Words

Ok, ok - name these speakers:

1. "How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?"

 

2. "I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."

Give up? Well, number one is President Obama at Notre Dame. Number two is President Obama just the other day. So, we're not supposed to be demonizing each other, but...that doesn't mean we can't make broad brushstrokes about the other side, right? Some nutjob murdered Dr. Tiller (the notorious abortionist), so of course that means pro-lifers are prone to heinous acts of violence. 

First off, I'd like to point out that there is a subtle yet very important difference between "pro-life" and "anti-abortion," which is quite visible in Tiller's murderer. Second, this is too subtle for many people to notice, but Mr. Obama is a master of words. That doesn't mean that he is sincere.

This is post-partisan

Good for Bishop Gettelfinger - story at the American Catholic. GOP Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has done some public floundering on the abortion issue, disappointing me and I'm sure many other pro-life conservatives. Steele will be speaking at an April right-to-life dinner, and Bishop Gettelfinger has decided not to attend, in objection to some of Steele's statements.

The pro-life cause crosses party lines.

Jenkins' act of public disobedience

The latest at AmP.

Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix has weighed in on the Notre Dame scandal with a fair and strongly-worded letter to the university's president. The highlights include the statement:

"It is an act of public disobedience to the Bishops of the United States."

And a quotation of John Paul II:

"John Paul II said, 'Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights - for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with the maximum determination.'"

(The above quotation is from Christifidelis Laici, see section 38).

I don't know what the future holds, but it seems the bishops are beginning to unite, with the exception of a few stragglers. In my mind, the bishops are much like ents - a comparison drawn by a friend of mine. They are powerful and slow-moving. I only hope that half the forest isn't burned down by the time they decide to take decisive action. Moves like this are positive, and I'm really looking forward to Bishop Burke's visit to D.C. in May. He may be able to rally our American bishops. In any case, let's continue to pray for courage and wisdom for all of our Church leaders. +1 to bishops for Bishop Olmsted's letter, too.

(Image from http://www.gallupindependent.com/2008/06June/060608bishop.html)

Notre Dame scandal heating up

Many alumni are taking action, as are several student groups. But the administration seems to be standing firm. I don't expect this will amount to much more than a hullabaloo in the long-run. It's another strike for ND's Catholic affiliation status, but how many strikes they need before they're out of there is anyone's guess.
I suppose that's not completely fair, though. It would be more justified for the reprecussions to fall on Fr. Jenkins and the administraton, not the school itself. After all, there are plenty of alumni, factulty, and students who oppose this; just not enough, it would seem.

The Bishop on ND and the overall problem

Via CNA, Bishop D'Arcy has released a statement about the Notre Dame scandal.

Excerpt:

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith "in season and out of season," and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.

While I'm not sure that the bishop's absence will make much of a difference in th overall scheme of things, I respect his decision, and I suppose it's doubtful that he had the authority to do much more (bishops +1).  What remains to be seen, and what will perhaps have a bigger impact, is what action the students of Notre Dame take, as noted by Emily at the Shrine of Holy Whapping. 

This situation seems to be part of a much bigger problem that is spreading quite rapidly.  For a long time now, Catholic politicians have been thumbing their noses at Church teachings, ignoring central tenants of our faith, and presenting a deaf ear to their bishops.  Madame Pelosi's visit with the pope did not even change her heart.  It's even worse when this sort of conduct is coming from a priest like Fr. Jenkins (the president of the University of Notre Dame).  

There are probably several underlying problems at the root of this dilemma.  For some, like many politicians, it is a lust for power and a vanity that convinces them they can do no wrong. Their Catholic status is just that - a status, enabling them to win votes.  For many others (and perhaps partly for these politicians, as well), it may very well be a matter of poor catechesis, as my friend Ben, a theology graduate student, has pointed out to me.  I'm no expert, but this could very well be the main source of the American Church's problems. 

I've noticed an interesting link between religion and politics here.  I think one of the main culprits for this situation is "progressivism."  I don't know whether it is a root cause or a symptom.  If you've been keeping abreast of political developments over the past several months, you'll note that many of the more moderate or progressive Republicans have been calling for an expanding of the tent, so to speak.  They use such terms as "litmus test" and assert that core conservative tenants cannot be so strictly adhered to if the party is to survive. 

Likewise, there are some "Catholics" who try to pull the same nonsense.  Observe this interview with Phil Donahue regarding the Notre Dame scandal.  There are many pro-choice Catholics, huh?  Well, perhaps they shouldn't be Catholics, then.  Religion and truth do not change to suit the needs of the masses.  God does not change to assuage the consciences of those who want to have things both ways.  This progressive ideaology of all-inclusiveness is flawed and base.  Accepting practices that one believes to be evil and sinful is akin to supporting them.  

Yes, as Catholics we value charity and consider it a virtue.  But it seems these days that charity is being used as a shield by the unjust.  Where is the charity for the unborn?  

