Huh? USCCB Marriage website "Don't be afraid to experiment in your love making."

I think the For Your Marriage web initiative of the US Bishops is a fine project, overall.

But who signed up Susan Vogt to write their daily marriage tips? For instance, the tip for May 2nd:

"Don't be afraid to experiment in your love making. Some things might not work out, but one of the beauties of married love is the security that you're not competing with anyone else."

Excuse me but "experiment" can mean a lot of things, including stuff that is simply contrary to the dignity of the human person.

Now maybe my eye just fell on the stray bad tip. It seems, however, that Vogt has a huge website dedicated to marriage and spirituality, but at the same time, doesn't include issues like contraception (which strikes me as a really pressing problem for lots of married couples in the United States).

I realize I'm probably being a stickler. But honestly, can't we do a little bit better?

Cardinal George & President Obama: an inconspicuous meeting

Michael Paulson at Articles of Faith gives us the summary:

President Obama today met at the White House with Cardinal Francis E. George, who is the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The two men are both from Chicago, and had met one another several times before Obama's election, but they do not have much of a personal relationship. No word yet on the substance of today's meeting, but the bishops' conference has been critical of Obama's decision to allow embryonic stem cell research and to lift the so-called global gag rule, and has expressed concern about possible changes to what the bishops call "conscience protections for health care workers."

He also includes the statements of the White House and the U.S. Bishops.

Nothing can be gleaned from them, except that it lasted 30 minutes.

Stalemate? Progress? It's anyone's guess.

I tend to think we're either moving forward or backward, and I don't think we're moving forward.

Individual bishops vs. the USCCB?

Steve Skojec has a thought-provoking post over at IC which I'm still thinking through:

Those words are long overdue from those of our bishops who recognize that their God-given teaching authority has long been usurped by a collective body with no authority of its own.

They are the words of Bishop Martino of Scranton Pennsylvania, who took matters into his own hands when he visited a parish forum on the upcoming elections, where documents like "Faithful Citizenship" were used by some to justify voting for Barack Obama [I covered that story here - AmP].

[Read more of Steve's post.]

Breaking: US Bishops set the record straight in today's statement

This is a breaking story - check back for updates.

Thank God for our bishops. They have just released a press release on the USCCB website:

Legal Protection for Unborn, Support for Mothers Both Needed, Say Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy

WASHINGTON—"Our faith requires us to oppose abortion on demand and to provide help to mothers facing challenging pregnancies," Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia and Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., said in an October 21 statement. The bishops urged Catholics to study the teaching of the Church, rather than rely on statements and materials from outside groups and individuals.

[Read it here in PDF] [Summary here.]

I had just finished writing this essay in which I sounded the call for an organized response to the recent arguments put forward by pro-Obama Catholics when I discovered the above press release from the US bishops waiting in my inbox, doing exactly what I was hoping for. Now it's up to us to spread their message.

Okay, what are they saying?

• Catholics are not to blindly follow the advice of "outside groups and individuals."

Okay, what are these outside groups and individuals saying?

• The argument that "the Church should accept the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision on abortion as a 'permanent fixture of constitutional law' and should concede that the only way to reduce abortions is to provide more government support for pregnant women is wrong.

Also wrong:

• "The Church's efforts against abortion should focus solely on restoring recognition for unborn children's human rights and that proposals to provide social and economic support for pregnant women distract from that effort."

The first argument is one used by Democrats, the second argument is a straw man constructed by Democrats about those who refuse to vote for Barack Obama and other pro-choice politicians.

I fully agree with the bishops that the second error is to be rejected - will Democrat Catholics now fully agree that the first argument is in error? Are you listening, Nicholas Cafardi? Doug Kmiec? Catholics United? Lisa Sowle Cahill? Because these are the Catholics who have been pushing this argument. By stark contrast, I have not seen anyone seriously claim that the legislative solution is the only one to be pursued. (Okay folks, I'm waiting.)

The Catholic argument for voting Democrat (or, specifically, for a pro-choice politician) has boiled down to "get over Roe" and "pursue alternatives like funding health care". The bishops respond:

The bishops added that legalizing abortion had greatly increased annual abortions in the United States. "The law is a teacher, and Roe taught many women, physicians and others that abortion is an acceptable answer to a wide range of problems."

Clarification 2: FOCA is on the horizon.

