Ralph McInerny (1929-2010) [UPDATED]

Joseph Bottum writes at First Thoughts:

Our friend, Ralph McInerny, has slipped away, dying at 7:45 this morning. I have no voice or words to speak our loss. Not yet. Not today.

An autobiographical essay of Ralph’s appeared here, and severval fine poems ...

[Read the rest]

Requiescat in pace.


UPDATE
More tributes:
Francis Beckwith at Southern Appeal

Kathryn Lopez at The Corner

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)


UPDATE #2
Thomas S. Hibbs at On the Square


UPDATE #3 (1 February)
Dominican Province of St. Joseph:

Ralph McInerny, a Third Order Dominican and eminent Thomist, published over 100 books over the course of his illustrious career. Most of his work was in the field of philosophy, where he made a lasting contribution to the study of the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. He also published several mystery stories, including the popular Father Dowling Mysteries, and a volume of poetry. His last work, Dante and the Blessed Virgin, was published late last year.

McInerny taught at the University of Notre Dame for over 50 years. Not only was he a sharp mind, but he was possessed a lively sense of humor that endeared him to students and collegues alike. He was a wonderful teacher of St. Thomas who gave his life to the service of the Church. He has had a personal and profound impact on many members of our Dominican community.

To honor the memory of Dr. McInerny and to pray for the repose of his soul, the Dominican House of Studies will celebrate a Memorial Mass for him at 5:00 PM on Monday, February 1.

Feminist Hypocrites at NOW Attack Tebow Ad

NOW President Terry O'Neil says:

“CBS: Do the right thing. Pull the ad. Let's focus on the game.”

Because, you know, radical feminists would NEVER distract our focus away from the game by using the Super Bowl to push a particular agenda (especially an agenda that relied on "facts" that turned out to be completely bogus).

Nah, they would NEVER do that.


UPDATE
And now the feminist hypocrites are going on the attack against Tebow's mom. Disgusting.

If Obama Has Lost "Obama Girl" ...

... then he REALLY IS in trouble.

"Well, at least I wasn't the Edwards girl." LOL! That's awesome.

Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas - 28 January

From the Medieval Saints Yahoo group:

St. Thomas Aquinas, priest, confessor, Doctor of the Church
Also known as Doctor Angelicus; Doctor Communis; Great Synthesizer; The "Dumb Ox"; The Universal Teacher

Died 1274 at Fossanuova near Terracina of apparent natural causes; relics at Saint-Servin, Toulouse, France

Canonized in 1323 by Pope John XXII and named a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius V in 1567

Commemorated January 28

Patronage: academics, against storms, against lightning, apologists, book sellers, Catholic academies, Catholic schools, Catholic universities, chastity, colleges, learning, lightning, pencil makers, philosophers, publishers, scholars, schools, storms, students, theologians, universities, University of Vigo

In art, he is shown as a portly Dominican friar, carrying a book; or with a star on his breast and rays of light coming from his book; or holding a monstrance with Saint Norbert. At times he may be shown: (1) with the sun on his breast; (2) enthroned with pagan and heretic philosophers under his feet; (3) at a teacher's pulpit or desk, with rays coming from him; (4) with a chalice and host; (5) listening to a voice speaking to him from the Crucifix; (6) as angels bring him a girdle; or (7) in a library with Saint Bonaventure who points to the crucifix


St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, Patron of Catholic Schools
http://www.op.org/domcentral/people/vocations/Thomas.htm

Thomas the Apostle challenged the story that the Lord was risen, and his unbelief brought froth a glowing testimony of the reality of the Resurrection. Twelve centuries later, his namesake, Thomas of Aquino, questioned; without doubting; the great truths of faith, and demonstrated for all time the relationship of faith and reason.

As the first Thomas found by experiment: "Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hands into His side"; that the Man who stood in the midst of them was none other than Jesus Christ, so Thomas, the Angelic Doctor, proved for all time that there is no quarrel between reason and revelation.

Thomas, son of the count of Aquino, (b. 1225-d. 1274) was first trained at the Benedictine abbey of Montecassino, and here, even in childhood, his great mind was wrestling with theological questions, "Master, tell me--what is God?" In order to better to train the boy's mind, his father sent him at an early age to the University of Naples. There he studied under Peter of Ireland and, undisturbed by the noise and wickedness of the great university city, proceeded rapidly on his quest for God.

Meeting the Dominicans, he was strongly attracted by their apostolic life and petitioned to be received as one of them. While recognizing the gifts of the young student, the friars refused him admittance to the Order until he was eighteen. Acting deliberately, without a backward glance at the power and wealth he was leaving, Thomas, at eighteen, joyfully put on the habit of the new Order.

Like many gifted young men, Thomas was bitterly opposed by his family when he attempted to become a religious. When both threats and persuasion failed, he was kidnaped by his brothers and locked in a tower for more than a year. His sisters were sent to influence him, and he proceeded to convert them to his own way of thinking. A woman was sent to tempt him; but he drove her from the room with a burning brand from the fire; afterwards, angels came to gird him with the cincture of perpetual chastity. When captivity failed to break his determination, his brothers relaxed their guard, and Thomas, with the help of his sisters, escaped from the tower and hurried back to his convent.

Thomas was given the finest education available in his day. He studied first at Cologne and later at Paris, under the Master, Albert the Great. This outstanding Dominican teacher and saint became his lifelong friend and loyal defender. They taught at Cologne and became a mutual influence for good in one of the most beautiful friendships in Dominican history.

For the rest of his life, Thomas was to teach and preach with scarcely a day of rest. What makes the amount of writing he did remarkable, was the great deal of traveling that he undertook. Death found him in a familiar place, on the road, where he was bound for the Council of Lyons in obedience to the pope's command. He died at the Cistercian Abbey of Fossanova, in a borrowed bed, obscurity hardly fitting the
intellectual light of the Order, but perfectly suited to the humble friar that Thomas had always been.

Overheard in a colloquy with the Master he served so well with heart and mind and pen, Thomas was heard to ask as his reward from the Lord, "Thyself, 0 Lord, none but thyself!" St. Thomas Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church and is honored as the patron of Catholic Schools. He is celebrated in the Church Calendar on January 28th.

-----------------------------

Saint Thomas experienced visions, ecstasies, and revelations. He stopped writing the Summa theologiae because of a revelation he experienced while saying Mass on the feast of Saint Nicholas 1273. He confronted the consternation of his brethren saying, "The end of my labors is come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been, revealed to me." Nevertheless, the work became the basis of modern Catholic theology. (full article at http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0128thom.htm#thom )

-----------------------------

More on St. Thomas Aquinas at:
http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/stthomas.htm
http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0128thom.htm#thom
http://www.traditioninaction.org/SOD/j063sdThomasAquinas_3-10.htm

My Comments:
St. Thomas Aquinas is of special significance to me, as Sarah and I were received into the Catholic Church at St. Thomas Aquinas parish in Charlottesville, VA.