The Giver is a short novel that I suggest you read if you've not already, for I think it is one case of a disutopian society that is not too far off.  The ideas of The Sameness and "releasing" those who are of no use to the community...they seem to me to be the ultimate progressive ideals.

Bishop Martino continues to lay down the law

Senator Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania is not to receive Holy Communion, according to the bishop. Senator Casey claims to be pro-life, but his voting record doesn't back him up.

You can read his letter to the senator and more about this story at Te Deum Laudamus.

I'm giving the bishops another +1 for his fortitude in defense of the unborn.

40 Days for Life

Lent is upon us, and so are the 40 Days for Life. I encourage you to check this out.

Our man Martino

Coverage at AmP, LifeSiteNews.com, and CNA. 

Bishop Martino of Scranton, P.A. has released a statement through a letter penned by Auxiliary Bishop Dougherty to three Irish-American organizations, asserting that if any pro-abortion politicians are honored at the upcoming St. Patrick's Day celebration, that he will close St. Peter's Cathedral and any other Dioscesan churches if necessary.

While there is some debate over the necessity and relevance of his statement (there were no prior reports that any of the groups were considering honoring such politicians), I think this was a brave and commendable move. Even if none of the groups were going to to invite pro-abortion politicians, this publicity is good. Bishop Martino realizes that the battle to end abortion is not only a passive, reactive endeavor, but one that must be actively fought. By making this statement, he is keeping the issue at the forefront and reminding Catholics that pro-abortion politicians should not be honored or supported, but brought to task.

I pray that God may grant Bishop Martino and all of our bishops continued and increased courage and wisdom in this fight to defend life. 

And yes, this is the same Bishop Martino who has said he doesn't want Joe Biden coming to Scranton to talk about his "Catholic" values. Like Bishop Burke and Archbishop Chaput, he has asserted that pro-abortion politicians should not present themselves for Holy Communion.

It would get to complicated if I gave each bishop his own score, so I'm going to aggregate them. Bishops +1.

North Dakota, Abortion, and C.S. Lewis on Liberal Christianity

I'd like to share some thoughts on related issues.

First of all, here is an exciting bit of news(Hot Air).  Reported here (Life News) and here (AmP), too.  Although I don't expect it will get passed the state senate, North Dakota's house just recently passed a piece of legislation, one "Personhood of Children Act."  Its aim is to obtain "personhood" status (the right to exist and be recognized as a person) for each individual from his or her conception.  If it does pass, it will serve as a challenge to Roe and should cause quite a stir.  Pray for a favorable outcome (or cross your fingers if that is your preference).

As those of you who know me are aware, abortion is a real hot-button issue for me.  I haven't done as much throughout the years as I should have, but when I return to the States I will make an honest effort to become more active in the Pro-Life movement.  That said, I have been debating (or arguing) and following Pro-Life news for quite some time.  Recently, with the election of Mr. Obama and the scandal surrounding Mrs. Pelosi, a lot of liberal Catholics have been coming out of the woodwork both in the public forum and on internet ones.  I've been reading a lot of "abortion is just one issue" and "politicians should not legislate morality."  What I struggle with is that fact that there seem to be just as many "Pro-Life" Democratic Catholics that agree with these arguments as Pro-Abortion "Catholics."  I've presented the comparison of abortion to slavery (despite abortion actually being murder), but I have found time and time again that there are those who close their minds to reason. 

 To those who believe that legislators should not dictate morality: In America, we live in a republic.  We elect officials to represent our best interests, and we trust that they will do what they feel is right.  We know that they obviously cannot represent the interests of every single voter who cast a ballot for them.  Thus, if they are convinced that society needs to be protected from something, it is their duty to act according to those beliefs.  If a politician believes abortion to be murder, they must fight tooth and nail to protect those lives rather than let them be quashed.

To those who believe Catholic politicians should promote welfare and charity: I agree.  However, what is the message when they are Pro-Abortion?  That it is ok for the government to decide that I should give my money to those less fortunate and in need of help, but that even when a politician believes an unborn child is a human being, it is not ok for the government to tell the mother they cannot kill their child?  On one hand, the government can tell me how to spend my money, but on the other hand, the government cannot protect a dependent and helpless life?  The "abortion is only one issue; my candidate helps the poor and promotes welfare" argument fails here.

To those who believe that people should have the right to sin or make the wrong choice (see Fray): Your argument falls apart unless you are willing to concede that we should all have the right right to kill, steal, and rape at will.  If your sin or wrong choice affects someone else, it is not something that should be left up to you.  Society has a duty to intercede.

I think one of the major problems with liberal Catholics who place more import on charity than justice and life is that they have a misconception of God.  Recently I've been reading C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain.  Lewis is a brilliant writer and theologian, and I love his works.  I think he should be required reading for all sincere Christians.  But I digress.  Here are a couple of passages that I found enlightening and relevant to this subject:

"By the goodness of God we mean nowadays almost exclusively His lovingness; and in this we may be right.  And by Love, in this context, most of us mean kindness--the desire to see others than the self happy; not happy in this way or in that, but just happy.  What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, 'What does it matter so long as they are contented?'  We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven--a senile benevolence who, as they say 'liked to see young people enjoying themselves' and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of the day, 'a good time was had by all.'[...]I do not claim to be an exception: I should very much like to live in a universe which was governed on such lines.  But since it is abundantly clear that I don't, and since I have no reason to believe, nevertheless, that God is Love, I conclude that my conception of love needs correction (31-32)."

