WikiLeaks Confirms Democrat Conspiracy to "Plant Seeds of Revolution" in Catholic Church, Vindicates Catholic Blogs That Exposed Front Groups

In case you're wondering, the "middle ages dictatorship" that is the Catholic Church and her Bishops is right there in the middle of Hillary Clinton's so-called "basket of deplorables". And the Clinton team had a plan to rid themselves of these troublesome priests by "plant[ing] the seeds of the revolution" against the Catholic hierarchy and its teachings via infiltration and subversion.

Some of us caught on to this plan a decade ago...

John Podesta.  Image courtesy of the Center for American Progress  via OnePeter5 
(Creative Commons)

Vindication. Yes, an opportunity to gloat. To say "I told you so."

Not a very pretty sentiment, but that's about the only thing that could bring me out of blogging retirement (but only for this one post) in the electoral Annus Horribilis that is 2016.

So it turns out that what we knew ALL ALONG about the Soros-funded DemoCatholic front groups Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and its sister organization Catholics United was, in fact, 100% on the money. We have an admission right out of the horse's mouth (or, rather, out of the horse's leaked emails). I haven't the time nor the inclination to get into a long retrospective detailing the war of words that I and other like-minded bloggers waged over several years -- beginning a decade ago -- against Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United. Instead, I will direct you to the links below, which will more than fill you in and give you a taste of what was being said and what was at stake.

In short, my part in this drama began a decade ago during the 2006 elections, when Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good published a Catholic voter guide that played down the priority given by the Church to traditional life issues in favor of a hodge-podge of issues straight out of the Democrat Party platform. At first, I began by just blogging about and linking to what others were saying about this mysterious group who had suddenly appeared on the scene in the midst of a mid-term election. As the evidence poured in, especially evidence that linked the group to funding provided by none other than George Soros, it soon became clear that Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good was little more than a front group for the Democrat Party and its efforts to blur the lines on life issues with Catholic voters.

And then, the week before the November 2006 elections, our own Catholic Chronicle -- the usually fairly orthodox newspaper of the Diocese of Toledo, Ohio -- published a front-page puff piece on the efforts of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good in our own diocese to promote their vision and their voter guide (the story reported the efforts in a straightforward manner, without questioning the problematic aspects of the group and its voter guide).. The proverbial you-know-what must've hit the fan in the Chancery offices once the very orthodox then-Toledo Bishop Leonard Blair (now Archbishop of Hartford, CT) caught wind of it, because the article was gone from the Chronicle's website within a matter of hours after it was published. Alas, it was too late to remove the article from the print editions, which went out the weekend before the elections on the following Tuesday to parishes Diocese-wide. So, in response to the Chronicle's article, I penned a letter to the editor taking the Chronicle and the main protagonist of the article, Prof. Richard Gaillardetz, to task for the misrepresentation and manipulation of Catholic teaching. The Chronicle eventually published my letter, along with a few others disagreeing with the article and its timing, a couple of months later. Following the letter's publication, the response from the Catholics in Alliance crowd was swift and predictably unpleasant. You can read the comments here for a taste. This war of words against Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United (and various offshoots like Catholic Democrats, etc.) went on for several years and took many twists and turns, which you can read about in the links at the bottom of this post.

In the end, it is my belief that, ultimately, those of us leading the charge against these groups lost that war (at least in the short term covering 2006, 2008, and 2012). Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United accomplished their aims of convincing Catholics that voting for a party that views government-funded abortion on demand as a sacrament, and that views the destruction of the traditional family as a prerequisite to achieving its policy goals and destroying the institutions -- such as the Church and other religious people and organizations -- that might stand in that party's way of achieving said policy goals, was not only morally acceptable, but was, in fact, the MOST Catholic way to vote. See, e.g., Doug Kmiec.  "These groups are merely drawing attention to long-ignored issues of importance to Catholics," some said. "These groups are doing the Church a service by focusing on the need for a 'consistent ethic of life'," they said (never mind that these groups NEVER talked about such life issues as abortion, euthanasia, or the sanctity of the family). Entire blogs were established for the purpose of propagandizing the issues that the DemoCath groups argued were being ignored because of Catholic voters' allegedly "obsessive" focus on "a narrow spectrum of issues regarding family and sexuality" (i.e. the sanctity of life and the family). Sometimes, these blogs had well-meaning founders who definitely raised important issues for Catholics to consider when they were deciding how to vote, but these blogs often quickly devolved into DemoCath propaganda organs as certain bloggers and frequent combox commentators used those fora to press forward the agitprop that ultimately undermined the good of the Catholic Church and her teachings in favor of the pursuit of Democrat Party policy goals. Far too many Catholics who should have known better allowed themselves to be swayed by the arguments of those whose only purpose was to weaken the resolve of Catholic voters to stand for the Catholic Church's teachings on the primacy of life and family issues, and instead were duped by these malefactors to trade that birthright for a mess of feel-good leftist policy pottage. And that party repaid them by, among many other things, suing nuns to force them to provide birth control in their medical policies. And, in response, Catholic voters had so weakened their resolve to stand for traditional life issues, that they re-elected the guy who has consistently attacked their Church. Which was the goal of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United all along. Today, there is no identifiable "Catholic Vote" left to speak of thanks to the likes of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United.

