Journeys of a Catholic Poster Girl

(Note: Gov. Jennifer Granholm is the governor of “the state up North”–Michigan)
Also from Fr. Z (He’s great today!)

The dreadful pro-abortion but “Catholic” Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm (D-MI) is now showing her colors.

Apparently, Gov. Granholm is in favor of an embryonic stem-cell research referendum which is on the ballot in Michigan.  This is “Proposal 2″.  

Proposition 2 would give unrestricted license to perform destructive experiments on human embryos

Last Sunday Gov. Granholm said in a speech, “As a Catholic, I can say to be pro-cure is to be pro-life.”

For years I have said that pro-death rhetoric would be morphed into a Kafka-esque imitation of a pro-life position.  People would argue that if you are not in favor of abortion (for the sake of “research”) then you are not truly pro-life because you are against granny getting her cure for [fill in the blank].  This is the flip side of the argument that abortion is merely one among many problems we must consider, and not maybe the most important.

In any event, though it is entirely incredible that Gov. Granholm would not by know the Church’s position on the dignity of human life as it pertains to the unborn, she does The Pelosi in a public address.   She has been stumping for pro-abortion presidential candidate Sen. Barak Obama (D-IL) and pro-abortion “Catholic” Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) who also didThe Pelosi on Meet The Press and throughout his long and undistinguished career in the Senate.

The bottom line is this: If you know what the Church’s teaching is, you cannot be a good Catholic and be in favor of the death of human beings for the sake of medical research.  That would make you a Darwinian, not a Catholic.

Gov. Granholm’s statement drew a response from the Bishop of Lansing (the state capital of Michigan), His Excellency Most. Rev. Earl Boyea.

On the website of the Diocese of Lansing:

Bishop Responds to Governor

The Most Reverend Earl Boyea, Bishop of Lansing, issued the following statement on October 27, 2008 in response to recent comments by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm:

In a Sunday address in Grand Rapids, Governor Jennifer Granholm incredibly said of Proposal 2 “As a Catholic, I can say to be pro-cure is to be pro-life.” Of course, Catholics and all other responsible citizens will continue to seek cures for disease and injury. But to imply that Proposal 2 is a valid expression of Catholic principles is shocking. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Proposal 2, which goes before Michigan voters in a week, would give an unrestricted license to those who perform destructive experiments on human embryos. While the Catholic Church strongly supports legitimate forms of stem cell research and all other proper forms of scientific inquiry, the Church also teaches that is it is always immoral to destroy a human embryo. For that reason, the Catholic Bishops of Michigan have taken a strong position in opposition to this well-funded assault on human life. 

Saint Paul reminds us that we must preach the Truth in season and out of season. The Truth will never go unspoken. To be in favor of Proposal 2 is not to be pro-life. A well-formed Catholic conscience would never lead a person to support Proposal 2 “as a Catholic.“ 

Brief, but clear. 

So a lot of the time, when Catholics talk about voting pro-life, they get “well what about War? Because JP II and BXVI were against the Iraq war, etc., etc.” 

First, a quote from the US Bishops: 

From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Living the Gospel of Life (1998)–their emphasis: “But being “right’ in such matters [other social issues] can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of the positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community…All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundations.”

 

There are five non-negotiable issues for Catholics when voting: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage and human cloning. These are all intrinsically evil and can NEVER be supported in good conscience. 

Note that war is not on that list. The church has a “just war” theory. Good Catholics can disagree with whether or not the Iraq war fits the definition. But the point is that war can sometimes be justified. The five non-negotiable issues above are NEVER justifiable. 

her take on the pro-life movement: 

Straw Everywhere

October 1, 2008 by Amy

So much, it’s making me sneeze.

One of the points that is frequently raised by those who say they are opposed to abortion but who nonetheless give their support, advice and endorsement to candidates who are unequivocally and proudly supportive of unrestricted access to abortion (phew)…

…goes something like this:

You know, the anti-abortion movement just has to get over its fixation with overturning Roe. Instead of obsessing about criminalization, the anti-abortion movement should take the energy it puts into politics and work to find ways to decrease the number of abortion and improve the lives of women, children and families.

