Romney's "Winning" Message to Voters? "I Worked With Ted Kennedy to Pass RomneyCare"

Good grief:

Reporting from Concord, N.H.— As Democratic and Republican leaders in Washington struggled to find agreement on spending cuts and extending the debt limit, Mitt Romney struck a conciliatory note in New Hampshire on Monday by lamenting partisan feuding while touting his record of working with Democrats -- even the Senate's onetime liberal lion Edward M. Kennedy.

[...]

One issue that Kennedy and Romney worked closely on was legislation expanding healthcare coverage in Massachusetts. He recalled, to laughter, that at the ceremonial signing of the Massachusetts healthcare law, the Democrat had joked that when he and Romney agreed on a piece of legislation "it proves only one thing – one of us didn't read it."

"The truth was we had both read it and we'd found some common ground," Romney said, "and I think that has to happen in Washington."

Someone please save the GOP from themselves before they actually nominate this stiff.

Time for Yet Another Periodic Reminder to the GOP Power Brokers and Pundits ...

... I WILL NOT under ANY circumstances EVER vote for this fraud:

... Romney’s book is notable for its silences. The 2008 candidate who worked hard to convince religious conservatives of their shared passion for social issues devotes just two cursory paragraphs to abortion, makes only incidental reference to gun rights, and refers to gay marriage in the most cryptic terms possible. His “case for American greatness,’’ as his book’s subtitle puts it, has little to do with morality...

One HotAir blogger spins it this way:

... when he was asked today on “The View” who he thought might be a formidable candidate in 2012, he singled out Bob McDonnell, who won the governor’s seat in Virginia last year by running a sort of proto-Romney campaign — socially conservative, yes, but verrry quiet about it compared to his meat-and-potatoes rhetoric about jobs. That’ll be the upshot of Mitt ‘12 too, the “non-ideological conservative” versus whoever emerges as the ideological darling.

The difference is that Bob McDonnell has the pro-life social conservative bona fides that enable him to pivot toward a focus on fiscal and economic issues without arousing suspicion; Mitt Romney most assuredly does not. EVERYONE in Virginia knew where McDonnell - a conservative, pro-life Catholic - stood on social issues. And if they didn't know before the election, The Washington Post made damned sure the voters knew what a "backward-looking, anti-woman theocon" McDonnell was by the time election day rolled around. McDonnell didn't need to prove to social conservatives that he is one of us because he's been there with us all along and everyone knows it.

THIS, however, represents Mitt Romney's social issues bona fides:


THIS represents the REAL Mitt Romney, not the fraud pretending to be a conservative in order to win the GOP nomination for President. I mean, the guy tried to "outleft" The Swimmer, for pity's sake, even distancing himself from Ronald Reagan's record as President, claiming to have been "an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush" and promising not to "return to Reagan-Bush".

No chance I'm voting for this fraud for dogcatcher, much less President of the United States.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Is Mitt Romney the REAL WINNER of the Massachusetts Special Election?

Have I Mentioned Lately ...

Regarding Mitt Romney, My Sentiments Exactly

A Theory [UPDATED]

Why Does Kmiec Criticize McCain for Positions on Which He Gave Romney a Pass?

You Stay Classy, Mitt

The Anchoress: "Convince Me of the Merits of Mitt"

Romney's Free Ride On Abortion

Romney and the Florida GOP Debate

InsideCatholic: "Why Mitt Romney Is the Best Choice for Catholic Conservatives"

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

(Hat tip: The American Catholic)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It's Not the Kennedy Seat"

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)


"It's not the Kennedy seat, it's not the Democrat seat, it's the people's seat."

"Nobody Had a Better Sense of What Was Right Than Teddy"

Excuse me. I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

More Publicly Aired Dirty Laundry in the Bishop Tobin - Rep. Kennedy Saga

As he seeks to fan the flames of the public feud in which he is currently engaging with Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin, the late Swimmer's son, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, has decided to make public Bishop Tobin's 2007 request that the pro-abortion Kennedy refrain from taking Holy Communion.