The Apotheosis of St. Thomas Aquinas by Francisco Zurbarán

Alito to Obama: "You Lie!"

Well, close enough.


UPDATE
More, including video.

This constitutional power play and effort at intimidation by Obama (with the full Court present at the SOTU speech) has to be about the most graceless and classless thing the man has done since taking office (although his mocking of the notion that morality might place some limits on scientific research during his speech announcing that he would fund ESCR ranks right up there).

The man has no class and absolutely no moral compass beyond his own wants and preferences. The rightness or wrongness of a thing is wholly dependant upon whether Obama wants it or not. This demogogic and patently false attack on the Court with the members of the Court front and center during the speech was nothing short of a disgusting display of arrogance and raw hubris.


UPDATE #2 (28 January)
Georgetown University Law Professor Randy Barnett writes:

In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.

Just WHAT, Exactly, Is Being "Clarified"?

Recently, there has been some buzz around the Catholic blogosphere about the formation of a new group called the "Coalition for Clarity". In case it isn't evident from the moniker the group has chosen for itself, the "Coalition for Clarity" is a coalition of Catholics against torture. A worthy cause, to be sure, and one in which I would, under most circumstances, most gladly join. But it is the fact that the group's name, itself, is lacking in "clarity" and appears to me to be more of a poke in the eye to certain people than it is an identifier of any particular agenda or set of beliefs that prompts me to write this.

As I wrote in my comments at Erin's post on Creative Minority Report, I'm sure this is going to come off much stronger than I intend, but I believe it is something that needs to be said.

I oppose (and have ALWAYS opposed) torture - including such so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" as waterboarding - under ANY circumstances (ticking time bomb scenario included). While I have not been as outspoken on the issue as Mark Shea, I have put my anti-torture views front and center on several occasions.

For example, when Catholics Against Rudy was in its early stages, I argued strongly that Giuliani's torture stance should be in the forefront of the campaign to illustrate where his public record fell short of Catholic teaching (unfortunately, the comments to the linked post do not appear for some reason; but this was one of those rare occasions in which my comments were 100% in agreement with the post's author, my old friend Tony A. (a.k.a Morning's Minion) - for the record, here's another instance).

Also, when Sam Brownback failed to speak out strongly against waterboarding during one of the GOP presidential debates, I publicly withdrew my support from him. Mark Shea even highlighted my letter to Brownback at his own blog.

So, I'll put my anti-torture bona fides up against anyone's, including Mark Shea's. And if anyone - on the basis of what I am about to write - wishes to dismiss me as part of the so-called "rubber-hose right" or a member of the "vast neo-con project" or a "Republicath" (I am a member of no poltical party) or any other epithet to imply that I am somehow more loyal to some political agenda than I am to the Church's social teaching, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

That said, I am reluctant to join anything billing itself as the "Coalition for Clarity" for a number of reasons:

(1) I am uncomfortable with the whole "Coalition for Fog"/"Coalition for Clarity" dicotomy since I have faithful Catholic friends (Shea would label them "Faithful Conservative Catholics[TM]") who oppose torture, yet who have been unfairly accused of being for "fog" in the torture debates;

(2) I'm not so sure that "clarity" is actually being sought, but rather see the effort as something more along the lines of "we're not like the the people who Shea has labeled as being 'for fog'"; and

(3) nothing about the name overtly or otherwise indicates exactly what it is the group stands for.

So, I beg the group's founders for indulgence while I offer this humble suggestion:

How about you drop the cute euphemism, which is really nothing more than a play on Mark's overly theatrical name calling, and adopt a straightforward name that says what you REALLY mean and what you REALLY stand for? Something like ... I don't know ... "Catholics Against Torture"?

That is, unless the REAL purpose of the group REALLY IS to show that you're not associated with people that Mark likes to call names.

Digest of Today's Posts (26 January 2010)

Nope, No Reason for Skepticism Whatsoever

Rubio Leads Crist in Florida

"Educated Class" Waking Up to Fact That Us "Yokels" Were Right All Along

Pro-Life Youth & Enthusiasm Frighten the Opposition

Now THAT'S What I Call "Fair and Balanced"

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (25 January 2010))

Nope, No Reason for Skepticism Whatsoever

Global alarming hysteria based more in agenda-driven politics than in sound scientific research? Surely not.

First, read this post by Joe Hargrave at The American Catholic:

How many more lies and frauds will the IPCC have to perpetrate on the entire world before we’re allowed to reject it’s scare-mongering without being ridiculed as “deniers” by their blind followers?

[...]

It makes you wonder how accurate other reports dismissed as “voodoo science” might turn out to be if they were given a fair hearing. This is politics, not science.

[More]

Then, read this post by Ed Morrissey at HotAir:

The UN’s team on climate change, the IPCC, has had a rather bad few months. First came the uncovered e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, a key research organization for the IPCC, that showed deception and professional character assassination by so-called scientists attempting to block data and analyses that contradicted the CRU conclusions on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Next, a scandal hit closer to home when the IPCC’s reliance on a theory of dissipating Himalyan glaciers turned out to be unscientific speculation — that the IPCC badly misquoted anyway. Now the Telegraph’s James Delingpole reports that another key claim by the IPCC also comes from non-peer-reviewed work by scientists operating out of their field of work:

Here’s the latest development, courtesy of Dr Richard North – and it’s a cracker. It seems that, not content with having lied to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels, the IPCC’s latest assessment report also told us a complete load of porkies about the danger posed by climate change to the Amazon rainforest...

[...]

How did the IPCC come to include this claim in its report to the UN? Supposedly, all of the underlying data is supposed to be peer-reviewed, legitimate research by professional scientists and not advocates. Yet within nine days we have seen two of its major claims turn out to be anecdotal speculation based on nothing at all. It goes right along with those Himalayan glaciers that were supposedly going to disappear within 25 years — at best, speculation that the IPCC falsely presented as scientific research, and likely a large load of carbon-rich effluvium.

[More]

Rubio Leads Crist in Florida

WOW!

A new Quinnipiac poll in Florida finds Marco Rubio (R) now leading Gov. Charlie Crist (R) in the Republican race for U.S. Senate, 47% to 44%.

Said pollster Peter Brown: "Who would have thunk it? A former state lawmaker virtually unknown outside of his South Florida home whose challenge to an exceedingly popular sitting governor for a U.S. Senate nomination had many insiders scratching their heads. He enters the race 31 points behind and seven months later sneaks into the lead. And, the horse race numbers are not a fluke. Rubio also tops Crist on a number of other measurements from registered Republicans, who are the only folks who can vote in the primary. Rubio's grassroots campaigning among Republican activists around the state clearly has paid off."

