Archbishop Chaput on "Catholics for Obama '08"

... Carter had one serious strike against him. The U.S. Supreme Court had legalized abortion on demand in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and Carter the candidate waffled about restricting it. At the time, I knew Carter was wrong in his views about Roe and soft toward permissive abortion. But even as a priest, I justified working for him because he wasn’t aggressively “pro-choice.” True, he held a bad position on a vital issue, but I believed he was right on so many more of the “Catholic” issues than his opponent seemed to be. The moral calculus looked easy. I thought we could remedy the abortion problem after Carter was safely returned to office.

Carter lost his bid for re-election, but even with an avowedly prolife Ronald Reagan as president, the belligerence, dishonesty, and inflexibility of the pro-choice lobby has stymied almost every effort to protect unborn human life since.

In the years after the Carter loss, I began to notice that very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be “personally opposed” to abortion really did anything about it. Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand-wringing and a convenient excuse—exactly as it is today. In fact, I can’t name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life—not one. Some talk about it, and some may mean well, but there’s very little action. In the United States in 2008, abortion is an acceptable form of homicide. And it will remain that way until Catholics force their political parties and elected officials to act differently.

From Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08”, by Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Denver. First Things' On The Square. May 20, 2008.

The Implications of California's Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage

"The real aim of the California Supreme Court decision" - The Reluctant Penitent:

The real effect of the decision is to marginalize people who have a certain view on human sexuality. It also happens that such a view is taught by the Catholic Church, by conservative Protestant denominations, by Muslims, and by and by traditional Jews. Thus the law gives people who disagree with these religious groups the right to control and stigmatize them in some quite dramatic ways.

The rabbi, priest, and minister who choose to speak about sexuality with their congregations may be surprised to learn that, in the eyes of the State of California, they are doing something as morally reprehensible as the neo-Nazi seething to his fellow hatemongers about the vices of the black and Jewish races. Right now, in the state of California, anyone, religious or not, who thinks that human sexual activity should be restricted to the heterosexual marital relationship is as marginal as a racist or a Holocaust denier.

Sure, they can continue to communicate on the fringes of society, and on dodgy internet sites. But in any mainstream context they can be denied the right to communicate their ideas, on the grounds that they are arbitrary, intolerant, and dangerous.

See also: The Unintended Consequences of 'Same Sex Marriage', by Ronald J. Rychlak, associate dean and MDLA Professor of Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law. Catholic.org. May 2, 2008.

Doug Kmiec "deeply troubled" over NARAL's endorsement of Obama

• "The Politics of Apostasy" - "It won’t help now that the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) has endorsed Obama over Clinton. This is an endorsement that is deeply troubling," sniffs Doug Kmiec in (feigned?) suprise.
  

• Did Doug Kmiec Just Now Catch On That Obama and NARAL Are Politically Conjoined?, by Jay Anderson (Pro Ecclesia)
  

Bush Speech to Israeli Parliament (Knesset)

Here is the link to video of the speech from C-SPAN. The President affirmed the biblical promise of the Lord granting the Holy Land to Israel and affirmed U.S. support for the State of Israel. The President condemned the type of naive appeasement endorsed by Obama in relation to Iran. John McCain backed the President strongly (see N.Y. Times link) and condemned Obama's naive approach to Iran in these words:

“I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government [Iran] that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That’s what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.'’

Source link.

Here is the text of the President's speech. My analysis: Obama has "Jimmy Carter" written all over him.

Catholics, Republicans and Abortion: How We Got Where We Are Today

Criss-Cross: Democrats, Republicans, and Abortion Human Life Review Summer 2006.

A fascinating article from a while back (which I uncovered revisiting old issues of First Things) asks a question that is relevant even today, while providing a conception-shattering history of how, in the words of Fr. Neuhaus, we got where we are today.

Here's a taste:

The Bernardin of 1976 developed a very powerful case for abolishing abortion. Appearing before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee in March of that year, he went out of his way to refute the argument (later advanced by Mario Cuomo) that opposition to abortion is a purely "religious" position which Catholics must not try to impose on non-Catholics. Abortion, Bernardin said, "is not wrong simply because the Catholic Church or any church says it is wrong. Abortion is wrong in and of itself. The obligation to safeguard human life arises not from religious or sectarian doctrine, but from universal moral imperatives concerning human dignity, the right to life, and the responsibility of government to protect basic human rights."

With the election fast approaching, Bernardin kept up the fire. Some weeks before Carter met with the Bishops' executive committee, he issued a statement anticipating Carter's argument that the Democrats' other positions were in accord with Church doctrine, aimed as they were at countering the threats to life from hunger, disease, drug and alcohol abuse, and other ills. Bernardin agreed that human life is threatened in a number of ways in our society. Abortion, however, stands out because it is "a direct assault on the lives of those who are least able to defend themselves.... [I]f we become insensitive to the violation of the basic right to life, our sensitivity to the entire spectrum of human rights will ultimately be eroded." After the meeting Bernardin repeated those views, reminding his listeners that the bishops had expressed strong disagreement-"indeed outrage"-with the Democrats' abortion plank. "We ... repeat today, with all the moral force we can muster, the need for a constitutional amendment to protect the life of the unborn."

