on the quotably wrong Stephanie Coontz. Where does one begin to answer imputations that King David was a homosexual? How can one comprehend-let alone respond to-an argument that first apparently admits Christ's virgin birth and then proceeds to equate the Holy Family to "Jesus has two (Immaculate) Mommies"? The Bible is simply a weapon-at-hand for her preferred policy ends. She's the sort of person Aeflric was worried about.

That underlined equating that "Jesus has two (Immaculate) Mommies" got me thinking: what an antitype that is to the Solemnity of Mary's Immaculate Conception which we Catholics are celebrating today!

It never ceases to amaze me how people can use the same words as we do, and yet completely miss their proper meaning. But there is something deeper in play here: the publication of this article is clearly a result of the California referendum reversing the CA court's decision to allow homosexual marriage, which subsequently caused progressive secularists to attack traditional Christian churches for their continued resistance to state-mandated homosexual "marriage."

What happens when these secular progressives try to do theology? Little gems like this:

"We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future."

How wonderfully Hegelian. Problem is, universal truths and justice itself are not separated from individual acts, which either bring about justice, or defeat it. Sorry to be a bother - but that's what Christ actually revealed.

Theology a la Miller, part deux:

"More basic than theology, though, is human need."

Actually, nothing is deeper than theology in this sense: theology reveals to us that human need is placed within us by God, and that His love is the only answer to the deepest yearnings (needs) of the human heart.

But if you have convinced yourself that your deepest yearning is to witness the legalization of homosexual "marriage", than sure, theology is inconvenient.

And so is the biblical teaching on marriage.

update: well isn't this interesting. Politico is reporting (in a very popular story) that Newsweek is catching alot of heat for this (cover)story:

Leading social conservatives blasted Newsweek for its current cover story, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," which they said misinterprets both biblical scripture and their own political movement.

.... Tony Perkins, president of the socially conservative Family Research Council, agreed, calling Newsweek’s cover story “yet another attack on orthodox Christianity. I hardly think that Newsweek is a credible venue for theological discussion,” said Perkins. “I mean, I thought it was just full of holes.”

And yes, that's the same Family Research Council I mention in this same post.

What really gets me is the way the Newsweek editors are being defiant on the issue, as if Miller's argument actually holds any theological weight. I'm sorry, but such a stand would just be laughed off the soapbox if we were encountering an objective debate here. Instead, we are witnessing an ideologically-driven deconstruction of Christian teaching and tradition.

Arguing that the Christian vision of marriage ought not to influence American legislation is one thing, but denying the Christian vision of marriage in its essence ... that's another (and mute) topic.

[photo credit: Flickr user Steve Rhodes]

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."

"Pew study finds election coverage of religion was shallow"

No kidding.

Of note:

"Sen. Joe Biden, who is the first Catholic elected as vice-president and whose pro-abortion rights views and comments were criticized by leading prelates, received only 0.7 percent of religion-focused campaign coverage, according to Pew."

Remember, under-reporting is a form of media bias as well.

update: Phil Lawler on this.

"Change you can conceive in"?

Newsweek asks the question "Could euphoric Obama fans be sparking a baby boom?"

Clearly, Newsweek and I differ as to what sort of things can be counted as part of a "baby boom":

In Chicago, where 28-year-old Chip Bouchard—a former Hillary supporter—attended Obama's acceptance speech, he says he looked over at his boyfriend, Chris, and thought: "This [is] the president under whom I [want to] get married and adopt a baby."

So many things to say to that, but not now.

Back to the "baby boom" ... sorry, agreeing with Jill, I think we can more expect an "abortion boom".

"Black Pope could follow Barack Obama's election, says US archbishop"

I hope this is an example of a mainstream paper misinterpreting Archbishop Gregory's meaning - but some of the quotes are just hard to get around:

The election of Barack Obama as the first African-American US President could pave the way for the election of the first black Pope, according to a leading black American Catholic.

Wilton Daniel Gregory, 60, the Archbishop of Atlanta, said that in the past Pope Benedict XVI had himself suggested that the election of a black pontiff would "send a splendid signal to the world" about the universal Church.

Archbishop Gregory, who in 2001 became the first African American to head the US Bishops Conference, serving for three years, said that the election of Mr Obama was "a great step forward for humanity and a sign that in the United States the problem of racial discrimination has been overcome". Like Mr Obama Archbishop Gregory comes from Chicago, and was previously Bishop of Belleville, Illinois. (UK Times)

There are some obvious problems here:

• The selection of popes does not follow "the trend" set by our selection of American Presidents. The idea that Rome looks to where the American voter is tending ... is just silly.
• I'd like to see Pope Benedict's exact quote, but I'm sure he wasn't advocating some sort of affirmative action in the selection of popes for the universal Church, and I dislike this whole notion that the Catholic Church has to elect a black pope to prove that it does not discriminate. That's an American hang-up, not the Universal Church's. Frankly, you could make a better argument that the Vatican tends to be euro-centric, and as an American shouldn't I be complaining about that? Nope. So what - we've been getting great popes.
• I'm happy to hear Archbishop Gregory say the election of Obama means that racial discrimination "has been overcome", though I doubt the USCCB will uniformly act as if it agrees in the future.