Don McClarey and Dr. Ed Peters have details.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Bishop Tobin to Rep. Patrick Kennedy: "Your Position [on Abortion] is Unacceptable to the Church and Scandalous ... Makes You Less of a Catholic

More from Archbishop Dolan on "Bishop Tobin and Representative Kennedy"

A Kennedy Spits at the Church, and His Bishop Responds Harshly [UPDATED]

For Kennedys, Poor Driving Runs in the Family

Deal Hudson on Archbishop Burke: "Charity, Civility, and Speaking the Truth"

Deal Hudson writes at Inside Catholic:

The funeral of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy provoked a highly charged debate among Catholics about civility. In the midst of this discussion, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, the prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, came to Washington, D.C., to be honored by InsideCatholic.com at its 14th Annual Partnership Dinner at the historic Mayflower Hotel.

Addressing more than 200 guests, Archbishop Burke said, "We must speak the truth in charity," but also, "We should have the courage to look truth in the eye and call things by their common names." The tension between these two admonitions is evident in his own heroic defense of the Church's teaching on the sanctity of human life and his personal humility.

***
Friday evening in Washington was no different. Throughout his 50-minute address, the archbishop returned again and again to the scandal of Catholic politicians who support abortion or same-sex marriage. He did not mince his words: "It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself in this manner."

"Neither Holy Communion nor funeral rites should be administered to such politicians," said Archbishop Burke. "To deny these is not a judgment of the soul, but a recognition of the scandal and its effects."

With obvious reference to the Kennedy funeral, he argued that when a politician is associated "with greatly sinful acts about fundamental questions like abortion and marriage, his repentance must also be public." He added, "Anyone who grasps the gravity of what he has done will understand the need to make it public."

It's not uncharitable to point out the scandal caused by these Catholic politicians. "The Church's unity is founded on speaking the truth in love. This does not destroy unity but helps to repair a breach in the life of the Church."

Archbishop Burke rejects all the standard arguments made by Catholic politicians and their apologists who support abortion and same-sex marriage. For example, the defense of the unborn and traditional marriage is not strictly a matter of religious faith. "The observance of the natural law is not a confessional practice -- it's inscribed in every human heart."

Archbishop Burke describes the latest tactic of pro-abortion Catholic politicians, who talk about finding common ground, as a form of "proportionalist moral reasoning." "Common ground is found rather on 'the ground of moral goodness,' and not in a compromise of certain moral truths, like the rejection of abortion and euthanasia."

He warned against allowing this kind of false reasoning to enter the health-care debate. A Catholic cannot accept the attainment of universal health care if it includes abortion and other evils "just because it achieves some desirable outcomes."

[More]

"We'd Sweep the Country"

George Weigel writes:

... Let me only add to the public record that the late Henry Hyde, a pro-lifer to the core, told me that he had once said to Kennedy, “Ted, if you’d take leadership of our movement, we’d sweep the country.” Given the confusions of our moral culture and our law, that might have been too optimistic. But we’ll never know, as Kennedy took a different path, and among other things, ended up committing calumny against Robert Bork...

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
What Might Have Been ... [UPDATED]

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (1932-2009)

Eunice Shriver - One of the Last Pro-Life Kennedys and Founder of Special Olympics - Passes Away [UPDATED]

National Catholic Register: "Hope and the Politics of Abortion"

Ted Kennedy On Abortion: 34 Years Ago

Henry Hyde Honored with "Bipartisan" Funeral Mass

Henry Hyde - Tireless Defender of the Unborn, RIP

Henry Hyde Awarded Medal of Freedom

Henry Hyde to Get Presidential Medal of Freedom for Opposing Abortion

Hyde and Scalia, Catholics With Consequences

"Divisive", "Judgmental", "Uncharitable", and Otherwise "Sinful" Bishop Does "Irreparable Damage to Communion of the Church" ...

... via a "vicious attack launched on [his] blog":

CORPUS CHRISTI, TX, September 8, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, retired Roman Catholic Bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas has denounced the "scandal" of the Kennedy funeral. Writing on his blog, Bishop Gracida said, "There was so much wrong with the funeral liturgy celebrated in Boston last Saturday for Senator Edward Moore Kennedy that I hardly know where to begin."