Rubio also beats Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) in a general election match up, 44% to 35%. Crist leads Meek, 48% to 36%.

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Pro-Life Catholic Rubio Pulls Even With Crist in Florida Senate Race

Charlie Crist Caught Lying About Support for Porkulus: Exposed by Rolling Stone

NY-23 a Test Case for 2010 Florida Senate Race [UPDATED]

"Educated Class" Waking Up to Fact That Us "Yokels" Were Right All Along

Chris Buckley, erstwhile offspring of the founder of National Review, has owned up - sort of - to his mistake in supporting Obama in the 2008 elections:

... A year ago, I inspired the nation to have the audacity to hope that I would change the political culture in Washington. Now, a year later, it turns out I’m another hack politician—from Chicago, where, believe you me, we know a thing or two about hack politics.

I was going to set a new standard. Now I’m just a complicit bystander as Harry bribes, among others, a senator from Nebraska who wants his state to get a free pass on Medicare—in return for his vote on a health-care reform bill that would make the Founders weep, or throw up. Or both.

What a difference a year makes. But I’m pleased to report that before I came up here tonight, I was able to sign a contract with my publisher for a new book. I’m going to call it The Audacity of Oops...

In other words, Obama turned out to be just like so many of his detractors said he would.

So, Chris, how is it that all you urbane, sophisticated, intellectual elites in the "educated class" - you, David Brooks, Margaret Noonan, Kathleen Parker, et al - allowed yourselves to be duped by the shallow phoniness of this fraud, only now waking up to the reality of what you helped to create, while all us unedumacated, mouth-breathing, theocracratic, redneck, white-trash riff-raff out here in red-state flyover country saw right through the hope and change and butterflies and s'mores B.S. right from the very beginning?

I don't think your "oops" is quite sufficient to make amends for all the havoc that your "misjudgment" has contributed to bringing about. How about a sincere and abject apology to all of those in the conservative movement and out here in middle America that you disparaged while carrying The One's water? How about an admission that the common sense and good judgment of the red-staters you so despise are far more prescient and trustworthy than your own sense of intellectual superiority?

[sound of crickets chirping]


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Noemie Emery on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

Michael Barone on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

Today's Must-Read: "Palinphobes and the Audacity of Type"

A Conservative Manifesto

Another Elitist "Conservative" Likes the Cut of Obama's Jib

The Liberal Media's Elitist Conservative Rats Leave the Sinking Ship

Pro-Life Youth & Enthusiasm Frighten the Opposition

Danielle Bean writes at National Catholic Register:

Of all the news stories I’ve read describing this year’s March for Life in Washington D.C., none make me prouder or more hopeful for the future than this little piece by Robert McCartney in the Washington Post:

“I went to the March for Life rally Friday on the Mall expecting to write about its irrelevance. Isn’t it quaint, I thought, that these abortion protesters show up each year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, even though the decision still stands after 37 years. What’s more, with a Democrat in the White House likely to appoint justices who support abortion rights, surely the Supreme Court isn’t going to overturn Roe in the foreseeable future.

How wrong I was. The antiabortion movement feels it’s gaining strength, even if it’s not yet ready to predict ultimate triumph, and Roe supporters (including me) are justifiably nervous.”

First of all, kudos for Robert McCartney for reporting with integrity, despite his pro-abortion bias. Many of his colleagues found themselves incapable of such fact-based, balanced reporting.

[More]

Now THAT'S What I Call "Fair and Balanced"

A new blog to the religion and politics scene, Stained Glass Politics, has reviewed this blog.

What I find most interesting and compelling about this particular review (aside from the fact that the review of my blog is one of the very first posts on Stained Glass Politics) is that the blog's proprietor, while acknowledging a different worldview than my own, presents my point of view accurately, fairly, and without dismissing my views as illegitimate or backward:

Jay Anderson takes his faith seriously. The law school graduate and former small-town mayor is a convert to Roman Catholicism, and holds a staunchly conservative interpretation of his religion. His blog, described as “a Catholic blog covering matters related to Church, Family, and Politics,” highlights current events that deal primarily with the role of religion in public life.

[...]

Agree or disagree, Jay Anderson’s blog is informed and relevant, and demands consideration as we look into how religion figures into the way individuals participate in the national discourse. Moreover, it’s more productive to engage in dialogue with people who sincerely believe in their faith, and in Catholicism I find that converts often argue most persuasively and passionately than ambivalent ‘cradle Catholics’. I like hearing what hardliners like Anderson have to say and how they see political events like the Massachusetts election because it is often so different from (1) the way I see the world and (2) the way the American media portrays people of faith, namely those with strong and vocal opinions...

[More]

In the context of an overall balanced appraisal, I can even overlook the description of me as a "hardliner".

;-)

Thanks to Stained Glass Politics for its fair and balanced assessment of this blog, for expressing disagreement agreeably, and for setting an example to me to try to do a better job of being less rancorous toward those with whom I have religious and political differences.

Digest of Today's Posts (25 January 2010)

3 Words That Drive "Progressive" Catholics Crazy

Outlawed Lungs in Outlawed Tripes: U.S. to Lift 21-Year Ban on Haggis

What the One-Child Policy Has Wrought

Non Nobis

(Digest of Friday's Posts (22 January 2010))

3 Words That Drive "Progressive" Catholics Crazy

Matthew Archbold, writing at both National Catholic Register and Creative Minority Report, is asking for reader contributions on the subject of "3 Words That Drive 'Progressive' Catholics Crazy".

Here's my entry:

"Habemus Papam ... Ratzinger!"

Outlawed Lungs in Outlawed Tripes: U.S. to Lift 21-Year Ban on Haggis

From The Guardian (U.K.):

Smuggled and bootlegged, it has been the cause of transatlantic tensions for more than two decades. But after 21 years in exile, the haggis is to be allowed back into the United States.

The "great chieftan o' the puddin-race" was one of earliest casualties of the BSE crisis of the 1980s-90s, banned on health grounds by the US authorities in 1989 because they feared its main ingredient ‑ minced sheep offal ‑ could prove lethal.

Some refined foodies might insist it always has been and always will be: in the words of Robert Burns, in his Ode to a Haggis, looking "down wi' sneering, scornfu' view on sic a dinner". But now, as millions of Scots around the world prepare to celebrate Burns's legacy tonight with an elaborate, whisky-fuelled pageant to a boiled bag of sheep innards, oatmeal, suet and pepper, its reputation has been restored, on health grounds at least.

For the past two decades, Americans of Scottish descent ‑ of whom there are at least 6 million ‑ have been forced to celebrate Burns' night without a true haggis, much to their distress.