So, it turns out to be a rather bittersweet bit of gloating, at best, when I read the latest WikiLeaks email dump, which includes a 2012 email exchange in which HilLIARy Clinton's current campaign chairman, John Podesta, openly brags about being involved in efforts to infiltrate the Catholic Church and foment a "Catholic Spring" (i.e. a bottom-up rebellion against the Church hierarchy and its teaching authority akin to the "Arab Spring" -- albeit without the violence, one hopes -- that led to revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Syria). The means of fomenting this takeover of the Church? Why, none other than Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United:

Hi, John, 
This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking . . . There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church. Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen. The Bishops will undoubtedly continue the fight. Does the Catholic Hospital Association support of the Administration's new policy, together with "the 98%" create an opportunity? 

Of course, this idea may just reveal my total lack of understanding of the Catholic church, the economic power it can bring to bear against nuns and priests who count on it for their maintenance, etc. Even if the idea isn't crazy, I don't qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about how one would "plant the seeds of the revolution," or who would plant them.

Just wondering . . .

Hoping you're well, and getting to focus your time in the ways you want. 
Sandy 

Sandy Newman, President 
Voices for Progress 
202.669.8754 
voicesforprogress.org

_________________________________


From:john.podesta@gmail.com
To: sandynewman@gmail.com
Date: 2012-02-11 11:45
Subject: Re: opening for a Catholic Spring? just musing . . .

We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up. I'll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult. (emphasis added)

That there is what we call a "smoking gun". Again, we knew ALL ALONG what these groups were up to, but they always had some plausible deniability along with their apologists making the case that they were honest-to-goodness "Faithful Catholics"™️ just arguing for a "consistent ethic of life" (again, albeit one that never ever quite mentioned abortion). But this Podesta email is a validation and vindication of the efforts of myself and like-minded bloggers such as, for example, Rich Leonardi, to expose this infiltration of the Catholic Church by political subversives bent on "plant[ing] the seeds of ... revolution".

If you have the time, I encourage you to read as many of the links below as you can to get some indication of what these subversive groups were up to and the efforts to which bloggers were going to expose them. You might find of particular interest the links detailing how former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (a Democrat who is now challenging U.S. Sen. Rob Portman for his Senate seat) had a man at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good whom he also appointed to head up the Ohio Faith-Based Initiatives office and who was, at the same time, running a prostitution ring. Yep.

Others commenting on this story:

• Don McClarey at The American Catholic: Democrat Attempts to Control the Church 
• Steve Skojek at OnePeterFive: The Leftist Conspiracy Against Orthodox Catholicism 
• Rod Dreher at The American Conservative: Democratic Conspiracy Against Catholic Church 
• CatholicVote: [Ongoing Updates] Clinton Campaign Anti-Catholic WikiLeaks Scandal
• The Catholic Herald: Clinton Campaign Chief Helped Start Catholic Organisations to Create "Revolution" in the Church
• Archbishop Charles J. Chaput at National Catholic Register: About Those Unthinking, Backward Catholics ... 
• The Wall Street Journal: Anti-Catholics for Clinton 

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Prominent Catholic Professor Claims IRS Audited Her After Speaking Out Against Obama and Demanded to Know Who Was Paying Her

Soros-Funded Pro-Obama Catholics to Launch News Service?
 
Catholic Key Blog Asks "Is Catholics in Alliance Kaput?"

Soros-Funded "Catholic" Groups Still Running Cover for Pro-Aborts (Of Course, That's the Sole Reason They Exist)

"Nonpartisan" Catholics United to “Set the Record Straight” by Trying to Convince Catholics That New Healthcare Law is "Pro-Life"

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

CatholicVote Takes on Soros-Funded Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United

Sebelius and Kmiec Catholicism - the Catholic Left Declares War on Pro-Lifers

Apologists for Abortion-Loving Catholics Attack Archbishop ... Again

Catholic News Agency: Catholics in Alliance "Abortion Reduction" Study Found to be Faulty - Social Welfare Policies Have Little Effect on Abortion

What Did Gov. Strickland Know, and When Did He Know It (re: Eric McFadden)? [UPDATED]

Breaking: Catholic Democrat Who Once Headed Up Ohio's Faith-Based Initiatives Arrested for Running Prostitution Ring [UPDATED]

"Seamless Garment Has Lost a Thread"

Catholics in Alliance Voter Survey of "Little Value," Archdiocese of Denver Says

"Nonpartisan" Catholics United Attacks the Knights of Columbus

"Nonpartisan" Catholics United Hits McCain with Ad Questioning His Pro-Life Credentials

"Non-Partisan" Group of Catholic Obama Supporters Calling Itself "Catholics United" Gets Divisive

The Catholic Left Meets in Philadelphia

Convention for the "Common Good"

Bill Donohue: "How the Catholic Left Is Boxed in by Abortion"

"Catholic Democrats" Attack "Registered Republican Archbishop of Kansas City" for "Using Communion" to "Take Down" Sebelius

I Missed the Seminar [UPDATED]

Deal Hudson: "Catholics Organize to Elect Barack Obama"

Democrat Front Group Posing as Catholic Org Calls for End to "Christmas Culture War"

Fidelis Dismisses Religious Left Media "Report"

Democrats Set Their Sights on Winning Back Catholics

Mark Shea in National Catholic Register: "Richard Rich Lives"

Edwards Blogger Flap Discomforts Religious Left

Mark Shea: "Whores for Edwards Swings into Action"

Catholics in Alliance Respond With Letter to Editor

Continue to Raise Our Voices on Issue of Voting

In January's Catholic Chronicle - "Vote Your Values" Revisited

Vote Your Values

"NOT An Approved Catholic Voter Guide"

What's Missing?