Curiousity perked? -- Read the whole thing.

DarwinCatholic on "A Pro-Choice Catholic I could Support"

"A Pro Choice Politician I could Support", by DarwinCatholic:

I think it essentially goes without saying (though not quite, which is why I'm saying it) that there are situations in which a Catholic would in good conscience vote for a pro-choice politician despite that politicians pro-choice stance. The USCCB in its document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" repeats a traditional understanding of how one may vote for a politician who supports certain evils if one disagrees with those positions, and if one holds that there are sufficiently grave considerations which cause one to believe that it is most to the common good to elect that politician despite his holding some objectively evil beliefs.

However, it seems to me that in discussing the upcoming election, several Catholics in public and intellectual life (Douglas Kmiec very much among them) have attempted to make the case that one should support Obama not despite his stand on abortion, but rather because an Obama administration will be able to make progress towards a more truly pro-life society in a way that recent Republican administrations have not been able to. I disagree with people who take the former position, though I can certainly respect them, but I take serious objection to those who take the latter, and this post is intended to address them. ...

Must-read post of the day.

Archbishop Naumann to Kansas Gov. Sebelius: Stop Taking Communion, Publicly Apologize [UPDATED]

Maybe Cardinal Egan started a trend. Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, of the Archdiocese of Kansas City on Friday told pro-abortion Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to absent herself from taking Holy Communion:

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius should stop taking Communion until she repudiates her support for the “serious moral evil” of abortion, the Catholic archbishop for northeast Kansas says.

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, also criticized the governor Friday for her recent veto of a bill imposing new restrictions on abortion providers.

In a column published in the archdiocesan newspaper The Leaven, (read it below) Naumann called on the Catholic governor to take the “necessary steps for amendment of her life.”

Naumann later told The Kansas City Star that would involve a confession, a public apology and a promise to undo the damage done by her “scandalous behavior that has misled people into dangerous behavior.”

Sebelius spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said the governor had not seen the column, but said “receiving Communion has not been a problem in the past for her.”

From that last paragraph, one wonders if Gov. Sebelius will just thumb her nose at the Archbishop's "request" that she stop taking Communion. Here's more:

Naumann said he wrote to Sebelius in August and asked her to refrain from Communion but learned recently that she’d participated in the sacrament at a church in Topeka. He said he again wrote and asked her to respect his request and “not require from me any additional pastoral actions.”

Forcing priests to refrain from giving the governor Communion would be one option, but one not being considered by the archbishop. Instead, he said he puts the burden on Sebelius to do the “right thing” and heal the fracture her actions have caused the church.

For Catholics, he said, the Eucharist is the literal nourishment of the body of Jesus Christ and not a symbolic gesture. So to support abortion and take Communion creates a theologic contradiction that is unacceptable, Naumann said.

“The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our governor, as well as many other high-profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: ‘The church’s teaching on abortion is optional!’ ” Naumann wrote in the Friday column.

Sebelius has been a strong supporter of abortion rights throughout her political career. She has repeatedly vetoed legislation sought by anti-abortion groups and supported by the state’s Catholic leaders.

[More]

UPDATE
It seems that Gov. Sebelius' name has been mentioned as a potential addition to the Obama ticket. In case you didn't catch that, Washington Post political blogger Chris Cillizza listed Sebelius as the most likely candidate to join Obama on the Democrat presidential ticket.

Whatever the merit of such talk, I think the idea of Sebelius for VP is now impossible. I don't think there's any way Obama risks the Catholic vote by adding an interdicted Catholic to his ticket (although I'm not sure this officially counts as an "interdiction"; but it's close enough to become a political issue should Obama pick Sebelius).

As one commenter at Amy Welborn's blog put it:

Sebelius is being talked about as a vice presidential candidate. It’s better this happens now than after she gets chosen to become Geraldine Ferraro 2.0.

Here's the reason that Obama is unlikely to risk the controversy of adding Sebelius to his ticket:

Given the effort the Obama Catholics have put into winning over Catholic voters, having a national ticket in which one of the candidates' Bishop has already taken corrective action regarding unworthy receipt of Communion would make the Kerry Communion controversy look like small potatos.

Vox Nova's Newspeak of the Day

CatholicDemocrats.org: “Abortion is a surgical procedure that is safe for the mother.”

Gerald Campbell: [CatholicDemocrats.org] is not saying that “abortion IS a surgical procedure that is safe for the mother.”

I defer to Br. Matthew Augustine, OP.

* * *

Update

Michael Joseph @ Vox Nova has taken offense at a perceived distortion of Campbell's remarks. Very well, I don't mind posting the context and letting readers judge for themselves:

Gerald Campbell: “Abortion is a surgical procedure that is safe for the mother.”