[...]

Meanwhile, butchers in the US have tried, and failed, to make their own versions of the pudding without using the vital ingredient: sheep. "It was a silly ban which meant a lot of people have never tasted the real thing," said Margaret Frost, of the Scottish American Society in Ohio. "We have had to put up with the US version, which is made from beef and is bloody awful."

[More]

Haggis and its traditional accompaniment, whisky.
Address To A Haggis
by Robert Burns

Fair fa' your honest, sonsie face,
Great chieftain o' the pudding-race!
Aboon them a' yet tak your place,
Painch, tripe, or thairm:
Weel are ye wordy o'a grace
As lang's my arm.

The groaning trencher there ye fill,
Your hurdies like a distant hill,
Your pin was help to mend a mill
In time o'need,
While thro' your pores the dews distil
Like amber bead.

His knife see rustic Labour dight,
An' cut you up wi' ready sleight,
Trenching your gushing entrails bright,
Like ony ditch;
And then, O what a glorious sight,
Warm-reekin', rich!

Then, horn for horn, they stretch an' strive:
Deil tak the hindmost! on they drive,
Till a' their weel-swall'd kytes belyve
Are bent like drums;
Then auld Guidman, maist like to rive,
Bethankit! hums.

Is there that owre his French ragout
Or olio that wad staw a sow,
Or fricassee wad make her spew
Wi' perfect sconner,
Looks down wi' sneering, scornfu' view
On sic a dinner?

Poor devil! see him owre his trash,
As feckles as wither'd rash,
His spindle shank, a guid whip-lash;
His nieve a nit;
Thro' blody flood or field to dash,
O how unfit!

But mark the Rustic, haggis-fed,
The trembling earth resounds his tread.
Clap in his walie nieve a blade,
He'll mak it whissle;
An' legs an' arms, an' hands will sned,
Like taps o' trissle.

Ye Pow'rs, wha mak mankind your care,
And dish them out their bill o' fare,
Auld Scotland wants nae skinking ware
That jaups in luggies;
But, if ye wish her gratefu' prayer
Gie her a haggis!

An ode to Scottish cuisine:



Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
250th Birthday of Scottish Poet Robert Burns - Born 25 January 1759 [UPDATED]

Haggis Targeted in Anti-Obesity Drive

What the One-Child Policy Has Wrought

(Hat tip: Mark Steyn)

This is the policy for which China is being praised for its "responsible stewardship" by all the global warming alrmists:

To say that China’s one-child family policy has been a disaster is an understatement. A report released earlier this month by the nation’s top think tank – the Communist Government’s Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) - says that the policy has created a huge gender imbalance with significant implications for future social stability.

Indeed, according to the report, 24 million men reaching marriageable age by 2020 will never marry because of the sex imbalance. Think of it in these terms: what if the entire population of New York City or of Australia was never able to marry. Imagine the social implications in a city or nation that large where no one can marry. Imagine if that city or country is comprised solely of 24 million men; men with no homes to return to at night; men without the responsibilities of a family to keep them engaged in productive pursuits.

[...]

Interestingly the CASS report termed those condemned to bachelorhood “bare branches” because they would not be able to establish family trees of their own.

How China got to this pitiful state is well documented. A rigid one child per family policy, legal and easily available abortion, and a cultural and economic preference for sons, resulted in sex selective abortions since the early 1980s. Laws to deter such behaviour have failed resoundingly. For example, obtaining knowledge of an unborn baby’s sex from ultrasounds was made illegal to stop abortions of baby girls by the 1990s. But throughout China’s rural villages and towns it remains possible to bribe staff in medical clinics and hospitals to find out the sex of an expected child. Once the parents decide to abort an unborn baby, Chinese law does not require them to carry an unborn baby girl to term.

More girls than boys are aborted. Many more.

[...]

The main concern raised by the CASS report is that 24 million men condemned to a life alone will result in a major strain on the State welfare system. Essentially, without families of their own to care for them as this generation starts ageing, the State will need to step in with sufficient pension funds and aged care facilities for the old bachelors of the latter decades of the 21st Century.

But other problems – such as a rising incidence of prostitution and violent crime - are on the horizon, judging by some current trends.

For example, while the number of baby girls being born has declined, the number of kidnappings and trafficking of young girls has risen. According to the National Population and Family Planning Commission – that’s right, the very organization responsible for the one child family policy -- abductions and trafficking of women and girls has become “rampant”.

Young girls are being kidnapped within China and also from neighboring countries (Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand) by organized gangs who sell them to families with boys of a similar age. The girls will be raised by the families and given as brides to their sons as soon as they reach marriageable age. Others are shipped to brothels within China for a life as sex slaves.

[More]

My Comments:
Yes, let's all hear it for China's "responsible" global "stewardship".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Baby-Hating Malthusian Nonsense Goes Mainstream at Copenhagen

China Begins to "Figure it Out" on Demographics

Obama Culture of Death Update™: President's "Science Czar" Supports Forced Population Control Measures [UPDATED]

UK Government Official Says Having More Than 2 Children "Irresponsible"; Catholics Respond

Rich Leonardi on the "Obnoxiousness" of the Concept of "Carbon Footprints"

Malthusian Nonsense Alert: "Save the Planet — Have Fewer Kids"

Deacon Fournier Reviews Population Controllers

Malthusian Nonsense Alert: Babies a Drag on the Economy, Report Says

Darwin Catholic: "Want Sustainable? Try a Family"

Malthusian Nonsense in the Extreme: "When Should You Die?"

Population Control Movement is "Number One Violator of Human Rights," Author Claims

USAToday Columnist: Religion is Killing the Planet

The Pitter-Patter of Carbon Footprints ...

Cardinal Pell Criticizes Australian Medical Ass'n for Publishing Letter Advocating Carbon Tax on Children

Professor Solves Global Warming: Let’s Tax Reproduction

Global Alarming Update: Focus on So-Called "Carbon Footprint" Anti-Family

Malthusian Nonsense from "Global Warming" Alarmists

Cardinal Pell on Global Warming Alarmists: "Scaremongers" and "Zealots"

Non Nobis

Via our friends at Creative Minority Report (read their entire post for details):

Non nobis, non nobis, Domine
Sed nomini tuo da gloriam.

Not to us, not to us, o Lord,
But to your name give glory.

Digest of Today's Post (22 January 2010)

Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan: "I Love This Week"

Rep. Joseph Cao: Abortion, Individual Rights, and Personal Responsibility

(Digest of Yesterday's Post (21 January 2010))

Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan: "I Love This Week"

(Hat tip: Kathryn Lopez)

Rep. Joseph Cao: Abortion, Individual Rights, and Personal Responisbility

Rep. Cao quotes the Holy Father's Caritas in Veritate about halfway through.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Rep. Joseph Cao Likely to Oppose Health Care on Final Vote

Digest of Today's Post (21 January 2010)

Has the "Non-Negotiable" Voting Framework Come to an End?