Toledo Blade: "Catholic Voting Guide Gives Church Perspective"

Catholics Find Voting Guides a Test of Allegiance

Weigel: "An Electoral Battle of the Booklets?

More From Amy Welborn on the "Dueling Catholic Voter Guides"

Columnist: "Christian Right Driving Wedge Into U.S."

More on Catholic Voter Guides

Dueling Catholic Voter Guides

A Poem for Twelfth Night - "How the Puritans Stole Christmas"

Yes, it's that time of year again. Christmastide is approaching it's festive conclusion, punctuated by the Twelfth Night revelry. And, of course, that means that it's time, once again, for my traditional Twelfth Night post* : a poem titled "How the Puritans Stole Christmas" ...

... with apologies to Dr. Seuss:

How the Puritans Stole Christmas

Every High-Church Anglican and Catholic
Living in Jolly Olde England
Liked Christmas a lot...

But the Puritans,
Who were infected with Calvinism,
Did NOT!
Puritans
The Puritans hated Christmas!
The whole Christmas season!
Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be that their round heads weren't screwed on just right.
It could be, perhaps, their predestinarian arses were too tight.
But I think that the most likely reason of all
Was a distaste for mince pies - shaped like a manger-bed in a stall.  

But,
Whatever the reason,
Mince pies or their arses,
The Puritans saw the yuletide celebrations as farces,
Staring down on the festivities with sour, dour frowns
At the merriment and good will of those in the towns.
For they knew all the revelers were engaged in such vices
As eating tarts made of suet and spices.

"And they're eating plum pudding!" they snarled with a sneer.
"Tomorrow is Christmas! It's practically here!"
Then they growled, with their greedy fingers nervously drumming,
"We MUST find a way to keep Christmas from coming!"
For, tomorrow, they knew...

...That the Christmas events
Would involve the consumption of pies made of mince!
And then! Oh, the noise! Oh, the noise! Noise! Noise! Noise!
That's one thing they hated! The NOISE! NOISE! NOISE! NOISE!Then the revelers, young and old, would sit down to a feast.
And they'd feast! And they'd feast!
And they'd FEAST! FEAST! FEAST! FEAST!
They would start on plum pudding, and rare roast-beef
Foods again giving Puritans nothing but grief!

And THEN
They'd do something Puritans liked least of all!
Every merry-maker in town, the tall and the small,
Would stand close together, with Christmas bells ringing.
They'd stand hand-in-hand. And they all would start singing!They'd sing! And they'd sing!
AND they'd SING! SING! SING! SING!
And the more the Puritans thought of the whole Christmas-Sing
The more the Puritans thought, "We must stop this whole thing!
"Why for over sixteen hundred years we've put up with it now!
We MUST stop Christmas from coming!
...But HOW?"

Then they got an idea!
An awful idea!
THE PURITANS
GOT A WONDERFUL, AWFUL IDEA!

"We know just what to do!" The Puritans began plot-ting.
And they made civil war against England's King.
And they built a new model army, and the Puritans said,
"When we've won this war, we'll remove the King's head!"

"All we need is a ploy..."
To get the job done.
But since kings are kings,
It was difficult to come up with one.
Did that stop the Puritans...?
No! The Puritans said,
"Charges of treason and Romish sympathies will cost him his head!"
So they called a rump court; charges the King refused to refute.
And the court issued the sentence to execute.

THEN
They loaded poor Charles
Dressed in clothes resembling sacks
On a ramshakle scaffold
And severed his head with an ax.
Then the Puritans said, "Huzzah!"
For they had brought the King down
And they began to march
On all the churches in town.

All their stained-glass windows were dark. Quiet filled the air.
All the vestrymen were all dreaming sweet dreams without care
When the Puritans came to the first church in the square.
"This is stop number one," The Puritans hissed
And each Puritan approached shaking his fist.

Then they broke all the stained-glass.
And smashed statues galore.
Their horses dishonored the graves in the floor.
Then they burned all the vestments,
And prayer books, too.
Then they said "Let's move on, we have much to do!"
Father Christmas on Trial
Then they slithered and slunk, with dour looks most unpleasant,
Around the whole town, to despoil places where Christ was once present!
Stained glass! Statuary! Painted images! Candles!
All manner of popish influences that for years had caused scandals!
And they smashed them to pieces and threw them on piles
And set them ablaze, smiling devilish smiles!

Then they turned to the larders. They banned the Yule feast,
The plum pudding, the boar's head, and all toasts to that beast!
They forbade all the foods that had given offense.
And they succeeded in banning the pies made of mince!
The Puritan Ban on Christmas
Then the last thing they took
Was the yule log for the fire.
On the walls they left nothing but hooks, and some wire.

And the one little speck
Left in the church house
Was a crumb that was even too small for a mouse.

Then
They did the same thing
To the other church houses

Leaving crumbs
Much too small
For the other church mouses!

And what happened then...?
Well...in England they say
That the Lord Protector's round head
Grew three sizes that day!
And the minute that "defender of liberty" felt safe from the strife,
He became the Commonwealth's dictator for life!
And he enforced the outlawing of Christmas! And all the foods for that feast!
And he...