CD is not saying that “abortion IS a surgical procedure that is safe for the mother.” They are not attempting to define abortion in those gross terms. If abortion were defined as nothing more than a surgical procedure, such claim would not be correct — for reasons you indicate.

What CD is doing is pointing out that, in practical terms, a woman who decides to have an illegal abortion (this presumes the laws have been changed) would not be able to find a doctor that would perform such abortion because they would be prohibited from doing so by law. They would thus be forced to turn from a “surgical procedure” to the use of a drug, namely, “Misoprostol”. CD then points out that this drug is correlated with birth defects and maternal death. In addition, it would become part of an illicit drug trade.

These are consequences — and there are probably among many others — that would result from making abortion illegal.

NOW, the purpose CD has in making this point is not to argue against making abortion illegal. Their mission has to do with public policy only. Rather, their purpose is to demonstrate the shortcomings of the Bush Administration’s stand on abortion. The Bush Administration, they are attempting to demonstrate, has not thought through the implications of their own policies.

CD, however, is NOT arguing that abortion should be kept legal BECAUSE of the outgrowth of such consequences. That is not their intent. No, they are merely stating that these potential public policy problems have not been adequately addressed in the Bush Administration’s position on abortion.

Really now? -- Could have fooled me.

Actually, as Br. Matthew Augustine contends, the Catholic Democrats' coverage of this issue is framed in such a manner as to constitute a consequentialist argument for abortion, criticizing those they dub "advocates of illegality". And I agree with him that this is the more plausible reading than Gerald's interpretation.

He goes on to note that The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, by stating that Roe v. Wade deserves "only to be condemned, repudiated and ultimately reversed" would fall under the same criticism as Catholic conservatives.

* * *

The authors of the website make the claim that "The Bush Administration has done nothing to decrease the number of abortions in the United States"; it dismisses the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (which recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills both her and her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims) and the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" as utterly inconsequential, along with the Bush Administration's federal funding of church-sponsored "crisis pregnancy centers."

Indeed, the authors of the site would have us believe that Republicans and Christian conservatives have done nothing for the pro-life cause (a charge regularly bandied about at Vox Nova, and one I believe we challenged a while back -- see: Countering the "GOP / Bush 'duped' Pro-Lifers" Smear January 30, 2008).

So tell me -- because I honestly don't get this: if all of the pro-life efforts of the Bush administration and the GOP really, truly amount to nothing as Catholic Democrats claim, exactly why is Planned Parenthood so adamantly opposed? (See George W. Bush's War on Women: A Planned Parenthood Report on the Administration and Congress and its Chronology of Bush's War on Reproductive Rights?

Likewise, why does the Democratic presidential candidate from Illinois, favored by Gerald Campbell and many Catholic Democrats attack the federal ban on partial birth abortion, condemning it as "part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women"?

Why did he proclaim that "on this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield", boasting of his opposition to the GOP and the Bush administration?

Why does he warn his supporters that “With one more vacancy on the Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe versus Wade and that is what is at stake in this election?”

Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood vs. the Phantom Menace of Republican opposition to abortion

Help me out, because it seems that much as Catholic Democrats want to assure us that the efforts of pro-life conservatives -- to provide legal recognition and protection to the life of the unborn; to ban the flow of federal funds to agencies which promote abortion; to fund crisis pregnancy centers; to place judges on the courts who view Roe v. Wade for the travesty of justice that it is -- has been utterly in vain and accomplished nothing, they seem to be having a difficult time convincing their own party.

Senator John McCain's Judicial Philosophy

• Senator John McCain on his Judicial Philosophy:

  ... Federal courts are charged with applying the Constitution and laws of our country to each case at hand. There is great honor in this responsibility, and honor is the first thing to go when courts abuse their power. The moral authority of our judiciary depends on judicial self-restraint, but this authority quickly vanishes when a court presumes to make law instead of apply it. A court is hardly competent to check the abuses of other branches of government when it cannot even control itself.
  

  One Justice of the Court remarked in a recent opinion that he was basing a conclusion on "my own experience," even though that conclusion found no support in the Constitution, or in applicable statutes, or in the record of the case in front of him. Such candor from the bench is rare and even commendable. But it was not exactly news that the Court had taken to setting aside the facts and the Constitution in its review of cases, and especially in politically charged cases. Often, political causes are brought before the courts that could not succeed by democratic means, and some federal judges are eager to oblige. Politicians sometimes contribute to the problem as well, abdicating responsibility and letting the courts make the tough decisions for them. One abuse of judicial authority inspires more. One act of raw judicial power invites others. And the result, over many years, has been a series of judicial opinions and edicts w andering farther and farther from the clear meanings of the Constitution, and from the clear limits of judicial power that the Constitution defines. ...

  
  
• Some Analysis from CPS colleague Jay Anderson @ Pro Ecclesia
  

• Obama's laughable response to McCain (FoxNews' interview with Rudy Giuliani):

  KELLY: Well, it didn't take long for Obama's camp to fire right back. At that, we'll get to the Obama campaign reaction in a minute. First, we want to get the mayor's reaction to John McCain's accusation saying that Obama — and he actually took aim at Clinton, too, having an elitist view of judges.
  

