Pro-life

Feedie at Southern Appeal gives his take on the Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court.

My take on the appointment? She’s the best of the worst. Judge Sotomayor will almost certainly be a reliably liberal vote on the hot-button social issues, but she’s not going to play a leading role in shaping the jurisprudence of the Court (like Judge Diane Wood almost certainly would have done). She’s a political pick, plain and simple. I think the GOP would be wise not to waste too much political capital (assuming it has any left) on opposing this appointment. Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed, and strongly opposing her will only further alienate Hispanic voters. This is not to say that I don’t think we should expose her for the penumbra lover and radical that she is. Indeed, I am all for it. But the bottom line for me is that the folks waiting on President Obama’s on-deck circle are far, far worse. Think of it like a professional wrestling match: Let’s get in a few blows, and then let Obama have his pick. There are hills to die on, and this seat isn’t one of them (especially given the dems’ fillibuster-proof advantage in the Senate).

She was raised Catholic and so far there is no information on whether she still practices her faith. With the information available so far I think Feddie is right, it could have been worse. But when it comes to the child in the womb one vote upholding abortion on demand is the same as another. Considering what seems to be her judicial philosophy it certainly appears to be one that would hold up the legal fiction of Roe v. Wade. Unlike Republicans, Democrats have been great at picking nominees who don’t “grow in office.” Here’s praying she will be a disappointment for the enemy of the child in the womb.

Update: “Judge Sotomayor was raised as a Catholic and attends church for family celebrations and other important events.” [source]

Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex shows something quite interesting in that “States With Funded “Abstinence Only Education” Show Significantly Less Teen Abortions“

Though I a sure opponents of abstinence education would just shout back “Bristol Palin!”

From Fr. Robert Barron’s, “Word on Fire”, excerpt:

Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, the legendary retired President of Notre Dame, was mentioned several times in President Obama’s speech as a model of the dialogue and openness to conversation that he was extolling. Does anyone think for a moment that Fr. Hesburgh, at the height of the civil rights movement, would have invited, say, George Wallace to be the commencement speaker and recipient of an honorary degree at Notre Dame? Does anyone think that Fr. Hesburgh would have been open to a dialogue with Wallace about the merits of his unambiguously racist policies? For that matter, does anyone think that Dr. Martin Luther King would have sought out common ground with Wallace or Bull Connor in the hopes of hammering out a compromise on this pesky question of civil rights for blacks? The questions answer themselves.

Then why in the world does anyone think that we should be less resolute in regard to the heinous practice of abortion which, since 1973, has taken the lives of 43 million children? Why does anyone think that further dialogue and conversation on this score is a good idea? I think those questions answer themselves too

This comparison has been made before but Fr. Barron puts it quite effectively. The culture at one time accepted slavery for the most part. The same happened in the case of the evil of racism and segregation. The consensus changed over time largely due to the efforts of the abolitionists. Anybody who made arguments for slavery or racism now would be properly ostracized for holding such an evil view regardless of their other views. Hopefully one day the same will be true of abortion and that people will look back and wonder how people could have supported such an evil.

The reality now though is that in regards to abortion the culture is very similar to when racism was much more accepted. We are still in the phase when this evil is accepted as something viable to believe in. There was no real common ground between the slave owner and the slave and the same is true for the abortion supporter and the innocent child in the womb. The child being murdered will not be mollified that somehow abortions are somehow suppose to be reduced. When the scalpel, chemical, or suction machine comes to end their life the idea that some government program will make things better will not take away the pain they feel as they are murdered.

It was an unreality when people pretended that a fellow human person could be treated as property or seen as less human or worthy as others. We live in another unreality where human persons are treated as property of the mother and/or looked at as less human or worthy of life.

When people call themselves Catholics and then engage in Obamagetics to justify his support of murdering the innocent they are prostituting themselves to Moloch. They have accepted government funded pottage and forfeited the birth right of others. These modern Esau’s think they have made out on the deal, but they are no less foolish and even worse they provide cover for intrinsic evil.

