CLE Course Focusing on Thomas More's Trial

For lawyers in the Dallas/Fort Worth area:

A Review of Thomas More’s Trial

July 1, 2010 – the 475th Anniversary of Thomas More’s Trial
CLE credit: 4 Hours (0.5 Hours Ethics)Sponsored by the St. Thomas More Society for the Diocese of Dallas and the Center for Thomas More Studies

Register here

Filibuster the Nomination of Elena Kagan! [UPDATED]

My friend Don McClarey has the story on the outrageous actions of Elena Kagan in working to overturn legislative bans on partial-birth abortion: "Kagan Engaged in Falsification of Evidence to Defeat Partial Birth Abortion Ban"

The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat Senator from New York, was a pro-abort, but he voted to ban partial birth abortion, which he correctly described as “barely disguised infanticide”. Many pro-aborts draw the line at this gruesome killing of an infant. Not so Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan apparently. Shannen W. Coffin has written a fascinating article at National Review Online. Coffin was the deputy attorney general in the Bush administration who defended the partial birth abortion ban law. In this article he details how Kagan falsified evidence in an attempt to defeat a partial birth abortion ban in Congress during the Clinton administration...

[...]

Go here to read the rest. Go here to read the Kagan memorandum of June 22, 1996, here to read her memorandum of December 14, 1996, and here to read Kagan’s note where she spoonfed the language to the [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)] which she wished to substitute for their prior accurate statement. Needless to say, I think Kagan’s support for partial birth abortion alone should be sufficient in any sane society to disqualify her from the Supreme Court. However, even supporters of the “barely disguised infanticide” known as partial birth abortion, should be repelled at the idea of an officer of the court altering evidence presented to Congress by the ACOG. Kagan lacks the ethics to be an attorney, let alone a justice of the Supreme Court.

My Comments:
I now wish to withdraw my initial assessment of President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, in which I concluded that it could have been much worse. I no longer believe that to be the case. Even Diane Wood would be preferable to this nominee. Kagan's nomination should be opposed with every tool available to defeat the nomination, including the filibuster.

The Democrats believed the mild-mannered, highly qualified, and well-respected Samuel Alito to be so “extreme” that his nomination to the Supreme Court merited a filibuster.

I believe the filibuster to be borderline unconstitutional when exercised in the case of judicial appointments, and believe it should have been “nuked” when the Republicans had a chance. But thanks to the Senator who just received a rare GOP primary endorsement from National Review, the filibuster is still available to defeat nominations to the judiciary.

Therefore, working within the system we have [i.e. playing by the rules the Democrats have established for judicial nominations], I now support a filibuster of Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Her views on abortion are the very definition of extreme, but that’s hardly surprising coming from a Democrat-appointed nominee. But her falsifying a scientific report that was used as evidence before Congress and subsequently in court to defeat legislative bans on one of the more brutal abortion procedures ever dreamed up shows her to be not only extreme, but unethical and untrustworthy and makes unfit to be an officer of the court, much less a life-tenured member of the highest Court in the land deciding the very issues on which she has manipulated evidence to affect the outcome.


UPDATE (1 July)
Don has an excellent follow-up regarding Kagan's Clintonian parsing of what "is" is in response to questions about her involvement in drafting the memo manipulating and falsifying the ACOG findings.

The woman is unfit to sit on the Supreme Court. The filibuster is a tool that the Dems have given us to defeat judicial nominations, and you can be quite assured that they WILL use it again in the future to try to defeat Republican nominees who are far less "extreme" than the one currently sitting before the Judiciary Committee. We may not like it, but we are handcuffing ourselves and ensuring our own destruction if we don't play by the rules that have been set for us out of some misguided notion that we might look like "hypocrites" if we use a procedure of which we've been critical in the past. (And, before anyone goes there, please spare me the One Ring analogies).


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court: Not As Bad as It Could Have Been ...

Digest of Today's Posts (28 June 2010)

Thank God That Palin Woman Didn't Make It to the Vice-Presidency ...

Washington Post Profile of Catholic Father of 6 Running for Congress

Once Again, the Supreme Court Tells Us What We Already Knew

Thank God That Palin Woman Didn't Make It to the Vice-Presidency ...

... We would've been denied the arrogant, vainglorious, and often comically inept musings of Captain Kickass' understudy, Sergeant Smartass.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Joe Biden Confused About What Century We're In

Yet Another Biden Gaffe: Calls Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine "Great Governor of New Jersey"

In Case You Didn't Already Know ...

"What We Have Here ...

Creative Minority Report: "Most Vain Man on the East Coast" to Become Fodder for Media Gaffe Mill

Prof. Hadley Arkes on Joe Biden: "The Rise of an Empty Man"

An Open Letter to Bishop Malooly

Bishop Martino: "I cannot have [the] Vice President-elect coming to Scranton, saying he learned his values there"

Deacon Fournier: "Senator Biden, Prop 8, Marriage and the New ‘Know Nothings’"

Bishop Malooly Responds to Senator Biden's Comments

Biden: "I'm Not a Pope John Paul [II] Guy"

Now It's My Turn to Ask: Who Are You to Question My "Patriotism"?

Biden's Wrecking Ball

USCCB Responds to Sen. Biden

Insipid: Sen. Biden Questions the Depth of Gov. Palin's Commitment to Special Needs Children, Pointing to Her Lack of Support for ESCR

American Papist: "Biden Skips Mass Where New Bishop Speak[s] Out Against Him"

Archbishop Chaput Corrects Senator Biden on Abortion

Sen. Biden Pulls a Pelosi on "Meet the Press" [UPDATED]

Durbin's Catholic Scorecard: Biden Rates Only 50%

Dawn Eden to Sen. Biden: "Keep Your Rosaries Off My Uvula!"