The other quotes from Archbishop Gregory are more nuanced and I get the distinct feeling he's being re-read through the Times' lenses.

I do also resist this attempt by the Times and other papers to claim some sort of Vatican endorsement of Obama as Obama. Every official statement I've seen so far from the Vatican is an endorsement of Obama as President.

And it's no surprise - Obama will be the leader of the most powerful country in the world and the Church is a universal institution with universal interests and considerations to take into account.

And I'd like to see the original interview in La Stampa.

Oh and - seriously - Richard Owen gets put up in Rome by the Times to report "trends" and make "predictions" like this?

Next up ... "Does the recent mention of iPods at the World Synod of Bishops signal that the Church is switching from PCs to Macs?!"

update: the AFP's headline is even worse: "Catholic Church ready for black pope: US archbishop".

... yeah, because I can just see those cardinals in the Vatican reading their morning paper:

"Good heavens! The Americans elected a black man as their President! Why - do you know what this means? It means we can finally have a black pope! This is awesome news. I'd like another espresso, please."

Yeah, right.

Don't waste time on John A. Farrell's argument for Obama

Some folks are making interesting arguments for why a Catholic could support Obama.

John Aloysius Farrell of US News & World Report is not one of them.

Farrell has previously, by his own admission, compared the leadership of the Catholic Church to the Taliban, although he admits that was probably "a little over the top." Excuse me, a little?!

Now, in his pro-Obama argument "An Obama Vote Is No Sin for Catholics, Even With His Abortion Views", he first gets this wrong:

As a matter of church doctrine, Catholics are free to vote for any candidates whose stands they like on foreign policy, the economy, or other issues.

Of course not! A Catholic is not "free" to vote for Hitler if they like his policy on aggressive foreign expansion (Farrell apparently likes Nazi analogies). Anyway, liking a candidate on a single issue is not enough - they also have to be morally acceptable on important issues.

C'mon John - you have to admit that the above is just a stupid line, and claiming that it represents "church doctrine" doesn't help your cause with anyone who has ever cracked a catechism open.

Next wrongness:

And as a matter of practical politics, Catholic voters who vote Republican because they think the GOP is a strong foe of abortion have been sold a bill of goods.

In the 35 years since Roe v. Wade guaranteed a right of abortion for women, the Republicans, though dominating American politics, have consistently failed to take the tough political steps necessary to outlaw the practice.

This is a huge mis-reading of American history. Republicans have worked hard to reduce the incidence of abortion, and have been stymied in their attempts to do more by democrats. Are the republicans perfect on this issue? Of course not. Are they better than democrats on average? Yes.

And why do pro-abortion groups love democrats? Are they being sold a bill of goods by the democrats? What say you, Farrell?

Oh gosh, I'm sorry I asked. His solution:

If the Catholic clergy truly believes that abortion is so intrinsic an evil—a sin above sins—then it's time to blink at the lesser transgressions of birth control and sex education. Not just in America, but around the world.

You want to reduce the number of abortions? Distribute condoms and show teens how to use them.

I'm sorry, I've stopped listening. It's amazing how easy it is for Farrell to transition from an arguable claim about the legitimacy of voting for Obama to ... flat-out dissent from and opposition to Church teaching. No wonder he finds such a fast friend in Doug Kmiec, whom he quotes more than anyone else in the article.

It would be nice if we could all come together and condemn Farrell's ignorant, un-Catholic portrayal of the issues. He does his readers a disservice by claiming he speaks as an informed Catholic. I certainly do not see much evidence of being either.

The one issue the MSM is careful to avoid

Look at this transcript of CNN's coverage of a townhall meeting with John McCain:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, first of all, thank you both for all you're doing for our country. I wanted to ask you about -- about the issue of abortion, and specifically about the debate a couple of nights ago. The moderator cleverly never brought this -- the question up.

And with the debate coming up again, I would ask if you're going to find a way to bring the subject up, even if it's not asked about, because I firmly believe it's an issue which you have the advantage.

PHILLIPS: John McCain campaigning in Waukesha, Wisconsin. You can still watch this live, if you want, at CNN.com/live. He's talking about your money and his pledge to bring it back.

Isn't that something? Someone brings up the topic of abortion - and the fact that it's not being talked about - and CNN immediatly cuts-away from McCain's response. More than that, the anchor claims that McCain's talking about "your money and his pledge to bring it back." Maybe earlier he was, but right now, he was talking about...

the one issue we're not supposed to talk about.

Ph/t: Philokalia Republic.

