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

Catholic Left: Pope Francis "Has Some Splainin' to Do"

Some on the Catholic left seem to have reservations about the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio (a.k.a., as of yesterday, Pope Francis) was not immersed in the so-called "liberation theology" movement that was rampant in Latin America from the late 60s through the early 80s until Pope John Paul II rooted it out.

This quote in the comments following the linked post is just precious:

"... practically any non-liberation theology bishop from Latin America probably has explaining to do. I hope Pope Francis is forthcoming about this."

Yes, how dare Pope Francis not involve himself in something his predecessor popes described as a heresy?

Fat Cat Romney on Preferential Option for the Poor: "Let Them Eat Cake" [UPDATED]

Actually, what he said is MUCH WORSE: "I'm not concerned about the very poor":

In an interview with CNN Wednesday morning that should have been a Florida victory lap, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney made a fumble that could give rivals an attack ad sound bite.

Asked about his economic plan, Romney said repeatedly that he was not concerned with very poor Americans, [ED.: Just in case you didn't catch it the first time that this Fat Cat doesn't give a rat's ass about "those people", he made sure to emphasize the point by repeating it over and over again.] but was focused instead on helping the middle class.

Romney explained that he was confident that food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid and other assistance would keep the poor afloat [ED.: Are there no prisons? And the Union workhouses? Are they still in operation? The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then? ... I was afraid that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course.] — he pledged to fix holes in that safety net “if it needs repair.” He repeated past statements that his main focus is the middle class because those people, in his opinion, have been hardest hit by the recession (President Obama also has focused many of his efforts on the middle class).

But Romney’s awkward phrasing could give fuel to critics who argue that he does not empathize with the poorest Americans. [ED.: Ya think?]

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there,” [ED.: Good God! Really?] Romney told CNN.

[...]

“The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party [about] the plight of the poor,” Romney responded [ED.: Oh, yes, "the poor" - that's a Democrat issue. We Republicans don't talk much about that rapidly expanding group of people. We'll leave it to the Democrats to talk about those people.], after repeating that he would fix any holes in the safety net. “And there’s no question it’s not good being poor [ED.: Let me be very clear that I am against being poor.] and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor [ED.: I'm not worried about helping the very poor overcome their poverty via economic means. That's what government programs - and Democrats - are for.] . . . My focus is on middle income Americans ... we have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.” [ED.: Let them eat cake - they can pay for it with their food stamps.]

[More]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

My Comments:
Just. Wow. Has there ever been a more out of touch and tone deaf politician as this character? And he's the likely GOP nominee?

The bad news for Romney: He could say it wearing a top hat and a monicle, and it couldn't be any more effective as a campaign commercial for Obama than it already is.

The good news for Romney: Showing indifference for the poor is a sure-fire way of getting Ann Coulter's impoverished-bashing juices flowing, motivating her to pen some more pro-Romney love letters and anti-Catholic screeds against his remaining GOP primary opponents.


UPDATE
A couple of additional points regarding Romney's boneheaded remarks.

First, the irony here is that these comments reveal BOTH Romney's penchant for big government liberalism AND his elitist illiberalism. His big-government liberalism is evident in that he believes in expanding federal welfare dependency for the poor; his elitist illiberalism is evident in that he believes that's good enough for them.

Romney's alleged policy principles are that free economies lead to economic growth, and that economic growth leads to more opportunity for the greatest number of people. But Romney has just stated that his economic program excludes the very poor from sharing in that opportunity, and that he is reconiled to their being permanent fixtures on the public dole. But that's "good enough" for them.

The seond point about this is that David Axelrod is no doubt on the horn right now with his ObamaCath allies talking about ways to use Romney's indifference to the "preferential option for the poor" to soften the fallout over the HHS mandate among Catholics who supported Obama in 2008. They'd be fools not to. Every ObamaCath who has infiltrated the chanceries and the USCCB staff must be licking their chops over the prospect of watering down any strong anti-HHS statement coming from the Bishops with a bunch of verbiage regarding the preferential option for the poor, just as concern over allegedly rampant racism was used to water down the anti-abortion provisions of "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" 4 years ago.


UPDATE #2
Mark Steyn addresses the topic I commented on in the first point of my previous Update regarding Romney's comments revealing both his big-government liberalism and elitist illiberalism:

Romney’s is a benevolent patrician’s view of society: The poor are incorrigible, but let’s add a couple more groats to their food stamps and housing vouchers, and they’ll stay quiet. Aside from the fact that that kind of thinking has led the western world to near terminal insolvency, for a candidate whose platitudinous balderdash of a stump speech purports to believe in the most Americanly American America that any American has ever Americanized over, it’s as dismal a vision of permanent trans-generational poverty as any Marxist community organizer with a cozy sinecure on the Acorn board would come up with.

After half-a-century of evidence, what sort of “conservative” offers the poor the Even Greater Society?

Yep.