The American bishops are coming to terms with the reality of an Obama presidency, and a Democrat-controlled Senate and House that could pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which will in one fell swoop erase all the progress that has taken place against Roe since it was passed. Here is what they say:

By the same token, even the limited pro-life laws allowed by the Court since Roe have been shown to reduce abortions substantially, leading to a steady decline in the abortion rate since 1980. Bans on public funding, laws requiring informed consent for women and parental involvement for minors, and other modest and widely supported laws have saved millions of lives. Laws made possible by reversing Roe would save many more. On the other hand, this progress could be lost through a key pro-abortion proposal, the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which supporters say would knock down hundreds of current pro-life laws and forbid any public program to “discriminate” against abortion in providing services to women.

This statement challenges the canard which holds that legislative actions have been ineffectual in driving down the incidence of abortion. Of course restrictions act to restrict abortions.

Who is getting slapped on the wrist more?

While this statement is a critique of some elements of the republican and democrat solution to the problem of abortion, I submit that it is more a critique of the democrat solution for these reasons:

• It talks about abortion as a non-negotiable front-and-center moral issue. Part of the argument for voting for democrat/pro-choice politicians seeks to marginalize the importance of this issue. Sorry, you can't ignore abortion and claim to be practicing the social teaching of the Catholic Church.
• It is issued not only by the chairman of Pro-Life activities, but also the chairman on "Domestic Justice and Human development." One cannot have either true justice or achieve authentic human development without an especial care for the unborn.
• It spends a lengthy amount of time talking about FOCA, a democrat-sponsored bill that will, following this statement, increase the number of abortions in America and also strike a serious blow to the cause of addressing the social justice issue of our time.

Finally, and most importantly:

• Republicans do commit themselves to caring for women experiencing crisis pregnancies. By the same token, the idea that reversing Roe is the only goal of pro-life activity is not a republican position (read their platform). However, democrats do say that Roe is a non-negotiable and do actively attempt to repeal the restrictions that have slowly been put on it through conservative efforts (again, read their platform).

This statement is a therefore, I submit, confirmation of my thesis that Catholics in the republican party must strive to see that their principles are better translated into practice, but Catholics in the democratic party must seriously address the errors in principle which the democrats have claimed on the issue of unborn human life, while simultaneously addressing the mistaken practices of the party which do not adequately defend unborn human life.

To put it simply: for Republicans, being Catholic on the issue of abortion involves following through on their rhetoric. For Democrats, being Catholic on the issue of abortion involves reversing their rhetoric and changing course on a whole range of legislative proposals they have planned.

Text: USCCB responds to Joe Biden

As I predicted last night, the US Bishops have published a response to Senator Joe Biden.

{update: the text is now available on the homepage of the USCCB website.}

Here it is (underlining mine):

BISHOPS RESPOND TO SENATOR BIDEN’S STATEMENTS REGARDING CHURCH TEACHING ON ABORTION

WASHINGTON - Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman, U.S. Bishops Committee on Doctrine, issued the following statement:

Recently we had a duty to clarify the Catholic Church’s constant teaching against abortion, to correct misrepresentations of that teaching by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on “Meet the Press” (see: here). On September 7, again on “Meet the Press,” Senator Joseph Biden made some statements about that teaching that also deserve a response.

Senator Biden did not claim that Catholic teaching allows or has ever allowed abortion. He said rightly that human life begins “at the moment of conception,” and that Catholics and others who recognize this should not be required by others to pay for abortions with their taxes.

However, 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. The Church teaches that the obligation to protect unborn human life rests on the answer to two questions, neither of which is private or specifically religious.

The first is a biological question: When does a new human life begin? When is there a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment? While ancient thinkers had little verifiable knowledge to help them answer this question, today embryology textbooks confirm that a new human life begins at conception (see www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact298.shtml). The Catholic Church does not teach this as a matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact.

The second is a moral question, with legal and political consequences: Which living members of the human species should be seen as having fundamental human rights, such as a right not to be killed? The Catholic Church’s answer is: Everybody. No human being should be treated as lacking human rights, and we have no business dividing humanity into those who are valuable enough to warrant protection and those who are not. Even this is not solely a Catholic teaching, but a principle of natural law accessible to all people of good will. The framers of the Declaration of Independence pointed to the same basic truth by speaking of inalienable rights, bestowed on all members of the human race not by any human power, but by their Creator. Those who hold a narrower and more exclusionary view have the burden of explaining why we should divide humanity into the moral “haves” and “have-nots,” and why their particular choice of where to draw that line can be sustained in a pluralistic society. Such views pose a serious threat to the dignity and rights of other poor and vulnerable members of the human family who need and deserve our respect and protection.