Pic: Anti-Catholic, Anti-Bishop Cartoon in Scranton Newspaper

Bishop Martino of Scranton, PA - the hometown of pro-choice Senator Joe Biden - recently wrote a pastoral letter for Respect Life Sunday which focused on the evil of abortion. He told all his priests to read the letter in place of their homily this past Sunday.

Here's how the local paper, the Scranton-Times Tribune responded:

Gee, I guess depicting the Bishop with a baby cradled in his arms wouldn't convey the kind of point this cartoonist-satirist is comfortable with. I've said before that anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice, and this is a perfect example. Imagine a cartoon that claimed Jewish leaders are shills for the Democrat party? Yeah, it doesn't get published.

I don't want this story to get unfocused by chasing down the rabbit trails of biased reporting that is also coming out of the Scranton-Times Tribune (here they are if you are interested). Suffice it to say the paper has a history of allowing this sort of anti-Catholic editorial and journalistic content. {Just look at this cartoon also mocking Bishop Martino.}

I think the best thing is to submit a letter to the editor telling them why you don't appreciate this cartoonist mocking a bishop for caring about the rights of unborn children - a constant teaching of the Church. And watch your own papers - this sort of thing is sadly not confined to Scranton.

Related: "The Five Non-Negotiables" (Mark Brumley lists: "Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell experimentation, human cloning, and same-sex marriage." This list is not alphabetical.)

Cardinal Newman isn't in his tomb, and that's okay

This editoral published in the UK Times ("Please - enough of this ghoulish sideshow") is quite a handful.

First, let's separate the facts from the anti-Catholic comments (which requires a editing scalpel):

On Saturday [Church officials] confirmed that since the [Cardinal Neman] never had a lead-lined coffin, he is all gone. “Brass, wooden and cloth artefacts” were recovered, but “there were no remains of the body... in the view of medical professionals in attendance, burial in a wooden coffin in a very damp site makes this kind of total decomposition unsurprising.”

Regular AmP readers will remember that I've been covering the efforts (and resistance) to exhuming Cardinal Newman's body, an ordinary part of the Catholic Church's canonization process.

As for Libby Purves' vitriolic commentary, I could go line-by-line on it, writes hundreds of words that most people won't bother to spend the time reading, or I could jump right to the heart of the matter:

For all her pretense of erudition, Ms. Purves completely misses the point when she says:

"The Church's weird horror of fleshly things (unmarried or contracepted sex, gay love) is nastily counterpointed by its affection for cadavers."

Actually, it is the radical Christian respect of the fleshly that causes us to both hold ourselves to a high standard of sexual purity (see: the writings of St. Paul, the unbroken teaching of the Church) and to simultaneously respect the dignity of the human body even in death (see: relics, belief in bodily resurrection, adoration of the human nature hypostatically united to the divine nature in the person of Jesus Christ).

Her second major mistep, the subtitle to her article:

"The creepy attempt to exhume the remains of Cardinal Newman will drive people away from the Church"

That's certainly odd coming from someone who claims she was a "genuinely devout Catholic schoolchild" who "hated this stuff, and ... hates it more now." I'm sorry that she is repulsed by the Church's veneration of a holy person's body. I'm sorry she doesn't realize that same respect undergirds why Catholics attempt to remain pure in this life as well.

But don't say you're terrified the Church might lose members over it. Try to understand it first.

Update: BBC World News if you're intrigued by the actual story.

Time Mag. asks: "Does Biden Have a Catholic Problem?"

The short answer is, of course - yes, he does.

{update: forgetful me - here's the article link.}

There's so many little quibbles I have with this piece, I've decided to go point-by-point first:

• Abp. Chaput did not get "marginalized in the bishops conference — losing key leadership elections — in part because of his extreme views about denying communion to politicians."
• "[the recent actions of the bishops] has Catholics Democrats worriedly asking themselves: Can one of their own ever again win national office?" The answer is: yes, if they stop allowing/promoting abortion.
• "[Kerry] was utterly unprepared for the attacks that came his way." No, he had his entire public career to prepare himself, if he had even bothered to understand his Church's teaching.
• "[Kerry] left unchallenged the idea that he was a bad or insincere Catholic." Actually, he tried to act like he was a Catholic in good standing - that's what got him in the biggest trouble.
• "Biden also benefits from the work of progressive groups like ... Catholics United." An organization that I exposed as a liberal front-group some time ago. Seriously - who are they fooling? (Besides writers for Time?)
• "And some conservative Catholics are speaking out as well, venting their disappointment with Bush policies that have not reflected Catholic social teaching and with the Republican Party's focus on overturning Roe v. Wade as the only way to address the abortion issue." Ah, finally, a meaty argument tucked-in an innocuous paragraph. But disappointment in one party does not mean one will vote for the other, or that - overall - it is the more palatable choice. The GOP is certainly far from perfect, but is the DNC better?