Coulter's Anti-Catholic Screed Against Santorum Revisited ... "Don't Vote for Santorum Because He's 'Too Catholic' "

I am revisiting my post from yesterday titled "Ann Coulter ... Anti-Catholic Bigot" because I believe an important point needs to be re-emphasized.

Since publishing my piece yesterday, I have received mostly agreement from other quarters of the blogosphere, but there have been a few who have accused me of "misconstruing" Coulter's commentary. These accusations have been along the lines of "Coulter's late father was Catholic" (yeah, so was Henry VIII's) or "All she's saying is that Catholicism and conservatism aren't the same thing" (Really? Is that ALL she was saying?).

One commenter at my original post made essentially these arguments in multiple comments here, here, and here. Because I believe this commenter and others are the ones who are TRULY trying to misconstrue and obfuscate the real meaning behind Coulter's commentary, I believe a response is necessary.

These folks seem to be trying to make someone sound reasonable who isn't particularly known for her reasonableness. Coulter is a bomb thrower and an iconoclast. She's not trying to make a reasoned argument here for why Santorum is less preferable to Romney. It's not her style. Never has been. She's throwing bombs at Santorum using one of the best weapons available to do so - bigotry.

All the pro-Coulter spin can't cover that basic fact. The basic fact that, in its essence, Coulter's screed comes down to this: "Don't vote for Santorum because he's 'too Catholic'."

I wonder why Coulter invoked Ted Kennedy, who has almost nothing in common with Santorum other than the fact that they were baptized into the Catholic Church as infants? Could it be because to many evangelicals (and I know because I was a Southern Baptist for the first 36 years of my life), the Kennedys in general, and Ted Kennedy in particular, represents everything that is allegedly "wrong" with the Catholic faith? I cannot tell you how many times during my years as an evangelical that I heard the Kennedy name invoked as a warning about the dangers of Catholicism. It rather seems to me that what Coulter has done with her comparison to Kennedy is to try to tar Santorum with guilt by association in the minds of evangelical voters who might be tempted to support Santorum over Romney.

Honestly, is there REALLY any other way to interpret this piece by Coulter? If so, then she certainly left open the possibility of the reading I (and others, I might add) have given to it. But the one thing you can say about Coulter is that she has NEVER had a problem making herself perfectly clear. And she's perfectly clear in stating here that Santorum is unacceptable because he is "too Catholic".

Ann Coulter ... Anti-Catholic Bigot [UPDATED]

Coulter's attempt to tar the surging Rick Santorum in order to prop up a REAL big government liberal, Dullard Flip Rino, provides a near-perfect insight into why I have always despised the faux-conservative shrew and what it is I have always admired about Rick Santorum:

... Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative [ED: Apparently, being "more of a Catholic" - i.e. taking one's faith seriously - is supposed to be a bad thing.], which means he's good on 60 percent of the issues [ED.: Got that? Being Catholic automatically means being "wrong" on 40% of the issues in the mind of Coulter. At least she's honest about her bigotry.], but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He'd be Ted Kennedy if he didn't believe in God. [ED.: Yeah, that Santorum is JUST LIKE Ted Kennedy. Wait. What could the conservative Santorum POSSIBLY have in common with the uber-liberal late Ted Kennedy? Oh yeah. That whole Catholicism thingy - being beholden to the Pope, or something like that. Any doubts about how Coulter feels about Catholics now?]

Santorum may not be a big spender as far as professional politicians go [ED.: Or, for that matter, as far as your big-government, health-care mandating RINO boy, Dullard Flip Rino, goes.], but he is still a professional politician. In 2005, one of his former aides described him as "a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate." [ED.: I, for one, think the Senate could use a few more such statesmen who are committed to renewing our culture, promoting virtue and traditional family values, and prizing service to others in the common good. Apparently, these things have no place in the selfishly individualistic, objectivist AynRandland that Coulter envisions for our society.]

The Catholic missionary was fantastic on issues like partial-birth abortion, but more like a Catholic bishop [ED.: Ah, there we go. What anti-Catholic screed would be complete without a few shots at the hierarchy in the form of Bishop-bashing?] in his support for No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug entitlement program (now costing taxpayers more than $60 billion a year), and a highway bill with a Christmas tree of earmarks, including the famous "bridge to nowhere." [ED.: I was unaware that the Bishops had taken a formal position in support of any of these measures. Not sure they've really taken much of an interest in Alaska road projects, for example. But why let that get in the way of slapping the Bishops around?]

Santorum cites his father's admonition to put any extra money in the poor box at church to explain his wanting to use the federal government to help the poor. [ED.: Coulter apparently forgets that it was Santorum's desire to help the poor that led him to the position of Senate floor manager for the Welfare Reform bill that passed in the mid-90s. He recognized the perverse incentives that actually HURT the poor rather than help them that the previous welfare regime represented. Who else in the Senate was more instrumental than Santorum in shepherding welfare reform into law? No one. So, what's Coulter's problem, then, with Santorum's record on helping the poor? It's probably just that the poor can just "eat cake" to objectivists like Antoinette Coulter.]