Joe Biden Was FOR the Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion Before He Was AGAINST It

Catholics Against Joe Biden

Litmus Test: Democrat Candidates Demand Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justices

Biden "Stumbles" Over Education Question

Christian Science Monitor Profile of Sen. Joseph Biden's "Frank and Abiding Faith"

Joe Biden Says Democrats Have Been Too Fearful to Discuss Religion

Blunt Talk from Catholic Joe Biden

Democratic Candidates for President Give Unanimous Pro-Abortion Views

During First Debate, Democrats Back Abortion, Criticize Efforts to Save Terri Schiavo

Media Sycophant Says: "Joe Biden Does Something Heroic"

Could You Imagine a Prominent Republican Senator Saying This About Gen. Colin Powell?

The Ego of the Senate

Lie of the Day

Biden: Chance of Filibuster on Alito Stronger

Biden: "I'm Going To Shove My Rosary Beads Down Their Throat"

Biden To Roberts: "You're The Best"

Letter to the Editor

Washington Post Profile of Catholic Father of 6 Running for Congress

The Washington Post has a profile of Real World alum (and husband of Real World alumna Rachel Campos-Duffy), Sean Duffy, who is running for the congressional seat in Wisconsin being vacated by David Obey: "Will Sean Duffy of 'The Real World' be picked to serve in the House?"

... Duffy minimizes the effect that "The Real World" has had on his political career. On the campaign trail, he plays up the outlines of his life now, which is much more sedate. He is a champion lumberjack, and at one point he held the world-record time for pole climbing. He and Rachel, who has been a recurring guest host of "The View" and recently wrote a book about being a happy stay-at-home mom, have six children. In the beginning, the run for Congress was a protest against big government and Washington excesses, he said.

"Most people told me I was crazy," said Duffy, a self-described "pro-life, pro-traditional-marriage, pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment" candidate in a district that President Obama won by 14 points and that has consistently backed Obey.

Against big odds, Duffy had a few good turns -- including lots of national ink when Sarah Palin endorsed him on the anniversary of the passage of the $787 billion federal stimulus package, of which Obey was the lead author. The lumberjack looked prescient rather than crazy when Obey decided last month not to run for reelection, saying he was "bone tired." Now Duffy finds himself in a race rated by political arbiters as a tossup...

Here's Duffy's campaign website, if you're interested in making a contribution.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Rachel Campos-Duffy: "Have We Become Too Casual? Why I Dress My Kids Up for Church"

Catholic Father of 6 Running for Congress Accused by Opponent of Being "Too Busy" With Kids to be Effective Representative

Rachel Campos Duffy: A Real Housewife of Wisconsin

Rachel Living in the Real World; The View Hags, Not So Much [UPDATED]

Once Again, the Supreme Court Tells Us What We Already Knew

For the second time in just over 2 years, the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 ruling has revealed to us that we have a constitutional right that (1) we already knew we had, (2) the Constitution plainly states we had, and (3) 200-plus years of a tradition of individual gun ownership in this country attests we had.

Item number (3) above, a guiding principle long championed by Justice Scalia in the application of so-called "Substantive Due Process" jurisprudence, is KEY to the majority's holding in McDonald v. Chicago.

Especially read Justice Scalia's concurrence, which eviscerates Justice Stevens' dissent and the "judge-as-enlightened-philosopher-king" mentality that undergirds the philosophy and jurisprudence of the judicial left.

It remains troubling, however, that constitutional protections such as the 2nd Amendment hinge on the swing of one Justice's vote.


UPDATE
I think the approach of my favorite Justice and personal judicial hero, Justice Thomas, which relies on the 14th Amendment's "Privileges and Immunities Clause" rather than the 14th Amendment's "Due Process Clause", is probably the "correct" one as a historical matter and from both an originalist and textualist standpoint.

Unfortunately, that ship has sailed, and we're stuck with having to limit, if we can't outright undo, the damage wrought by an expansive and substantive reading of the Due Process Clause. Given the parameters within which the modern Court is working, I believe the preferable approach from a jurisprudential (as opposed to historical) standpoint is to follow Justice Scalia's lead in reading the substantive/fundamental "liberty" component of the Due Process Clause - i.e. those rights “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” - as one to be interpreted and applied in light of our nation's long-established traditions.

Hopefully, one day, Justice Thomas' constitutionally correct views will rule the day.


UPDATE #2
Another interesting component about today's ruling is that we're bound to hear from leftist commentators about the Court's "activist" ruling. "Activist" because the Court acted to strike down a locality's gun control law. But read the opinions (including the concurrences) of those who voted in the majority and then read the dissenting opinions.

Which ones read like the opinions of Justices interested in limiting the judicial role in creating Constitutional rights out of whole cloth, and which ones read like the opinions of Justices with a prediliction for picking and choosing which rights are "acceptable" for constitutional protection (even if found NO WHERE in the Constitution) and which are not (even if they ARE found in the Constitution)?

If the word "activist" means anything, it certainly applies more to the latter than it does to the former.

But this is nothing new to the constitutional debate over the incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states. I encourage you to read the history of the incorporation controversy in the Supreme Court, especially the debates between the late Justices Black and Frankfurter. Throughout most of their tenures on the Court, it was Black who was viewed as the "liberal" and the "activist" and Frankfurter as an almost reactionary "conservative". Black pushed for "full incorporation" of the Bill of Rights; Frankfurter opposed him.

Yet, Black's purpose for pushing for full incorporation was, in fact, one of judicial restraint. A huge opponent of the "Substantive Due Process" jurisprudence that held sway on the Court in the 1910s-1930s, Black sought to limit the role of the Court in picking and choosing which rights were deemed "fundamental" to ordered liberty and which were not, and saw full incorporation as one means of accomplishing his goal of protecting the constitution from judicial interference.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Dale Price on Heller (and Tony's Temper Tantrum)

Supreme Court Tells Us What We Already Knew

"One of the Three Most Accomplished Knights in Christendom" and the Winning of Scottish Independence at Bannockburn [UPDATED]

Today is the 696th anniversary of one of the greatest battles ever fought on British soil, and certainly the most significant battle in Scottish history.

On 24 June 1314, Robert Bruce, King of Scots, led a vastly outnumbered army to an overwhelming victory against the might of the English forces under King Edward II at the Battle of Bannockburn, near Stirling Castle in central Scotland.