As I said, this is more than a straw man. It’s an entire straw movement.

1) Anyone who thinks that the anti-abortion movement is all or even mostly about politics and the law is obviously either a)unfamiliar with the anti-abortion movement or b)willfully distorting what he or she knows to be the truth about the movement in order to score points or promote a candidate. Deceitfully.

2) The anti-abortion (and I am using that term to head off the arguments about the definition of “pro-life.” Not in this post, please. We get it.) movement is like any other social movement. It is diverse, it is composed of different elements working at the defined problem from different directions. Some of these elements are even in conflict with each other, also normal for social movements.

3) The anti-abortion movement is composed of people involved in education. Others are working on the legal aspects of the issue. Others are involved in media. Others in supporting medical professionals. Others in lobbying. Others in direct support of women. Others in trying to build institutions that help women choose to carry their babies to term. Others in adoption work or work with the disabled. Others in post-abortion support. Others in prayer. And more.

4) Most of the energies of the anti-abortion movement in this country are absorbed in educational efforts (in schools, churches and the broader culture) and direct work with women in unexpected pregnancies.  That is just a fact. For every individual whose energies go to working the political end of the issue, you have 10 volunteering at your local crisis pregnancy center.

5) Related to this is the “single issue” canard, which I’ll look at more closely in a later post from a couple of different angles. But in this argument, it usually goes, “Anti-abortionists are not working for health care reform with the fervor they give to trying to get abortion criminalized.” First, see #1-4. Anti-abortionists are mostly busy trying to set up women with medical care and social services and helping families work through a lot of surprise and pain. There are probably some in this movement that are, indeed, working for health care reform in various arenas. The rest are probably too busy making phone calls, filling out forms and holding hands. It is okay for people to focus on a specific purpose which involves helping the person who shows up at your door today. There are other, broader issues implicated, certainly. But not everyone can do everything, for then nothing gets done and the doorbell goes unanswered because everyone is so busy studying position papers.

Besides: You don’t want to start fixating on legislative solutions to problems at the expense of helping real women and children….do you?

Further, when it is political season, it is not really surprising that much of the public conversation turns to issues of the law and public policy. But that doesn’t mean the doorbell doesn’t stop ringing or that no one is there to answer it.

6) The implication is the Straw Movement assumption is the primary importance of abortion to the anti-abortion movement is as some abstract “wedge” issue, and nothing more. It is all about winning an argument, it seems, that someone started a long time ago for no good reason, the winning of which will…do what? Get someone a bit more power? It’s all pretty fuzzy to me. I can’t even figure out how that would work.

Years ago, I was riding in a car to a conference with Rosemary Bottcher of Feminists for Life, and at one point she said, “It’s about the babies. Never forget and keep reminding yourself - it’s about real babies.”

And that’s it.

Working  to minimize, to stop abortion and abortions doesn’t win you friends and status in the United States in 2008. Not even, in more quarters than we’d care to admit, in the Catholic Church.  There is no influence to be gained or riches to be made in the process. Certainly, politicians can and do use the issue to win votes and support from core constituencies (a subject addressed here many times), but politicians are not the subject of this post because the critics who wave the Straw Movement don’t specify “politicians.” They talk about the movement in general, opponents, workers in the vineyard who can’t ignore the call. The cry?

There is a lot more to be said about the arguments being flung about, feverishly, right now, but I’ve written this post  with a very specific purpose related to this specific claim: that the anti-abortion movement spends most of its resources and energy on pursuing political paths at the expense of assistance and support of women, children and families.

That’s silly. It’s also dishonest and unfair and does nothing to advance the “dialogue” and “common ground” it is claimed is so necessary and important in regard to this issue.

From First Things: (my emphases in bold)

When Not Aborting Is Immoral

Posted by Keith Pavlischek on September 19, 2008, 4:34 PM

From over on starboard side, Nicholas Provenzo of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism is “troubled” by the implications of Gov. Sarah Palin’s “decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome.” He thinks “it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.” Here’s his line of thinking:  

A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child’s life upon others.