You get only one or two big issues in a presidential campaign. But in the middle of the second Great Depression [ED.: A little hyperbolic, don't you think?], Santorum is on the campaign trail saying, "The reason I ran is 'cause I think people know there is more than just a little narrow issue called 'jobs.'"

Actually, this year, it's pretty much just jobs... [ED.: Yes, please stop bothering us about such things as icky dead babies, protection of the family as the basic societal unit, and just plain old human decency.]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

My Comments:
I'd tell Coulter to go to hell, but it looks like she's doing a fine enough job paving her road to the nether regions without my having to offer the suggestion.


UPDATE
Looks like Coulter has just breathed new life into the Rosie Award®


UPDATE #2
Given the prominence of Coulter as one of the more vocal commentators advocating on their behalf, I'd say that both Romney (not a stranger to religious bigotry aimed his way) and Chris Christie (himself a Catholic) have some obligation to slap Coulter down for this B.S.


UPDATE #3
Fr. Z's take on Coulter's column.

"Rather Than Get All Searching About It ..."

I must agree with another commenter at The American Catholic who dubbed the following comment by my friend Darwin Catholic as the "money quote of the week":

... I’m all the more annoyed in that I bothered to read the thing ["Towards Reforming the International Financial & Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority"] and admit where I clearly didn’t see eye to eye with it. I suppose, if nothing else, it’s a good lesson that if something seems too silly or trivial to be “Church teaching” rather than getting all searching about it, one should assume that it in fact is.

(emphasis added)

Author of Anti-Boehner Letter Exposed as DemoCath Hack

As if we didn't know it already:

Washington D.C., May 27, 2011 / 06:08 am (CNA).- The lead author of a letter criticizing House Speaker John Boehner on “matters of faith and morals” says the letter was a bid for dialogue, not a political stunt. But Dr. Stephen Schneck's own critics say he promotes a distorted version of Catholic social teaching.

Professor Schneck, who directs the Catholic University of America's Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies, was the top signer of a letter protesting Boehner's May 14 commencement speech at the institution where Schneck works as a political scientist.

[...]

The signers charged the House Speaker, himself a Roman Catholic, with ignoring “the teachings of your Church on matters of faith and morals as they relate to governance.” They said the speaker's voting record was “at variance from one of the Church’s most ancient moral teachings,” regarding the obligations of “those in power” toward the poor and vulnerable.

But this form of faith-based protest has opened up Schneck to criticism over his own approach to the Church's social teaching.

[...]

Professor Schneck is a member of the board of directors at Democrats for Life, an organization he describes as “fundamentally and wholly concerned with trying to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

He is also a board member of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. That organization has received funding from George Soros' Open Society Institute, which promotes abortion as a “reproductive right.”

Catholics in Alliance typically backs Democratic policies, presenting abortion as an issue that should be addressed by ending poverty. In 2009, Schneck joined a “Catholics for Sebelius” initiative, supporting an Obama nominee whose bishop told her not to receive Communion over her abortion record...

[More]

My Comments:
So, let me get this straight. Differences over matters of budgetary and fiscal policy at the federal level make Speaker Boehner persona non grata. But Kathleen Sebelius, whose abortion advocacy and history of cozying up to late-term abortionists is so extreme that her Bihsop has admonished her against receiving Communion, merits this hack's going to bat for her as a member of "Catholics for Sebelius".

That, alone, exposes the guy as a political hack, a two-bit liar, and a hypocrite, and his views on Catholic Social Teaching can be summarily ignored as far as I'm concerned.

JUST REMEMBER this rule of thumb: Allegedly "pro-life" Catholic Democrats are ALWAYS committed Democrats first and foremost. Their party and its political agenda trump their faith and their allegedly "pro-life" views EVERY TIME it is put to the test.

Michael Sean Winters and National Catholic Reporter Celebrate Bin Laden's Death

Of all the responses in the Catholic blogosphere to Osama bin Laden's death, few have matched the sort of jingoistic and nationalistic bravado that we've seen in the secular media and on the streets of New York City and Washington, D.C. The overwhelming majority of Catholic bloggers have been quite circumspect and reflective upon the killing of America's public enemy #1, soberly asking themselves what is the appropriate Christian response to the sudden, violent death of the mastermind of 9/11.

The most prominent exception to this general rule - the one high-profile Catholic blogger who openly relished (indeed, encouraged celebrating) bin Laden's demise - came from what might seem like a surprising source. The National Catholic Reporter, the newspaper of record for the Catholic left, routinely excoriates the Catholic blogosphere for what it sees as pro-Republican, militaristic, and jingoistic nationalism. And yet, it was the Reporter's most high-profile blogger, Michael Sean Winters, who used his blog, the so-called "Distinctly Catholic", to do a tap dance on the freshly killed body of bin Laden:

... I do not normally take delight in the death of a fellow human being. Nor do I support the death penalty. But, if there was one man on the planet whom it was important to kill, not to just let die, it was Osama bin Laden. You should not be able to murder well nigh to 3,000 Americans and others with impunity. If you commit such a crime, you should fear every moment of every day that U.S. Special Forces will come crashing through the door to bring you to justice. I am sure bin Laden knew better than to be captured alive. (Given the legal nightmare of Guantanamo, thank God he was killed on the spot!) It took a long time to track bin Laden down, too long, and it is impossible not to think that we might have reached this happy day earlier if we had not detoured through Baghdad. But, this is no time for recriminations. It is time to celebrate.