Bannockburn turned out to be the decisive victory in the First Scottish War of Independence, and was a precursor to the restatement of Scotland's historic independence from England, which was formally declared by the Community of the Realm of Scotland 6 years later at Arbroath.

Despite the completeness of the Scottish victory at Bannockburn and, later, papal recognition of the Scottish claims in the Declaration of Arbroath, full English recognition of Scottish independence was not achieved until more than ten years after Bannockburn, just prior to the death of King Robert. In the meantime, throughout that decade following Bannockburn, Robert completely dominated the English militarily: conducting frequent raids across the border deep into the heartlands of Yorkshire and Lancashire; exacting tribute from English communities (who bought off the Scots to avoid being laid waste in Robert's efforts to force English recognition of Scotland's independence); invading and nearly subduing Ireland in an abortive attempt to place Robert's brother, Edward Bruce, on the Irish throne; capturing the Isle of Man; and raiding a Welsh sea-port.

Robert Bruce kills Sir Henry de Bohun in single combat at Bannockburn. Source.

Robert Bruce statue at Bannockburn. Source.

Another view of the Bruce statue at Bannockburn. Source.
Without doubt, Bruce was Scotland's greatest king, and he achieved, during his lifetime, world renown as one of the greatest warriors of the age.

Source; © The Heraldry Society Scotland 2004 The Heraldry Society of Scotland

Ronald McNair Scott, in his biography Robert the Bruce, King of Scots, cites to Liber Pluscardiensis in declaring that "in his prime Robert Bruce was ranked with the Holy Roman Emperor Henry and Sir Giles D'Argentan as one of the three most accomplished knights in Christendom ..." Scott later refers to the Bruce as "the victor in a hundred tournaments".




Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled,
Scots, wham Bruce has aften led,
Welcome to your gory bed,
Or to victory.
Now's the day, and now's the hour;
See the front of battle lower;
See approach proud Edward's power—
Chains and slavery.

Wha will be a traitor knave?
Wha can fill a coward's grave?
Wha sae base as be a slave?
Let him turn and flee.
Wha for Scotland's King and law
Freedom's sword will strongly draw,
Freeman stand, or freeman fa',
Let him on wi' me.

By oppression's woes and pains!
By your sons in servile chains!
We will drain our dearest veins,
But they shall be free.
Lay the proud usurpers low!
Tyrants fall in every foe!
Liberty's in every blow
Let us do—or die."


UPDATE
You can read about plans for commemorating the battle's 700th anniversary in 2014 here.

Also, here's an interesting story about the controversial decision of the Scottish National Trust to avoid offending English sensibilities and in an effort to tamp down over-exhuberant Scottish patriotism by portraying the Battle of Bannockburn as a melee between two medieval kings jockeying for supremacy and land to add to their holdings, as opposed to a battle between the Scots and the English.

The problem with the National Trust's proposed interpretation is that, in the context of the emerging Scottish nationalism of the late 13th and early 14th centuries, as represented by William Wallace's struggle against English oppression and culminating in the Community of the Realm's declaring its independence at Arbroath, it is complete ahistorical bollocks.

Here is just an excerpt from the Declaration of Arbroath, which provides some context regarding the prevaling nationalistic sentiments in Scotland during the Wars of Independence:

... But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert.

He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Macabaeus or Joshua and bore them cheerfully.

Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to or laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King.

To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand.

Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule.

It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself...

(emphasis added)

In short, the National Trust is full of shite.

Another Elitist "Conservative" Realizes Too Late That "This Obama Fellow Is Unequal to the Task"

IowaHawk is just plain, frickin' brilliant:

Summer once again tiptoes in on crepe soles to the eastern extremities of Long Island; affording, as is its wont, fresh opportunities to enjoy the providence of nature and the financial acumen of one's forebears. Despite the looming spectre of global climate change the lawn is verdant and lush, and my gardener Hideo informs me the hibiscuses are in especially fine fettle. Much to the relief of his mother (if not the household staff) young T. Coddington VIII has returned from Quonsocket Prep and Rehabilitation Center. I am pleased to announce he has made significant strides in overcoming the acute arson disability that so plagued his sophomore academic marks, and thus his matriculation as a member of Harvard '15 is all but assured. And, if you will forgive a note of personal triumph, I also find myself in the midst of a career renaissance as the leading conservative thinker on the scourge and embarrassment of conservative extremism.

This solstitial season should then, by all rights, occasion in a conservative centrist like myself a deep sense of satisfaction -- if not outright contemptuous pity for the jejune editorial boobs of The National Topsider who some 18 months ago unceremoniously dismissed my services following my prescient endorsement of Barack Obama. Thanks to the good conservative breeding instilled in me by my late father, swashbuckling Topsider founder T. Coddington Van Voorhees VI, I am happily above such base emotions. Living well, as they say, is the best revenge; particularly when underwritten by royalty checks from the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek, and the other top-tier periodicals unintimidated by trenchant critiques of the soi-dissant 'Tea Party' idiots. Rather than basking in the deserved status of a conservative man in full, however, I instead find this the summer of my discontent. Each day seems to introduce some new crisis on the world scene with hints of more to come, and one is left to wonder if even our elegant young President's oratorical and tonsorial gifts are equal to the challenges ahead.

[...]

I and my guests were momentarily stunned, this being the first time any of us had heard an ill word spoken about Mr. Obama by a European of impeccable intellect with the Hermes ascot to match. This was followed, understandably, by muffled sobs. It was left to me to gamely break the lachrymose silence. "Perhaps Kloonkie is right," I said. "Perhaps the President has not quite turned out to be the Reagan reincarnation we all expected, and in some ways I am beginning to believe this Obama fellow is unequal to the task. As the intellectual conscience of the conservative movement, and whatever our previous enthusiasm for the chap, we ought have the courage to point out those rare instances where his performance has been found wanting. Such as foreign and domestic policy. The important thing is that we not end up implicated in his shortcomings."

[...]