  GIULIANI: I would say that's a very legitimate difference, rather than a charge or an accusation. John McCain is going to appoint judges who are conservative. Barack Obama will appoint judges who are left-wing. He will appoint activist judges who are activist judges in the sense of trying to take the Constitution and move it into solving social problems rather than feeling stuck with the words of the Constitution.
  

  KELLY: It's funny you should mention that, Mr. Mayor, because Barack Obama in a statement responding to John McCain's point today said and I quote, "Barack Obama has always believed that our court should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves."
  

  Why the laughter?
  

  GIULIANI: Well, the laughter because that is not what a judge in the American legal system is supposed to do. That is not a really responsible definition of a judge. The judge is supposed to interpret the law. And the law is written by other people. It's written by members of the Congress. It's written by framers of the Constitution. It's written by the people when they amend the Constitution.
  

  And then a judge has to have a certain, I would say, dedication to trying to interpret what other people mean and sometimes cannot put their social views into action. This is a very fair issue. John McCain would appoint judges who are more, I would call, originalists in terms of trying to define the meaning that other people had.

  
  

On Doug Kmiec's (dishonest) endorsement of Obama

• Doug Kmiec Reaffirms Endorsing Sen. Barack Obama (by Doug Kmiec). Catholic.org. May 5, 2008.
  
• RESPONSE: Douglas Kmiec Will Have a Plate of the "Safe, Legal and Rare" with a Side of "I Feel Your Pain," Please., by Leon Wolf. RedState.com. May 8, 2008.
  
• RESPONSE: Kmiec's Dishonesty, by Jay Anderson. Pro Ecclesia May 8, 2008.
  

Election Update from Karl Rove

Rove is known to many as President Bush's chief political strategist who is now in private life working as a political commentator. Here is the link to his current analysis of the presidential race. Here are the highlights: 1.) Obama will be the Democrat nominee; 2.) McCain is the best nominee the Republicans could have put forward given the dynamics of this election year. The general election will be very competitive. For Catholics, the choice is crystal clear: McCain is pro-life; Obama is enthusiastically pro-abortion. Start thinking now how you will participate in the general election campaign. Consider a McCain lawn sign or volunteering for the McCain campaign. But the most important thing you can do is to tell the people you know that you support McCain because he is pro-life. Word of mouth witnessing is the best "persuader." McCain will work to reverse Roe v. Wade. For Obama, Roe v. Wade is holy writ.

My own reflections on the state of the election are these:

1.) We have seen a stunning, welcome, and historic defeat of the Clinton duo--an arrogant, morally confused blight on American politics, society, and culture since 1992;

2.) We now have in Obama a doctrinaire leftist nominee for the Democrats who is unfit to be President simply by virtue of the highly ambiguous and tenuous nature of his affection for the United States of America;

3.) McCain will provide a fresh Republican face, reformist, pragmatic, and conservative, that will defy the ideological stereotypes of Republicans in recent years.

Catholics in the House!

The House of Represenatives is adding two more Catholics to its members this week.

 

Rep-elect Don Cazayoux (LA-6) won a special election on Saturday, winning a fomerly Republican held district in Louisianna.  Cazayoux is a moderate-to-conservative Democrat and his pro-life. From his web site:

I am pro-life. This is a position that my wife and I share and its rooted in my faith. In the legislature, I supported one of the strongest pro-life laws in the country and in Congress, I will continue my work to protect the unborn.

Our hopes and prayers that his defense of the unborn will indeed continue and that your example may change the hearts of those in your party who disgree with you.

 

Rep-elect Steve Scalise (LA-1) won a special election on Saturday to fill the seat left vacant by Bobby Jindal, another Catholic, who was elected governor of Louisianna.  Rep-elect Scalise is also a strong pro-lifer and as well an advocate for traditional marriage. From his web site:

As a husband and a father of a young daughter, Steve Scalise understands what it means to fight for our traditional family values. Steve is pro-life and has a 100% pro-life voting record with the Louisiana Right to Life Federation. He was the author of the constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. Like you, Steve Scalise supports traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

Congratualtions to Reps-elect Cazayoux and Scalise!

 

Philip Lawler on Cardinal Egan's public rebuke of Giuliani

By emphasizing the gravity of support for the legalized killing of the unborn, the cardinal takes a strong stand in defense of human life. Since Giuliani is not currently a candidate for political office, the cardinal's statement cannot be misinterpreted as a partisan gesture. Rather, he is using an opportunity to instruct the faithful.

At the same time, the cardinal is protecting the Church from further scandal. And as a pastor he is showing his concern for Giuliani, who is endangering his own soul by receiving the Eucharist improperly. The cardinal's message should not be lost on countless other Catholics who are receiving Communion while in a state of serious sin; in that respect, too, his is a valuable pastoral statement.