As I write these words, images of young people streaming into the streets in front of the White House chanting “USA” and singing the National Anthem are coming onto the television screen. If it were not so late and I did not have an early morning, I would drive down myself. Vengeance is not a healthy emotion, I know. Assassination is against the law, to be sure. But, better to indulge and go to confession. I am glad Osama bin Laden did not die in his bed, as I am glad Hitler did not die in his bed and as I am distressed hat Stalin and Mao did. Men who commit such evil do not deserve normal considerations of human sympathy or civilized respect. The world is well rid of bin Laden. It is a great day to be alive.

I think many Catholic bloggers, upon hearing the news, struggled with feeling happy over the news of bin Laden's death. But, in blogging about it at least, few gave such full-throated approval to the notion of celebrating the macabre as did Michael Sean Winters.

There is much that is disturbing about Winters' piece, but the part that troubled me most was his acknowledging that giving into vengeful thoughts is sinful, but nevertheless stating explicitly that he would go ahead and engage in (and, indeed, celebrate) such thoughts anyway, and then afterward take advantage of the sacrament of confession.

Think about that for a moment. Serious sin. Willfully engaged in. But it doesn't matter because he'll just go to confession later and seek forgiveness for a sin for which he doesn't appear to be the least bit sorry. Presumption. What's more, Winters is presuming upon the Divine Mercy and grace of God for his own sins, while in the very next breath declaring that another of God's children "do[es] not deserve normal considerations of human sympathy" (on Divine Mercy Sunday, no less, which is when Winters wrote this).

Now, earlier in this post, I noted that this piece came from "what might seem like a surprising source". It might seem suprising, that is, unless you know anything about the writing of one Michael Sean Winters. On any topic on which there is a disagreement between Catholics on on a matter of interest to the Church, just find out what the official Democrat Party position is, or which view is more advantageous to the Democrats were it to prevail, and that will pretty much tell you where Michael Sean Winters stands. (You've heard of "Republicath" bloggers who allegedly substitute the Republican platform for Catholic theology and label it as the latter? Well, Michael Sean Winters is the Democath blogger par excellence.) Here, the death of Osama bin Laden is being celebrated by the Obama Administration and the Democrats because it happened on their watch instead of George W. Bush's, so Winters happily joins in.

Suffice it to say, however, had this happened with Bush in the White House, and had the streets filled with people chanting "U.S.A" and other slogans and singing the National Anthem, and had some blogger on the right side of the Catholic blogosphere written a piece celebrating not only the death of bin Laden but the over-exuberant reaction thereto, I feel fairly confident in believing Michael Sean Winters would be singing a different tune. But, as fate would have it, this happened on his guy's watch, so bravado, jingoism, nationalism, and celebrating the death of the enemy is all the rage.

Ironically, it's the folks at The American Catholic, who Winters has at various times criticized as "yahoos" and as being "kookie" (I guess that's like being "kooky"), and who one prominent left-leaning blogger has described as being guilty of "blood lust" and pushing a "theology of violence", and who other left-leaning Catholics have parodied as "fascists", who had the definitive post on the appropriate Catholic reaction to bin Laden's death. Contrast Michael Sean Winters paean to veangence to another Michael's (Michael Denton) thoughtful and charitable post, "The Catholic Response to the Death of a Murderer".

Democrats Attack Church in Disgusting Ad

Matthew Archbold reports at National Catholic Register that the Democrat Party isn't even trying to hide its disdain for the Church anymore:


Matt's piece is mistaken about one thing: the Democrat Farm-Labor Party is not some "Democrat Party supporting independent non profit group"; the DFL is THE official Democrat Party in the state of Minnesota. This is the Democrat Party in Minnesota blatantly attacking the Church.

This is what you tacitly support when you vote for Democrats. That doesn't mean you should vote for Republicans (who aren't exactly paragons of Catholic virtue either), but when you vote for the Democrats, you're voting for an ideology inherently hostile to the Catholic faith.

And this is just the first step, believe me. As our old friend Regular Guy Paul has noted, "Liberalism Leads To Religious Persecution".


(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)


UPDATE
I'm hearing that what appears on the other side of this mailer is aimed at a Protestant clergyman. Once I have confirmation of that, I will update this post with the information.


UPDATE #2
Here is Matt Archbold's response to the suggestion that this ad specifically targets a particular Protestant clergyman:

Nobody doubts that the piece hits Tim Pawlenty and Dan hall on the other side but there can’t be any doubt that it uses the image of a Catholic priest to deliver its messsage. The other side is about healthcare for the poor and who the Democrats blame for holding up Obamacare? The bishops. It’s that simple.