"Clearly, this isn't the Barack Obama any of us swooned for during the election," offered Peggy Noonan. "As a candidate he was fresh, intellectual, and serious. Instead, as president, he has proven to be naive, detached and aloof. Nostradamus himself could not have predicted such an astonishing 180 degree transformation."

"Indeed, how could anyone?" added Brooks. "The fellow was a success at everything he had ever attempted -- being ethnically interesting, going to Harvard, getting elected, or writing autobiographies about being ethnically interesting and going to Harvard. It was simply inconceivable that there was a task he could actually fail at. I am forced to conclude his Harvard credentials may be a sham."

[Read the entire brilliant thing]

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


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
David Brooks Wonders What Went Wrong [UPDATED]

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

Noemie Emery on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

Michael Barone on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

Brooksback Mountain

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

Victor Davis Hanson: "What is Wisdom?"

Let's Get One Thing Straight ...

A Man For All Seasons: Feast Day of St. Thomas More, 22 June

___________________________________

“…it would be hard to find anyone who was more truly a man for all seasons and all men…”

~ Erasmus, 1521

___________________________________

The Execution of St. Thomas More - "A Man For All Seasons"


The Execution of St. Thomas More - "The Tudors"

Today, 22 June, is the feast day of St. Thomas More, martyr and patron of lawyers, civil servants, politicians, statesmen, "difficult marriages", and this blog.

As he went to his death, ordered beheaded by Henry VIII for refusing to swear the Oath of Supremacy declaring the King head of the Church in England, More humbly stated that he would die "the King's good servant, and God's first."

From the Patron Saints Index:

Memorial: 22 June

Profile: Studied at London and Oxford. Page for the Archbishop of Canterbury. Lawyer. Twice married, father of one son and three daughters, and a devoted family man. Writer. Friend of King Henry VIII. Lord Chancellor of England, a position of power second only to the king. Opposed the king on the matter of royal divorce, and refused to swear the Oath of Supremacy which declared the king the head of the Church in England. Resigned the Chancellorship, and was imprisoned in the Tower of London. Martyred for his refusal to bend his religious beliefs to the king's political needs.

Born: 1478 at London, England

Died: beheaded in 1535; head kept in the Roper Vault, Saint Dunstan's church, Canterbury, England; body at Saint Peter ad Vincula, Tower of London, England

Canonized: 1935 by Pope Pius XI

Patronage: adopted children, diocese of Arlington Virginia, civil servants, court clerks, difficult marriages, large families, lawyers, diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee Florida, politicians, politicos, statesmen, step-parents, widowers

A Prayer to St. Thomas More:

Thomas More, counselor of law and patron of statesmen, merry martyr and most human of saints:

Pray that, for the glory of God and in the pursuit of His justice, I may be able in argument, accurate in analysis, keen in study, correct in conclusion, loyal to clients, honest with all, courteous to adversaries, trustworthy with confidences, courageous in court. Sit with me at my desk and listen with me to my clients' tales. Read with me in my library and stand always beside me so that today I shall not, to win a point, lose my soul.

Pray that my family may find in me what yours found in you: friendship and courage, cheerfulness and charity, diligence in duties, counsel in adversity, patience in pain -- their good servant, and God's first.

Amen.

Quotes:

"The ordinary acts we practice every day at home are of more importance to the soul than their simplicity might suggest."

"What does it avail to know that there is a God, which you not only believe by Faith, but also know by reason: what does it avail that you know Him if you think little of Him?"

"The things that we pray for, good Lord, give us grace to labour for."

~ Saint Thomas More

From the Medieval Saints Yahoo Group:

Thomas More, Knight, Lord Chancellor of England, author and martyr, Lay Franciscan

Beheaded in 1535; head kept in the Roper Vault, Saint Dunstan's church, Canterbury, England; body at Saint Peter ad Vincula, Tower of London, England Beatified in 1886;

Canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1935 as the "Martyr of the Papacy"

Commemorated June 22, feast day formerly on July 6 (with fellow martyr, St. John Fisher)

Patronage: adopted children, civil servants, court clerks, difficult marriages, large families, lawyers, politicians, statesmen, step-parents, widowers

In art: English Lord Chancellor carrying a book; English Lord Chancellor carrying an axe

SAINT THOMAS MORE, Martyr (1480-1535)
http://magnificat.ca/cal/engl/07-06.htm

Saint Thomas More, born in 1480, was the precocious and amiable son of an English magistrate. Very well educated and brilliant, when he was placed at the age of fifteen in the household of the Archbishop of Canterbury, he soon attracted the Archbishop's attention, and was sent by him to study at Oxford. He debated interiorly for a long time as to whether he should become a priest, but decided otherwise with the approbation of his director.

The practice of civil law was not enough to absorb all his time or energy. The author of the famous satire "Utopia," wrote poetry while still young, in both English and Latin. He had completely mastered Latin, as he had also the Greek tongue, "by an instinct of genius," as one of his preceptors said. Saint Thomas in 1505 married a virtuous and beloved wife who, after bearing four children, three daughters and a son, died six years later. His second wife, older than himself, took excellent care of the household and of the children; but it was said she could not grasp the sense of her husband's subtle humor, which was a characteristic trait of his cheerful disposition.

Saint Thomas came under suspicion by King Henry VII when he strove in the Parliament to reduce the burden of excessive taxes which the people bore, though he never spoke against the king. But his capacities were appreciated, and when Henry VII died, his 18-year-old son, who was to become Henry VIII in 1509, showed him great favor during the first twenty years of his reign. Saint Thomas was knighted in 1521, and was made Speaker of the House of Commons in 1523, High Steward of Cambridge University in 1525, and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the same year. Nonetheless, the king's protege foresaw what could easily happen to anyone who did not agree with his sovereign; he said to his son-in-law in 1525, "If my head could win him a castle in France, it would not fail to go." In effect, when in 1530 the order was issued to the clergy to acknowledge Henry as "Supreme Head of the Church, insofar as the law of God would permit," Saint Thomas immediately resigned as Lord Chancellor.