He added: "Aside from the impropriety of such a grandiose celebration for one of the country's most notorious dissident Catholics, the 'celebration' was filled with liturgical errors and transgressions against the General Instruction of the Roman Missal which governs every celebration of the Church's liturgy."

Rather than going into specifics about the abuses himself, Bishop Gracida posted commentaries by lay and clerical pro-life leaders who identified the gravity of the scandal. "I am afraid that if I, a bishop, were to go into the details of the scandal it would only add to the scandal and so I will let the laity speak to it," he said.

Bishop Gracida reposted several commentaries from lay leaders in the pro-life movement in various posts. He, however, gave special attention to the commentary by Phil Lawler of Catholic World News. Said Bishop Gracida: "It is not unreasonable to suggest that the 'buck' for the scandal of the secular extravaganza which obscured the sacred liturgical nature of the Kennedy funeral should stop at the desk of the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston. Again, since I do not want to directly criticize another bishop, I leave it to the laity to analyze the true nature of that celebration. I give the final word to a layman for whom I have a great deal of respect: Phillip Lawler."

To read Lawler's commentaries on the Kennedy funeral extravaganza in full click here.

See Bishop Gracida's blog here.

(emphasis added)

Damn.

By the way, in case you didn't already realize it, the title and lead-in language of this blog post contain heavy doses of sarcasm. In addition to the fact that Bishop Gracida is actually one of my heroes, he also happens to be exactly right.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
With All Due Respect ... [UPDATED]

With All Due Respect, Redux [UPDATED]

Boy, Did I EVER Get This Bishop Wrong!

Liberal Catholics and Catholic Liberals

An interesting take on recent events at PewSitter.com:

... Thanks to new media, the rise of new faithful religious, the new Catechism, shifting winds, and/or some other positive phenomena including the Grace of God, there is an emerging group of faithful Catholics in the U.S. But the overwhelming majority of baptized Catholics still do not really hold the Faith. Mainly through a cultivated ignorance and the heartless reach of the modern cultural machine, most Catholics are now functional heretics. We have an almost entirely protestant church within our own disabled structures. This group is often labeled Cafeteria or “liberal” Catholics. The faithful minority persists and has vitality, but within that remnant population a large part (particularly in leadership) are “Catholic liberals.” That is to say that unlike “liberal Catholics,” they hold and profess the Faith without heresy, yet they remain philosophically and politically liberal to a great extent. “Catholic liberals” stand on Catholic principle but they fall down in application and practice as Cardinal O’Malley demonstrated in recent weeks.

***
A “Catholic liberal” is someone who may tell you that Faith is neither Liberal nor Conservative. This is true only to the extent that theological truth informs all others. Faith is higher than philosophy and of course above politics. But this does not mean, as virtually all people that say this imply, that there is much virtue in Liberalism and some big problems with Conservatism. Liberal ideals place little value on freedom or obedience to God, acting as if history should be re-played so that the Jews stayed in Egypt and the Commandments were left at Sinai. While many Catholic leaders ascribe unjust economic conditions to conservative hyper-capitalism, this is misleading. That kind of oppression grows from corporate-political alignments that build government and deny property rights. A free society is always less oppressive and property more widespread and abundant. Freedom is not a [tenet] of liberalism. although, license is.

“Right and Left” began when Christendom became moribund following the Protestant revolutions. Before the Church was pushed out of northern Europe and its role minimized in the remainder there was no right and left, only “right and wrong.” With the fall of Old Europe, a philosophical blindness ensued. The “Enlightenment” was not. Today civilization has been divided into two groups, neither of them spiritually guided by the Church. We can see applied Conservatism in the American Revolution and the British Empire, while Liberal principles are born out in the French Revolution, socialism, and fascism in our time. Though neither philosophical perspective reflects a complete Catholic mindset, Liberalism is the Church’s enemy.