While in past centuries biological knowledge was often inaccurate, modern science leaves no excuse for anyone to deny the humanity of the unborn child. Protection of innocent human life is not an imposition of personal religious conviction but a demand of justice.

Masterful. My comments wouldn't really add anything.

Total number of bishops who have spoken (counting Abp. Wuerl's comments to his priests and Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa's statement - in both cases scroll down the page): 7:

• Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver
• Bishop James Conley of Denver
• Bishop Fran Malooly of Wilmington, DL (Biden's diocese)
• Cardinal Justin Rigali
• Bishop William Lori
• Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC
• Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa

update: The AP picked up the story, and Drudge linked to it.

Breaking: USCCB releases 2-page responding to Pelosi

The USCCB Press Release:

CHURCH TEACHING AGAINST ABORTION CONSTANT THROUGH CENTURIES, SAYS NEW RESOURCE

WASHINGTON— To help end confusion caused by recent misrepresentations of Catholic Church teaching on abortion, the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities has issued a two-page fact sheet called “Respect for Unborn Human Life: The Church’s Constant Teaching.” [Here as PDF]

Public debate on the topic was prompted by misleading remarks by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, August 24 in an interview on Meet the Press. On August 26, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William Lori, chairman of their Committee on Doctrine, issued a statement to correct her remarks. Other Catholic bishops released similar statements.

“This well documented fact sheet will help Catholics and others form their consciences in accordance with the Church’s unchanging teaching in defense of unborn human life,” said Deirdre McQuade, Assistant Director for Policy and Communications at the USCCB’s Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities.

Among other points, the fact sheet states that “modern science has not changed the Church’s constant teaching against abortion, but has underscored how important and reasonable it is, by confirming that the life of each individual of the human species begins with the earliest embryo.”

The full text of “Respect for Unborn Human Life: The Church’s Constant Teaching” is available online at wwwusccb.org/prolife/constantchurchteaching.shtml.

update: my analysis...

It's good that Pelosi is directly named as the proximate cause for this response.

I like that the 2-page is described as a "fact sheet." This is not a matter of opinion.

At its beginning, the document responds to "those who say this teaching [on the moral evil of every procured abortion] has changed or is of recent origin." Therefore it follows that one cannot hold as a Catholic that this teaching has changed or is of recent origin. Clear enough, I hope.

Points 1-9 provide an accurate, succinct summary of the historical account.

Point 10 is a conclusion about relatively-recent scientific findings:

Thus modern science has not changed the Church’s constant teaching against abortion, but has underscored how important and reasonable it is, by confirming that the life of each individual of the human species begins with the earliest embryo.

Point 11 makes clear the moral ramifications of Point 10 (underlining original to the document):

Given the scientific fact that a human life begins at conception, the only moral norm needed to understand the Church’s opposition to abortion is the principle that each and every human life has inherent dignity, and thus must be treated with the respect due to a human person.

This is the foundation for the Church’s social doctrine, including its teachings on war, the use of capital punishment, euthanasia, health care, poverty and immigration.

Conversely, to claim that some live human beings do not deserve respect or should not be treated as “persons” (based on changeable factors such as age, condition, location, or lack of mental or physical abilities) is to deny the very idea of inherent human rights.

Such a claim undermines respect for the lives of many vulnerable people before and after birth.

Exactly: the USCCB teaches that the scientific evidence can reveal to public officials when they ought to treat a new human life with the respect due to a human person, namely, when it is "the earliest embryo."

More clear, timely teaching from the USCCB, and it is welcome.

What are your thoughts?

"USCCB Removes Erroneous Sentence from Page 131 of 2006 Catechism"

A straightforward and welcome change (this story is about a week old at this point):

The U.S. bishops have voted to ask the Vatican to approve a small change in the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults to clarify church teaching on God's covenant with the Jewish people.

The proposed change -- which would replace one sentence in the catechism -- was discussed by the bishops in executive session at their June meeting in Orlando, Fla., but did not receive the needed two-thirds majority of all members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at that time.

After mail balloting, the final vote of 231-14, with one abstention, was announced Aug. 5 in a letter to bishops from Msgr. David Malloy, USCCB general secretary.

The change, which must be confirmed by the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, would remove from the catechism a sentence that reads: "Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them."

Replacing it would be this sentence: "To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his word, 'belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ'" (Rom 9:4-5; cf. CCC, No. 839).

"Talking points" distributed to the bishops along with Msgr. Malloy's letter said the proposed revision "is not a change in the church's teaching."

"Catholics understand that all previous covenants that God made with the Jewish people have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ through the new covenant established through his sacrificial death on the cross," the talking points say.