...HE HIMSELF...!
The Lord Protector ruled the realm like a tyrannical beast!

Mince Pie Still Life



NB: Christmas was not only outlawed in the British Isles but in parts of colonial America, as well. In 1659, a law was passed by the General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony requiring a five-shilling fine from anyone caught "observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way."





* Originally posted as "A Poem for the Twelve Days of Christmas - 'How the Puritans Stole Christmas' ..." on 3 January 2007, and again on 5 January 2007 under the title "A Poem for Twelfth Night - 'How the Puritans Stole Christmas' ..."


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject: 
How the Puritans Stole Our Lady

A Song for the End of Christmas

A Song (and a Poem) for the End of Christmas

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"


Tomorrow, 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."

(Against Martin Luther) "Come, do not rage so violently, good father; but if you have raved wildly enough, listen now, you pimp. You recall that you falsely complained above that the king has shown no passage in your whole book, even as an example, in which he said that you contradict yourself. You told this lie shortly before, although the king has demonstrated to you many examples of your inconsistency .... But meanwhile, for as long as your reverend paternity will be determined to tell these shameless lies, others will be permitted, on behalf of his English majesty, to throw back into your paternity's sh**ty mouth, truly the sh**-pool of all sh**, all the muck and sh** which your damnable rottenness has vomited up, and to empty out all the sewers and privies onto your crown divested of the dignity of the priestly crown, against which no less than against the kingly crown you have determined to play the buffoon. In your sense of fairness, honest reader, you will forgive me that the utterly filthy words of this scoundrel have forced me to answer such things, for which I should have begged your leave. Now I consider truer than truth that saying: 'He who touches pitch will be wholly defiled by it' (Sirach 13:1). For I am ashamed even of this necessity, that while I clean out the fellow's sh**-filled mouth I see my own fingers covered with sh**. But who can endure such a scoundrel who shows himself possessed by a thousand vices and tormented by a legion of demons, and yet stupidly boasts thus: 'The holy fathers have all erred. The whole church has often erred. My teaching cannot err, because I am most certain that my teaching is not my own but Christ's,' alluding of course to those words of Christ, 'My words are not my own but His who sent me, the Father's' (John 12:49)?

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)

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.cin.org/farmor.html
http://magnificat.ca/cal/engl/07-06.htm

 

Fr. Robert Barron on St. Thomas More

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
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)
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)
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.

IRS Targets Catholic Critics of Obama Regime

Crisis Magazine reports that the IRS scandal goes far beyond the targeting of tea party groups, and includes the targeting of Catholics critical of the Administration's agenda:

...There have also been revelations that the IRS made as a condition of a favorable ruling for tax-exempt status for a pro-life group that it not actively protest at Planned Parenthood facilities. Another pro-life group—a Christian organization—was closely scrutinized for involvement in the annual “Life Chain” and prayer vigils and was probed about the viewpoint content of its educational materials. The Thomas More Society, a national public interest law firm, has taken up their cases. The one involves an attempt to stop constitutionally protected peaceful picketing, and the other more unconstitutional viewpoint-based discrimination and a threat to the freedom of assembly.

Perhaps most troubling is the situation of Dr. Anne Hendershott, my colleague on the Franciscan University of Steubenville faculty and the Society of Catholic Social Scientists Board of Directors. Dr. Hendershott is one of the leading Catholic sociologists in the U.S. When the current IRS scandals broke, she decided to go public about the questionable audit she was subjected to in 2010, apparently because she wrote articles that: questioned the true Catholic character of two well-known sister non-profit organizations, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United; exposed the funding sources from these organizations (which included George Soros’ Open Society Institute and a major Democratic party fundraiser); and her raising tax questions about the leftist activist leader of these organizations. She had also written a series of articles critical of Obamacare. According to reports—I have not communicated with Dr. Hendershott about the matter—she was called into the IRS’s New Haven office for an audit of her “business” affairs connected with her writing. She said that at the audit session she was asked about who paid her for writing the articles and what their political viewpoint was. The effect of the audit was that Dr. Hendershott stopped writing about these topics. This is the very essence of “chilling effect.” The Supreme Court has consistently held that government cannot act in such a manner that it will have a “chilling effect” on speech so that people will be fearful of expressing their opinions. Moreover, the fact that Dr. Hendershott’s criticism was partly questioning whether these organizations were correct in understanding and interpreting Catholic social teaching adds another possible constitutional dimension to this. Did the IRS violate both the establishment and the free exercise clauses of the First Amendment? Did it effectively make an official governmental judgment about correct Catholic doctrine relating to certain public questions, and then called Dr. Hendershott to task for criticizing the positions of these left-tilting Catholic organizations?

It is not an overreaction to say that these IRS scandals sound like official favoritism of certain organizations and political viewpoints and an attempt to suppress opposition. The question of undue political influence also presents itself. For example, did the people who were prominent in the Obama campaign and the Democratic party go to contacts in the administration or in the agency itself to ask for the IRS action? While the IRS has had a history of taking actions that curry favor with the current political powers and has sometimes been accused of a pro-Democratic bias, the funneling of information to ProPublica and the HRC, the “hands-off Planned Parenthood” demand, the Hendershott matter, and the late-breaking news that information about the scandal was known about but not disclosed during the 2012 election year suggest political pressure from outside the agency. That would not be surprising. After all, this is the administration that has given us the HHS Mandate, supported the claim in the Hosanna-Tabor case that a religious body could not choose its own ministers, wouldn’t defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, increased federal financial support for Planned Parenthood, and is trying to stop military personnel from sharing their faith. This all indicates an agenda of hostility to traditional Christian morality and a willingness to share in the repressiveness that has come to characterize the political left...