On the other hand, Commonweal provides the reverse side of the mailer in an effort to bolster the argument that it is not aimed at the Catholic Church.

But I'm not buying the argument. "Preacher Hall" doesn't wear a Roman collar. "Preacher Hall" is shown on the reverse side in a coat and tie. So why the Roman collar on the front? I agree with Matt that it is to represent a Catholic priest.

Matt is correct that the reverse side of the flyer is an attack on those who opposed ObamaCare, like Governor Tim Pawlenty. "Preacher Hall" is attacked in the ad for "remain[ing] silent" over alleged health care cuts and for endorsing someone else who "stands with Pawlenty in rejecting over $1 billion" in ObamaCare funds.

C'mon! This ad isn't about "Preacher Hall". This ad is about ObamaCare and the people of faith who don't support it. People like the USCCB. How stupid do you think we are? "Preacher Hall" is merely a stand in for all the people who oppose ObamaCare because of its abortion funding. Again, people like the USCCB.

Since "Preacher Hall" doesn't wear a Roman collar, and since the ad is a targeted attack on people of faith who oppose ObamaCare - "Don't pass this off on God" - I think it is quite appropriate to conclude that the image on the front of the mailer represents a Catholic priest and to see this ad as an attack on the Church for its opposition to ObamaCare.


UPDATE #3 (27 October)
Kathryn Lopez offers her take at The Corner:

... I think it’s safe to say it’s unholy politics. That’s a bipartisan problem for sure. But there is reason for bipartisan, ecumenical offense here. It’s an insult to suggest there isn’t some convenient anti-Catholicism here. But more so, it’s an insult to intelligent debate. Tim Pawlenty doesn’t “Ignore the Poor,” and I don’t know many men of the cloth who do either.

The Democratic party in Minnesota disagrees with cuts the governor made and this candidate won’t throw under the bus (to use the most overused phrase in politics). Democrats can easily make that point without the use and abuse of clerics.

UPDATE #4 (27 October)
Ed Morrissey, who lives in Minnesota, has more on the story:

If the Minnesota DFL intended to make a splash in an otherwise-obscure state Senate race, well, they succeeded. The party, which is the Minnesota version of the Democratic Party, sent out a mailer attacking Republican challenger and Christian minister Dan Hall by accusing him of ignoring the poor for opposing ObamaCare. However, the front of the postcard shows a headless man wearing the traditional shirt and collar worn by Roman Catholic priests, with a button that proclaims “Ignore the Poor” — which has a large number of Catholics in Minnesota angry over a perceived attack on their church. KSTP reported on the mailer and the DFL silence last night...

[...]

The flip side of the mailer is a classic case of a cheap-shot, last-minute attack campaign that both parties indulge in the final stretch of an election, but the front picture goes way beyond anything in recent memory in attacking a church of any kind in a political campaign. The full context in which this was issued makes it difficult to believe the archdiocese’s expressed hope that this was just a poor decision. A few weeks ago, the Catholic bishop issued DVDs with the Catholic Church’s arguments on same-sex marriage, which the DFL and its supporters decried as interference in the election. This looks suspiciously like payback...

[More]

The President's Nun: Obamacare Scandal Explodes

The American Spectator alleges that Sr. Carol Keehan is playing hardball, engaging in intimidation efforts to keep a CEO of a small Catholic hospital quiet, in order to protect ObamaCare (and herself) from bad news stories:

Can you say "October Surprise"?

A mushrooming political battle over ObamaCare involving the White House, two incumbent Pennsylvania congressmen, three Catholic hospitals and a nun has just exploded in, of all places, Scranton, Pennsylvania. Charges from the Scranton medical community of intimidation by the Obama White House and its allies are filling the air.

All of this just as Vice President Joe Biden arrives in Scranton today to raise money for one of the participants.

There are two issues at the core of the controversy.

1. ObamaCare and the sale of three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals.

2. The re-election prospects of the two House members, Democrats Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney, both of whom cast key votes to pass ObamaCare.

Here's the list of players -- major and minor -- so far.
• The President of the United States.
• The Vice President of the United States.
• Three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals suddenly for sale.
• The CEO of the three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals for sale.
• ObamaCare, otherwise known as "health care reform" or the "Affordable Care Act."
• A Catholic nun.
• Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak.
• A pen.
• Victoria Reggie Kennedy, widow of the late Senator Ted Kennedy.
• Time magazine.
• The Scranton Times
• The two Scranton-area House members Kanjorski and Carney, both losing in the polls.
• U.S. Senator Bob Casey, Jr., a native and resident of Scranton.
• Congressman Joe Sestak, the Democrats' nominee for the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate seat.

Where to start? That would be….

[Read the whole thing]

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)


UPDATE
More at CatholicVote.org:




UPDATE #2
At The American Catholic, Michael Denton offers a more measured take on the story.