"The prior version of the text," they continue, "might be understood to imply that one of the former covenants imparts salvation without the mediation of Christ, whom Christians believe to be the universal savior of all people." (CNS)

What I can't quite immediatly figure is why this resolution did not initially receive the required two-thirds majority to pass it, and then why it passed in such an overwhelming fashion when it went to a mail ballot.

update: Insight Scoop adds more context and background reading for this decision.

Ph/t: AmP reader Carlos.

Good: "U.S. bishops launch Natural Family Planning Awareness Week"

This is a good, positive way to approach Catholics (and non-Catholics) about artificial contraception alternatives as the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae approaches this Friday:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has launched “Natural Family Planning Awareness Week” to promote Catholic teaching about human sexuality, marital love, and responsible parenthood as the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae approaches.

...

Natural Family Planning (NFP) uses a variety of methods for married couples to determine the signs of a woman’s fertility to help conceive a child, or for serious reasons, to avoid a pregnancy, but still maintaining an openness to life. (CNA)

The URL is: http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/nfpweek/

They also offer a poster suitable for putting up on your parish's bulletin board, which you can download in English & Spanish (PDF files), or order it.

O'Malley uses "scandal" to describe Catholics voting for pro-choice politicians, while Lori suggests jumping through hoops

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, saying the Democratic Party has been persistently hostile to opponents of abortion rights, asserted yesterday that the support of many Catholics for Democratic candidates "borders on scandal."

In his sharpest comments about the political landscape since he was installed as archbishop of Boston four years ago, O'Malley made clear that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.

"I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church's position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues," O'Malley said.

Acknowledging that Catholic voters in Massachusetts generally support Democratic candidates who are in favor of abortion rights, O'Malley said, "I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I'm concerned."

"However, when I challenge people about this, they say, 'Well, bishop, we're not supporting [abortion rights],' " he said. "I think there's a need for people to very actively dissociate themselves from those unacceptable positions, and I think if they did that, then the party would have to change."

O'Malley urged the Democratic Party to be more open to abortion opponents. "My plea with Democratic leaders is always that they make space for prolife politicians, and I have many prolife Democrats come to me and say that they're not making space for them. I think that that is a very serious problem, particularly in a state like Massachusetts, where it is so heavily Democrat." - Boston Globe

Someone is reaping the good fruits of the Fall Meeting. CWNews summarizes here.

Meanwhile Bishop William Lori prevaricates over the proposed hypothetical of whether one can legitimately vote for a pro-abortion politician because of "grave proportional reasons":

After the briefing concluded, Lori responded to a reporter’s question about another situation, in which one candidate may hold an anti-abortion position but oppose other concerns of the church, while that candidate's opponent may be pro-choice but sympathetic to the church in other ways.

“That’s such a hypothetical question, it would be very hard to answer as asked,” Lori said. “I think what we are saying is that if a voter is confronted with a dilemma of a pro-life candidate who is in some other way flawed or unfit for office, or likely to discredit the pro-life position, one might be in a dilemma, a difficult situation.”

“A situation could arise that the pro-life candidate would be in some other way unsuitable,” Lori said. “It could be that the way in which he would advance the pro-life cause might do more harm than good. It might be that his opposition to other human goods is so rabid that a conscientious voter might be put in a dilemma. In that case, you have to weigh that over against the other candidate.”

“The main point of the statement,” Lori said, “is that you can’t easily reach that decision. You can’t reach it because you prefer one party over another, you can’t reach it because in addition to everything else the candidate is going to make you feel better. It can't be because of economic advantage.

“You really have to go through some hoops to come to that conclusion,” Lori said. “I think that the more who go through those hoops, the better off we’re going to be.”

... huh? "Hoops"?! Let's all go through hoops?!

First of all, this isn't "such a hypothetical question." People regularly defend voting for a pro-abortion politician because they believe that candidate so-and-so proportionally is better on the "other life issues" (such as, say, immigration and health care).

However, the twin statements in this new USCCB document (PDF) which claim that abortion is "not just one issue among many" and "must always be opposed" strike me as formulations that do not admit of proportionalist evaluations: if you put "abortion" on one side of the scales and "health care" on the other - the scale's going to definitively fall one way. You can't have it both ways.

Or, to contextualize the dilemma, how can we have one Bishop saying that voting for pro-choice politicians "borders on scandal" while another Bishop can go around claiming that "You really have to go through some hoops to come to that conclusion" (whatever he actually meant)?

Either it's clear, or it isn't. So, which is it?