Funny how it has been the Democratic Party that has been on the wrong side of history so often. Gov. Wallace and Bull Connor were of course Democrats and it was Democrats like Al Gore’s father who tried to defeat the Civil Rights act which was approved larger percent of Republicans (69% of Democrats & 82% of Republicans). People made excuses for them as now just as we have the torture apologists in the Republican party.

It has been the Catholic Church that has been on the right side of moral history. Centuries before the consciences of many saw the evil of slavery the Church had already condemned it and placed excommunications on those involved. In the United States segregation really first saw it’s decline among Catholics in their educational institutions before it became a national issue. At times Catholic supporters of segregation were excommunicated. The same is true in regards to abortion and Jesus through his Church is once again standing up to a culture that would dehumanize others.

The evil of abortion has been helped along by Catholics who are willing to make excuses for their favored candidates instead of condemning the evil they support in the strongest terms. Way too often with Catholics who call themselves both pro-life and Democrat there is always a “but” coming or some relativistic comparison of intrinsic evils with areas that Catholics can prudentially disagree on. What should happen with pro-abortion Democratic politicians is that they should get as little traction as pro-abortion Republican Rudy Giuliani. But Catholics of any political stripe are too often willing to turn a blind eye when it suits them. I say the Hell with any political party that would help me to earn a millstone as hat ware. I will go all Don Quixote pointing at polling booths before I cast a vote for a politician who supports the murder of innocents. Sure voting to choose the lesser evil is an acceptable choice, but you better know what evil is in the first place and to let the Church be your guide in discernment.

I would also like to point out this excellent response to Fr. James Martin S.J. by Carl Olson.

From the Jesuit run University of Seattle.

The Institute of Public Service invites you to join a thoughtful conversation about how people of different faiths and backgrounds perceive reproductive justice. The discussion will take place from 6 to 8 p.m. on Thursday, May 21, in Bannan Auditorium (room 102).

Panelists:

Vincent Lachina- state chaplain, Planned Parenthood

Amy Johnson- professional life and parent coach, UCC

Yohanna Kinberg- rabbi, Temple B’nai Torah

Dan Dombrowski- professor of philosophy, College of Arts and Sciences

Jodi O’Brien- professor and chair of sociology, College of Arts and Sciences.

“…The decisions we make about our reproductive and sexual lives, but most especially, the decision to have a child, are among the most important decisions that we, as human beings, can make. Having a child is a precious responsibility that changes our lives forever. The privileged in this world, for the most part, have unfettered access to the reproductive health and education services to decide for themselves when and whether to bear or raise a child. The poor and disadvantaged do not. Thus, the struggle for reproductive justice is inextricably bound up with the effort to secure a more just society. Accordingly, those who would labor to achieve economic and social justice are called upon to join in the effort to achieve reproductive justice and, thereby, help realize the sacred vision of a truly just society for all.”

– Clergymen for Reproductive Justice

It will not surprise you that the “thoughtful conversation” to be held on “reproductive justice” at a Catholic university is composed entirely of pro-abortion speakers.

Hat Tip Dawn Eden

You might have heard about some mention of some event that happened yesterday at Notre Dame. I know it has hardly been covered at all, but I thought I would weight in anyway.

After the small talk about the graduating class and going into the threat of “climate change.”

Unfortunately, finding that common ground — recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” — is not easy.  Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man — our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin.  We too often seek advantage over others.  We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar.  Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game.  The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice.  And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

Well there is certainly some truth in what he says here. Though he is quite supportive of the strong dominating the weak when it comes to abortion.

Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope.  A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election.  He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that’s not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website – an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.”  The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable.  He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him.  I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website.  And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.  Because when we do that — when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do — that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

The fact that he thought this was significant gives a good look into his thoughts. He actually considers only toning down the rhetoric as significant. He thought this was an important example to give. Why? He has created an administration staffed with people who believe exactly this – that anybody who opposes abortion is a “right-wing ideologue.” His homeland security issued a report that was suppose to be kept from the public that categorized pro-lifers as a threat. So sanitizing his website achieves exactly nothing. The people associated with him believe this including of course the person who wrote the sentence in the first place. The problem is not with the piece of rhetoric that slipped though, but the overwhelming number of people in his administration that believes exactly this.