 (me: So, I guess I shouldn’t be here, right, because, you know, some CF people are only “marginally productive.” Who in the world has the right to say what is and what is not productive? How can we be so callous as to reduce human life to production, to economic terms!?)

 

Meanwhile, on the port side, Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb,” treats us to this little thought:

I believe it is immoral and should be illegal for people to have very large numbers of children because they are then co-opting for themselves and their children resources that should be spread elsewhere in the world. You only get a chance to get your fair share. 

To the follow-up question, “How many is ‘very large’”? Ehrlich responds:

The issue is: What is the political position to take? In a country like the United States, we should stop at two. But if you had an ideal situation, you might have a lot of people who have no children at all, and some people who have as many as three or four because they happen to be particularly good parents, and are going to raise their children very well. 

Me: OK, so let’s make this a bit less hypothetical. 

“Let’s stop at two”–that means neither of my parents, both the third child in their families, wouldn’t have been born. 

On my mom’s side, more specifically, that means that my Uncle Tim and my Aunts Sue, Patty, Mary, and Amy would not have been born. Hence I would not have my fantastic aunts and uncles, I would not have my godfather, and I would not have my godson. My grandparents, instead of having 25 grandchildren to love, would have four–Julie, Jeff, Diane and Megan–and four great-grandchildren. 

If, by some miracle, my parents did squeak by, then my little sister would not have been born. Sorry, Mel. Neither would the siblings of many of my friends, especially in the families where the first two children are twins.  

What kind of absolute nonsense is this!? People can have as many kids as they want without subjecting the number to some government entity. Yes, you should be able to take care of the kids you bring into the world. I am not advocating that we all go out and produce like rabbits, here. But NO ONE can tell me or anyone else how many kids to have!

Side note: The social entitlements that the Left so enjoys are funded mainly by–guess what–tax receipts. If you have a growing aging population and a shrinking young population, then you do not have the resources to provide for these massive entitlements, like Social Security and Medicare. Look to Europe–as the birth rate declines, so does their inability to support their massive welfare states. 

The Bible says that Children are a blessing from the Lord–they are a reward! We are to “be fruitful and multiply.” The scathing comments about people with big families, people who trust in God’s providence, and who procreate, are just sickening. 

If I was married I would want at least three kids, and maybe four! I love my big family. I love my siblings. Big families are good training grounds for life. 

This sort of thinking is dangerous and needs to be stopped, pronto. Sure the environment and all that is important, but human beings are more so. 

Mona Charen’s column is a must-read, which is why I’ve put it all here for you. My emphases in bold. 

Appearing on C-SPAN last weekend I mentioned that Barack Obama had opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act when he was an Illinois state senator — a position he has attempted to deny or obfuscate ever since. The liberal blogger who appeared on the program with me erupted with indignation. She didn’t deny that Obama had opposed the bill. She denied, hotly, that babies are ever born alive after an attempted abortion. Since I have actually met Gianna Jessen, who survived an attempted abortion, I invited viewers to contact me directly if they wanted evidence. My inbox has been bursting.

The denial goes very deep. Any number of e-mailers expressed their contemptuous certainty that “born alive” infants were an invention of pro-life activists. OK, enter “abortion survivors” into your browser and see what you get. Or, if you prefer a traditional media source, consult the Daily Mail in Britain. The Mail has reported that in just the past year 66 infants had been left to die after abortions in Great Britain.

When Congress was considering the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Jill Stanek and Allison Baker, two nurses at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. They described several instances in which babies who were moving and breathing after induced abortions were left to die. The committee report quoted Jill Stanek: “Mrs. Stanek testified about another aborted baby who was thought to have had spina bifida, but was delivered with an intact spine. On another occasion, an aborted baby was left to die on the counter of the Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel.” The committee report also quoted Shelly Lowe, a lab technician at Bethesda North Medical Center in Cincinnati. A young woman who had undergone just the first cervix-opening phase of a partial-birth abortion gave birth in the emergency room. The doctor placed the 22-week-old baby in a specimen dish to be taken to the lab. According to the report, when Ms. Lowe “saw the baby girl in the dish she was stunned when she saw the girl gasping for air. ‘I don’t think I can do that,’ Ms. Lowe reportedly said. ‘This baby is alive.’” Lowe asked permission to hold the baby until she died. She wrapped the child she dubbed “Baby Hope” in a blanket and sang to her. Breathing room air without any other supports, Baby Hope lived for three hours. 