Update: CNA posts its coverage here. Diogenes finds O'Malley's addition of the qualifier "borders on" to be needless, and then presents ample facts to support his claim. His conclusion:

"If you're looking for something that "borders on" a state of scandal, I'd say: New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island."

Oh my, that's just brilliant.

Bishops in Baltimore (Day 3)

This week the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is meeting in Baltimore. AmP will strive to provide complete, accurate day-by-day coverage. This meeting will feature ongoing discussions about (and possibly yield solutions to) several controversies facing the American Catholic hierarchy. Coverage of Day One is here, of Day Two is here.

Essential links:

• The USCCB's official page for the 2007 Fall General Assembly
• Documents from this year's meeting will be posted here.
• EWTN will provide live video and audio feeds of the public sessions here (schedule here).
• John Allen's coverage here, Rocco Palmo's updates here.

Day Three:

• The Bishops have issued a statement, "Stewardship and Teenagers: The Challenge of Being a Disciple"
• John Allen reports: Guidelines for religious ed, sexual morality adopted & 'Faithful Citizenship' passes; language sharpened on salvation, terrorism.

St. Blogs commentary:

• Diogenes: and waiting on deck,....
• My commentary on the USCCB Iraq statement/Q&A on Iraq

Traditional media reporting:

• CNA: U.S. Bishops support "responsible transition" in Iraq
• AP: Catholic Bishops Instruct Voters
• LifeNews: Catholic Bishops Vote for Document Saying Abortion Should Guide Voting
• CNA: U.S. Bishops move to help form consciences as 2008 election draws near
• Baltimore Sun: Bishops approve document on voting

Liveblogging updates (EWTN live video and audio feeds here):

• (No liveblogging today due to time constraints.)

AmP coverage of last year's meeting is available here:

• [Day One] [Day Two] [Day Three]

U.S. Bishops Tackle the Iraq Issue

Plenty of material to read:

• USCCB: Bishops call for bipartisan cooperation and responsible transition in Iraq
• CNS: Bishops finalize Iraq statement, urge new directions in war, policy

This amid reports that "More than half of Christians have fled Iraq since 2003" and Christians in Iraq would also be the "main victims of attack by Turkey" should that happen.

Perhaps more helpful is the accompanying "Questions and Answers on the War in Iraq" prepared by Bp. Thomas G. Wenski, Chairman of the Committee on International Policy" (scroll down the page).

My observations about the document:

• It is important for the U.S. Bishops to speak out on the issue of the Iraq War, and that they bring to bear the Church's teaching on these matters to U.S. policy makers.
• The statement that "Our nation must focus more on the ethics of exit than on the ethics of intervention" respects the sovereignty of Iraq but must also be contextualized within full a consideration of which strategy will improve humanitarian conditions in Iraq.
• Clearly, no one is happy with the situation in Iraq, that contribution of the document is nothing new.
• The two noted contributors to political paralysis ("Some policy makers seem to fail to recognize sufficiently the reality and failures in Iraq and the imperative for new directions. Others seem to fail to recognize sufficiently the potential human consequences of very rapid withdrawal") seem very sound.
• The statement explicitly mentions collaboration with Iran and Syria. While such a collaboration would be ideal, I don't see how it is necessarily a practical course.
• The statement calls for a pledge to not "seek permanent military bases in Iraq, nor control over Iraqi oil resources", a rather specific mandate.
• To its credit, the statment says "The suffering of the Christian community has a particular claim on our hearts and consciences." I think this dimension has not been receiving inadequate attention.
• A notable absence in the document - and I realize my observation could be taken as controversial - is a discussion of the religious/cultural causes of discord in Iraq and the Middle East in general. One could get the impression that U.S. forces "hold all the cards", so to speak, and retain ultimate moral responsibility for the humanitarian crisis. I think in addition to admonishing U.S. policy, more mention could be made of the embedded terrorist elements in Iraq (and Iran), and perhaps some guidelines could be given on how to address these enemy forces who are the primary cause for continued instability in the region. If Iraq were a united peaceful nation, American withdrawal would be far simpler.

