(h/t The Corner; taken from an NY Times article)

Re: Vigilance in the Defense of Life [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

It is good to see Ross Douthat’s reflection on two Kennedys in the Times today. He writes, in part:

For abortion opponents, cruel ironies abounded in this sibling disagreement. Because of Eunice Shriver’s work with the developmentally disabled, a group of Americans who had once been marginalized and hidden away — or lobotomized, like her sister Rosemary — was ushered closer to full participation in ordinary human life. But because of laws that her brother unstintingly supported, that same group was ushered out again: the abortion rate for fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome, for instance, is estimated to be as high as 90 percent.

In 1992, Eunice participated in the last significant effort to push the Democratic Party away from abortion on demand, petitioning her party’s convention to consider “a new understanding” of the issue, “one that does not pit mother against child,” but instead seeks “policies that responsibly protect and advance the interest of mothers and their children, both before and after birth.” That same summer, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court upheld a near-absolute right to terminate a pregnancy — a decision made possible by her brother’s demagogic assault on Robert Bork five years earlier, which helped doom Bork’s nomination to the court.

At times, Ted Kennedy’s fervor on abortion felt like an extended apology to his party’s feminists for the way the men of his dynasty behaved in private. Eunice, by contrast, had nothing to apologize for. She knew what patriarchy meant: she was born into a household out of “Mad Men,” where the father paraded his mistress around his family, the sons were groomed for high office, and the daughters were expected to marry well, rear children and suffer silently. And she transcended that stifling milieu, doing more than most men to change the world, and earning the right to disagree with her fellow liberals about what true feminism required.

It’s worth pondering how the politics of abortion might have been different had Ted shared even some of his sister’s qualms about the practice. One could imagine a world in which America’s leading liberal Catholic had found a way to make liberalism less absolutist on the issue, and a world where a man who became famous for reaching across the aisle had reached across, even occasionally, in search of compromise on the country’s most divisive issue.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjMyY2YyMTJjNjlkZGUwNDU 4ZDQ4MDViMmY0NDZkYWQ=

and… the pro-life poll here.

Fr. Z, as we know, is always great.

But with this speech, and his comments, it is beyond great. 

It is required reading. 

Archp. Burke’s comments at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast are definitely worth reading in their entirety. 

They sum up a question I’ve talked about before here: am I (are we) American Catholics, or Catholic Americans? 
I think this speech goes a long way in answering that question.

For your Thursday:

“Ten years later, boy’s ‘hand of hope’ continues to spark debate” 

From http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/43427367.html

STATEMENT TO THE FAITHFUL
From Bishop John M. D’Arcy
April 21, 2009

My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Recently, Father John Jenkins, CSC, in a letter of response to Bishop Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix, who had written him, critical of the decision to invite President Obama to speak and receive an Honorary Degree of Law at Notre Dame, indicated that it was his conviction that the statement Catholics in Political Life (USCCB) did not apply in this matter. Father Jenkins kindly sent me a copy of his letter, and also at a later meeting, asked for a response.

In an April 15th letter to Father Jenkins, I responded to his letter.

Now the points made in his letter have been sent by Father Jenkins to the members of the Notre Dame Board of Trustees and have been publicized nationally, as well as locally in the South Bend Tribune. Since the matter is now public, it is my duty as the bishop of this diocese to respond and correct. I take up this responsibility with some sadness, but also with the conviction that if I did not do so, I would be remiss in my pastoral responsibility.

Rather than share my full letter, which I have shared with some in Church leadership, I prefer to present some of the key points.

1. The meaning of the sentence in the USCCB document relative to Catholic institutions is clear. It places the responsibility on those institutions, and indeed, on the Catholic community itself.
“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.” (Catholics in Political Life, USCCB)

2. When there is a doubt concerning the meaning of a document of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, where does one find the authentic interpretation? A fundamental, canonical and theological principal states that it is found in the local bishop, who is the teacher and law-giver in his diocese. (Cannon 330, 375 §§ 1 & 2; 380; 381 § 1; 391 § 1; 392, & 394 §1)

3. I informed Father Jenkins that if there was any genuine questions or doubt about the meaning of the relevant sentence in the Conference’s document, any competent canonist with knowledge of the tradition and love for Christ’s Church had the responsibility to inform Father Jenkins of the fundamental principle that the diocesan bishop alone bears the responsibility to provide an authoritative interpretation.

4. I reminded Father Jenkins that he indicated that he consulted presidents of other Catholic universities, and at least indirectly, consulted other bishops, since he asked those presidents to share with him those judgments of their own bishops. However, he chose not to consult his own bishop who, as I made clear, is the teacher and law-giver in his own diocese. I reminded Father Jenkins that I was not informed of the invitation until after it was accepted by the President. I mentioned again that it is at the heart of the diocesan bishop’s pastoral responsibility to teach as revealed in Sacred Scripture and the Tradition. (Lumen Gentium, 20; & Christus Dominus, 2) I reminded him that it is also central to the University’s relationship to the Church. (Ex corde ecclesiae, 27 & 28; Gen. Norm., Art. 5, §§ 1-3.)