I’ve received a number of letters from viewers. This one caught my eye: “I am a pediatrician. When I was a pediatric resident on a neonatal intensive care rotation, we were routinely called to … resuscitate infants. In one instance I was called to pronounce a baby dead who had been born an hour earlier after a failed abortion. We were not called to resuscitate the baby immediately after the delivery as the intent was abortion. … I write to attest that babies are sometimes born alive after abortion and then put aside to die.”

The BAIPA was designed to ensure that in those rare cases in which a baby marked for abortion happens to survive — that the child will be immediately accorded full human and constitutional rights. The measure passed the U.S. House by a vote 380 to 15 but was blocked in the Senate. When a “neutrality clause” was inserted to the effect that the law should not be construed to limit the scope of Roe v. Wade, the measure was passed by unanimous consent and signed into law in 2002.

At the time, Barack Obama was an Illinois state senator. An almost exact copy of the federal bill was introduced in 2001. Obama opposed it, saying, “I mean it, it would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.” Even though the baby would be completely separated from the mother. In 2003, the Illinois legislature added a neutrality clause to the bill, making it a virtual clone of the federal legislation. As chairman of the committee considering the bill, Obama again opposed it, saying, “… an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman …”

Barack Obama is a charming and intelligent man. But there is no other way to interpret his position on BAIPA than this: A woman who chooses an abortion is entitled to a dead child no matter what. That is an abortion extremist.

© 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

From a WaPo chat today: 

Catholic Bishops: I’m a pro-life Catholic. Obama and Biden’s varying degrees of support for abortion rights is troubling for me. But why in the world are Catholic bishops only issuing press releases and making public statements about the abortion issue?! The Church is against the death penalty when other means of containing prisoners are available, supports treating immigrants with dignity and respect, and two Popes have spoken out against the Iraq War … but there is nothing about any of this from American bishops, who seem to have no problem injecting themselves into the political debate when abortion is the issue. How about the bishops say something about McCain’s divorce or infidelity to his first wife? There’s a commandment about that one, too. Or better yet, maybe they could not use their position in the Church as a launching pad to disseminate their own political ideology!

Shailagh Murray: Well, I’m a Catholic too, and this is certainly a difficult subject these days. We Catholics are just not used to that us vs. them dividing line, especially as it becomes sharper in other demominations. It’s an uncomfortable place for a lot of Catholics and it’s a risky gambit too, when you’re trying to unify millions of people from all walks of life.

Seriously–the first work out of my mouth this morning, when I read the following, was, “ARGH!!!!”
The letter in today’s Columbus Dispatch–”Obama Presidency Would Be A Good Fit For Catholics”

ARGH!!!
My comments and emphases in bold.

Obama presidency would be a good fit for Catholics
Saturday, September 6, 2008 3:09 AM

While the agents of division seek to deceive Catholic voters with single issues (gee, only the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE!) and stories of Communion denials, there is much for Catholics to look forward to with a Barack Obama presidency.

With families struggling to survive, as both parents work jobs under threats of layoffs, America needs new leadership. With health-care costs soaring and millions of Americans without health insurance, America needs a new plan.

With our country at war and relations with other countries strained, America needs a new strategy. With our educational systems failing and our children falling behind, America needs a new perspective. With our planet warming and energy costs rising, America needs to show the way.

As a Catholic going to the polls this November, I am mindful of these shared problems we face as Americans. My faith and love for my country compel me to vote for a candidate who will bring a systematic reform of No Child Left Behind.(No, your duties as a Catholic compel you to vote for the candidate who is PRO LIFE, sorry, buddy.)