His resignation was not accepted. Two years later, in May 1532, after he had lost the royal favor on several counts — his reticence concerning the king's divorce, his non-attendance at the king's illegal marriage, and his formal non-recognition of any future children of Henry and Anne Bolyn as rightful heirs to the throne — he was permitted to retire. The king, the apostate Archbishop Cranmer, and Anne Bolyn were all excommunicated in that year.

Saint Thomas lived in retirement from the age of 52, his revenues considerably diminished, and his health somewhat uncertain. When the king decided to require of the laity, as well as of the clergy, the oath supporting his alleged "supremacy," he wanted to obtain first of all the signature of Thomas More, to make of him an example. The Saint declined to sign the oath and thereby brought upon himself a sentence of incarceration in the Tower of London, and a short time afterwards, of death. He was beheaded in 1535, after having said, with his ordinary humor, that "he did not consider the severing of his head from his body as a circumstance that should produce any change in the disposition of his mind."

Saint Thomas while in retirement continued to write a number of religious treatises of great value, including an unfinished one on the Passion. He was beatified by Pope Leo XIII and canonized by Pius XI in 1935, with Cardinal John Fisher, who was martyred like himself in the same year and for the same reasons. That year was the 400th anniversary of their death.

"These things, good Lord, that we pray for, give us Thy grace to labor for." --Saint Thomas More.

--------------------------------
More on St. Thomas More at:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14689c.htm
http://www.cin.org/farmor.html

Links:
Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II, naming St. Thomas More the patron of politicians and statesmen

Saint Thomas More - Open Directory Project (links to practically everything you'd want to know about St. Thomas More)
Center for Thomas More Studies
Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) - Luminarium
St. Thomas More on The Franciscan Archive
St. Thomas More on the Patron Saints Index
The St. Thomas More Web Site
Thomas More Online
Sir Thomas More - Oregon State University Philosophy Dept.
Thomas More Law Center
Thomas More Society
The St. Thomas More Society
Amici Thomae Mori
The Life of St. Thomas More by William Roper
Saint Thomas More - The King's good servant but God's first! (The Angelus)
"Thomas More For Our Season" by Judge Robert Bork (First Things archives - subscription required)
Saint Thomas More: A Father for All Seasons - Essay on Thomas More as a model Christian father
A Man For All Seasons (DVD available from Amazon.com)
A Man For All Seasons Study Site
Thomas More's England: A Guide Book (pdf file)
Chelsea Old Church - Sir Thomas More

Recommended Reading:
The Life of St. Thomas More by his son-in-law William Roper
Thomas More: A Portrait of Courage by Gerard B. Wegemer
The Life of Thomas More by Peter Ackroyd
A Thomas More Source Book ed. by Gerard B. Wegemer and Stephen W. Smith
Thomas More on Statesmanship by Gerard B. Wegemer
A Man for All Seasons by Robert Bolt
Sir Thomas More: A Play, Now First Printed by William Shakespeare, et al
Utopia by Thomas More
A Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation by Thomas More
The Sadness of Christ by Thomas More

Prayers:
Prayer to St. Thomas More for Conversion of Pro-Abortion Politicians
Litany of St. Thomas More, Martyr and Patron Saint of Statesmen, Politicians and Lawyers (pdf version here)
Prayers of St. Thomas More (Psalm on Detachment; A Devout Prayer Before Dying)
Novena to St. Thomas More

Prayer to St. Thomas More for Lawyers and Judges
Dear Scholar and Martyr,
it was not the King of England
but you who were the true Defender of the Faith.
Like Christ unjustly condemned,
neither promises nor threats
could make you accept a civil ruler
as head of the Christian Church.

Perfect in your honesty and love of truth,
grant that lawyers and judges
may imitate you and achieve true justice for all people.
AMEN.

*****

Lawyer's Prayer
"Give me the Grace Good Lord,
to set the world at naught;
to set my mind fast upon Thee
and not to hang upon the blast of men's mouths.
To be content to be solitary.
Not to long for worldly company
but utterly to cast off the world
and rid my mind of the business thereof."

*****

Litany of St. Thomas More, Martyr and Patron Saint of Statesmen, Politicians and Lawyers
V. Lord, have mercy
R. Lord have mercy
V. Christ, have mercy
R. Christ have mercy
V. Lord, have mercy
R. Lord have mercy
V. Christ hear us
R. Christ, graciously hear us

V. St. Thomas More, Saint and Martyr,
R. Pray for us (Repeat after each invocation)
St. Thomas More, Patron of Statesmen, Politicians and Lawyers
St. Thomas More, Patron of Justices, Judges and Magistrates
St. Thomas More, Model of Integrity and Virtue in Public and Private Life
St. Thomas More, Servant of the Word of God and the Body and Blood of Christ
St. Thomas More, Model of Holiness in the Sacrament of Marriage
St. Thomas More, Teacher of his Children in the Catholic Faith
St. Thomas More, Defender of the Weak and the Poor
St. Thomas More, Promoter of Human Life and Dignity

V.Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world
R.Spare us O Lord
V.Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world
R.Graciously hear us O Lord
V.Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world
R.Have mercy on us

Let us pray:

O Glorious St. Thomas More, Patron of Statesmen, Politicians, Judges and Lawyers, your life of prayer and penance and your zeal for justice, integrity and firm principle in public and family life led you to the path of martyrdom and sainthood. Intercede for our Statesmen, Politicians, Judges and Lawyers, that they may be courageous and effective in their defense and promotion of the sanctity of human life - the foundation of all other human rights. We ask this through Christ our Lord.

R. Amen.

Health Care Reform and the Magisterium [UPDATED]

In light of Cardinal George's recent statement, and in light of an ongoing combox debate I've been having with a commenter, I thought this particular post at The American Catholic was quite timely:

... In my opinion and that of numerous observers (including most of my fellow contributors here at TAC), the bishops were correct and CHA was horribly, terribly wrong.

There is another question, though… was CHA disobedient? That is, were they obliged as Catholics to accept the conclusions of the bishops conference? Was the activity of the bishops conference an act of their teaching charism which American Catholics were obliged to give their assent to?