Okay, now that we've the little things off the table, let's jump into the last two paragraphs. Reading them, I'm once again amazed how unobjective journalists can be on this topic (and how their editors can let them get away with it). Let me explain what I mean:

The second-to-last paragraph tries to make the claim that there is an "inconsistency" in the bishops' public stance on moral issues. The only proof for this claim is an interview given by Abp. Chaput about the topic of McCain's support (background) for embryonic stem cell research.

But wait a minute, the same author (Amy Sullivan) began her article by dismissing Abp. Chaput's views as extreme and isolated. Now which is it? Are we to listen to Chaput or not? Apparently we can dismiss his pro-life advocacy because he is, well, isolated, but we must take note of his lack-of-extreme criticism of McCain on the topic of embryonic stem cell research. Moreover, Chaput's supposed-waffling (I have not reviewed the tape to corroborate Sullivan's charecterization), is somehow supposed to undermine the combined teaching of the 27/13 bishops who have spoken-out against Pelosi/Biden.

The last paragraph then blithely goes on to claim that the entire proceeding discussion is irreleveant because "[the democrats] are already poised to improve on Kerry's support from Catholic voters, whose top issues this year have been the economy and national security instead of hot-button moral issues."

So why did the author feel she had to ask if Biden has a Catholic problem in the first place? Evidently, the future is already secure. So her answer, I guess, is "no he doesn't". But just in case he does:

"Even so, Catholic Democrats can't afford to look like the kids in the corner who don't know their Catechism. In the future, they might want to resist the temptation to wade into theology and stay firmly in the world of policy."

That's right, don't engage your faith, don't have that faith inform your policy. Ask fellow Catholics to follow you not because of how you've acted, but because of who you just "are."

Yep, no problem here.

update: This has been edited-down and cross-posted to the CatholicVote.com blog.

Pelosi abortion dispute off-limits for Bush spokeswoman

WorldNetDaily tried to raise a question related to Pelosi-Gate at today's White House Briefing:

[WND correspondant Kinsolving]"Fox News reported yesterday that Speaker Pelosi has agreed to meet with San Francisco Catholic Archbishop Niederauer to discuss whether Pelosi, an abortion rights supporter, should take communion, with Pelosi agreeing to meet with him, but no date set. And my question: The president agrees with the archbishop on abortion, rather than the speaker, doesn't he?"

"I am absolutely not going to comment on Speaker Pelosi's meetings or the archibhsop – absolutely not going to comment, Les," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

The next question is needlessly argumenative:

Kinsolving continued, "St. Thomas Aquinas, Anselm and Alphonsus Liguori, as well as Popes Innocent III and Gregory XIV, all disagreed that a human life begins at conception. Does the president believe these two holy fathers and three Catholic saints were all wrong?"

Again, Perino said she would let the record stand.

"The president's position on this is well-known," she said.

I have no idea where that follow-up came from. One does not become a holy father or a Catholic saint for having a perfect understanding of biology. And it should come as no surprise to us that, without microscopes, they didn't have access to the scientific information needed to determine that a human life begins at conception.

Seriously.

Related: How long has it been since Pelosi promised to meet with Niederauer? (6 days, 7 hours, 30 minutes...)

Christianity Today blog gets snippy with the bishops while missing the point

Mark Silk over at Christianity Today's "election 2008" blog decides to play referee:

The Catholic Bishops are cheesed with Joe Biden for, as they see it, claiming that abortion is just a "personal and private issue."

... "cheesed"? What is it with Christian authors writing so flippantly about the topic of abortion? Even if you disagree with them, since when is it proper to ridicule bishops who think they are defending the innocent?

Silk, for his part, thinks he understands the dispute, but he doesn't:

According to the bishops, "the Senator’s claim that the beginning of human life is a 'personal and private' matter of religious faith, one which cannot be 'imposed' on others, does not reflect Catholic teaching."

Of course, Biden did not say that the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is a private matter. His position is that it is a confessional matter. The bishops can assert until they are blue in the face that what they profess is universally applicable because it's built into the nature of things; but at the end of the day they remain religious leaders asserting the doctrine of their church. And most American Catholics, like Biden, understand them as such.

I'm not sure how the bishops could have been more clear taht they are not "asserting [a] doctrine of the Church" when they claim that human life begins at conception (a claim, moreover, that Biden accepts). In matter of fact, the exact phrasing they chose was: "The Catholic Church does not teach this as a matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact."

I don't know about you, but I think that is very clear language. Considering that Silk linked to this bishops' statement, I don't think there is much excuse for his missing this line, and thereby missing a central point.

In following the story of Biden and the Catholic bishops around the internet and blogosphere, I've found several examples of 3rd-parties getting the story wrong, but I normally don't choose to talk about them. Silk, however, crossed over the line of decency with his presumptuous language, so he earns a mention.

Stevens-Arroyo's inexplicably flippant - and uninformed - Pelosi commentary

Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, contributing to the Washington Post/Newsweek blog On Faith today, demonstrates an extraordinary ability to gravely miss the point of Pelosi's comments, and do so glibly.