As a Catholic, I am called to vote for the candidate who will bring improved access to health care for the poor and for working families. As a Catholic, I seek a candidate who supports a lowering of the federal deficit. I seek a candidate who seeks a realistic investment in alternative energy, speaking to the call I have as a Catholic to be a good steward of the environment. NO! AS a CATHOLIC, you are to seek the protection of the most vulnerable–Children in the womb! This is a non-negotiable issue, say the bishops, say the pope, says the CCC

As a Catholic watching my country from a worldview, I seek a candidate who will end the harsh interrogation of detainees and restore our respect and relations globally. As a Catholic, I seek a candidate who works to address the circumstances surrounding a woman’s decision to have an abortion and works to reduce and eliminate abortions in this country. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

The possibility for an Obama presidency brings the prospect of a national unity not felt since the presidency of John F. Kennedy. Catholic social teaching proclaims that we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, no matter if they are rich, poor, white or black. (Gee, Catholic social teaching ALSO is TOTALLY PRO LIFE and says Abortion is a “grave sin”.)

As president, Obama will tend to the dignity of the human person. (The Man is for INFANTICIDE. That’s protecting the dignity of the human person? )We will hear his call to family, community and participation. Rights will become a priority, as will options for the poor and vulnerable. As president, Obama will bring dignity back to work and secure the rights of workers.

As our nation regains respect in the world, I believe an Obama presidency will bring solidarity to our planet, as well as care for God’s creation. These tenets and issues are part of my being, part of my faith narrative (Faith narrative?? What the heck does THAT mean?) and the reasons I will vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden this November.

Oh my. This man needs a good, solid dose of WDTPRS? and a reading of the CCC.
All of those things–the right to work, the environment, etc.–are important to Catholics. But they are not non-negotiable. Abortion is. We cannot, in good conscience, vote for a candidate who is pro-choice, never mind a candidate like Obama who supports infanticidewhere this is a solid pro-life option available.
In this election, we have that option.

(h/t NRO)

What Ardent Practicing Catholics Do
Correcting Pelosi.

