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.

Latest ND Coverage

Over at your local AmP, as usual.

Bishops Lynch and Morlino have added their voices to the chorus of protests over Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama to deliver this year's commencement speech and receive an honorary law degree. Bishop Lynch's statement isn't as strong as som of the others have been, speaking of "uncivil" and "venomous" rhetoric from our side. I'm quite sure what he's referring to in that regard - I haven't seen much that I'd consider disrespectful, although perhaps there have been some uncharitable characterizations of Fr. Jenkins. Then again, what do you expect when someone is perceived to be a sellout?

(Images:

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/03/images/large/PAC_1_pmass4_206294_0203.jpg

http://www.madisondiocese.org/Portals/0/People/MorlinoBishop.gif)

Condoms sometimes ok, says bishop

Coverage over at American Papist.

He doesn't exactly contradict the Pope, but this doesn't exactly seem like he's falling in step, either. Seems kind of akin to a child asking one parent for something and getting a "no," then going to the other and getting a "we'll see." Although in this the two "parents" aren't exactly of equal authority.

More ND Coverage

Get it at American Papist.

Archbishop Dolan of NY and Cardinal DiNardo of Galveston-Houston have released statements on the Notre Dame scandal.

And hat tip to American Catholic, which has coverage Bishop Aymond of Austin's response.

The real meaning of separation of Church and State

Over at the Catholic Thing, Austin Ruse writes about a move by the Obama administration to put pressure on Bishop Burke in the hopes of shutting him up about Kathleen Sebelius, the rabidly pro-abortion 'Catholic' governor of Kansas who has been nominated to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. Ruse provides a good analysis of the situation, especially in pointing out that 

"More than anything else, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution was intended precisely to protect religious bodies from meddling by the state, even covert meddling by the White House like this. Obama and his pet Catholics should back off – and fast."

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right  of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The whole "separation of Church and State" provision, which has become a mantra for the progressive movement, does not exist in and of itself - it is based upon a popular interpretation of this amendment. As you can see, it is nowhere stated that religion cannot be involved in public life or in government. What this amendment intended was that there should be no established state religion, nor would anyone be denied the freedom to practice his or her own faith. In other words, the government shall not interfere with religion; not vice versa. I think the paranoia afflicting the secularists and "religion should be practiced behind closed doors" crowd is needless. If religion did infiltrate the government, it would do so only in its moral tendencies, as a state religion can never be established. Plus we're living in a democratic republic. If those religious views were not upheld by popular opinion, they would be ousted. Ah, but I'm forgetting - boo morals, right?  

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)

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.

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.