First, the glib:

"After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke about the abortion issue in a television interview, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington issued a clarifying statement.

Rather than a put-down as some had expected, however, the Archbishop did a dance with her."

Oh, isn't that cute. They're doing a little dance together. One problem: they're dancing around the issue of abortion.

Next, missing-the-point:

In the interview, Pelosi had said that the Democratic Party's position reflected the religious pluralism of the country.

Wrong. Pelosi did not make claims about the Democratic Party's position on abortion. She made claims about the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion. If she had made claims about the Democrat Party's position on abortion, there would have been nothing to talk about. In fact, she went beyond that and made (erroneous) claims about the Catholic Church.

That's why the bishops responded. This is a fundamental point, and Stevens-Arroyo completely misses it.

More missing-the-point by Stevens-Arroyo:

The House Speaker had talked about the scientific dimension of the issue: the Archbishop emphasized the theological (or metaphysical) definition. They were moving in lock-step but in different directions - just like partners in a dance.

Wrong again. In regards to abortion and the question of when life begins, part of the theological point is that scientifically one can know that human life begins at conception. They aren't moving in "different directions" - they are approaching the same truth from different perspectives.

Even more missing-the-point by Stevens-Arroyo:

Other bishops continue to repeat the theological opinion, which of course they should do. However, while theologians can speak authoritatively about the need to respect the moment of conception, it is "above their pay grade" to put on a biologist cap and define scientifically when that moment occurs.

First of all, using Obama's infamous "above my pay grade" line isn't going to win you any friends among rational, informed Christians. Second, wrong: this was exactly the point of Cardinal Egan - being Catholic doesn't make you automatically incapable of doing science, no matter that Pelosi tried to claim a disingenuous scientific agnosticism about the time when life begins at the same time as proposing a false theological relativism when confronted with the question of when this life deserves protection. (Honorable-mention third point: Pelosi didn't limit herself to defending early abortions, she also brought in second, and third-trimester abortions.)

Now, not just missing-the-point, but being actively wrong, by Stevens-Arroyo:

Fertility doctors, who are the experts on this matter, distinguish between a "fertilized egg" and "conception." Only when the embryo is implanted in the womb does it achieve conception, they say.

Notice, first, how the opinion of fertility doctors is supposed to be some sort of trump card. Second, this is not a grammatical question of what one considers a "conceptus." The Church defines conception as the moment of fertilization. And Stevens-Arroyo would be hard pressed to argue that the conceptus undergoes some sort of radical change simply by merit of being physically in the womb as opposed to the fallopian tube.

Now, on top of being wrong, being wrong about what the Church teaches, by Stevens-Arroyo:

Now, Catholic teaching instructs us that even if an embryo is not yet conceived, it has that potential.

Show me where the Church teaches that a "conceptus" is not an embryo. You can't. I'll put it another way, more clearly: embryos do not have the potential to be conceived, they are the result of being conceived.

Back to simply missing-the-point, by Stevens-Arroyo:

Unfortunately, this avoids the real issue for bishops and politicians alike: Does Catholic teaching bind non-Catholics?

That, actually, is a separate question. If Pelosi had kept herself to that sort of discussion, no correction would have been immediately and urgently required. Instead, she decided to claim that Catholic teaching does not bind Catholics. (Seriously, how hard is this?)

More missing-the-point, by even wider margins:

Are Catholic voters obliged by their bishops to take away the right of Protestants (or Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.) to practice their religion (or atheists to be atheists) in the U.S.?

Honestly, this is so far off topic that it's not even worth chasing.

The rest of the essay trails off along these confused lines, but a couple further line do deserve a highlight:

However, so as long as the bishops give theological answers to political questions, they expose our faith to confused charges of infidelity to the American way.

Stevens-Arroyo is here guilty of the tired separation of church-and-state dualism which claims a question can only be theological or political, and never both (i.e., informed by both). In fact it was Pelosi who trespassed into theological territory when she claimed to present the teaching of the church. She was the one who exposed "our" faith to ridicule and dissemination.

Finally, as a laughable conclusion to this travesty of a commentary:

Speaker Pelosi is no dummy: she spoke correctly from her perspective, just as the Archbishop did from his. It would be a service to Catholics everywhere if the bishops articulated more clearly the need to distinguish between theological teaching and political decision-making.

It's like we're talking about a different person, and reading different words uttered by that person. She did not speak correctly from her perspective - because she spoke as a Catholic. How one can possibly take Pelosi-Gate as an example of bishops failing to make distinctions is simply beyond me. It was they who re-established the destinction after Pelosi had made a mess of it all.

The author's flippant sign-off:

Keep Catholic political leaders and bishops on the dance floor of the public square, I say! The public needs to see the careful intricacy we undergo in living within our shared Catholic conviction. I think the two concerns of theology and democracy can make beautiful music together.

It's one thing to be wrong. It's another, worse thing to be flippantly wrong about issues as grave as abortion, the malicious deceits of Catholic pro-abort politicians, and the response of lay people and Catholic bishops who are trying to instruct the Catholic faithful in this atmosphere of ignorance, self-interest and ... joking.