In all these respects, Cardinal Egan's statement stands in stark contrast to the official silence from Washington's Archbishop Donald Wuerl after several prominent pro-abortion Catholics-- most notably Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy-- received Communion during the papal Mass in that city. Although these prominent politicians had indicated beforehand that they planned to receive the Eucharist, the archbishop made no statement to discourage them or to indicate to the public that they would be receiving Communion in violation of Church law. A spokesman for the US bishops' conference issued only a lame statement: "People go to church and people go to Communion if they feel in their heart they are prepared to receive Communion.”

After the fact, Archbishop Wuerl had another opportunity to clarify Church teaching. He remained silent, and his silence appeared to give consent. Perceptive reporters like John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter and Bob Novak of the Washington Post concluded that the net effect of the papal visit had been to encourage the notion that "pro-choice" Catholics are eligible to receive Communion-- a notion that the future Pope Benedict himself very clearly rejected during his exchange with American bishops in 2004.

The public statement from Cardinal Egan, then, corrects the record and prevents the further dissemination of a very misleading and damaging perception about Catholic Church teaching and pastoral practice. For that reason, too, the cardinal deserves our thanks.

Lawler also speculates that there was a specific reason that Egan focused on Giuliani's stance on abortion (as opposed to his marital status, which would itself have barred him from communion):

By basing his argument on Giuliani's advocacy for abortion, Cardinal Egan has sharpened the contrast between his stand and the stand (or non-stand) taken by Archbishop Wuerl. If the cardinal had cited Giuliani's marital status as the factor that disqualified him, the argument would not have applied to Pelosi, Kerry, and Kennedy, all of whom are properly married (with annulments in place where appropriate) in the eyes of the Church.

As Lawler points out, Egan had already spokenw ith Giuliani privately, then reaching what he had referred to as "an understanding" that the ex-mayor would refrain from the Eucharist. Giuliani chose to violate that agreement, forcing Egan's hand:

When he was apprised of the cardinal's rebuke, Giuliani responded through a spokesman with a statement claiming that his Catholic faith "is a deeply personal matter and should remain confidential." But if he had really wanted to keep the matter confidential, he would have abided by his agreement from Cardinal Egan. Instead he received Communion at the very time when his action would receive the most widespread publicity. He richly deserved the cardinal's rebuke.

Cardinal Edward Egan steps up, rebukes Giuliani's reception of Eucharist

• Statement by Cardinal Edward M. Egan, Archdiocese of New York City:

  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 28, 2008
  

  The following is a statement issued by Edward Cardinal Egan:
  

  “ The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God. Throughout my years as Archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses, and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind. Thus it was that I had an understanding with Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, when I became Archbishop of New York and he was serving as Mayor of New York, that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion. I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the Eucharist during the Papal visit here in New York, and I will be seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding.”

  
  
• Roundup of news and commentary at American Papist (Thomas Peters).
  

• Readers might remember that back in gave an interview with NBC, in which -- asked about his opinions of the presidential candidates, declined to weigh in on their "pro-choice" stance:

  I'm not looking to involve myself in any political issues that are not moral issues, basically. For instance, I think that you can consider the abortion issue a political issue, but it's basically an issue of right and wrong. And I've certainly spoken on that very clearly. ... don't ever expect me to be involved in partisan politics. I think I'm a good friend of [Pataki, Giuliani, Hillary], whom you've mentioned or whom I've mentioned. And I wish them all the best, and they've been very good to us."

  An "artful dodge" which prompted Fr. Neuhaus to respond:

  of course he was making a statement of momentous political consequence, in that he seemed to be saying, as far as he is concerned, that the Church has no problem with pro-abortion politicians. It is understandable that Catholics and others have drawn the conclusion that, for both Wuerl and Egan, bishops of the two most prominent sees in the country, rejecting the Church’s teaching on the human dignity of the unborn child is not a big deal.
  

  Note that the politicians in question in these instances are not struggling with the moral questions involved or trying to reconcile their position with the Church’s teaching. At least there is no public evidence of such struggle, nor any suggestion by the bishops that their longstanding and adamant support for the unlimited abortion license should be a matter of concern.

  Perhaps this can be taken as evidence that Egan is finally recognizing that -- when a prominent Catholic politician proclaims himself to be "pro-choice, pro-gay rights" in clear defiance of Church teaching, while relegating his faith to "a private matter" -- one cannot so easily separate proclamation of moral teaching from "partisan politics."
  

What are the "priorities" of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops?

Take it from their head, Cardinal George (speaking to Pope Benedict XVI:

The episcopal conference has recently identified the strengthening of marriage and of family life as one of five priorities for our common attention in the next several years. The other four are protecting the life and dignity of the human person at every stage of life’s journey; handing on the faith in the context of sacramental practice and the observance of Sunday worship; fostering vocations to ordained priesthood and consecrated life; and profiting from the cultural diversity of the church here, especially from the gifts of Hispanic Catholics.