5. Another key point. In his letter to Bishop Olmsted and in the wide-spread publicity, which has taken place as the points in the letter have been made public, Father Jenkins declared the invitation to President Obama does not “suggest support” for his actions, because he has expressed and continues to express disagreement with him on issues surrounding protection of life. I wrote that the outpouring of hundreds of thousands who are shocked by the invitation clearly demonstrates, that this invitation has, in fact, scandalized many Catholics and other people of goodwill. In my office alone, there have been over 3,300 messages of shock, dismay and outrage, and they are still coming in. It seems that the action in itself speaks so loudly that people have not been able to hear the words of Father Jenkins, and indeed, the action has suggested approval to many.

In the publicity surrounding the points Father Jenkins has made, he also says he is “following the document of the bishops” by “laying a basis for engagement with the President on this issue.” I indicated that I, like many others, will await to see what the follow up is on this issue between Notre Dame and President Obama.

6. As I have said in a recent interview and which I have said to Father Jenkins, it would be one thing to bring the President here for a discussion on healthcare or immigration, and no person of goodwill could rightly oppose this. We have here, however, the granting of an honorary degree of Law to someone whose activities both as president and previously, have been altogether supportive of laws against the dignity of the human person yet to be born.

In my letter, I have also asked Father Jenkins to correct, and if possible, withdraw the erroneous talking points, which appeared in the South Bend Tribune and in other media outlets across the country. The statements which Father Jenkins has made are simply wrong and give a flawed justification for his actions.

I consider it now settled – that the USCCB document, Catholics in Public Life, does indeed apply in this matter.

The failure to consult the local bishop who, whatever his unworthiness, is the teacher and law-giver in the diocese, is a serious mistake. Proper consultation could have prevented an action, which has caused such painful division between Notre Dame and many bishops, and a large number of the faithful.

That division must be addressed through prayer and action, and I pledge to work with Father Jenkins and all at Notre Dame to heal the terrible breach, which has taken place between Notre Dame and the Church. It cannot be allowed to continue.

I ask all to pray that this healing will take place in a way that is substantial and true, and not illusory. Notre Dame and Father Jenkins must do their part if this healing is to take place. I will do my part.

Sincerely yours in our Lord,
Most Reverend John M. D’Arcy

Is Notre Dame still a Catholic University, after inviting Barack Obama to give this year’s commencement address? A man who, in his first two months in office, has revoked the Mexico City policy, opened the flood gates for embryonic stem cell research, who wants to rescind conscience protections for health care workers, and has appointed fervently pro-abortion Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to the position of HHS secretary?

Some folks are a bit upset about this. I don’t blame them.

A lot of my relatives, and a few of my friends, went to or currently attend Notre Dame. Notre Dame is big in my family. But I don’t know if it can call itself a Catholic university when this is who is chooses to speak to its graduates at commencement.

If you want to encourage dialogue, then fine. Invite him to speak. But not at commencement. Commencement is highly symbolic. The speakers chosen are the faculty’s way of saying, this is someone you should look up to. This person has virtues, traits, and a character tha tare worth emulating.

Certainly the president has achieved a historic feat. But he is not, in any way, shape, or form, a strong proponent of Catholic theology. He does not embody what the Catholic church believes or teaches. Yet, he has been chosen.

I am disturbed by this.

This.

You can say what you want about George W. Bush, but he was an unabashed defender of life, especially the most vulnerable forms of it. While the former president has been misunderstood on many issues, ESCR (embryonic stem cell research) may be one of the largest areas of all.

In his August 2001 address, the president did NOT ban ESCR research. He simply confined it to research lines already in existence. After meeting with a council of ethicists, theologians, and others, he decided that ESCR was not a moral thing to do, and it would not be expanded under his presidency.

While he was president, great promise was shown with adult stem cell research. If you are going to do therapeutic research, and not cloning, them ASCR seems to be the way to go. Not only has it already shown results, but any moral questions are side-stepped.

I have always said that, if you are going to quibble on when life begins, you should decide in favor of something being alive, as opposed to the opposite. Today’s decision by the president continues the Democratic Party’s tradition of disrespect for the tiniest, most vulnerable members of society. The decision also stands in stark contrast to Church teachings on this issue.

For this:

Sometimes you just need a little Flannery

to get right to the point.

from a letter Flannery O’Connor wrote to a friend:

The Church’s stand on birth control is the most absolutely spiritual of all her stands and with all of us being materialists at heart, there is little wonder that it causes unease. I wish various fathers would quit trying to defend it by saying that the world can support forty billion. I will rejoice in the day when they say: This is right, whether we all rot on top of each other or not, dear children, as we certainly may. Either practice restraint or be prepared for crowding.

The Pope and Nancy Pelosi (h/t–dad)

Pope tells Pelosi: Catholics cannot back abortion

From a WaPo chat today: 

New York : Best line of the new year: 
“There’s millions here for the purchase of contraceptives. How is that going to stimulate the economy?” John Boehner 
washingtonpost.com: Obama Details Recovery Plan (Post, Jan. 26) 
Ben Pershing: Agreed that was a great line. And you just know Boehner wanted to make another joke along those lines but thought better of it, given that he was standing in front of the White House and it’s such a serious topic.

 

BONUS article on the pro-life movement here.