I've refrained from doing much research into Stevens-Arroyo's other published commentaries. This isn't a hit piece, after all. It's simply a point-by-point illustration of the errors in this piece of his writing.

I do have to add, however, that his June 17th column is titled "When Popes Go To Far" and argues for women priests against the 1994 teaching of Pope John Paul II. So maybe he makes a habit of missing the point when it comes to Catholic teaching.

... can someone explain to me again why Newsweek/Washington Post goes to him for "Catholic commentary"?

[Photo credit: DAVID KIDWELL/Pocono Record]

update: my counter-points are well-supported by today's press release by the U.S. Bishops.

Pelosi's mind-blowingly incompetant discussion about abortion

I don't use the phrases like "mind-blowingly" and words like "incompetent" lightly.

(update: the latest coverage of this story - here.)

But this time Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi really managed to surprise me, and this after I didn't think her stock could fall much lower with me, having forced myself through the first chapter of her horrid little book Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters. I didn't realize reading could bring about motion sickness.

Anyway, this episode transpired in today's Meet the Press interview of Mrs. Pelosi by Tom Brokaw. The initial question asked was "When does life begin?"

Sometimes in my coverage I have to tease out fine logical points or show how an interlocutor is skilfully twisting his words to evade the truth.

.... this is more like shooting fish in a barrel.

(you can scroll down to the bottom of this post and watch an embedded video of the exchange.)

The first question:

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.

Oh dear, don't set the bar so high for yourself. After all, I doubt at this point you know what you're actually going to say. At least I hope not.

And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know.

They have not been able to define when life begins? They all gave up? Nice slip on Senator/Saint - yes, they are different. I'm glad you can name one Church Father. Shall we try for two? No? Didn't think so. So by Augustine's own definition, abortions after three months would be killing a human life - whoops! - let's get off talking about Augustine in that case. "We Don't Know"? Yeah, that's safer.

The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions.

Oh I see, the entire proceeding historical survey is irrelevant. No reasons given? Good - those just make the issue confusing. It's amazing how modern legislation can create very clear distinctions where centuries of philosophers and theologians couldn't. Thank heaven for our clear-headed legislators.

This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.

Now we've expanded the sphere of ignorance to ... all humanity. But what about the people that claim to be able to tell you when life begins? Actually, even legally, the definition is birth. So even the law claims to be able to know somehow, or at least to provide some forms of human life with the right to life.

[Now things get interesting as Brokaw tries to get the conversation back on track:]

[REP. PELOSI] As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided...

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it...

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: ...begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that.

"50 years or something like that." Gee, you're probably really regretting beginning this conversation with the words "this is an issue that I have studied for a long time", considering these sorts of generalizations, with narry a single specified noun to be found.

The rest quickly becomes mush as she tries to hit her "panic button" talking points...

So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions.

Panic Button #1: No matter what the truth is, God wants us to do whatever we want.

And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions.

Panic Button #2: Hey, I hate abortions, too. You didn't think I liked abortion did you? *shocked face*

That's why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must--it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case.

Panic Button #3: Oh, and hey, people who hate abortion actually don't want to fix the problem because they actually want problem pregnancies - why else wouldn't they support contraception?

So we have to take--you know, we have to handle this as respectfully--this is sacred ground.

Panic Button #4: Quick, use religiony-type words like "sacred" so people feel they have to agree with me.

We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been--and I'm not saying Rick Warren did, because I don't think he did, but others will try to.

Panic Button #5 (the ultimate one): Ya know, this is really just politics, and let's just both be honest that abortion has nothing to do with faith, reason or reality. I'm a politician - I know these things.

Mr. Brokaw mercifully ends it:

MR. BROKAW: Madame Speaker, thanks very much for being with us.

REP. PELOSI: It's my pleasure. Thank you.

Now, if you've made it this far. I commend you. Here's a couple related links:

• Fr. Z is equally astonished as I am with Pelosi's flailing
• Amy believes this is a serious teaching opportunity, and calls on the bishops to embrace it

I think the only thing I could be more dissapointed by other than this passing for an accurate explanation of the Church's teaching on a subject, would be letting her claim to be an informed Catholic while giving it.

(And, as promised, the video...)

"Anger at removal of Newman’s remains"

The story:

THE VATICAN’S decision to remove the earthly remains of Cardinal John Henry Newman from his grave in Rednal, Worcestershire, to a new grave at Birmingham Oratory, has aroused the wrath of campaigners who believe it to be a betrayal of the Cardinal’s last wishes — to be buried alongside his lifelong friend, who, like him, joined the Roman Cathol­ic Church, the Revd Ambrose St John.