(Hat tip: Bill Cork (Oak Leaves)What? -- No global warming? ;-)

Pope Benedict's telegrams to various Heads of State

From Zenit News, the text of several telegrams Benedict XVI wrote to officials from the countries he flew over during his flight from New York to Rome, including the President of the United States:

The Honorable George W. Bush

President of the United States of America - Washington

At the conclusion of my visit to the United States and the United Nations Organization I offer heartfelt thanks to you and your fellow citizens for your kind reception and ready assistance during my stay and I renew my prayers that Almighty God will ever guide your Nation in the way of prosperity and peace. Upon all the beloved American people I cordially invoke an abundance of divine Blessings.

Benedictus pp. xvi

The rest of the telegrams are addressed to the heads of state of the United States, Canada, Ireland, France and Italy.

"No hard line on communion to pro-choice pols"? -- Think again.

John Allen Jr. asserts that "no hard line from pope on communion for pro-choice pols" (National Catholic Reporter's NCRcafe April 20, 2008):

At least three times during Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the United States, a prominent pro-choice Catholic politician has received communion during a papal Mass. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, both Democrats, took communion during the Mass on Thursday at Nationals Park in Washington, and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a Republican, received communion in St. Patrick’s Cathedral on Saturday.

In none of these cases did the politicians receive communion directly from the pope, but it nonetheless happened during a papal Mass, and it took no one by surprise. Pelosi, for example, announced her intention to take communion in response to a question I asked her during a conference call with reporters the day before the Thursday Mass.

While it would be a stretch to say that Benedict XVI authorized what happened, one can at least infer that the pope did not issue strict instructions to the contrary. The cumulative effect of these events will likely be to weaken the case that the Vatican wants the American bishops to take a stricter stance against communion for pro-choice Catholics in public life.

Several thoughts:

• Pope Benedict XVI made his wishes explicitly known on this matter in 2004 letter, "Worthiness to Receive Communion: General Principles":

  4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
  

  5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

  It simply doesn't get any clearer than that, does it?
  

• Pope Benedict XVI also took the opportunity to bring attention to the specific matter of Catholics and abortion in his address to U.S. Catholic Bishops, when he lamented:

  a growing separation of faith from life: living “as if God did not exist”. This is aggravated by an individualistic and eclectic approach to faith and religion: far from a Catholic approach to “thinking with the Church”, each person believes he or she has a right to pick and choose, maintaining external social bonds but without an integral, interior conversion to the law of Christ. Consequently, rather than being transformed and renewed in mind, Christians are easily tempted to conform themselves to the spirit of this age (cf. Rom 12:3). We have seen this emerge in an acute way in the scandal given by Catholics who promote an alleged right to abortion.

  To mention this issue explicitly, above numerous others, as an example of the "growing separation of faith from life" is a good indication Benedict takes this seriously.
  

• According to John Allen, "While it would be a stretch to say that Benedict XVI authorized what happened, one can at least infer that the pope did not issue strict instructions to the contrary." I don't think Allen's "argument from silence" will hold up. After all, one might just as well infer from this that Pope Benedict is expecting the U.S. Bishops to assert some individual authority over "pro-choice" Catholic legislators in their dioceses and make their own decisions on this matter -- the Holy Father has given his recommendation. He doesn't need to hold their hand.
  

Twice-Divorced, Pro-Abort Rudy Giuliani Receives Communion at Papal Mass

From Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Twice-divorced former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani took Communion at a Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict on Saturday, breaching rules that bar those who remarry outside the Church from doing so.

As he left New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral with his third wife, Judith, the failed presidential candidate confirmed to Reuters that he took Communion from a priest.

Asked if he was uncomfortable with having broken the Church ban on the divorced and remarried taking Communion, Giuliani said, "No."

***
Despite his Catholic faith, Giuliani has espoused socially liberal political positions such as backing a woman's right to choose an abortion and supporting gay rights.

[More]

See also "Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass"

"Value of Each and Every Human Life" in Resolution Honoring Pope Deemed "Objectionable Language" by Senate Dems [UPDATED]

Pope resolution passes after "life" language removed:

While Pope Benedict XVI's historic visit to Washington received wall to wall coverage, Sen. Barbara Boxer briefly held up a Senate resolution welcoming the pontiff because she objected to language about how the pope values "each and every human life."

The measure later cleared the Senate Thursday afternoon after the sponsor of the resolution, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), dropped the reference to "human life" because some Democrats saw it as a reference to abortion. According to Republican aides, Brownback, a devout Catholic, did not want a high profile fight over the resolution, which was adopted on a voice vote. In fact, Brownback blackberried his staff from the Pope's mass at Nationals Park to direct them to drop the references to human life.

A copy of the original resolution can be found here. The new resolution, with the human life language and references to religious expression in public buildings removed, is here.

"There was some politics involved here, and the objectionable language has been withdrawn," a senior Democratic Senate aide said.