[More]

Hat tip: Creative Minority Report


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:

Prominent Catholic Professor Claims IRS Audited Her After Speaking Out Against Obama and Demanded to Know Who Was Paying Her

It's the Only Thing I Have to My Name After 8 Years of Blogging ...

... and these folks want to give it away to that old scoundrel Cardinal Law:

... Reader Victor Lam moves that [Anderson's] Law be changed to the Bernard Francis Law. I emphatically second that. The motion is moved and seconded. If Mr. Anderson agrees, I think it should henceforth be called the Bernard Francis Law or, alternatively, the Cardinal Law. What say you?

So, what say you? Should Anderson's Law instead be known as "the Cardinal Law"?

Honestly, I don't think it fits. Apart from not wanting to have something that originated here associated with that reprobate, let's not forget that Cardinal Law ACTUALLY DID (or aided and abetted) what Anderson's Law predicts someone will mention in an ad hominem fashion to distract from a completely unrelated discussion.

When someone inevitably mentions the scandal in a discussion completely unrelated to the scandal, is throwing Cardinal Law's name into the mix actually likely to steer the discussion back on course?

Sixth Anniversary of "Anderson's Law"

"As a debate involving the Catholic Church (either a discussion about the Church specifically, or a discussion in which the Church is taking a position) grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the sex scandal approaches one." 

~ Anderson's Law

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:   
See Anderson's Law

The "Myth" of Persecution?

A couple of my friends over at The American Catholic - Don McClarey and Darwin - have some excellent posts about a recently released book by a professor of theology at Notre Dame (of course) that attempts to call into question the history of the Church's early persecution at the hands of the Roman Empire. Read them both here and here.

As I said in my comments at The American Catholic, this professor's motivation appears quite clear (and she pretty much confirms this in her promotion of the book):

If the Church and individual Christians suffer government and/or legal sanction because their beliefs and how they practice those beliefs are at odds with cultural “norms” – be those norms abortion-on-demand, the HHS mandate, or same-sex “marriage” – they are not REALLY being persecuted. In essence, the Church and individual Christians can either get on board with the agenda or not; but if they choose not to, they wouldn’t be able to legitimately cry “persecution” if the legal fallout is not to to their liking.

Moss’s motivation, as with the motivation of many on the religious left who are critical of the Church's teachings, is actually quite transparent: political ideology trumps religious dogma.

A Poem for Twelfth Night - "How the Puritans Stole Christmas"

Yes, it's that time of year again. Christmastide is approaching it's festive conclusion, punctuated by the Twelfth Night revelry. And, of course, that means that it's time, once again, for my traditional Twelfth Night post* : a poem titled "How the Puritans Stole Christmas" ...

... with apologies to Dr. Seuss:

How the Puritans Stole Christmas

Every High-Church Anglican and Catholic
Living in Jolly Olde England
Liked Christmas a lot...

But the Puritans,
Who were infected with Calvinism,
Did NOT!
Puritans
The Puritans hated Christmas!
The whole Christmas season!
Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be that their round heads weren't screwed on just right.
It could be, perhaps, their predestinarian arses were too tight.
But I think that the most likely reason of all
Was a distaste for mince pies - shaped like a manger-bed in a stall.But,
Whatever the reason,
Mince pies or their arses,
The Puritans saw the yuletide celebrations as farces,
Staring down on the festivities with sour, dour frowns
At the merriment and good will of those in the towns.
For they knew all the revelers were engaged in such vices
As eating tarts made of suet and spices.

"And they're eating plum pudding!" they snarled with a sneer.
"Tomorrow is Christmas! It's practically here!"
Then they growled, with their greedy fingers nervously drumming,
"We MUST find a way to keep Christmas from coming!"
For, tomorrow, they knew...

...That the Christmas events
Would involve the consumption of pies made of mince!
And then! Oh, the noise! Oh, the noise! Noise! Noise! Noise!
That's one thing they hated! The NOISE! NOISE! NOISE! NOISE!Then the revelers, young and old, would sit down to a feast.
And they'd feast! And they'd feast!
And they'd FEAST! FEAST! FEAST! FEAST!
They would start on plum pudding, and rare roast-beef
Foods again giving Puritans nothing but grief!

And THEN
They'd do something Puritans liked least of all!
Every merry-maker in town, the tall and the small,
Would stand close together, with Christmas bells ringing.
They'd stand hand-in-hand. And they all would start singing!They'd sing! And they'd sing!
AND they'd SING! SING! SING! SING!
And the more the Puritans thought of the whole Christmas-Sing
The more the Puritans thought, "We must stop this whole thing!
"Why for over sixteen hundred years we've put up with it now!
We MUST stop Christmas from coming!
...But HOW?"

Then they got an idea!
An awful idea!
THE PURITANS
GOT A WONDERFUL, AWFUL IDEA!

"We know just what to do!" The Puritans began plot-ting.
And they made civil war against England's King.
And they built up an army, and the Puritans said,
"When we've won this war, we'll remove the King's head!"