Patrick Archbold on "The Great Pro-Life Outing"

Egypt Called; It Wants It's River Back

Bart Stupak: Senate Health Care Bill Dead on Arrival in House

Has the "Non-Negotiable" Voting Framework Come to an End?

My friend, Michael Denton, has a good post at the CatholicVoteAction blog asking "Does the right's support of [Scott] Brown mean an end to the non-negotiable framework of voting?".

Michael offers 3 possible theories to explain the fact that many pro-lifers supported the pro-abortion Republican Brown over his Democratic (and also pro-abortion) opponent, Martha Coakley: (1) the Pessimist; (2) the Apologist; and (3) the Liberal. Do read Michael's entire post in which he fleshes out these theories.

I want to focus, however, on Michael's description of the "non-negotiable" framework of voting. I’m not sure the “non-negotiable” approach is necessarily as stringent as Michael has described it (although I think some people pushing the non-negotiable approach seem to argue that way). What the Holy Father has stated regarding issues that are “not negotiable”, and what the U.S. Bishops seemed to confirm in Faithful Citizenship, is that issues like abortion, marriage, and the right of parents to control their children’s education (to name 3 items that the Pope has deemed “not negotiable”) can’t be treated as just some important items alongside a lot of other important items. When we vote, these items must be forefront in our minds and command priority. They can’t be swept aside because someone thinks a candidate is better overall on other important issues to Catholics (such as war, health care, welfare programs, etc.). In that sense, abortion, marriage, etc. can’t be “negotiated away” because we might prefer a candidate’s position on those other issues.

However, if the “non negotiable” position meant that Catholics could NEVER vote for candidates who countenance abortion, we would rarely be able to participate in the political process since even allegedly “pro-life” candidates generally allow for some exceptions to banning abortion. Unfortunately, there are very few “perfect” pro-life candidates out there. So, to some extent, even the non-negotiable position encompasses some level of pragmatism and prudence.

Faithful Citizenship explicitly provides guidance for these situations:

36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.

And, as Tom Kreitzberg of the Disputations blog pointed out yesterday in a comment at Vox Nova, even the 2004 Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics that popularized the “five non-negotioable issues” included this paragraph:

“In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more of the five non-negotiables. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.”

So, I think there’s some nuance even in the “non-negotiable” approach that allows for pragmatism when neither candidate is “perfect” on the issues of primary importance to Catholics.


NB: My explanation here explains, in part, why I have argued strongly against the view that Catholics may NEVER vote for a pro-abortion candidate and, in fact, why I wrote during the 2008 election that, despite my disagreement with the prudence of such a vote, a faithful Catholic was not morally foreclosed from voting for Barack Obama.

Patrick Archbold on "The Great Pro-Life Outing"

Patrick Archbold writes at Creative Minority Report regarding what we learned about congressional pro-lifers during the health care debate:

... Every pro-lifer in congress, and I think particularly of Democrats, was put to the test in this process. Each of them showed once and for all whether they are truly pro-life or just party men.

This judgment was most definitive for pro-life Democrats in the Senate. Now we know there are none. When it came to choose between political expediency and life, life was a distant second...

Less obvious to some is the pro-life sellout of Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey. Unlike Senator Nelson, Casey's desire to be a party man did not allow him to hold out for goodies. Senator Casey took the lead in negotiating a compromise that would allow pro-life Democrats some semblance of pro-life cover by use of accounting tricks but wouldn't prohibit one taxpayer-funded abortion. You don't need to believe me on this, radical pro-abortion Senator Boxer tells you everything. Boxer told abortion supporters not to worry about the Casey compromise because “it’s only an ‘accounting procedure’ that will do nothing to restrict [abortion] coverage." Senator Casey is a disgrace to his father's memory and can never ever make a plausible case that he is pro-life again.

However, we learned some other things as well. In the House there is truly such a thing as a pro-life Democrat. Rep. Bart Stupak led that charge in the House for language that would prevent the funding of abortion. He fought for and accomplished amending the bill with the needed language. What is more, Reps Stupak, Driehaus, and a handful of other Democrats made it clear that they would never support a final bill without that language and under immense political pressure they stuck to their guns. In fighting for what is right in the face of strong opposition from their own party, these Democrats have proven that they are truly pro-life and may God bless them for what they did and are doing...

(emphasis added)

Egypt Called; It Wants It's River Back

"There are many theories about the import of Scott Brown’s upset victory in the race for Edward Kennedy’s former Senate seat. To our minds, it is not remotely a verdict on Mr. Obama’s presidency, nor does it amount to a national referendum on health care reform — even though it has upended the effort to pass a reform bill, which Mr. Obama made the centerpiece of his first year."

Bart Stupak: Senate Health Care Bill Dead on Arrival in House

See The American Catholic for "Bart Stupak: Senate Bill Dead on Arrival".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Steve Dillard on Bart Stupak: "Pro-Life Warrior"

To Bart Stupak, On the Eve of Battle

Democrats Reveal Priorities: Universal Abortion Trumps Universal Health Coverage

Health Care, Politicians and the Catholic Conscience

Feel Free to Oppose Health Care Reform in Good Conscience ...

White House at Odds with Bishops Over Abortion Coverage in Reid "Health Care" Bill

"Pro-Life" Harry Reid Strips Stupak Language from Senate ObamaCare Bill

Epic Fail: Legal Hack Toobin Relies on Falsified Source for Abortion "History" in Article Against Stupak Amendment

Stupak Warns Democrats Not to Mess with Anti-Abortion Health Care Language

Because Blaming the Minority Opposition Party is Easier Than Owning Up to Having Aligned Yourself With a Party For Whom Abortion is a Sacrament

A Big Pro Ecclesia Thank You ...

Stupak Still Fighting Good Fight: Says He Has 40 Democrat Votes to Stop Health Care Reform Over Abortion Coverage; Says President Being Disingenuous

House Democrats Block Vote to Cut Abortion From Health Care Bill

Michael Sean Winters: "Deceitful Bogeyman" of the Catholic Left

Catholic Bishops: All Current Health Care Bills in Congress Would Permit Federal Funding of Abortion

Catholic Senators are Decisive Factor in Defeating Abortion Funding Ban and Conscience Protection in Health Care Bill

Can Stupak Be Counted Upon to Stand Firm on Abortion? Probably Not

Congressman Bart Stupak, Democrat, Defending the Right to Life in Heath Care

Pro-Life Catholic Dem: "We Believe We Have the Votes" to Shut Down Healthcare Over Abortion

Obama Won't Meet With Pro-Life Democrat to Discuss Abortion, Health Care

Pro-Life Catholic Dem: Prevent Abortion Funding, Or I'll Block Healthcare

House Democrats Will Likely Prevent Vote to Remove Abortion From Health Care

Deal Hudson: "Why Catholics Will Not Get Abortion Out of the Health Care Bill" [UPDATED]

LA Times: Next Hurdle in Healthcare "Debate" is Abortion

Congressman Smith Warns Against Phony ‘Compromise’ on Abortion Mandates in ObamaCare

Dem Says Language Expressly Prohibiting Abortion Funding a Must in Health Care Bill [UPDATED]

Pelosi Accused of Muzzling Opposition to Taxpayer-Funded D.C. Abortions

Is Mitt Romney the REAL WINNER of the Massachusetts Special Election?