They shared a grave and memorial stone at Rednal. Cardinal Newman wrote shortly before his death in 1890 — and had twice earlier insisted — “I wish, with all my heart, to be buried in Fr Ambrose St John’s grave — and I give this as my last, my imperative will. . . This I confirm and insist on.” (UK Church Times)

Oh please. Cardinal Newman, as a faithful son of the Church, would joyfully accept the ecclesiastical requirement to transfer his remains. After all - he has an official canonization to gain from it.

Let's remember - it's your eternal resting place that matters most.

Outrageous: "Condom ringtone launched in India"

Yet another desensitizing initiative contrary to human dignity undertaken by condom-promoters:

A cellphone ringtone that chants "condom, condom!" has been launched in India to promote safe sex and tackle the growing HIV/AIDS epidemic.

The "condom a cappella" has been designed to break down Indians' reluctance to discuss condom use and to make wearing a condom more acceptable.

Organisers of the campaign, funded by the foundation set up by Microsoft mogul Bill Gates and his wife Melinda, hope the ringtone will become a craze among young Indians.

About 2.5 million people live with HIV in India, said the BBC World Service Trust, the charity behind the ringtone, which was released this month....

... "Ringtones have become such personal statements that a specially created condom ringtone seemed just the right way of combining a practical message with a fun approach," said Radharani Mitra, creative director of the BBC World Service Trust.

"The idea is to tackle the inhibitions and taboos that can be associated with condoms." (AFP)

Frankly, if I were a young guy living in India without Catholic morals, and I heard some girl's cell phone start ringing next to me with the words "condom, condom" ...

Well, call me naive, but how exactly is this supposed to reduce instances of STD-infection?!

NYT talks about Oakland's cathedral & sexual abuse garden

The almost-completed Oakland cathedral, which by the way, currently looks like this...

... also includes a small garden devoted to the victims of sexual abuse (concept photo):

... and this is exactly the sort of story the New York Times loves talking about: for one thing, it allows them to continue discussing the clergy sexual abuse scandal, in addition to painting those who oppose this garden as reactionary.

Fact is, this is just a stupid and very-poorly executed idea, on several levels.

(And it's not like we can hope for a natural disaster to free us of this aesthetic effrontery - it's rated to withstand a 1000 year earthquake. Well, I guess we can always pray for a miracle.)

... and before the comment box starts humming, let me make very clear that what I think is primarily wrong with this idea is the solution of setting up a meaningless zen garden to heal the hurts caused by sexual abuse. Abstract landscaping is not how Catholics heal spiritual and psychological trauma.

Ph/t: AmP reader James.

Finally, some honesty about the effects of The Pill on relationships

The UK Times Online, in its typical British-tabloid way, published an article yesterday entitled: "The Pill may put you off smell of your man and ruin your relationship."

Caustic, sure. But accurate? Yes!

While this information has long been available, a scant few publications have actually spoken about it, leaving such pro-life, pro-Humanae Vitae catholics such as Janet Smith trying to get the word out.

Today, the media finally is beginning to catch up, even if they have to put it in their own way:

To millions of women it has been the great liberator over the past four decades, allowing them the freedom to control their fertility and their relationships. But the contraceptive Pill could also be responsible for skewing their hormones and attracting them to the “wrong” partner.

A study by British scientists suggests that taking the Pill can change a woman’s taste in men — to those who are genetically less compatible.

The research found that the Pill can alter the type of male scent that women find most attractive, which may in turn affect the kind of men they choose as partners. It suggests that the popular form of contraception — used by a quarter of British women aged between 16 and 50 — could have implications for fertility and relationship breakdowns.

The findings, from a team at the University of Liverpool, add to growing evidence that the hormones in the Pill influence the way that women assess male sexual attractiveness. (source)

Web MD has also published a story on the findings.

What should one take from these findings? Certainly not "biological determinism". Rather, this study simply bears out what some people have long known, but few secularists are willing to admit: The Pill radically and harmfully affects female physiology. As LifeSiteNews adds:

In addition to altering women's natural attraction to suitable partners, the pill also permanently damages sex drive over long-term use, according to one study (Read here).

So what, again, are some of the goals women supposedly take the pill to achieve? Oh that's right - finding a suitable, healthy partner and improving their sex lives.

... looks like the pill is 0-2.

Boston Boondoggle: More "Women Priests"

[sarcasm] Oh wow, how radical [/sarcasm]:

Three aspiring Catholic priests will be anointed and prayed over this weekend in an ordination liturgy that will resemble the traditional in most ways but one: The three being ordained are women. (Boston Globe)

Photographic proof:

Pope Benedict's reaction:

Okay, seriously, Fr. Z has at the first report, then the follow-up, which is better and includes a Globe retraction:

Clarification: The main headline on a report in yesterday’s City and Region section may have led to the erroneous impression that three women will be recognized as priests by the Roman Catholic Church after their ordination tomorrow. As the report and a subordinate headline made clear, the women’s status after the ordination is a matter of dispute. Although the organization hosting the ceremony will consider the women to be Catholic priests, the Vatican and the Archdiocese of Boston will regard them as having excommunicated themselves and therefore as being neither Catholic nor priests.