"All we need is a ploy..."
To get the job done.
But since kings are kings,
It was difficult to come up with one.
Did that stop the Puritans...?
No! The Puritans said,
"Charges of treason and Romish sympathies will cost him his head!"
So they called a rump court; charges the King refused to refute.
And the court issued the sentence to execute.

THEN
They loaded poor Charles
Dressed in clothes resembling sacks
On a ramshakle scaffold
And severed his head with an ax.
Then the Puritans said, "Huzzah!"
For they had brought the King down
And they began to march
On all the churches in town.

All their stain-glassed windows were dark. Quiet filled the air.
All the vestrymen were all dreaming sweet dreams without care
When the Puritans came to the first church in the square.
"This is stop number one," The Puritans hissed
And each Puritan approached shaking his fist.

Then they broke all the stain-glass.
And smashed statues galore.
Their horses dishonored the graves in the floor.
Then they burned all the vestments,
And prayer books, too.
Then they said "Let's move on, we have much to do!"
Father Christmas on Trial
Then they slithered and slunk, with dour looks most unpleasant,
Around the whole town, to despoil places where Christ was once present!
Stained glass! Statuary! Painted images! Candles!
All manner of popish influences that for years had caused scandals!
And they smashed them to pieces and threw them on piles
And set them ablaze, smiling devilish smiles!

Then they turned to the larders. They banned the Yule feast,
The plum pudding, the boar's head, and all toasts to that beast!
They forbade all the foods that had given offense.
And they succeeded in banning the pies made of mince!
The Puritan Ban on Christmas
Then the last thing they took
Was the yule log for the fire.
On the walls they left nothing but hooks, and some wire.

And the one little speck
Left in the church house
Was a crumb that was even too small for a mouse.

Then
They did the same thing
To the other church houses

Leaving crumbs
Much too small
For the other church mouses!

And what happened then...?
Well...in England they sayThat the Lord Protector's round head
Grew three sizes that day!
And the minute that "defender of liberty" felt safe from the strife,
He became the Commonwealth's dictator for life!
And he enforced the outlawing of Christmas! And all the foods for that feast!
And he...

...HE HIMSELF...!
The Lord Protector ruled the realm like a tyrannical beast!

Mince Pie Still Life



NB: Christmas was not only outlawed in the British Isles but in parts of colonial America, as well. In 1659, a law was passed by the General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony requiring a five-shilling fine from anyone caught "observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way."





* Originally posted as "A Poem for the Twelve Days of Christmas - 'How the Puritans Stole Christmas' ..." on 3 January 2007, and again on 5 January 2007 under the title "A Poem for Twelfth Night - 'How the Puritans Stole Christmas' ..."


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject: 
How the Puritans Stole Our Lady

A Song for the End of Christmas

A Song (and a Poem) for the End of Christmas

Doug Kmiec: Stand By Your Man

The Daily Beast is running a story about some of the prominent "conservatives" who crossed over to support Obama in 2008 (i.e. the "Obamacons"), noting that many of them are remaining steadfast in their support for The One. I find it interesting that, with one or two exceptions, most of the folks can no longer be described as "conservative" in their viewpoints, assuming they ever were actually conservatives (a number of them pan Romney, for example, for - of all things - being too conservative). But I'd like to focus in particular on one of the figures profiled in this story - our old "friend" Doug Kmiec.

When last we saw Kmiec, it was shortly after he had penned a break-up letter to his beloved over the HHS Mandate, but after Obama's feigned "compromise", he was taken strongly in the arms again of the The One, and he did not remember that he had ever felt the pain of betrayal and separation.

And, so, we fast-forward several months to today, and we find Kmiec quoted in the pages of The Daily Beast clarifying for us, in no uncertain terms, that he is firmly in the camp of the ObamaCaths - nay, the DemoCaths - for whom Catholic teaching is generally an afterthought in relation to the overall Democrat agenda, except insofar as said teaching can be twisted to push said agenda.

One of the most contentious ObamaCon arguments was offered by Douglas Kmiec, also a veteran of Reagan’s Office of Legal Counsel and a law professor at conservative Pepperdine University. Kmiec, who served as ambassador to Malta during the first two years of the Obama administration, tried to square his Obama endorsement with his devout Catholic beliefs and remains an unrepentant ObamaCon, even as Catholic leaders have proclaimed the president’s “war on religion.”

“I am strongly in the president’s camp, even as his opposition has been doing its darnedest to overstate a few concerns about the usual subjects,” [ED.: And what would those "concerns about the usual subjects" be, Dougie? Abortion? You mean to tell me that we shouldn't have concerns about the fact that Obama is the best friend the pro-abortion crowd ever had in the White House? And that we are "overstating" those concerns? Must I really list out all of the things he's done to promote abortion during his term, including nearly shutting down the government and putting our bond rating at risk just to maintain Planned Parenthood's place at the government trough? Just look at the festival celebration of all things abortion going on down in Charlotte right now. Yeah, Doug, we're "overstating" the concerns about "the usual subjects"] Kmiec wrote in an email. “Having served in Europe for the president, I know the very positive effect he has had on international relationships. His patience, discernment, and intelligence are much admired. Domestically, the president was handed the worst possible economic hand, and largely, though of course not perfectly, he has met the economic challenge [ED.: Really? How? I want specifics.] … This is supposed to be Mr. Romney’s area of strength, but so far, his ideas are either indecipherable or a rather lame trickle-down do-over.” [ED.: Hey, Doug, he had the same economic views 4 years ago. You remember? Back when YOU WERE A BIG ROMNEY BACKER? And, interestingly, "trickle-down" economics was how leftists used to deride the economic agenda of your former boss, Ronald Reagan. You remember, don't you, the economic agenda that led to a 20-year period of economic growth? Are you also going to renounce the Reagan legacy? So,in addition to abandoning conservative social principles (or at least putting them on the back burner), you're also abandoning conservative economic principles. Not really "conservative" then.]