Regarding the Q&A:

• In answer to question 4: "What was the position of the Church and the Bishops’ Conference prior to the Iraq war?", the response states: "Prior to the war, Pope John Paul II, the Holy See, and USCCB repeatedly expressed grave moral concerns regarding a possible military intervention in Iraq and the unpredictable and uncontrollable negative consequences of an invasion and occupation. The Holy See and the Conference remain highly skeptical of the concept of "preventive war." I remain open to seeing the documentation on that, but if my memory serves, "repeated ... grave moral concerns" were not vocally expressed at the time. I think this response lays itself open to charges of "I-told-you-soism". Similarly, I'm not aware of an entrenched teaching that views the concept of "preventative war" skeptically. Certainly, the stakes for a just preventative war are higher, but in an age of nuclear and biological weapons, I think the legitimate situations for preventative war will increase, not decrease. Of course, preventative individual military interventions is the more restrained and preferably path. While the answer to Question 11 elaborates on what they mean by this skepticism, the quotation from #501 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church seems to improperly use the term "preventative war" to discuss what is not legitimate "preventative war," thus begging the question. Of course unjust preventative war is not moral, but there is such a thing as preventative war that is moral, and that would be one where "a clear proof that an attack is imminent." The question about how imminent an attack must be remains one of prudence.
• One observation is very precient: "In addition, terrorism cannot be fought solely with military methods; we must address the poverty, powerlessness and injustice that terrorist leaders exploit to gain recruits."
• Regarding the question of religious freedom, the Q&A states "Post-war Iraq should be a nation where people of different religions and ethnicities can live together." Again, I think this obligation falls more on the shoulders of the Iraq people and Middle Eastern governments in general than the U.S. forces. No mention is made of the need for the Arab nations to spontaneously enact such legislation (I'm not aware of efforts). U.S. presence, if anything, is currently the best hope for religious freedom.
• Question 11 addresses the wider instabilities of the region, but makes no determinations regarding the endemic cultural and/or religious causes of this instabiliy. Have the U.S. Bishop's explicitly discussed this elsewhere, or do they for some reason consider it impolitic? It remains hard for me to see how the Bishop's can fruitfully criticize U.S. policy in the region without simultaneously identifying the unique challenges obtaining to a Western democracy intervening in the affairs of Middle-Eastern Islamic nations.

Okay, what do you think?

Bishops in Baltimore (Day Two)

This week the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is meeting in Baltimore. AmP will strive to provide complete, accurate day-by-day coverage. This meeting will feature ongoing discussions about (and possibly yield solutions to) several controversies facing the American Catholic hierarchy. Notable agenda items for this week include:

1. Election of a new 3 year term president (in all probability Francis Cardinal George of Chicago)
2. Election of a new 3 year term vice-president from a pool of nine nominees.
3. Election of new chairs for several important committees (terms vary)
4. Discussion of a new document advising Catholics how to Vote their Catholic conscience (briefly reported previously here, here & here)
5. Discussion of the role of U.S. Bishops in political issues
6. Presentation and discussion of John Jay research on the causes of the sex-abuse crisis
7. Discussion of the U.S. Bishop's ongoing marriage campaign (previously reported here).
8. Discussion of revised guidelines for music selections at Mass

• Related: This week's AmP reader poll: Who should be the USCCB vice-president in 2008?

Essential links:

• The USCCB's official page for the 2007 Fall General Assembly
• Documents from this year's meeting will be posted here.
• EWTN will provide live video and audio feeds of the public sessions here (schedule here).
• John Allen's coverage here, Rocco Palmo's updates here.

Day Two:

USCCB issues a statement, "A Call for Bipartisan Cooperation on Responsible Transition in Iraq" and a press release, "U.S. Catholic Bishops elect new president and vice president", which reads:

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, has been elected president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) for a three year term beginning in 2008. The election occurred November 13 during the bishops’ general meeting November 12-15 in Baltimore. Cardinal George received 188 votes out of 222 votes cast for a total of 85%.

Under USCCB by-laws, the nine remaining candidates become candidates for vice president. Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas of Tucson, Arizona was elected as the new USCCB vice president, capturing a majority of 55% of the votes.

As expected, Cardinal George is the next USCCB president. He is the first religious to become president, and the first cardinal since 1971. Bp. Kicanas won over Bp. Dolan in a head-to-head vote after the first round failed to nominate a clear winner. Rocco has more and adds:

• Archbishop Joseph Kurtz was elected conference treasurer by a 2-to-1 edge over Bishop Michael Bransfield of Wheeling-Charleston
• Cultural Diversity in Life of the Church -- Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio
• Clergy, Consecrated Life and Religious -- Cardinal Sean O'Malley OFM Cap. of Boston
• Catholic Education -- Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Curry of Los Angeles
• Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs -- Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta
• Evangelization and Catechesis -- Bishop Richard Malone of Portland in Maine
• International Justice and Peace -- Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany
• Canonical Affairs and Church Governance -- Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago
• Protection of Children and Young People -- Bishop Blase Cupich of Rapid City.