Three Senate Republican aides involved in the issue say that Boxer objected to the "life" language, which Democrats see as an implicit reference to the Catholic church's opposition to abortion. Senate Democratic leadership offices declined to comment but referred questions to Boxer's office, which has not responded to Politico's inquiries this morning.

[More]

Kathryn Jean Lopez writes in a couple of entries at The Corner:

A Senate aide adds that it was not just the life language that was an issue in the resolution in the Senate:

[Boxer's] spokesperson claims that the reference to the "naked public square" was about "religious expression on public buildings." This is a rather uninformed and cramped understanding of what that language means. I guess we can take comfort from this episode that leading liberal Democrats have zero understanding of what makes Catholics and religious people tick.

(emphasis added)

... This is what was ridiculously cut:

"that neither attempts to strip our public spaces of religious expression nor denies the ultimate source of our rights and liberties"

and

"Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life"

UPDATE
Paul at Thoughts of a Regular Guy writes:

... But it seems to me that there's a problem from the pro-abortion side: If it's "objectionable" to witness "to the value of each and every human life," then which human lives does Sen. Boxer wish to deny the value of?

If she denies the value of unborn human lives, desiring to maintain the right to kill them for any reason or no reason, then isn't Sen. Boxer admitting that the unborn, are, in fact, human lives?

Isn't this essentially an admission that what happens in abortion is, in fact, an outright denial of the value of human life?

Some are looking to place a portion of the blame on Sen. Brownback for "backing down" on the "objectionable language".

See also "Pope Too Controversial for Senate Democrats".


UPDATE #2 (21 April)
Excellent insight from Darwin Catholic:

... More deeply, though, I think this speeks to a chasm that runs through American politics. There is a not-so-small portion of the American citizenry for whom the idea that Pope Benedict and the Church he leads should have anything to say on issues such as human life, the source and nature of human freedom, etc. is not only incorrect, but also offensive. The Daily Kos is so consumed with hatred at the idea that the pope might mean anything for Americans and American civic discussion that in its coverage of the stalling of the Senate resolution, it refers to the pope only as "this pedophile enabler". And Senator Boxer sees the pope so exclusively through the lens of American partisan politics that she sees the phrase "witnessing to the value of each and every human life" as offensive.

It's clearly not the case that all those who tend to vote Democrat are radical secularists and abortion advocates. However, a large enough number of those who are radical secularists and/or abortion advocates are also passionate Democrats that any national-level Democratic candidate who wants to be successful at this time seems to feel it necessary to do nothing that will seriously offend that constituency -- and a certain amount to please them. (Thus the invariable realization by any Democratic politican who decides to run for national level office that any pro-life convictions he personally held were only "personal".)

This is what makes me deeply, deeply skeptical of the claim, by self-identified conservatives and Catholics such as Prof. Kmiec, that an Obama presidency would somehow bring in an era of self responsibility and respect for others that would help heal the abortion issue more than anything continued restrictions and conservative Supreme Court appointments could achieve. It's not that many on the liberal side of the political spectrum do not have passionate feelings about helping "the little guy" as they identify him, but those feelings are always couched in terms that make abortion, euthenasia, and a host of other, smaller (and thus far more widely accepted) assaults on human life not only credible, but merciful.

***
Boxer, and a not small portion of the base she represents, seems to see the pope and the Church he leads in strictly partisan terms. So rather than taking the phrase "witnessing to the value of each and every human life" to be something that everyone could agree to in a spirit of welcome (while in her mind holding to disagreement as to what the term "every human life" could be taken to mean) she sought to have it struck out, along with the suggestion that religious belief had a place in public conversation and as the root of our liberties.

Until someone seeks to root this kind of thinking out of the Democratic Party mainstream, I think serious Christians would be right to remain leary of a claimed opennes in that party to "people of faith". If positions and beliefs are to be held to mean anything, it would seem that one of the things that the Democratic Party would like to tell us is: However much you may agree with us on other issues, pro-lifers and Christians need not apply -- unless you want to leave your faith at the door and act like a good little secularist...

[More]

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

Brian Saint-Paul reports at InsideCatholic:

Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry intend to receive Communion at a public, fully-televised Papal Mass? Recall the letter that then-Cardinal Ratzinger sent to the U.S. bishops on the subject of pro-abortion Catholic politicians just prior to the 2004 election.

Here's the relevant section:

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4).

Given that these are the words of Benedict himself and hardly secret, it looks like Pelosi and Kerry are trying to make a statement. Tacky.

(emphasis added by Brian)

Deal Hudson responds:

Regarding the Mass at National's Stadium today this how pro-abort Catholic politicians like Pelosi and Kerry will receive Holy Communion.

These politicians have what are called "advance" work done. They will make sure they know who the priest will be assigned to their section -- this priest will be well aware of who is in the line coming for the Eucharist. These arrangements will be made through the Archdiocese of Washington.

There will be no doubt, no hesitation -- very likely a television camera will be trained on Pelosi, Kerry, et al as they take Communion, and millions of people will be watching.