“Yes, he could have handled the HHS contraceptive issue in a more accommodating and sensitive way to the formal teaching of my church, [ED.: He could have "handled the ... issue in a more accomodating and sensitive way"? Nice of you to thow us that bone, Dougie, even if it is more of an afterthought and not in strong enough language condemning the serious threat to religious freedom, especially considering that the Bishops have made this issue one of the utmost importance. But something about the way you couch your language leaves me wondering if you're not creating wiggle room for a "but" somewhere in there. When you say "the formal teaching of my church", I'm getting a sense of "This is really the Bishops' thing; individual Catholics differ on this stuff, and, certainly we don't believe that we can impose the teachings of "my faith" on others via public policy. But Obama could have been more sensitive to the Bishops who really do take this stuff seriously."] and he was again given some very poor advice on the scope of religious exemption [ED.: I love it. It's always someone else's fault - can't blame poor Barack for anything. "He was given bad advice." B.S.!!! Obama was well aware of the Church's position, especially after having it clarified for him by Cardinal Dolan, PRIOR to promulgating the HHS Mandate. And certainly, by the time it was issued and the subsequent firestorm over it had taken place, he was aware that a greater accomodation would be necessary to protect religious liberty. But what did he do? He retrenched. He doubled down on evil. He decided that he'd rather violate the 1st Amendment and religious freedom than do something to anger the core constituency of the Democrat Party - the sex-without-consequences crowd. And guess what? By sticking with Obama, you've sided with that crowd, too, rather than with the religious liberty interests of your Church and the nation as a whole as expressed in the Constitution.] that should have been provided an institution like his honorary alma mater, Notre Dame,” [ED.: Yeah, Obama the Domer. Right up there with Knute Rockne. Why, that makes him practically "Catholic" from an American point of view, so why not just make him the Pope of the U.S.A., deciding matters of religious doctrine for our Church? After all, he's more in tune with the socio-political sentiments of the laity than are those stodgy old all-male Bishops.]  Kmiec added. “Obviously, there is much to do in terms of tax reform and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, but because that is so that is another basis for a second term.”

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

Look, Kmiec's continued support for Obama all comes down to one thing: P-R-I-D-E. Kmiec has become FAR too invested in Obama to abandon him now. Kmiec sacrificed friends, standing, and reputation in Catholic conservative circles in order to back The One in 2008, and he has stuck with him despite betrayal and abandonment because he has no where else to go. He could come to his senses and come back to the Catholic and conservative principles he's spent the last 4-and-a-half years betraying, and the Catholic conservative crowd would no doubt welcome him back. But he'd never be fully trusted again. His standing would be diminished, and he would be humbled, having to admit that he had made a mistake.

But, like most turncoats, Kmiec isn't altogether trusted by the lefty Catholics either. I mean, he still talks about abortion and marriage (although he gives them far less prominence than he once did, and makes them more of an afterthought - just a token mention to indicate that he's still in any way authentically "Catholic"), as if those things really matter when the REAL work of promoting the Democrat agenda ... errr ... "social justice" ... is where most of those folks are.   But that's the bed Kmiec has made for himself, so, he continues to lay down with Obama in it.


The Passion of the Kmiec - A Pro Ecclesia Timeline:

September 2012
Doug Kmiec: Stand By Your Man


February 2012
Doug Kmiec Back in Obama's Embrace
Doug Kmiec Thinks He's Breaking Up With Obama, But Obama Already Jilted Him First


September 2009
Kmiec Lies Again: "Obama Has Taken Some Steps Towards [Protecting Life], Perhaps Not as Fast as Some Would Like"


July 2009
"The Passion of the Kmiec" ... The Saga Continues


May 2009
Kmiec Tells Another Lie in Service of Obama
Robert P. George on "Obama and His Pro-Life Apologists"
Robert George vs Douglas Kmiec: How Should a Pro-Life Citizen Respond to Obama? [UPDATED]


April 2009
Cardinal Rigali Calls Out Kmiec on His ESCR Lies
A New Front in the Church's Civil War
Fr. Z Fisks Pathetic Sycophant Kmiec on Notre Dame's Obama Invite
Prof. George Schools Prof. Kmiec ... Again


March 2009
Scholar vs. Hack: Prof. George Schools Prof. Kmiec re: "Did Obama Allow Human Cloning?"
Kmiec Brushes Aside Another Non-Negotiable by Coming Out Against Prop 8


February 2009
Kmiec Calls Pope's Comments "Intrusive"
Catholic World Report: "Douglas Kmiec and His Misinformation Offensive for Barack Obama"