This question strikes me as more difficult to answer than whether or not CHA was right or wrong in their conclusions, because the issue here is the competence of the Magisterium to determine the consequences of a particular legislative bill. I and many others think that the conference’s position was correct, but am I obliged to believe that because of the bishops’ authority on the matter, or because I am persuaded that their conclusions are valid? If the former, then it seems that we are saying that we are always bound to accept the bishops’ reading of any particular legislative bill. But are we?

It seems to me that in this case, the issue in question is the authority of the Magisterium to evaluate legislation, not the morality of federal funding of abortion. On the latter there is no doubt, but that is not so clear on the former...

[More]

My Comments:
My own view is that a Catholic is NOT morally obligated to accept the correctness of the Bishops' judgment and conclusions regarding the effects or consequences of particular legislation. But a Catholic DOES owe the Bishops due deference. A Catholic IS morally obligated to listen to the Bishops' voices, give significant weight to the Bishops' judgment as shepherds of the faithful against one's own personal predilictions, and tread very lightly in disagreeing with the Bishops' judgment, especially if one is PUBLICLY disagreeing with the Bishops.

Furthermore, if one is going to claim - in direct opposition to the Bishops - that one's judgment on a matter is the real Catholic position and/or the "truly pro-life" position, then one has a whale of a burden of proof to overcome. And if one is going to publicly set oneself up, or allow others to publicly set one up, as the Catholic "authority" in favor of a particular position on which the Bishops have taken the opposite view, then, at the very least, as Cardinal George notes in his recent remarks, one puts the Bishops' authority and Catholic unity at significant risk of lasting damage.

But the question remains whether "disobedience" was involved in the calculus of the various "so-called Catholic groups" (as Cardinal George has referred to them) in deciding to publicly disagree with the Bishops over health care reform - and, specifically, doing so with their Catholic identity front and center. In answering that in the affirmative, I think my friend Michael Denton hits the nail squarely on the head:

Can one be disobedient and not violate the Magisterium? If so, I think that happened here.

I don’t think there was anything close to dogmatic in the bishops’ evaluation of the bill (other than abortion funding is wrong). That said, even in non-dogmatic matters deference is owed to the bishops. If one disagrees with them, one must do so after prudential consideration. Furthermore, I think one ought not to be actively campaigning against them.

So while the CHA could disagree with the bishops, I don’t think they cared one hoot about what the bishops thought. Indeed, many of the liberal Catholics started painting this picture of the bishops as silly old buffoons easily misled by the NLRC and other Republican groups masquerading as pro-lifers. Worse, the CHA and others went out of their way to show their Catholicism in support of the bill, clearly frustrating the bishops message.

Nothing the left did shows any support or obedience to the bishops, even if dogma did not require them to agree with them.

Exactly. Well put, Michael.


UPDATE (22 June)
Interesting developments on this front, as reported by Fr. Z:

Before proceeding, you might want to review my post "Magisterium of Nuns".

Remember: In direct opposition to the US Catholic bishops, the Catholic Health Association (CHA), run especially by liberal Catholic women religious, backed the "health care" reform legislation of the Pres. Obama, Sen. Reid, and Speaker Pelosi, et al. The backing of the CHA gave "cover" to Catholics to vote in favor of legislation which does not have adequate assurances that taxpayer money will not be used to pay for abortions.

The bishops warned against this. The CHA and a coalition of liberal Catholic women religious defied the bishops.

What we are seeing, as I have written here numerous times, is a battle over who gets to speak for the Catholic Church in the USA.

Will it be the liberal Catholic women religious who compromised on the abortion issue in order to get the rest of their agenda and solidify their power or the Catholic bishops? Though in many ways they are not above criticism, the bishops are nevertheless the duly appointed shepherds of the Church in the US and teachers concerning faith and morals...

[...]

Now read this from CNA with my emphases and comments:

Helen Osman accuses CNA of fabricating report on Cardinal George and CHA

Denver, Colo., Jun 21, 2010 / 06:04 pm (CNA).- After CNA published a report on remarks Cardinal Francis George made about the disagreement between the Catholic Health Association and the U.S. bishops, [Cardinal George: Sr. Keehan chose Obama over Catholic bishops] Ms. Helen Osman, the Secretary of Communications for the bishops’ conference denied the accuracy of the article. Nevertheless, the news agency stands by its report and maintains that it was corroborated by several bishops.

[...]

[But wait! The nearly-ubiquitous fair-minded] John Allen, the Vatican correspondent for the [sadly] National Catholic Reporter, published a story on the same day as CNA’s report, in which he spoke with Cardinal George about the meeting he had just held with the bishops and the disagreement with CHA.

Cardinal George told Allen, “the dispute with the CHA involves a core ecclesiological principle ‘about the nature of the church itself, one that has to concern the bishops’ – namely, who speaks for the church on faith and morals?” [That sounds consistent with what CNA said.]

“The bishops have to protect their role in governing the church,”’ the cardinal said.

Alejandro Bermudez, the director of Catholic News Agency, stated that “Allen’s report validates CNA’s reporting of the remarks made by Cardinal George at the executive meeting.”

[...]

“I challenge the Ms. Osman to release the audio recording of Cardinal George’s remarks to the bishops.”

(emphasis and commentary are Fr. Z's)

[Definitely read the whole thing]

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Cardinal George: Sr. Keehan Chose Obama Over Catholic Bishops

American Papist: Obama an Enemy to Catholic Unity

The Catholic Health Association and the Future of Catholic Unity

Sister Carol Keehan Misrepresents Her Support of the Health Care Bill

The Bishops Strike Back Against Dissenting Women Religious [UPDATED]

Bishop Tells Pro-Life Democrat: Nuns Can’t Absolve ObamaCare Vote

Bishop Morlino: “Speaker Pelosi is Not Called by Jesus Christ to Lead the Catholic Faithful”

Sister Carol Disinvited from D.C.-Based John Carroll Society Speaking Gig

Establishing the "Alternative Magisterium"

The Smear, Part 2: Stupak Attacks Catholic Bishops

Archbishop Chaput: A Bad Bill and How We Got It

Archbishop Chaput: Those Confusing the Catholic Stance on Health Care Will Bear the Blame for Anti-Life Effects of Heath Care Bill

Catholic Obama Supporters More Interested in Providing Cover Than Holding Obama's Feet to the Fire

Catholic Nuns Urge Passage of Obama's Health Bill

Obama's Catholic Strategy: Divide and Conquer

Newsweek: Obama More Catholic Than the Pope

Pope Hope I (a.k.a. "The Great")

Pope Greets "Hope"?