The Mother Teresa Stamp is Coming!

From CatholicVote.org:

... The Mother Teresa stamp is coming!

Over 138,000 friends of CatholicVote.org joined together to defend the stamp to honor Mother Teresa. And the Postal Service took notice.

Roy Betts, a spokesman for the Postal Service, told CatholicVote.org yesterday:

“The stamp will be dedicated September 5 [at] the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC. Feel free to post information about the stamp, the image and the dedication ceremony on your website. Thanks!”

Wow. Launching the stamp at a church. The anti-religion radicals are going to go wild!

When the stamp was first announced, a group called the Freedom from Religion Foundation began spreading lies about Blessed Mother Teresa, accusing this holy nun of having a ‘darker side,’ and calling her a ‘polarizing Roman Catholic figurehead.’

Mother Teresa gave a pro-life speech when she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. This radical group called her speech a “disturbing, befrogged religious rant.”

That’s why we swung into action to “Stamp Out Bigotry!”

If you or your friends would like to add your name in support of the Mother Teresa stamp and against those who attack this holy nun, visit www.stampoutbigotry.com.

Too often only one side of this debate is heard. This time the Post Office heard from us. A separate spokesperson for USPS even told a reporter that our efforts were appreciated.

You would think attacking Mother Teresa would be off limits. But in our world, respect and decency can be discarded so long as you're bashing Christianity. A small but vocal segment of our country will stop at nothing to cut down the role of religion in our public life.

These groups are relentless. So we must defeat them at every turn.

This past week, the anti-religion zealots were dealt another blow. They fought for years to tear down a cross at the Mojave War Memorial in California – a cross honoring our fallen heroes. We filed an important brief in this case with the Supreme Court on behalf of you – the members of CatholicVote.org – and we won.

Last week the Supreme Court ruled that a federal court went too far in ordering the removal of the cross (which has been covered up by a plywood box since 2002!).

CatholicVote.org is committed to protecting and promoting the role of religious faith in our culture and national life.

We think it’s proper and fitting that our Supreme Court has a statue of Moses. We think it’s great that three Catholic priests (one is now a Saint!) are honored in the National Statuary Hall located in the United States Capitol. This is the history of our nation. We should be celebrating the role of religion in America, not destroying it.

And that’s why we’ll be in Washington at the ceremony unveiling the Mother Teresa stamp on September 5.

Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, pray for us...

Can My Side Tone Down the Overheated Rhetoric Just a Little, Please?

Opponents of Arizona's new immigration law (and I am one of them) need to stop to consider whether much of the overheated rhetoric in which they have engaged is indeed (1) accurate, or unfair hyperbole and/or (2) helpful, or hindering, to their cause.

In light of the most unhelpful (and one might argue unbecoming) remarks on this subject by a certain soon-to-be-retiring Cardinal Archbishop with a large Hispanic population in his diocese, some Catholic bloggers have, understandingly, reacted strongly against the stone-throwing.

Look, I oppose the Arizona law (and wrote a fairly strongly worded blog post in opposition to it a couple of weeks ago). It is bad public policy because some provisions, namely the ones regarding harboring and transporting undocumented aliens, are extremely vague and arguably make certain acts of charity illegal. I also believe that the bill will make policing in Latino neighborhoods more difficult, as residents could be less trusting and less forthcoming with information regarding criminal activity.

That said, the most vocal opponents of this law (including that certain Cardinal Archbishop) are speaking and acting completely irresponsibly. I have long been a proponent of immigration reform that creates a pathway to citizenship for those undocumented immigrants who are already here and makes it easier to legally immigrate to the U.S. But the folks who are supposed to be on my side in this argument are completely alienating me with their overheated rhetoric and name calling.

By the way, I DARE Bud Selig to move the 2011 MLB All-Star game from Arizona, as some idiotic busy-body lefty sportswriters like Mike Lupica have suggested. Like it or not, most people support Arizona’s efforts, and they might not take kindly to Major League Baseball poking its nose in other people’s business.

Immigration Bill in Arizona Would Allow Arrest Upon Suspicion of Being Here Illegally

"Ver are your paperz? Ve must zee your paperz!"

If you're brown and walking down the street in Arizona, you had better be carrying papers to prove that you're a citizen or a documented immigrant.

What sort of "conservative" supports this kind of intrusive police-state regulation?

Apparently, even the fake, "mavericky" sort of "conservative" does, or at least pretends to, if he wants to be reelected to the U.S. Senate.

Fortunately, the Catholic Bishops in Arizona provide the voice of reason.

Unfortunately, people who ought to know better don't seem to be listening.

Archbishop Chaput: A Bad Bill and How We Got It

Archbishop Chaput on how the Catholic left undermined the U.S. Bishops and created a divided Catholic front on the most important pro-life issue since Roe v. Wade:

... the combination of pressure and disinformation used to break the prolife witness on this bill among Democratic members of Congress – despite the strong resistance to this legislation that continues among American voters – should put an end to any talk by Washington leaders about serving the common good or seeking common ground. Words need actions to give them flesh. At many points over the past seven months, congressional leaders could have resolved the serious moral issues inherent in this legislation. They did not. No shower of reassuring words now can wash away that fact.