An NRO Primary Document

EDITOR’S NOTE: Fr. John De Celles, STL, is an associate pastor at Old St. Mary’s Church in Alexandria, Va. This is his homily for the 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time (Aug. 31, 2008), as prepared for delivery.  In last week’s Gospel we heard Jesus’ words to Peter:  I say to you, you are Peter [Rock], and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” But this week we find the incredible thing that happens right after that, as Jesus tells Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me.”  How does Peter go from being called the “Rock” of the Church to being compared to “Satan”?  First of all, see how Jesus tells Peter about the keys in response to Peter publicly proclaiming: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” But Jesus chastises Peter after Peter spoke to Him in private; Scripture says: “Then Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke him.” The keys relate to Peter’s public proclamation, the rebuke pertains to Peter’s private, personal words to Jesus. Also, we see that Peter’s public proclamation was about a dogma of faith: that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God. But his private rebuke was about his personal desire for Jesus’ safety: “God forbid [you be killed in Jerusalem].” And again, when Jesus gives Peter the keys, he blesses Peter for listening to God: “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.” But when he chastises Peter he says: “You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” In all this Jesus teaches us that although many Popes would be less than perfect as individuals He, Christ, would always protect them in the public proclamation of the truths of the Gospel. Because of that all Catholics are bound, by Christ, to follow the definitive teaching of the Popes, And when do not hold ourselves bound by the Pope’s teaching the gates of hell will inevitably prevail against us. Of course this can mean personal disaster: sin. But it can also mean social disaster.  For example, in the year 1839 in a document called “In Supremo,” Pope Gregory XVI reiterated the Church’s ancient teaching against slavery, specifically reproaching those who: dare to …reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples…. as if they were not humans but rather mere animals. Unfortunately, some Catholics, in particular, some American bishops — especially Southernbishops— tried to argue that the doctrine didn’t apply to American slavery, because somehow it was “different.” It seems, caught up in the prevailing attitude of the world around them, these bishops twisted the clear teaching of the popes into something that makes us sick to think of today. They fell into the trap that St. Paul warns against in today’s 2nd reading: Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God.” This, shall we say, confusion among the American bishops of course led the laity to be confused as well. And that confusion led to a terrible social disaster just a few years later, when in 1857, a supposedly “devout Catholic” named Roger Taney, writing as the fifth Chief Justice of the United States, wrote the opinion in the Supreme Court case known as Dred Scott, upholding the institution of slavery in the America. This is what happens when bishops — and priests — fail to clearly teach, or purposefully dissent from the well defined doctrine of the Church, handed on and protected by the office of Peter. The gates of hell prevail in society: slavery, the Civil War, and a 100 more years of racial oppression. But when Peter is heard and obeyed, wonderful things can happen. Almost exactly a century after the Dred Scott case, in 1956, an American Catholic bishop humbly accepted the teaching of the popes, and even in the face of the mockery and violence, refused to conform himself to the world he lived in — the world of racial segregation of the deep South. His name was Francis Rummel, the Archbishop of New Orleans, and what he did was desegregate the Catholic schools of his archdiocese. And when large groups of Catholic lay people continued try to block his efforts, after ample warning, he excommunicated their leaders. Imagine if the American Catholic bishops of the mid-1800s had been as obedient and courageous as Archbishop Rummel in implementing the teaching of Pope Gregory: if they had stood united against slavery. Maybe the Dred Scott case would have been decided the same way, but it probably would have been without Roger Taney’s help.  Now, some say if the Catholic bishops and priests in the South had actively opposed slavery they would been both marginalized and actively persecuted. Maybe. But the Prophet Jeremiah records the same problem in today’s 1st reading: “All the day I am an object of laughter; everyone mocks me.” Even so, he felt compelled to proclaim the truth — and did: “I say to myself, I will not mention him, …But then it becomes like fire burning in my heart…” Some say all southern Catholics would’ve been persecuted, or that southerners would have left the Catholic Church in droves. Maybe. But that sounds a little like Peter, when he “rebuked” Jesus because he was afraid that Jesus might be harmed in Jerusalem. And Jesus told him: “Get behind me Satan.” Didn’t Jesus tells us: Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me…. ? I wish I could say this kind of thing is all behind us, but I can’t. Of course slavery is behind us, but unfortunately, many Catholics now accept an even greater social evil. Because while it’s horrible to take away an innocent person’s freedom, it is clearly even worse to take away an innocent person’s life. And so we face the abomination of the 21st century: abortion. #more# Yet the popes in our time have taught very clearly on this as well: the Church has constantly andinfallibly condemned abortion as a grave evil — a mortal sin. From the first century teaching in the book called the Didache: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.’”To the 20 th century teaching of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae: by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors ….I declare that direct abortion… always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.” Fortunately, virtually all the American bishops see this very clearly. Maybe they don’t all always speak up about it as they might. Still, one wonders if they imitated Archbishop Rummel, acting a bit more forcefully, if there wouldn’t be less confusion among Catholics about this terrible evil. But the bishops are not silent. This last week I counted at least 13 bishops who, in very strong and unambiguous terms, publicly condemned abortion and corrected those who support abortion. Unfortunately, or providentially, their hands were forced. They had to react to the public remarks made by a Catholic Politician,Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, as she publicly defended abortion on “Meet the Press” last Sunday. She argued “over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.” and disingenuously sought to defend herself by twisting the teaching of the greatest theologian in the history of the Church, St. Augustine.  