Of "Neo-Caths" and "Sharia Catholicism"

Notre Dame's President Jenkins: "We Are Tremendously Proud" to be Acting in Defiance of the US Catholic Bishops

Vatican Newspaper Refers to "Blues Brothers" as "Catholic Classic"

L'Osservatore Romano has referred to "The Blues Brothers" as a "Catholic classic":

Jake and Elwood Blues as the Catholic Church's newest saints? Not quite. But 30 years after comedians John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd -- a.k.a. "The Blues Brothers" -- let us know they were on "a mission from God," the pope's newspaper has given the John Landis cult film two thumbs up, and then some.

"A Catholic Film" was the title of a commentary by the top editor of L'Osservatore Romano, Gian Maria Vian, who has turned the once staid broadsheet into an often trendy and topical must-read.

The plot of the film -- which grew out of a "Saturday Night Live" skit popularized by Aykroyd and Belushi (who died of a drug overdose in 1982) -- revolves around Jake and Elwood's mission to raise money to save St. Helen of the Blessed
Shroud Orphanage, where they were raised, from foreclosure. Jake (Belushi) has just been released from prison, and the stern head of the orphanage, a scary nun played by the inimitable Kathleen Freeman, tells the brothers they must save the home.

Jake and Elwood (Aykroyd) then see the light (literally) in a spiritual revival show led by James Brown, and the movie duo are off on a rollicking ride to redemption, and jail.

L'Osservatore Romano's fulsome coverage in its Wednesday edition featured five articles and several photos, including a front-page piece titled "On a Mission from God (and for cinema)" that said the film should be recommended viewing for Catholics everywhere. The newspaper notes that Elwood even passes up a chance for a one-night stand with a woman played by Twiggy in order to fulfill the higher calling.

[...]

In his editorial, Vian wrote that the evidence of the film's Catholic and spiritual heft "is not lacking in a work where details certainly are not casual." There was a "framed picture of a young and strong John Paul II in a boarding house," Vian said, and St. Helen of the Blessed Shroud Orphanage was "governed by the mean, but affectionate in her own way, Sister Mary Stigmata, a.k.a. The Penguin."

[More]

Cardinal George: Sr. Keehan Chose Obama Over Catholic Bishops

From Catholic News Agency:

St. Petersburg, Fla., Jun 16, 2010 / 02:04 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Sister Carol Keehan, CEO and President of the Catholic Health Association (CHA) openly acted in favor of President Obama’s health care reform and in opposition to persistent requests from the bishops, said Cardinal Francis George, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), during their spring meeting in St. Petersburg, Florida.

During the bishops' executive session held Tuesday morning to address the fallout of CHA’s support for the health care legislation despite the bishop's opposition, Cardinal George recounted the events that took place prior to President Obama's signing of the health care reform. The prelate then concluded his remarks by criticizing CHA and Sr. Keehan, saying they have created the dangerous precedent of a parallel magisterium to the bishops.

[...]

According to the Archbishop of Chicago, when the Stupak Amendment was defeated in the Senate in December 2009, “everything went south.”

That is when “the Catholic Health Association and other so-called Catholic groups provided cover for those on the fence to support Obama and the administration.”

Cardinal George clearly remarked that “Sr. Carol and her colleagues are to blame” for the passage of the health care bill. He continued by revealing that the bishops repeatedly tried to reach out to Sr. Keehan both before and after the vote. “I personally met with her in March to no avail,” the cardinal reported.

[...]

The president of the USCCB reiterated the bishop's fundamental opposition to the health care reform. “The bill which was passed is fundamentally flawed. The Executive Order is meaningless. Sr. Carol is mistaken in thinking that this is pro-life legislation,” Cardinal George emphatically said.

The cardinal also expressed disappointment with CHA “and other co-called Catholic groups” because, “in the end, they have weakened the moral voice of the bishops in the U.S.”

In that regard, Cardinal George highlighted that the USCCB and CHA’s positions on Obama’s health care are not just “two equally valid conclusions inspired in the same Catholic teaching,” and reiterated that what the bishops said on May 21 in their statement “Setting the record Straight” is and will remain the official position of the USCCB on the contentious issue.

The document, presented by Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities; Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, Chairman of the USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice, Peace and Human Development, and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Immigration, says: "As Bishops, we disagree that the divergence between the Catholic Conference and Catholic organizations, including the Catholic Health Association, represents merely a difference of analysis or strategy (Catholic Health World, April 15, 2010, “Now That Reform Has Passed”). Rather, for whatever good will was intended, it represented a fundamental disagreement, not just with our staff as some maintain, but with the Bishops themselves.

“As such it has resulted in confusion and a wound to Catholic unity.”

(emphasis added)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
American Papist: Obama an Enemy to Catholic Unity

The Catholic Health Association and the Future of Catholic Unity

Sister Carol Keehan Misrepresents Her Support of the Health Care Bill

The Bishops Strike Back Against Dissenting Women Religious [UPDATED]

Bishop Tells Pro-Life Democrat: Nuns Can’t Absolve ObamaCare Vote

Bishop Morlino: “Speaker Pelosi is Not Called by Jesus Christ to Lead the Catholic Faithful”

Sister Carol Disinvited from D.C.-Based John Carroll Society Speaking Gig

Establishing the "Alternative Magisterium"

The Smear, Part 2: Stupak Attacks Catholic Bishops

Archbishop Chaput: A Bad Bill and How We Got It

Archbishop Chaput: Those Confusing the Catholic Stance on Health Care Will Bear the Blame for Anti-Life Effects of Heath Care Bill

Catholic Obama Supporters More Interested in Providing Cover Than Holding Obama's Feet to the Fire

Catholic Nuns Urge Passage of Obama's Health Bill

Obama's Catholic Strategy: Divide and Conquer

Newsweek: Obama More Catholic Than the Pope

Pope Hope I (a.k.a. "The Great")

Pope Greets "Hope"?