Unfortunately, I think he probably is. Romney, who pretends to be a pro-life social conservative when he's running for President (as opposed to the pro-choice, pro-gay rights social liberal he governed as in the Massachusetts statehouse), may have just cemented the 2012 GOP nomination.

Rep. Joseph Cao Likely to Oppose Health Care on Final Vote

From The Wall Street Journal:

If Democrat Martha Coakley loses today’s special Senate election in Massachusetts, some White House and Senate aides have determined that getting the House to pass the Senate health care bill unchanged is their last best hope for victory on President Barack Obama’s signature issue.

If so, the president is likely to lose the one vestige of bipartisanship on the health care issue. Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao of Louisiana, the lone Republican vote for the health care overhaul on either end of the Capitol, will not vote for the Senate bill, Cao spokeswoman Princella Smith said this morning. The language roping federal funds away from abortion services is not sufficient.

“It’s a complete deal breaker with him if there’s not sufficient language to protect the lives of the unborn,” said Smith, citing her boss’s beliefs, his training as a Catholic priest and his role as adviser to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “The Senate version does not have that sufficient language.”

(emphasis added)

And, as if to confirm Rep. Cao's suspicions, Sen. Boxer speaks up right on cue to inform us, according to the McClatchy News Service, that the abortion provisions in the Senate bill are “only an ‘accounting procedure’ that will do nothing to restrict [abortion] coverage.”

Out of Touch Much? Coakley Refers to Legendary Red Sox Hero Curt Schilling as a "Yankees Fan"

First the Fenway slight, and now this. Martha Coakley obviously doesn't get out much to rub shoulders with the Red Sox fan riff-raff.

Ignorant woman probably has Schilling confused with Roger Clemens.

I can just hear the groans from her campaign staff as she stepped into it with this latest gaffe ... live on the radio. Heh.

Digest of Today's Posts (15 January 2010)

Catholics and the Law

Krauthammer on Misreading One's Mandate

So, Martha, From What Other Jobs Should Faithful Catholics Be Excluded

Digest of Yesterday's Posts (14 January 2010)

Catholics and the Law

Michael P. Foley writes at InsideCatholic:

Catholics in America have more reasons than ever to worry about the future of the law. The legal practice of the Catholic faith in the United States is already becoming difficult because of funding abortions via our taxes, scuttling our philanthropic organizations rather than supporting same-sex marriage, or paying for the artificial contraception of Catholic institutions' employees. The international scene is no better: Several years ago, the EU tried to deny Europe's Christian roots in its constitution, and two months ago the European Court of Human Rights fined the Italian government for having crucifixes in schoolrooms.

From all this it would be easy to conclude, like Thomas More's excitable son-in-law Roper in A Man for All Seasons, that the law is a cloak for the devil to do his mischief, and that every law in the land should be cut down in the service of God. But such a view overlooks a remarkable fact: Despite some legislators' hostility to Catholic morality, the legal tradition as we know it owes its existence in large part to the Catholic Church.

[More]

Krauthammer on Misreading One's Mandate

Charles Krauthammer writes in The Washington Post:

... Obama did not just act, however. He acted ideologically. To his credit, Obama didn't just come to Washington to be someone. Like Reagan, he came to Washington to do something -- to introduce a powerful social democratic stream into America's deeply and historically individualist polity.

Perhaps Obama thought he'd been sent to the White House to do just that. If so, he vastly over-read his mandate. His own electoral success -- twinned with handy victories and large majorities in both houses of Congress -- was a referendum on his predecessor's governance and the post-Lehman financial collapse. It was not an endorsement of European-style social democracy...

So, Martha, From What Other Jobs Should Faithful Catholics Be Excluded?

(Hat tip: The American Catholic)

Martha Coakley, the Democrat candidate to fill the U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts left vacant by the death of Teddy Kennedy, says that faithful Catholics shouldn't work in hospital emergency rooms:

Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: (…stammering) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.

My Comments:
Once again, we see that famed overt Democrat hostility to religion, especially religion as it is practiced by those who take their faith seriously.

So, then, from what OTHER professional fields and occupations should faithful Catholics be excluded (apart from the obvious ones from which they should exclude themselves, such as pole dancer, hit man, abortionist, etc.)?

We know Chuck Shumer (and others) would include judge among those professions, especially the job of U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

Digest of Today's Posts (14 January 2010)

The Dirty Little Secret in Scott Brown's U.S. Senate Race

Ed Whelan on Ramifications of Supreme Court Opinion Blocking Broadcasting of Prop 8 Show Trial

Democrat Iconoclasm

Archbishop Burke at Red Mass: Invokes Thomas More; Decries Society that Masks "Totalitarianism" with "Hope"

Noemie Emery on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

Michael Barone on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

US Bishops: Defense of Marriage "One of the Premier Social Justice Issues of Our Time"

San Fran Nan Gets Taken to the Woodshed: Speaker Pelosi’s Bishop Corrects Her Once Again

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (13 January 2010))

The Dirty Little Secret in Scott Brown's U.S. Senate Race

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
"It's Not the Kennedy Seat"

Ed Whelan on Ramifications of Supreme Court Opinion Blocking Broadcasting of Prop 8 Show Trial

At Bench Memos, Ed Whelan writes on the "Ramifications of Supreme Court Opinion Blocking Broadcasting" of the Prop 8 show trial here, here, and here.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Prop 8 Trial Watch: San Francisco Hates Catholics

Democrat Iconoclasm

Matthew Archbold reports that the Obama Administration is considering forcing faith-based recipients of federal money to cover or hide religious iconography:

According to OnFaith blog, Obama's faith council is debating forcing religious charities to cover up any and all religious icons if they receive federal funding.

OnFaith reports:

Obama's faith council is finalizing its draft report this week, and one of the key debates that emerged from the phone conference yesterday was whether there should be rules requiring religious groups to cover up religious symbols if they receive federal funding for services. For example, if a church gets money for a soup kitchen, would it have to remove or put a cloth over all crosses, pictures, etc., every time it gets ready to feed the hungry?