January 2009
Kmiec Claims He's In the Loop for Vatican Post
American Papist's Open Letter to Prof. Kmiec
Kmiec the Martyr
Prof. Kmiec Eulogizes Fr. Neuhaus in a Manner That is All About Prof. Kmiec and Justifying his Obama Vote [UPDATED]


December 2008
Prof. Bainbridge on Doug Kmiec and U.S. Diplomatic Relations with the Holy See


November 2008
Vatican Official Says Kmiec Will Not Become New Vatican Ambassador
The Kmiec Catholic Re-Education Camp
Former Student of Prof. Kmiec Calls Him Out on "Revealing His True Colors"
A Modern-Day "Vicar of Bray"
Douthat Smacks Kmiec
Amy's "Wrap-Up" of Pre-Election Abortion Coverage
Pathetic


October 2008
George Weigel on Kmiec's "Flawed Thinking"
Archbishop Chaput: Kmiec Doing a "Disservice to the Church"
Mainstream Media Compliant in Obama's "Faith Outreach" Pitch
Bill Donohue: "I'm Catholic, Staunchly Anti-Racist, and Support David Duke" [UPDATED]
Debate Over at Amy's: Should Catholics Work for Legal Restrictions on Abortion?
Deacon Fournier Puts Smack Down on Prof. Kmiec
Kmiec's Payoff? [UPDATED]


September 2008
The Obama-Kmiec Magical Mystery "Faith Tour"
Deacon Fournier: "Doug Kmiec’s ‘Can a Catholic Support Him?’ Asks the Wrong Question"
Ponnuru Raps Kmiec for Defending Obama's Born-Alive Vote
"Separate But Equal" Redux - Pro-Life Edition
Mark Stricherz: "Why the Democratic Abortion Strategy is Worse"
Whither the "Catholic Vote"? Some Interesting Posts at the Fidelis Blog


August 2008
Darwin Catholic: "Douglas Kmiec, Master of Dissembling" [UPDATED]
Prof. Rick Garnett on Kmiec's "Missing the Point"
A Former Student of Prof. Kmiec Speaks Out ...
Prof. Kmiec Shifts the Goalposts
Kmiec's "Bridge Too Far"? Obama's Attacks on Justice Thomas
Without Further Ado: Doug Kmiec on McCain v. Obama at Saddleback [UPDATED]
Paging Prof. Kmiec ...
Doug Kmiec Claims Democrats Making "Steps Toward Honoring Life" in Platform
Prof. Garnett Takes on Prof. Kmiec ... Again
Casey Jr. to Get Prime-Time Slot in Denver to Appease Catholics [UPDATED]


July 2008
Fr. Neuhaus Responds to Doug Kmiec
Deal Hudson's Open Letter to Doug Kmiec
National Catholic Register on Catholics, Kmiec, and Obama
Prof. Hadley Arkes: "Political Distraction Among the Catholics"


June 2008
Doug Kmiec - What He Said Then vs. What He Says Now Re: Constitutional Jurisprudence
What is the "Pro-Life Position" Regarding Abortion?
Traumatized
Unrequited Love
Doug Kmiec: "After Meeting with Barack" [UPDATED]
Cranky Conservative: "But At Least He Says It with a Smile"
Doug Kmiec Again Places Platitudes Above Policy [UPDATED]
Prof. Bainbridge on "Obama, Abortion, & Catholics"
Prof. Rick Garnett on Kmiec's Latest Nonsense
Deacon Keith Fournier: "Why I Disagree with Doug Kmiec, Once Again"
Give It a Rest Already, Prof. Kmiec!
Doug Kmiec's Newfound Celebrity Status Among Those on the Left
Doug Kmiec Soon To Be Sorely Disappointed
E.J. Dionne on Kmiec Being Denied Communion [UPDATED]


May 2008
Deal Hudson on Prof. Kmiec and Blurring the Lines Between "Pro-Choice" and Pro-Abortion
Did Doug Kmiec Just Now Catch On That Obama and NARAL Are Politically Conjoined? [UPDATED]
Deal Hudson on "How Obama's Catholics Will Dodge the Infanticide Question"
Kmiec's Dishonesty [UPDATED]
Catholic Teaching and Political Risk Taking: When Credit Isn't Given Where Credit is Due [UPDATED]


April 2008
Kmiec's Wishful Thinking on Obama and Abortion


March 2008
The Curt Jester: "Shameless Garment" [UPDATED]
So-Called "Catholic Reaganite" Doug Kmiec Endorses Obama [UPDATED]
No'bama for Me, Thanks"
Can a Catholic Vote for Obama?


February 2008
Obama's Pledge to Planned Parenthood: "I Will Not Yield"
"Why American Catholics are Supporting Barack Obama"
How the Catholic Left Will Tackle McCain
Why Does Kmiec Criticize McCain for Positions on Which He Gave Romney a Pass?
Deal Hudson on "Douglas Kmiec and the Lure of Obama"
Douglas W. Kmiec on "The Moral Duty to Inquire"
Professor Bainbridge: "Will Catholic Reaganites Go for Obama?"
Deal Hudson: "Preacher Man: Barack Obama and the the Gospel of Liberalism"
"Sorry, Doug Kmiec, But This Catholic Isn't Buying Obama"
Ramesh Ponnuru on Douglas Kmiec and "Catholic Reaganites for Obama" [UPDATED]
Romney Advisor Says Obama "a Natural for the Catholic Vote"