It will not only be a "statement," as described by Brian, it will also be a public relations coup of the highest order for the Democratic Party, an end to the threat of Canon 915 .

Why? They will have received Communion at a Mass celebrated by Benedict XVI.

My Comments:
I'm not sure what I think of this. Politicization of the Eucharist during the papal visit (either by those pro-abortion politicos who present themselves for Communion to, perhaps, make a "statement" or by those who loudly object to their doing so) is unfortunate. I do know that I am particularly unconcerned about whether these politicians receiving Communion during a Papal Mass is a "public relations coup of the highest order for the Democrat Party". Who cares which party is benefited by such things? Partisan politics is completely irrelevant in such a matter.

I'm more concerned about whether public reception of Communion by those who publicly dissent from Church teaching provides an occasion for scandal to the faithful, and creates the impression that the Church's teachings are "optional" - that, as one commenter at InsideCatholic puts it, "one can [publicly] dissent from the Magisterium teaching on abortion and other issues, and still remain in good standing with the Church."


UPDATE
From The Hill:

Pelosi takes Communion at papal Mass

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she felt very comfortable taking Communion during the Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI, who has said supporters of abortion rights should not receive Communion.

“Communion is the body of the people of the church coming together,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference after returning from the Mass. “I feel very much a part of that.”

***
Staffers said Pelosi received Communion during the service, but not from the pope himself.

[More]

Pope Benedict XVI's Address at the White House Welcome Ceremony

Text of the address given by Pope Benedict XVI on the South Lawn of the White House, April 19th, 2008

Mr. President,

Thank you for your gracious words of welcome on behalf of the people of the United States of America. I deeply appreciate your invitation to visit this great country. My visit coincides with an important moment in the life of the Catholic community in America: the celebration of the two-hundredth anniversary of the elevation of the country's first Diocese – Baltimore – to a metropolitan Archdiocese, and the establishment of the Sees of New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Louisville. Yet I am happy to be here as a guest of all Americans. I come as a friend, a preacher of the Gospel and one with great respect for this vast pluralistic society. America's Catholics have made, and continue to make, an excellent contribution to the life of their country. As I begin my visit, I trust that my presence will be a source of renewal and hope for the Church in the United States, and strengthen the resolve of Catholics to contribute ever more responsibly to the life of this nation, of which they are proud to be citizens.

From the dawn of the Republic, America's quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation's founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the "self-evident truth" that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature's God. The course of American history demonstrates the difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied these noble principles. In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In our time too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue to find their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideals and aspirations.

In the next few days, I look forward to meeting not only with America's Catholic community, but with other Christian communities and representatives of the many religious traditions present in this country. Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here the freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual and group can make its voice heard. As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more humane and free society.

Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one's deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24). Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that "in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation", and a democracy without values can lose its very soul (cf. Centesimus Annus, 46). Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent "indispensable supports" of political prosperity.

The Church, for her part, wishes to contribute to building a world ever more worthy of the human person, created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26-27). She is convinced that faith sheds new light on all things, and that the Gospel reveals the noble vocation and sublime destiny of every man and woman (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). Faith also gives us the strength to respond to our high calling, and the hope that inspires us to work for an ever more just and fraternal society. Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.

For well over a century, the United States of America has played an important role in the international community. On Friday, God willing, I will have the honor of addressing the United Nations Organization, where I hope to encourage the efforts under way to make that institution an ever more effective voice for the legitimate aspirations of all the world's peoples. On this, the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the need for global solidarity is as urgent as ever, if all people are to live in a way worthy of their dignity – as brothers and sisters dwelling in the same house and around that table which God's bounty has set for all his children. America has traditionally shown herself generous in meeting immediate human needs, fostering development and offering relief to the victims of natural catastrophes. I am confident that this concern for the greater human family will continue to find expression in support for the patient efforts of international diplomacy to resolve conflicts and promote progress. In this way, coming generations will be able to live in a world where truth, freedom and justice can flourish – a world where the God-given dignity and rights of every man, woman and child are cherished, protected and effectively advanced.

Mr. President, dear friends: as I begin my visit to the United States, I express once more my gratitude for your invitation, my joy to be in your midst, and my fervent prayers that Almighty God will confirm this nation and its people in the ways of justice, prosperity and peace. God bless America!

Pope Benedict and President Bush pray "for the family as an institution"

The Prayer of the Pope and the President, Reuters. April 16, 2008:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pope Benedict and U.S. President George W. Bush and his wife Laura prayed together in the White House on Wednesday, the Vatican said.

Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi said that the "brief prayer" took place after the pope and Bush had finished their private talks in the Oval Office and Laura Bush joined them.

"There was a brief prayer for the family (as an institution)," Lombardi said.

Bush is a Methodist. Both he and the Roman Catholic pope have said that the traditional family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman, is under threat.

I wonder how many other Popes and U.S. Presidents have prayed together?

Down to the last minute ...

Wheat & Weeds has some pics of last minute preparations for the Washington Nationals Stadium Mass.