[...]

So remember when Obama said he decided to continue President Bush's funding of faith based organizations, I'm pretty sure that this White House continued it only so that the money could be used as a Trojan Horse that could destroy or at least secularize religious organizations.

My Comments:
Just more proof that, for all its bluster about reaching out to people of faith in the last election cycle, the Democrat Party remains openly hostile to, or at the very least, very uncomfortable with, overt demonstrations of religious faith.

Archbishop Burke at Red Mass: Invokes Thomas More; Decries Society that Masks "Totalitarianism" with "Hope"

From Catholic News Agency:

Phoenix, Ariz., Jan 13, 2010 / 12:11 am (CNA).- Using the example of St. Thomas More, Archbishop Raymond Burke exhorted legal professionals present at Tuesday's Red Mass in St. Mary’s Cathedral to keep God before their eyes as they strive to administer justice amidst a “society which is abandoning its Judeo-Christian foundations.”

Archbishop Burke flew in from the Vatican to celebrate the Mass at the invitation of his long-time friend, Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix. The Red Mass is the only event on the archbishop's short itinerary.

“As a Catholic lawyer, it is an incredible honor to be graced with the presence of Archbishop Burke at the Red Mass,” John Kelly, general counsel for the Diocese of Phoenix, told The Catholic Sun. “This is also a man who has publicly and unabashedly defended the teachings of the Church on the sanctity of life. An opportunity to celebrate Mass with someone like this does not come along very often.”

The archbishop began his homily by explaining the origins of the Red Mass, a tradition dating to the Middle Ages. Noting that there was a stronger understanding of the “essential unity” of faith and reason in that time period, he said that celebrating Mass “at the beginning of the new judicial year pointed to the irreplaceable foundation of the service of pronouncing the just and the right on behalf of one’s brothers and sisters.”

He also explained that red vestments are worn during the Mass for two reasons: judges in the Middle Ages wore red robes and because they remind “us of the perfect obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ” in obeying the call of the Holy Spirit to lay down our own lives.

Archbishop Burke then presented the story of St. Thomas More, a lawyer who was martyred for choosing to serve God instead of the king. The patron saint of lawyers, the archbishop reminded, is known for exclaiming, “I die the king’s good servant, and God’s first.” “Saint Thomas More understood that there could be no contradiction between his service of his nation and his service of God, and that, in fact, he could only serve his nation truly and faithfully by his true and faithful service of God,” Archbishop Burke declared.

[...]

In our culture, “the law more and more dares to force those with the sacred trust of caring for the health of their brothers and sisters to violate the most sacred tenets of their consciences, and to force individuals and institutions to cooperate in egregious violations of the natural moral law,” he said. “In such a society, the administration of justice is no longer a participation in the justice of God, an obedient response to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, but a façade cloaking our own selfishness and refusal to give our lives for the sake of the good of all our brothers and sisters.”

“It is a society which is abandoning its Judeo-Christian foundations, the fundamental obedience to God’s law which safeguards the common good, and is embracing a totalitarianism which masks itself as the 'hope,' the 'future,' of our nation. Reason and faith teaches us that such a society can only produce violence and death and in the end destroy itself,” Archbishop Burke warned.

[More]

(emphasis added)

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

Noemie Emery on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

Noemie Emery writes in The Washington Examiner:

David Brooks notes that in the last year, something dire has happened: The public has turned decisively against the "educated classes" and all of their works. At the same time, it has also moved against Barack Obama, who began his term with approval ratings that bumped up against 70, and have now sunk to the high to mid-40s, with "strongly disapprove" ratings that rival those of George W. Bush at his worst.

It has also moved strongly against his -- and the educated classes' -- ideas. It is more pro-life, more anti-climate change, more free market, less statist, more inclined to favor "harsh" measures against terrorism suspects, more in favor of "waterboarding" the terrorist [ED.: Unfortunately, I think the majority of the public has always looked the other way on torturing terrorism suspects] caught in the brief-bombing effort, more opposed to the closing of Guantanamo Bay.

While the liberal Left controls the White House along with both houses of Congress, the country it governs has moved to the Right. These phenomena are all interrelated: The country is moving Right in reaction to Obama's theories of governance, and Obama and the educated class are one and the same.

He epitomizes that class and was sold by that class to the country, which purchased the product and has come to regret it. It now wants its money returned.

In a sense, Obama has never been more than his education (Columbia, Harvard), which for some people was more than enough. When Brooks met Obama in 2005, the new senator had no experience and no accomplishments, but he was perfectly briefed in the requisite talking points.

[...]

He was hardly alone. People in newsrooms all over the country decided that someone who talked the way they did was the cure for what ailed the country, and are stunned to find out it is not.

[Read more at The Washington Examiner]

Michael Barone on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

Michael Barone writes in The Washington Examiner:

... The educated class thinks that gun control can reduce crime. But over the last 15 years, crime rates have plummeted thanks to Giuliani-type police tactics and while 40 states have laws permitting law-abiding citizens to get licenses to carry concealed weapons.

"The educated class believes in global warming," Brooks notes. But ordinary Americans have been noticing that temperatures have not been rising in the last decade as climate scientists' models predicted, and they may have noticed those Climategate e-mails that show how climate scientists have been jiggering the statistics and suppressing opposing views.

On these issues the educated class is faith-based and the ordinary Americans who increasingly reject their views are fact-based, just as the Obama enthusiasts are motivated by style and the tea partiers by substance.

As the educated class bitterly clings to its contempt for the increasing numbers not enlightened enough to share its views, other Americans have noticed, even in the liberal heartland of Massachusetts, where Republican Scott Brown seems on the brink of an upset victory in the special Senate election next Tuesday. That would have reverberations for the educated class an awful lot like that tea party back in 1773.

[Read more at The Washington Examiner]

US Bishops: Defense of Marriage "One of the Premier Social Justice Issues of Our Time"

(Hat tip: Catholic Online)

From LifeStiteNews:

WASHINGTON, January 13, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, recently praised a January 7 New Jersey State Senate vote to preserve the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

“On behalf of the bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee, I am grateful for the courage of those New Jersey senators who stood for the truth of marriage as a bulwark of the common good,” he said.

The New Jersey Senate voted 20-14 to reject a same-sex “marriage” bill, just as the New York State Senate did when it rejected a similar measure December 2 by a 38-24 margin.

“Preserving marriage between one man and one woman is a matter of justice; indeed it is one of the premier social justice issues of our time. It does not deny but rather supports basic human rights — especially the rights of children,” Archbishop Kurtz said. “The recent New York Senate vote and the vote in New Jersey witness to this fact.”

[...]