The whole email exchange also strikes me as odd. A pro-lifer was willing to vote for Obama knowing his position, but yet was upset by a sentence on his web site. What the Hell? So his support of killing children in the womb was not the problem, but a sentence was?

That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

Yes we have heard him use this before. How can it be heart-wrenching if according to him it is a perfectly find option. During the campaign he said this was
“above his paygrade”, yet his actions show he sees abortion as a right and not immoral. What he says is just totally empty and it pretends to take abortion seriously and to admit something to pro-lifers without him meaning any of it.

So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term.  Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

As pro-lifers often ask “why reduce it if there is nothing wrong with it?” We will just have to wait to see if he is serious about the conscience clause that his administration has been working to strike. Personally I don’t believe a word of what he says here. Especially when he uses the “equality of women” argument as if women can only be equal if they can’t abort their children.

Understand – I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away.  No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.  Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction.  But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Agreed to some extent. There is no real common ground between those who would murder the innocent and those who would prevent it. The debate certainly should be done without caricature and personal attacks. But again considering his nominees and some of the outrageous things they have said in regard to the pro-life movement I guess he is only personally against “caricature”

At the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago.  For those of you too young to have known him, he was a kind and good and wise man.  A saintly man.  I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side.  He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads – unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty, AIDS, and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war.  And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground.  Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry.  And he said, “You can’t really get on with preaching the Gospel until you’ve touched minds and hearts.”

HIs reference to Cardinal Bernadin is full of irony considering the Notre Dame scandal. In 1996 the Cardinal turned down an invitation to speak at the Democratic convention because of the party’s pro-abortion stand. Rather contrasts Fr. Jenkins in this regard. The Cardinal saw speaking at the Democratic Convention was not creating common ground, but giving scandal.

One thing this whole scandalous situation reveals was the divide among Catholics. We could almost cue Sen. Edward’s two Americas speech. The “progressive” Catholic commentators and periodicals were solidly in favor of Obama’s invite. This only gives me more proof that they only give lip service to being pro-life. They are willing to sacrifice the unborn just as long as the government programs they like are created. The fact that they can’t understand the scandal that was given shows how little they value the life of those slaughtered with government permissions. When President Obama recently pushed for taxpayer funding of abortion in Washington D.C. I saw this pass without comment in the progressive periodicals. Every day gives more proof that this is an administration that will increase not reduce abortion and yet the usual suspects go on as if nothing is wrong.

We will just have to wait until next year for who Notre Dame decides is an appropriate commencement speaker. Please no politicians of any stripe. There are plenty of great Catholics living their faith that would be far better for this.

Well remember Fr. Jenkins is all about dialogue.

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 12, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – When Congressman Chris Smith questioned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last month over the Obama administration’s commitment to dismantling pro-life laws around the world, Clinton gave an impassioned response for “reproductive rights” that included a description of women in a Brazil hospital she witnessed, “fighting for their lives” after botched abortions. However, when the National Catholic Register asked for details on the trip, Clinton’s staff refused to substantiate the claimed visit.

“When I think about the suffering that I have seen of women around the world – I’ve been in hospitals in Brazil where half the women were enthusiastically and joyfully greeting their babies, and the other half were fighting for their lives against botched abortions,” Secretary Clinton told Smith in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing April 22. (See: YouTube)

Department of State spokeswoman Laura Tischler told the Register yesterday that she was “unable to confirm where or when the trip she referred to in her testimony was – where specifically in Brazil she was visiting or when the trip occurred.”

Tischler said she referred the question to Clinton’s personal staff for a response, but was declined any information to substantiate the visit.

“This is part of a long-standing problem of abortion advocates making unverifiable and/or bogus statements about abortion data and then using the information to try and craft bad policy,” Congressman Smith told the Register. “Pro-abortion activists have a long history of making these type of unsubstantiated claims. That’s how they drive policy – with gross exaggeration of numbers, hyperbole and junk science.” [reference]

The minions of the Culture of Death can’t help but lie.