The Curt Jester always has good comments about women ordinations. For instance, see his satirical post, "I am only a Newsweek reporter." Really, just re-read it. Everything in there still applies.

Ph/t: AmP Reader Steve.

[photo credit #1: Curt Jester; photo credit #2: AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia]

Does Having Kids Makes You Happy?

Newsweek says it doesn't, and cites surveys.

I say they should reevaluate their questions.

Plus, I find it very intriguing that they would choose to publish such an article so close to the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae. What, are they trying to console all those folks who chose to contracept instead of having children, telling them, in other words, that they're probably happier off for it?

Fallacious reporting: World Youth Day to drive upswing in Sydney sex industry

Good heavens. This takes the cake for stupid reporting:

NEWS.com.au says a report by Industry analysts IBISWorld predicted the 2008-09 financial year would see strong growth for brothels, strip clubs and prostitutes stemming from the Catholic Church's World Youth Day, primarily on the back of a marked increase in tourism levels to Sydney.

IBIS World senior industry analyst Ed Butler said the report did not suggest the 225,000 international pilgrims or clergy would be heading to brothels or strip clubs.
But the event, to be held from July 15 to 20, would also draw people from outside the church including tourists, support staff and media and some of them would use the sex industry's services.

"Any major event will drive tourism, which is closely related to the sex industry and World Youth Day will also bring out a certain number of non-religious people," he said.

The article at least has some sense that any connection between the two subjects is incidental:

"Growth would be estimated to be greater, but the religious nature of the event is likely to have a dampening effect on growth rates, as many of the visitors may have moral anxieties relating to this particular industry's services."

Ramada Khawley, function manager for strip clubs such as Men's Gallery and Pure Platinum, said she was not expecting an upswing in trading.

"We're not making any special preparations for World Youth Day," she said.
"But we'll keep a table reserved for the Pope."

Brothel madams spoken to by NEWS.com.au also expressed doubts that World Youth Day would be of benefit to their trade.

And it seems this is something they agree with World Youth Day organisers on.
"I'd be surprised if the sex industry gets a boost from a religious event," a World Youth Day spokesman told NEWS.com.au.

I'm guessing instead that people with "moral anxieties" about prostitution might discover a reason during the pope's visit to transform those anxieties into certainties about the immorality the practice.

Wait, let me rephrase that in a language that the reporters can understand: "World Youth Day may yield a significant increase in the certainty of individuals between the ages of 18-35 that brothels are 0% worthy of their patronage."

Much better.

Friday chuckle: a case of "screamingly bad" Latin usage

Alternately titled, "why reporters shouldn't fake a knowledge of languages they can't spell."

Voice of America's Jeff Swicord drew an admittedly crummy assignment: reporting on the latest shenanigans put on by the "woman priest" crowd. But what should have been a routine serving of empty drivel went LOL funny when Swicord attributed to an Opus Dei priest the following comment on the maleness and the priesthood:

"'The church teaches that he [the priest] does this in what is called insomnia nomini Christa, that he does this in the name and the person of Jesus,' says [Fr. Arne] Panula. Jesus was male."

A priest acts "insomnia nomini Christa"? That is screamingly funny. It doesn't mean a thing, folks. The closest I can get is "lack of sleep to/for the name Christina".

More hilarious goofs and funnier commentary continued at In The Light of the Law.

The Seven New Deadly Sins ... That Are Not.

This is a classic case of British tabloid sensationalism. The headlines:

"Recycle or go to Hell, warns Vatican" - UK Telegraph

"Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?" - UK Times

Oh come now.

Margaret at InsideCatholic has the right response. (breath, count to 10, move on).

Still, Reuters isn't far behind. At least they note that the Archbishop spoke mostly about bioethics.

And my heart goes out to poor Ed Morrissey at Hot Air who tries to make sense of all this.

If anyone has access to the original L'Osservatore Romano text, I'd appreciate a gander.

update: a little traction on the story from the CNS NewsHub. AP coverage here. So. Many. Errors.

update 2: Phil Lawler on "Not "new sins" but an old media blind spot. Clarifying for us what needed to be clarified, but better than most of us could do it, and succinctly:

'Archbishop Girotti said that the modern world does not understand the nature of sin. With their coverage of the interview, the mass media unintentionally underlined the prelate's point."

An extreme example of Limbo mischaracterization

The mind boggles. Simply boggles.

Look at this Washington Post headline and its byline on the recent Limbo decision:

Mercy trumps 'theological hypothesis'

Panel rules that Catholics are free to reject church's teachings on limbo

Now, a little golden gem from the article's body:

While the church is often viewed as a top-down organization in which bishops tell ordinary Catholics what to believe, the commission's report suggests that in this case, the process worked partly in reverse.

And don't worry, Alan Cooperman also managed to bring up the "sensus fidelium."

Really - where to begin?