“The good of the love between husband and wife, the vital responsibilities of mothers and fathers, and the rights of children all deserve unique protection under law — all of these are indispensable to a just society that serves the dignity of all people and the common good.”

(emphasis added)

San Fran Nan Gets Taken to the Woodshed: Speaker Pelosi’s Bishop Corrects Her Once Again

Deacon Keith Fournier writes at Catholic Online:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Catholic Online) - One of the great scandals of our age is the leadership of some of our fellow Catholics in public life who are unfaithful to the teaching of our Church and betray their public trust. Sadly, they demonstrate the danger warned of in the last great ecumenical council of our Church, Vatican II.

The Council Fathers in their document on the Christian mission - Lumen Gentium, “Light to the Nations - used a phrase which has been repeated many times since then in numerous teachings from the contemporary Popes and is a favorite of our own U.S. Bishops. They warned of the “separation between faith and life.” They called it one of the “greatest errors of our age”. And, so it truly is... advanced with the help of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and some other Catholics in public life.

[...]

Nancy Pelosi has been corrected so many times by her Bishop it is beginning to irritate many. Yet, she persists in a flagrant disregard for the teaching of the Church she professes to be a member of. She also evidences an intention to mislead her fellow Catholics about the unquestionably clear teaching of that Church. Faithful Catholics profess that this teaching concerning the responsibilities of of human freedom, such as not killing one another, is not simply a matter for only Catholics but constitute an absolute obligation for any just society.

The social ordering principles contained within Catholic Social teaching of the Church are not simply “private” religious matters. They are profoundly public. They outline the parameters of civilized behaviour. They help to explain what is good about the experiment in ordered liberty called the United States of America. The subterfuge of the Speaker of the House of Representatives concerning the Foundational and Fundamental first right, the Right to Life, and the first freedom, the freedom to be born, is dangerous to the future of our Republic.

It strikes at the core of what constitutes human freedom. It is a refutation of the truth concerning solidarity - our responsibilities to one another as neighbors. It denies the very existence of a “Natural Law” which can be known by all men and women through the exercise of reason and which is the foundation of Civil Law itself. Yet, she persistsin her deceit. She has the arrogance to pretend that in so doing she is acting as a faithful Catholic. This was recently shown in her shameful interview with Eleanor Clift in Newsweek magazine. (Dec. 21, 2009)

Archbishop George H. Niederauer in a well written piece entitled “Free Will, Conscience and Moral Choice: What Catholics believe” has once again corrected the Speaker, a member of his flock. I believe that he did so out of pastoral concern and Christian love. We publish his entire column below as our first related story. His article is a lesson in Morality. We ask all of our readers to please read it carefully. Then go to the Sacred Scriptures and to the Catholic Catechism. There you find the truth concerning what constitutes the real Catholic Christian faith. Not the errors and the false public witness of the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Do not let Speaker Nancy Pelosi or any unfaithful Catholics in public life continue to confuse you. Yes, continue to pray for the Speaker but resist her lies and oppose their evil effects. Do not be intimidated, Set Freedom free. Defend the truth against those who lie about the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church. That includes some Catholics in public life. This proper correction by the Bishop of the Speaker is another Call to a new Catholic Action!

Archbishop Niederauer's correction of Speaker Pelosi can be read in full here: "Archbishop Corrects Nancy Pelosi: Free Will, Conscience and Moral Choice".

An excerpt:

In a recent interview with Eleanor Clift in Newsweek magazine (Dec. 21, 2009), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked about her disagreements with the United States Catholic bishops concerning Church teaching.

Speaker Pelosi replied, in part: “I practically mourn this difference of opinion because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have the opportunity to exercise their free will.”

Embodied in that statement are some fundamental misconceptions about Catholic teaching on human freedom. These misconceptions are widespread both within the Catholic community and beyond. For this reason I believe it is important for me as Archbishop of San Francisco to make clear what the Catholic Church teaches about free will, conscience, and moral choice.

[...]

However, human freedom does not legitimate bad moral choices, nor does it justify a stance that all moral choices are good if they are free: “The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything.” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1740) Christian belief in human freedom recognizes that we are called but not compelled by God to choose constantly the values of the Gospel—faith, hope, love, mercy, justice, forgiveness, integrity and compassion.

It is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching to conclude that our freedom of will justifies choices that are radically contrary to the Gospel—racism, infidelity, abortion, theft. Freedom of will is the capacity to act with moral responsibility; it is not the ability to determine arbitrarily what constitutes moral right.

[...]

While we deeply respect the freedom of our fellow citizens, we nevertheless are profoundly convinced that free will cannot be cited as justification for society to allow moral choices that strike at the most fundamental rights of others.

Such a choice is abortion, which constitutes the taking of innocent human life, and cannot be justified by any Catholic notion of freedom...

[Read the whole thing]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Boston-Area Priest: Pastoral/Teaching Approach Has Failed Miserably in Persuading "Pro-Choice" Catholics of Their Error

Pelosi Accused of Muzzling Opposition to Taxpayer-Funded D.C. Abortions

Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi Communion

Pope to Speaker Pelosi: Reject Abortion Support [UPDATED]

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Backs Down: Contraception Removed from "Stimulus Package"

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Says Birth Control a Boon for the Economy [UPDATED]

More U.S. Bishops Issue Statements on Abortion

LA Times Columnist Lies to Cover for Pelosi

Obama Camp to Speaker Pelosi: "Shut Up, Already!"

The Follow-Up Question Brokaw Should've Asked

Pelosi: St. Augustine Agrees With Me - That's My Story and I'm Sticking to It [UPDATED]

Archbishop Chaput on Speaker Pelosi: "On the Separation of Sense and State" [UPDATED]

Biblical Scholars Challenge Pelosi's "Scripture" Quote

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother" Pelosi Defends Removal of "God" from Flag Certificates

President Bush to Veto Stem Cell Bill

Never Mind Church Teaching, Catholic Nancy Pelosi Says ESCR "a Gift of God"

"Anti-Catholic" Pelosi Accused of Promoting "Culture of Death"

Pelosi Sings Praises of Embryo Destruction

Bishop Vasa on Nancy Pelosi: It's "Categorically Impossible" to be Catholic and Hold Abortion is "Just a Choice"

Worth a Thousand Words

Nancy Pelosi: "My Family is Very Pro-Life"

Catholicism, Pelosi style

Archbishop Wuerl's Stand on Lawmakers Who Back Abortion Angers Some Conservative Catholics

NARAL Pro-Choice America Salutes Nancy Pelosi on Her Inauguration as Speaker of the House

More on Speaker Pelosi at Open Book

A Catholic Speaker in the House

American Life League's Judie Brown: Pro-Abortion Pelosi Insults Catholic Faith