... self-described “Catholic” groups have done a serious disservice to justice, to the Church, and to the ethical needs of the American people by undercutting the leadership and witness of their own bishops. For groups like Catholics United, this is unsurprising. In their effect, if not in formal intent, such groups exist to advance the interests of a particular political spectrum. Nor is it newsworthy from an organization like Network, which – whatever the nature of its good work -- has rarely shown much enthusiasm for a definition of “social justice” that includes the rights of the unborn child.

But the actions of the Catholic Health Association (CHA) in providing a deliberate public counter-message to the bishops were both surprising and profoundly disappointing; and also genuinely damaging. In the crucial final days of debate on health-care legislation, CHA lobbyists worked directly against the efforts of the American bishops in their approach to members of Congress. The bad law we now likely face, we owe in part to the efforts of the Catholic Health Association and similar “Catholic” organizations...

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
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

From CatholicVote.com:

Have you heard of George Soros?

He's the billionaire investor that supports abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. So it's no surprise that he supports groups like MoveOn and the ACLU.

But did you know that George Soros, a professed atheist, has also has provided critical seed money to so-called "Catholic" groups that intentionally blur the Church's teachings on human life?

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good has received $200,000 from George Soros' Open Society Institute over the last few years. And according to its own IRS reports, Catholics United has a formal relationship with Catholics in Alliance.

Now why would these 'Catholic' organizations take money from an atheist who advocates legal abortion, euthanasia, and so-called same-sex 'marriages?'

Because these groups know that by using the word ‘Catholic’ while misrepresenting the Church, they will receive lavish attention from the media. And these groups will use this megaphone at every turn to undermine Church teaching on life in pursuit of their political agendas.

These groups are agents of division, causing confusion among the faithful, and hampering a united front in defense of the unborn.

Don't believe me?

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United have been working overtime to support the Senate pro-abortion healthcare plan. The U.S. Bishops specifically said that the Senate bill was 'deficient' and 'should not move forward.'

So what did these groups say?

Chris Korzen, head of Catholics United said: "The wrong thing would be for anyone to be so firmly entrenched in their positions on federal funding of abortion that they're not willing to come to the table and talk about a compromise."

Excuse me? 'Wrong' for Catholics to oppose taxpayer funding for abortion? If there is anything to be “firmly entrenched” against --- this is it!

These groups are so radical and partisan that they refuse to even support a ban on partial-birth abortion.

That’s why Archbishop Chaput has criticized these groups for undermining the Church teaching:

“The work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.”

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Sebelius and Kmiec Catholicism - the Catholic Left Declares War on Pro-Lifers

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

"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"

Deal Hudson: "Catholics Organize to Elect Barack Obama"

Notre Dame's Frs. Hesburgh, Jenkins, and Scully urge Democrats not to kill school choice

Prof. Rick Garnett reports at Mirror of Justice:

Dear Senator Durbin and Secretary Duncan,

... We write today because we are all deeply disappointed by the turn of events that has led to the imminent demise of the Washington DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), and we are gravely concerned about the effects that the unprecedented gestures that have jeopardized this program will have on some of the most at-risk children in our nation’s capital.

[...]

Three decades of research tell us that Catholic schools are often the best providers of educational opportunity to poor and minority children. Students who attend Catholic schools are 42 percent more likely to graduate from high school and are two and a half times more likely to graduate from college than their peers in public schools. Recent scholarship on high school graduation rates in Milwaukee confirms that programs like the OSP can, over time, create remarkable opportunities for at-risk children. And after only three years, the research commissioned by the Department of Education is clear and strong with regard to the success of the OSP, as you both well know. This program empowers parents to become more involved in their children’s education. Parents of OSP students argue that their children are doing better in school, and they report that these scholarships have given their families an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. If this program ends, these parents will be forced to send their children back to a school system that is ranked among the worst in the nation, into schools they fought desperately to leave just a few years ago.

At Notre Dame, we have recently witnessed the painful but logical outcomes of your failure to save the OSP. For the past three years, the University of Notre Dame has worked in close partnership with Holy Redeemer School, a preK-8 Catholic school community located just a few blocks from Senator Durbin’s office on the Hill. In fact, Senator Durbin visited the school and expressed his deeply favorable impression. We too have witnessed the transformative capacity of Holy Redeemer, a place where parents report feeling a sincere sense of ownership in their children’s education for the first time in their lives. Indeed, over the past three years strong leadership, excellent academics, low teacher turnover, and committed parents have all contributed to truly outstanding gains in student achievement. The children at Holy Redeemer were, unlike so many of their peers, on the path to college.