"There is kindness in Love: but Love and kindness are not coterminous, and when kindness (in the sense given above) is separated from the other elements of Love, it involves a certain fundamental indifference to its object, and even something like contempt of it.  Kindness consents very readily to the removal of its object -- we have all met people whose kindess to animals is constantly leading them to kill animals lest they should suffer.  Kindness, merely as such, cares not whether its object becomes good or bad, provided only that it escapes suffering.  As Scripture points out, it is bastards who are spoiled: the legitimate sons, who are to carry on the family tradition, are punished.  It is for people whom we care nothing about that we demand happiness on any terms: with our friends, our lovers, our children, we are exacting and would rather see them suffer much than be happy in contemptible and estranging modes.  If God is Love, He is, by definition, something more than mere kindness.  And it appears, from all the records, that though He has often rebuked us and condemned us, He has never regarded us with contempt.  He has paid us the intolerable compliment of loving us, in the deepest, most tragic, most inexorable sense (32-33)."

Something to think about, perhaps.

Pope reminds Nancy what the Church says on abortion...

Good coverage over at AmP.

Nancy goes to Rome..

Many (Catholic and conservative) sources have been covering story recently - Nancy Pelosi will soon meet with Pope Benedict XVI.  There're a lot of strong feelings flying around. A friend of mine hinted that he wouldn't be disappointed if she were impaled by a Swiss guard's pike. 

As I'm sure you all know, Madame Speaker has made many incorrect and ridiculous statements about the Catholic Church and abortion - such as claiming that the Church only determined in recent years that life begins at contraception. Several months ago, her bishop invited her for a talk...she accepted the invitation, but has yet to visit him. No time for that, but time to fly to Rome. While many Catholics seem to want her excomminicated, or at least denied communicion or publically rebuked, I don't think that's going to happen here. I predict a private audience, the content of which will not be made public. The pope will talk to her about the error of her ways. She will thank him, be on her way, and continue down the path to eternal damnation. Unless he does something to surprise me, this one will be a victory for Pelosi (in this life, anyway), and the liberal press.

My favorite websites: American Papist

I'm adding a new link on the sidebar for a website that I frequent. It's not for everyone, but if you are Catholic and like to stay up-to-date on Church matters or are looking for an insight into how we Papists think, I highly recommend American Papist.

The blog author, a theology scholar who is currently living in Washington D.C., is, in my humble opinion, a highly intelligent individual and a good writer. He also has a good sense of humor, as he frequently throws in humorous pictures and holds mini caption contests.

AmP has been a good source for me in terms of Pro-Life news, especially. Feel free to have a look.

Mr. Obama, you're making it very difficult...

I want to be supportive. I want to give the guy a chance.

But his first 24 hours in office, the economy still in peril, and he decides it is a priority to make some changes in favor of abortion.

Not looking good, Mr. Obama.

http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/2009/01/change.php

Imagine Spot 1

Not going to change anyone minds, I'm sure, but this is a very well-done commercial.

Petition to Block Tax-Funded Abortions

Saw this over at American Papist and figured I may as well post it here since I have a handful of Pro-Life readers (if anyone is still coming here):

Petition to block our tax money from funding abortions

The change we don't need

Some people I've talked to don't know about the Freedom of Choice Act. It's a shame, because it's one reason Obama is so extreme. If more people had known about it -- nah, probably wouldn't have made a difference. Don't want to vote on one issue, right? Even if it means thousands upon thousands of more lives per year.

Here's some info:

http://www.americanpapist.com/2008/09/thefreedom-of-choice-act-wolf-waiting.html

Here is Barack promising to advance it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8

"...I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are just so 90's. Their days are growing dark.It is time to turn the page. We want a new day, here in America. We're tired about arguing about the same old stuff."

Oohh - the pro-choice crowd is tired of arguing about abortion. So I guess they should just shut up the pro-lifers and move on, aye? Well, now they have the Presidency and Congress, so they will probably be able to do just that. Yay change.

Hopefully they'll be too focused on the economy to worry about this for a while...but I'm not holding my breath.

What a champ

It happens all the time - I'm sitting there thinking that Chuck Norris couldn't be more awesome, and -BAM- I'm proven wrong.

The people are choosing death

The Culture of death thrives, ironic as that statement is.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/

Notice that the measures limiting abortion are being voted down in Colorado and South Carolina, and I can't imagine the abortion limits proposition passing in California. Stem cell research on previously created embyros is passing in Michigan, as is physician-assisted suicide in Washington. In light of all that, I'm surprised that gay marriage and adoption didn't receive more support.