My commentary on these elections will be posted separately.

John Allen has been working overtime:

• Bishops adopt new financial controls
• Interview with Archbishop Charles Chaput
• Bishop most linked to denial of communion for pro-choice pols loses race
• Kicanas elected vice-president
• Sex abuse in church mirrors broad social patterns, study suggests

St. Blogs commentary:

• Ed Peters: The choice between Abp. Burke and Bp. Paprocki
• Diogenes: The vote to watch

Mainstream media reporting:

• {to be updated soon}

Liveblogging updates (EWTN live video and audio feeds here):

• (No liveblogging today due to time constraints.)

AmP coverage of last year's meeting is available here:

• [Day One] [Day Two] [Day Three]

Bishops in Baltimore (Day One)

This week the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is meeting in Baltimore. AmP will strive to provide complete, accurate day-by-day coverage. This meeting will feature ongoing discussions about (and possibly yield solutions to) several controversies facing the American Catholic hierarchy. Notable agenda items for this week include:

1. Election of a new 3 year term president (in all probability Francis Cardinal George of Chicago)
2. Election of a new 3 year term vice-president from a pool of nine nominees.
3. Election of new chairs for several important committees (terms vary)
4. Discussion of a new document advising Catholics how to Vote their Catholic conscience (briefly reported previously here, here & here)
5. Discussion of the role of U.S. Bishops in political issues
6. Presentation and discussion of John Jay research on the causes of the sex-abuse crisis
7. Discussion of the U.S. Bishop's ongoing marriage campaign (previously reported here).
8. Discussion of revised guidelines for music selections at Mass

• Related: This week's AmP reader poll: Who should be the USCCB vice-president in 2008?

Essential links:

• The USCCB's official page for the 2007 Fall General Assembly
• Documents from this year's meeting will be posted here.
• EWTN will provide live video and audio feeds of the public sessions here (schedule here).
• John Allen's coverage here, Rocco Palmo's updates here.

General comments:

Newly-installed Archbishop of Baltimore Edwin F. O'Brien has been making headlines in the weeks leading up to this meeting, first removing one of his priests for grave liturgical and disciplinary infractions (Get Religion covered the story here), and second by calling the defense of traditional marriage "an urgent necessity".

Local newspaper Baltimore Sun is already providing an open forum for people to vent their complaints against the Church's governing hierarchy. Expect more comments of a similar nature throughout the week.

St. Blogs commentary:

• Diogenes: The vote to watch
• Ed Peters: The choice between Abp. Burke and Bp. Paprocki

Mainstream media reporting:

• USA Today: Bishops to guide voting faithful on life questions
• New York Times: Catholic Bishops’ Taxing Task: Election-Year Statement
• Associated Press: Chicago archbishop poised to lead U.S. bishops
• Associated Press: Catholic bishops to meet in Baltimore

Liveblogging updates (EWTN live video and audio feeds here):

• 11:50am - Rocco gives us his first report, Morning at "The Circus"
• 11:55am - John Allen gives us his first reports, Advisors call for document on reproductive technology & 'It's the Devil, stupid!'
• 12:05pm - Abp. Pietro Sambi has officially confirmed that Pope Benedict is visiting the USA (DC & NYC) from April 15-20. Complete coverage of that story here.
• 12:10pm - John Allen: "Situation in Iraq 'unacceptable and unsustainable'"
• 12:15pm - Action item #13 (re: informing consciences & voting) is now being discussed
• 12:20pm - Q&A session.
• 12:25pm - Action item #14 Mandates for the permanent sub-committees.
• 12:25pm - Action item #15 Something about stewardship and teenagers presented by Bp. Baker.
• 1:00pm - Abp. Wuerl is handling the press conference very well I think.
• 1:05pm - Things will be quiet until the next live broadcast (2-5pm EST)
• 3:45pm - John Allen: "In what shaped up as the liveliest discussion of the morning, a proposed new rite for weekday celebration of the Eucharist in the absence of a priest brought the bishops face-to-face with the difficult choices created by a spreading priest shortage.... The draft rite was presented as a simple response to pastoral reality, but some bishops wondered aloud if it might amount to institutionalizing what should be seen as an exceptional and temporary situation."
• 3:50pm - Rocco alerts that Bp. Skylstad's presidential address has been posted.

AmP coverage of last year's meeting is available here:

• [Day One] [Day Two] [Day Three]

AmP Reader Poll: The '08 USCCB Nominees

Maybe it's my frustration with political campaigns, maybe it's my recent relocation to Washington DC (the veritable belly of the polling beast), or maybe it's the fact that I haven't had a new AmP Reader Poll in a couple weeks, but whatever the reason....