So we were deeply saddened to learn that the impending termination of the OSP has put the school in an untenable situation, leading the pastor to conclude that the school must be closed. Families are presently being notified that their children will have to find a new school next year. The end of the OSP represents more than the demise of a relatively small federal program; it spells the end of more than a half-century of quality Catholic education for some of the most at-risk African American children in the District. That this program is being allowed to end is both unnecessary and unjust...

[Read the whole thing]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
"A Deep Resonance With Catholic Social Teaching"?

Yet Another "Non-Negotiable" Item ...

Obama Continues to Act Like a Typical Left-Liberal Democrat Politician Re: Education

Devout Dissident Catholic Kathleen Kennedy Townsend Attacks the Church ... Again

From the Contra Costa Times:

MORAGA — It didn't take long for Kathleen Kennedy Townsend to show Saint Mary's College students the renegade Catholic streak that got her blacklisted from religious speaking engagements and condemned by her parish priest.

"I think if you're in love, you should get married," the eldest daughter of Robert Kennedy said Tuesday when asked for her thoughts on same-sex marriage. "I think that's what Christ preached — love. "... So, Hallelujah for the lucky people in California that got the chance to be married."

The 58-year-old former lieutenant governor of Maryland rarely pulls a punch, particularly when discussing her celebrated Irish Catholic roots and frustration with her church's politics. She spoke to a packed Soda Center audience on the Moraga campus Tuesday night and in an earlier Times interview.

"The churches have failed America because they've narrowed faith to three issues: abortion, same-sex marriage and stem cell research," Townsend said. "And I thought that my faith tradition was we should care about the least among us [ED.: She says without a hint of irony]. We should care about the poor, health care, immigration."

[...]

However, she has grown increasingly frustrated with Catholicism's political pillars. She wrote in the Nov. 6 issue of Newsweek about her disappointment with Catholic bishops speaking out against health care reform based on the abortion issue.

"Why are we hearing more about abortion and less about immigrants?" she asked. "That's always the criticism that they seem to be more interested in the unborn rather than the people actually here among us.

[...]

The church has struck back, denying her speaking engagements at Catholic schools in her home diocese of Baltimore.

"But that happened a while ago and I just realized they are afraid of women," she said with a chuckle. "And it took them 300 years to realize that Galileo was right."

[More]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

My Comments:
I've opined previously on my belief that this entire younger generation of Kennedys seems to be swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool at the Kennedy Compound.

But a brief perusal of the links below, in which Townsend harps on these same themes over and over and over again in attacking the Church and its teachings, indicate that this woman is particularly stuck on stupid.

I'll say it again: at least the previous generation of Kennedys had enough residual Catholicism to pretend to be faithful to the Church, and fudged their political preferences as being consistent with the demands of their faith by attesting to their so-called "personal opposition" to the immoral B.S. for which they continued to vote and publicly advocate. Unburdened, however, by such hypocrisy - or by the need to be seen as the face of Catholic America, this present generation of Kennedys have absolutely no qualms about directly attacking the Church, her Bishops, and her Magisterial teaching.

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
A Kennedy Spits at the Church, and His Bishop Responds Harshly [UPDATED]

Newsweek: Obama More Catholic Than the Pope

Lefty Catholic Commentators Missed Their Chance to Dissuade Bishops on Abortion Stance

Kathryn Jean Lopez on the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

Democrat Iconoclasm

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

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

OnFaith reports:

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

[...]

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

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

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

(Hat tip: Catholic Online)

From LifeStiteNews:

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

(emphasis added)

Washington Post Calumniates Catholic Church

The Cranky Conservative has the details:

... grossly distorted and ignorant op-ed written by Robert McCartney.

Question: Why would Washington’s Roman Catholic archdiocese let a dispute over employment benefits, which would have little practical effect, cause it to give up doing valuable, publicly funded work helping the homeless and sick?

Answer: Because the church doesn’t want to miss an opportunity, however small, to oppose homosexuals’ right to wed.

[...]

Lest you think I’m guilty of engaging in distortrion myself, here’ the next paragraph.

That’s the lesson I’ve drawn from the dispute between the archdiocese and the D.C. Council over the same-sex marriage bill. Unless there’s a compromise before the council’s decisive vote, scheduled for Tuesday, the church would reduce its social welfare activities in ways that signal it thinks they’re less important than taking a stand against same-sex marriage.

Again, this is nothing but supposition. The diocese has taken a stance that McCartney disapproves of, and instead of engaging the arguments, he chooses to question the authenticity of his opponents. Disgusting.

I write this as someone who is not Catholic (I’m Protestant) but who has taken an interest in religious issues and the church since I helped cover the Vatican for the Associated Press in Rome in the early 1980s. I view the church as a tremendous force for good in the world in many ways, especially in its advocacy for the poor and against violence. The U.S. church supports more ambitious health-care reform than Barack Obama does, for instance.

Ahh, so we have the concern troll phenomenon at work here. The author is not even a Catholic, but he presumes he has the ability to read the hearts and minds of Catholic prelates. And the Church is a-okay as long as it only engages in actions and supports the same causes as the author...

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)