Abp. Donald Wuerl of Washington DC continues to defend his refusal to withhold holy Communion from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in a number of ways, but his recent claims that canon law supports his inaction attract my attention. I think the prelate’s canonical claims are wrong.

First, Wuerl claims that “there’s a question about whether [Canon 915] was ever intended to be used to bring politicians to heel . . . I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.”

Okay, for starters, “the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world” (that’s more than 3,000 men!), have not made any comments about the impact of Canon 915 on politicians, let alone have they made statements holding Canon 915 inapplicable to politicians. There’s no need to belabor this exaggeration further.

More importantly, I wonder: exactly where is “the question” about whether Canon 915 was “intended to bring politicians to heel” (that’s a derogatory description of Church leaders and Catholic politicians alike) being raised? Who poses the problem in this manner? I’d be happy to examine such sources for the claim as one might care to offer, but I rather doubt any serious ones can be found. Why? Because no canon in the Code was written with the intention of bringing politicians to heel. That’s a disingenuous way to frame this issue.

Canons are designed to advance the salvific mission of the Church (c. 1752). They help to establish an ecclesial order rooted in Scripture and Tradition (JP2, ap. con. Sacrae disciplinae leges, esp. para. 16). To hold, therefore, that any canon is intended to bring a particular secular grouping of people “to heel” is to misunderstand what canon law is for. But the mistake is compounded when one goes on to use that mischaracterization of canon law to avoid the correct application of canon law.[reference]

I quite admire Bishop Weurl as a catechist, but his inactions in this show that he does not quite understand the matters at hand. As Ed Peters points out his view of Canon Law in this case is coming from quite the wrong direction. Where is the concern for the soul of a public sinner who further their sin by receiving the Eucharist while in objectively grave sin? The concern about the scandal causes when pro-abortion politicians are allowed to pretend that their actions don’t put them out of full communion with the Church. Bishops need to stop seeing this as a political issue and to see it in terms as a shepherd.

After Ed Peters describes cases in Canon law where politicians might have some exemptions (not in this case though) he mentions “Second, Wuerl asserts, “Pelosi, as a San Franciscan, isn’t part of my flock!”” That is a rather sad argument for a Bishop to make. Canon 915 is certainly not restricted to just the diocese the person belongs. Canonist Archbishop Burke who is now Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura previously said he would deny Communion to John Kerry if he tried to receive in his diocese. Other bishops have said similar things about other pro-abortion Politicians who were not actually part of their diocese. This year Bishop Martino said exactly the same thing about Vice President Joe Biden. I doubt that Archbishop Wuerl would attempt to make the case that these fellow bishops had no authority to act in this way. The Bishop’s reply reminds me way too much of “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

Ed Peters discusses this question from the point of view of Canon Law and concludes:

There is, I conclude, simply no question but that an arch/bishop is authorized by canon law to take the steps necessary to protect the sacraments (especially the Eucharist, cc. 897-898) from unworthy administration in his territory and his people from the danger of scandal that might be given by such reception.

WMR) — According to sources with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Army, and the White House, a number of members of violent pro-life groups are streaming into South Bend in anticipation of protests during the commencement address of President Barack Obama at Notre Dame. Obama is scheduled to give his address at Notre Dame on May 17.
In anticipation of Obama’s address and his being awarded an honorary degree from Notre Dame, a number of right-wing groups, including Catholic anti-abortion and anti-stem cell research groups, are ratcheting up tensions in South Bend, according to our sources.

WMR has learned from FEMA sources that the city of South Bend has indicated that due to its severe financial situation, it is unable to provide the necessary police security for Obama’s speech. Notre Dame campus security has apparently accepted responsibility for Obama’s security during his visit to the campus, although primary presidential security will be in the hands of the Secret Service.

What is worrying to some federal law enforcement and emergency preparedness officials is the violent groups that will be present both within South Bend and on the campus of Notre Dame during the president’s address to graduating students. And these groups are being egged on by well-financed conservative groups, including the Cardinal Newman Society and Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center. However, the real fear of federal security agencies is the rhetoric being voiced by professional troublemaker Randall Terry and perennial political candidate Alan Keyes. Terry and Keyes are both right-wing Catholics.[reference]

Surely you remember the violent wave that occurs wherever these two men speak. Oh wait. While I am not really a Randall Terry fan because he becomes the focus of events and upstages the real message – this kind of reporting is insane. What will be really happening is quite different. American Papist posted the following video from ndresponse.com.