This Monday (Nov. 12th) the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will convene in Baltimore, MD for their annual meeting [Related: AmP's complete coverage of the Bishops in Baltimore].

The first order of business will be electing a president and vice-president (CNS has a brief here). In keeping with tradition, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago is expected to take over the presidency (having served as the vice-president of the USCCB this past year). In fact, it's pretty much a guarantee.

However, the quest to nominate a new vice-president is wide open, so to speak. Rocco explains the process:

Once the new president -- who'll take office after the meeting's close -- is chosen, the remaining nine nominees will face off for the deputy's post, with the two top vote-getters ending up in a head-to-head.

Now, of course, the Catholic Church is not democractically governed. "Truth," Cardinal Ratzinger famously said, "is not determined by a majority vote." (Don't believe me? It's on a t-shirt and so must be true!). But some things in the Church are democratically determined, such as the vice-presidency of the USCCB.

Well .... actually, we don't get a vote in that election either.

But what we can do is vote in this Reader Poll (and then tell our friends). Campaigning is welcome - within reason - and please feel free to explain your vote in the comment box so we can have some good discussion! Vox populi!

Can't see the above poll? Vote here.

Now, the head-to-head voting for committee chairs:

Can't see the above poll? Click here.

Can't see the above poll? Click here.

Can't see the above poll? Click here.

Can't see the above poll? Click here.

Can't see the above poll? Click here.

Thanks to Rocco Palmo who did the source reporting for this poll content. Brian Page of Christus Vincit has posted his picks here. "Domini Sumus" notes that "This may be the last year for where the terms for all the committee chairs end at the same thing. Plans are currently being proposed for 1/3 of the committee chairs to leave office each year."

As always, you are more than welcome to link to this poll. I'd like as wide a sample of St. Blog's as possible.

Related: After 3 years of abuse crisis, U.S. bishops' head ready for a retreat (CNS)

The latest on the Pope's visit and USCCB meeting

For the latest Papal Visit to the U.S. Rumors: Rocco reports here.
For the USCCB President/Vice-President nominees list: here.

Bishops to vote on doc/parish bulletin insert re: political involvement

CNS reports:

Rejecting a political climate based on "powerful interests, partisan attacks, sound bites and media hype," the U.S. bishops call Catholics to "a different kind of political engagement" in a document to be voted on during their fall general meeting Nov. 12-15 in Baltimore.That engagement must be "shaped by the moral convictions of well-formed consciences and focused on the dignity of every human being, the pursuit of the common good and the protection of the weak and vulnerable," they said.

The 37-page "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility From the Catholic Bishops of the United States" was developed by seven committees of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and must be approved by two-thirds of the USCCB membership.

The bishops also are to vote on a shortened version of the text, designed for use as a parish bulletin insert.

There are some encouraging signs that this document might not be more "business as usual":

The draft is part of a series of documents that have been issued before every presidential election for more than 30 years.

But the 2007 version underwent a wider consultation at the committee level and is the first to come before the full body of bishops. In past years, the documents were approved by the Administrative Committee, made up of the executive officers of the USCCB, elected committee chairmen and elected regional representatives.

Although the draft document outlines a wide variety of policy positions taken by the bishops on domestic and international issues, it makes clear that not all issues carry equal importance.

"There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor," the document says, citing in particular abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, stem-cell research involving the destruction of human embryos and "violations of human dignity such as racism, torture, genocide and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war."

The bishops warn against "two temptations in public life (that) can distort the church's defense of human life and dignity."

"The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity," they say. "The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is ... not just one issue among many."

But it is also wrong to misuse "these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity," the draft document says.

Although there might be "principled debate" about the best approach on issues such as health care, racism, unjust war, the death penalty and immigration, "this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore church teaching on these important issues," the bishops say.

I don't know, the pessimistic side of me foresees yet another USCCB document that folks will blithely be able to take whichever way they wish - and here's the rub - and without trying too hard.

We'll see. On opinions like this I love being proven wrong.

Of course, if anyone has a draft of the document floating around that would save me the worry....

Climate change and the USCCB

I'm trying to figure out what the relationship status is between the USCCB and the various global warming lobbies. This article by CNS, "Nuncio says by living simply Catholics can help protect the earth", I think may provide some clues. Unfortunately, I have a very busy afternoon and won't be able to add my comments until later.

In the meantime, I'd love to hear yours.