Of "Neo-Caths" and "Sharia Catholicism"

Notre Dame's President Jenkins: "We Are Tremendously Proud" to be Acting in Defiance of the US Catholic Bishops

David Cameron Apologizes for "Unjustifiable" Bloody Sunday Shootings

I'm not particularly fond of British Prime Minister David Cameron, but I'll give him kudos for this long overdue act of contrition:

David Cameron today issued a formal, state apology for the "unjustified and unjustifiable" killing of 14 civil rights marchers by British soldiers on Bloody Sunday in Derry 38 years ago.

The prime minister said Lord Saville inquiry's long-awaited report showed soldiers lied about their involvement in the killings, and that all of those who died were innocent.

He said the inquiry was "absolutely clear" and there were "no ambiguities" about the conclusions.

Cameron told the Commons: "What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong."

Relatives cheered as they watched the statement, relayed to screens outside the Guildhall in Derry.

Bloody Sunday, as the events on 30 January 30 1972 came to be known, was one of the most controversial moments of the Troubles. Paratroopers opened fire while trying to police a banned civil rights march.

They killed 13 marchers outright, and, according to Saville, wounded another 15, one of whom subsequently died later in hospital.

The 5,000-page, 10-volume report, which took 12 years to compile at a cost of almost £191m, concludes there was no justification for shooting at any of those killed or wounded on the march.

[More]

Father Edward Daly (later Bishop of Derry) waves a blood-stained white handkerchief while escorting the mortally wounded body of Jackie Duddy away from the fray. The event is commemorated in a Bogside mural in Derry (see below).

American Papist: Obama an Enemy to Catholic Unity

Thomas Peters writes on the President's efforts to strengthen the hand of the "alternative Catholic magisterium" at the expense of the Bishops and Catholic unity:

When I heard that President Obama had sent a personal video message to the Catholic Health Association and to Sr. Carol Keehan at their annual meeting this Monday, thanking them for their work in helping pass the Democrat health care plan, I wasn’t surprised.

But after thinking about this move, shouldn’t I be surprised? After all, when you follow the day-to-day of politics you can miss the big picture. So let’s step back a moment and try to see what shape the forest has taken, and how Obama has been pruning the Catholic faithful back.

The first point to understand is that Obama knows about the debate Catholics are having over him.

That’s why he usually talks only to Catholics who share his agenda. He has been careful to ensure that the terms of his debate with Catholics have always been on his terms. He sends CHA a video and gives Sr. Keehan a pen because he knows that these individuals chose to follow him instead of the bishops. So he makes a place at his table for them and rewards what he sees as their loyalty.

Obama is also keenly aware of his critics, and keeps careful watch over who is opposing his efforts. Obama knew by the end of the healthcare debate, that the bishops were an obstacle to passage of the bill, perhaps even the main obstacle, and he knew this as well. Yet he does not reach out to them. He simply, determinedly, strips them of their institutional allies. He supports those who dissent from them publicly. He gives the politicians who they criticize places of power in his administration. It’s all rather like a German prince in the middle ages who picks his side between the Lutherans and Roman Catholics, not for doctrinal reasons, but because he wants peace in his kingdom – at the cost of the other side.

More to the point in this message, he speaks of the “courage” of those in CHA who lobbied for his health care bill (courage against what? why the opposition of the bishops, of course!). He calls the passage of the bill a “major victory … for the most vulnerable among us” (this coming from the most pro-abortion President in history). This is a particularly stinging line to critics of the health care bill, such as the bishops – who opposed a bill that they were prone to accept otherwise, precisely because they believed (as I do) that it will end up harming the “most vulnerable” unborn (and elderly) among us.

Finally, he says to Sr. Keehan and the CHA, that in passing his bill, they “did so in a way that protects your long-standing beliefs.” In other words, he supports their claim that being Catholic doesn’t mean you have to be obedient to the authority of the bishops or avoid publicly scandalizing the faithful. Obama, I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say, thinks he can interpret what it means to be Catholic better than the bishops when they draw upon two thousand years of tradition.

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
Tom Peters hits the nail squarely on the head. As I've argued previously (see links below), Obama's entire so-called "Catholic strategy" from the very beginning has been one of divide and conquer in an effort to create an impression that those Catholics who dissent from their Bishops are speaking in an alternative yet nonetheless equally "authentic" Catholic voice.

Dare we call it an effort to promote a "new voice" of Catholicism?


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
The Catholic Health Association and the Future of Catholic Unity

Sister Carol Keehan Misrepresents Her Support of the Health Care Bill

The Bishops Strike Back Against Dissenting Women Religious [UPDATED]

Bishop Tells Pro-Life Democrat: Nuns Can’t Absolve ObamaCare Vote

Bishop Morlino: “Speaker Pelosi is Not Called by Jesus Christ to Lead the Catholic Faithful”

Sister Carol Disinvited from D.C.-Based John Carroll Society Speaking Gig

Establishing the "Alternative Magisterium"

The Smear, Part 2: Stupak Attacks Catholic Bishops

Archbishop Chaput: A Bad Bill and How We Got It

Archbishop Chaput: Those Confusing the Catholic Stance on Health Care Will Bear the Blame for Anti-Life Effects of Heath Care Bill

Catholic Obama Supporters More Interested in Providing Cover Than Holding Obama's Feet to the Fire

Catholic Nuns Urge Passage of Obama's Health Bill

Obama's Catholic Strategy: Divide and Conquer

Newsweek: Obama More Catholic Than the Pope

Pope Hope I (a.k.a. "The Great")

Pope Greets "Hope"?

Of "Neo-Caths" and "Sharia Catholicism"

Notre Dame's President Jenkins: "We Are Tremendously Proud" to be Acting in Defiance of the US Catholic Bishops