Bishop Joseph F. Martino said today that the decision by King’s College to have Sen. Robert Casey serve as commencement speaker on May 17 is, in view of his affirmative vote for Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services, an affront to all who value the sanctity of life. Previously, the Bishop had asked Sen. Casey to reflect on his oft-stated pro-life beliefs and oppose the nomination of Gov. Sebelius who as a Catholic has been a committed advocate of abortion while she served as governor of Kansas. It is the Bishop’s position that his vote on April 28 demonstrates that Sen. Casey is a reliable vote for President Barack Obama’s aggressive pro-abortion agenda, one which pro-life advocates claim is promoting the “culture of death” in the United States.

“Sen. Casey’s appearance at King’s graduation ceremony is sad and disappointing in view of his recent alignment with anti-life forces in the Senate and the highest offices of our government,” Bishop Martino said. “I do not believe he has the moral stature to stand before the graduates of a Catholic college to address them about their futures and the challenges they will face when on the most important issue of the day–the sanctity of human life–he cannot muster the courage to oppose the pro-abortion agenda which is currently being promoted in Washington.”

Bishop Martino acknowledges that the decision to invite Sen. Casey was made by King’s College prior to the vote on Gov. Sebelius and prior to his vote to rescind the Mexico City Policy which allows taxpayer funds to be used abroad by Planned Parenthood and other organizations to promote abortion and contraception. At the time of the Senator’s selection to deliver the commencement address, he had no objection to the invitation. “Now, however,” the Bishop said, “it is truly unfortunate that this Catholic institution will be seen as providing a forum for a politician who is steadily distancing himself from pro-life principles and, sadly, from his father’s legacy as a statesman who championed the rights of the unborn. As Bishop, I will continue to challenge Sen. Casey whenever he fails to cast a vote or advance a position that will protect the most vulnerable in our society.”[reference]

Senator Brownback also needs a response by his bishop on his support of Gov. Sebelius.

My own bishop responds:

JACKSONVILLE, Florida, April 22, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Bishop Victor Galeone of the diocese of St. Augustine is the 43rd bishop to publicly condemn the University of Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama to deliver the commencement address and receive an honorary law degree on May 17.

“I am standing with my brother bishops,” said Galeone, in a statement released by the diocesan communications office.

In Bishop Galeone’s brief letter to Fr. Jenkins, dated March 21, he stated: “I find it impossible to comprehend how a prestigious Catholic University like Notre Dame would bestow such an honor on President Obama, given his unmitigated support for policies and laws that flagrantly contradict fundamental Catholic teaching on life and marriage.”
Like several other U.S. bishops, including Notre Dame’s own Bishop D’Arcy and U.S. Bishops Conference (USCCB) president Cardinal Francis George, Bishop Galeone affirmed that the University’s action “is clearly a direct violation” of USCCB policy.

The document “Catholics in Political Life,” issued by the USCCB in 2004, states: “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

“I plead with you, Father Jenkins, to rescind this egregious error in judgment,” concluded Galeone’s letter.

“May the Lord grant you the courage to do so!”

The bishop sent a copy of the letter to Jenkins to the Papal Nuncio in Washington, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, with a cover letter that stated: “The letter needs no explanation. It merely expresses the feelings of dismay and outrage from many of my parishioners, who continue to ask me to do something about this unconscionable action on the part of Father Jenkins.

“Coupled with the performance of the quasi pornographic play, ‘The Vagina Monologues,’ which continues to appear annually on the Notre Dame campus, this most recent decision raises serious doubts about Fr. Jenkins’ qualifications for continuing to serve as president of one of the foremost Catholic universities in the nation,” Bishop Galeone concluded.[reference]

One note: The students of Notre Dame this year have decided not to perform VM this time around. Though the administration would have had no objectiopn if they did.