For the record, and summarizing the bishops’ responses: this is a load of bunk. Now, it is true that St. Augustine did wonder when the soul entered the body of the baby, andguessed that that occurred at about 3 months gestation. But 2 things to remember. First, Augustine lived in the 4th century and worked with 4th century biology: he had no clue about the development of the fetus. So he thought the soul entered the baby’s body sometime around the “quickening” — when the mother first feels the baby begin to move. But a careful reading of Augustine shows that he knew he was only guessing and working with limited science, and that if he had today’s science he would have agreed with the clear conclusion of medical science today that the embryo is alive at conception.  Second, even so, Augustine, like all the Fathers, condemned abortion from the first moment of conception, not merely after quickening. It’s true that there was a greater penalty for abortions committed after the quickening, but that was mainly because in those days, before the marvel of ultrasound, the movement of the baby was when there was absolutely certainty that the baby was alive. And with greater certainty comes greater culpability.  Finally, even if there was “a controversy” in the past, which is there was not, there can is nocontroversy today. Again, turn to Peter, and see the absolutely unambiguous language of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae that I quoted earlier, and that Pope Benedict XVI quotes over and over again in his writings: “direct abortion…always constitutes a grave moral disorder.” And consider John Paul’s equally unequivocal words later in that same document: Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is … a grave and clear obligation to oppose them … [I]t is therefore never licit to … “take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.” In other words: it is always a grave or mortal sin for a politician to support abortion. Now, some will want to say that these bishops—and I— are crossing the line from Religion into to politics. But it was the Speaker of the House who started this. The bishops, and I, are not crossing into politics; she, and other pro-abortion Catholic politicians, regularly cross over into teaching theology and doctrine, And it’s our job to try clean up their mess.  But there’s something more than that here. On Sunday, before the whole nation, she claimed to be an “ardent, practicing Catholic.” Imagine if someone came in here and said “I’m a mafia hit man and I’m proud of it.” Or “I deal drugs to little children.” Or “I think black people are animals and it’s okay to make them slaves, or at least keep them out of my children’s school.” Are these “ardent practicing Catholics”? No, they are not.  And neither is a person who ardently supports and votes to fund killing 1 to 1.5 million unborn babies every single year. Especially if that person is in a position of great power trying to get others to follow her. Someone, for example, like a Catholic Speaker of the House, or a Catholic candidate for Vice President of the United States, or a Catholic senior Senator who is stands as the leading icon his political party. Like the proud and unrepentant murderer or drug dealer, they are not ardent Catholics. They are, in very plain terms, very bad Catholics. But the reason I say all this is not because I want to embarrass them or even correct them — they’re not even here. It’s because of you. Because back in the 1850’s when Catholic bishops, priests, and politicians were either silent or on the wrong side of the slavery debate, they risked not only their souls, but the souls of every other Catholic they influenced. I cannot do that, and Iwon’t do that. Some would say, well Father, what about those people who support the war in Iraq, or the death penalty, or oppose undocumented aliens, Aren’t those just as important, and aren’t Catholic politicians who support those “bad Catholics” too?  Simple answer: no. Not one of those issues, or any other similar issues, except for the attack on traditional marriage is a matter of absolute intrinsic evil in itself. Not all wars are unjust — and good Catholics can disagree on facts and judgments. Same thing with the other issues: facts are debatable, as are solutions to problems. But some things leave no room for debate. One of these is that it is always gravely evil to enslave human beings as if they were animals. And another is that it is always gravely evil to kill an innocent human life being — particularly the unborn. So, as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to the American bishops just 10 months before he became Pope Benedict XVI: There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion…. Now, all this is not about bashing a politician, or about politics. And it’s not about telling you how to vote. Its about the truth and the teaching of Christ and his Church. About learning from the terrible mistakes of the past in order not to repeat those mistakes today. It’s about warning you against following those who would lead you to believe that you don’t have to love your neighbor because she’s still in her mother’s womb. It’s about following Christ in perfect union with his Church and his Pope, even when it’s difficult, even when it means picking up your cross.  As we enter more deeply into the mystery of Christ’s Cross and Resurrection in this Holy Mass, let us pray for ourselves, and for one another, and for our leaders in the Church and in public life. That each one of us may never conform ourselves to this age, but may be transformed by the renewal of our minds, always discerning the will of God. That we may be true followers of Christ, and in the most honest sense of the words, “ardent practicing Catholics.”

From WDTPRS. 

Personally, I would love to hear a homily on this stuff. I would love it. 

I am thrilled with McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin. 

Not only is she a wife, governor, former beauty pageant contestant (and Miss Congeniality!), professional fisherman, basketball player and marathon runner…

She is also the mom of five kids, one of whom is going to be serving in Iraq next month, and one of which has Down Syndrome (her youngest, born in April). She is hard-core pro-life. Woohoo!

Rock on, Governor Palin.