***
Clearly one of the gentlest, most restrained, engaging and popular American Church leaders, O’Malley finally voiced where his contempt does fall when he rebuked the Catholics dismayed by the Kennedy funeral; an event that undermined every holy and good thing that the Cardinal’s life represents. After permitting a world-wide circus of scandal and contemptible moments in praise of Ted Kennedy and his agenda, O’Malley finally wielded the Bishops’ spiritual sword for something. Striking back at the “vindictive…angry” Catholics who reject “mercy, unity and the ability to change hearts,” the Cardinal took a hard line. What was the last straw? In decrying the funeral, faithful Catholics challenged the only thing Cardinal O’Malley will stand for when it counts, his liberalism.

There is much in the editorial with which I disagee, but I do find the distinction the author makes between "liberal Catholics" and "Catholic liberals" to be enlightening and fairly accurate.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
With All Due Respect, Redux [UPDATED]

With All Due Respect ... [UPDATED]

With All Due Respect, Redux [UPDATED]

Quote of the day from Carl Olson, in regard to the pro-life equivalent of battered-wife syndrome (i.e. it's not just the GOP who takes pro-lifers for granted and shows us the back of their hand whenever we speak out of turn):

... Is the attitude described by Bishop Morlino really the prevalent stance among Catholics who are upset or concerned about the funeral? Having read many articles and numerous comments about the topic, I have a hard time believing so. It appears to me that many of those who are confused or even angry are simply wondering why a public funeral Mass—a rather extravagant, widely publicized (and televised), eulogistic, and liturgically problematic Mass—was afforded to a man who worked so long and hard against the Church on essential moral issues, and who never publicly disavowed that work. It's a good question, and they have a right to ask it.

Within a week of Kennedy's funeral, those making offensive and inappropriate statements of his eternal destination are being called on the carpet for their objectively sinful actions. Fair enough. My question is this: how long after Ted Kennedy made it known in the 1970s that he was going to publicly support abortion (and, later, other evils), was he called on the carpet by bishops or priests for his objectively sinful actions? How often throughout his public career was he publicly confronted and chastised for his support of abortion, contraceptives, "same-sex marriage," embryonic stem cell research, and so forth? And why does Bishop Morlino only use the word "sin/sinful" regarding those comments, but never in referring to Kennedy's many public actions and positions? Is it really so hard to call a spade a spade?

***
Once again, it's interesting how easy it is to chastise pro-life Catholic bloggers for being "vicious" and "bullying" and "sowing seeds of hatred" and being "agents of destruction and violence", but how hard it is to state the facts about Sen. Kennedy's public record. I suppose it was Kennedy's good fortune that he was never a pro-life Catholic blogger, otherwise he might have had to face public criticism from Catholic clergy.

Exactly.

As I asked the other day, I wonder if our shepherds REALLY believe about abortion what they proclaim to be the Church's teaching on the matter. I know that pro-lifers have taken them at their word, and have sacrificed their time, treasure, talent, and reputations - and even, in some cases, voting against our own economic best interests - to work on behalf of the unborn.

And, for that, pro-lifers have been rewarded with scorn. I expect as much from the mainstream media, from the Democrat Party, and even from the Republican Party, which takes the pro-life movement for granted, pretty much only paying attention to our concerns during election years.

But from our Bishops? Again, why do we even bother?


UPDATE (8 September)
From Diogenes:

Good morning, class. Today we're going to see how well you understand what you read.

Please read carefully through the blog post in which Cardinal O'Malley justifies his participation in the canonization funeral of Ted Kennedy. Then answer the following questions in the time provided.

1. Who should be denied a Catholic funeral?


A) Politicians who deny principal tenets of Catholic moral teaching.

B) The faithful who are scandalized by these politicians.

C) People who don't care that Placido Domingo sang at the funeral.

D) Both B and C


2. Enabling the deaths of millions of preborn children is:


A) A grave sin

B) A lost opportunity

[More]

(Hat tip: Fr. Z)

Again, for the record, I do not take issue with Sen. Kennedy's having received a Catholic funeral (if only the funeral actually had, indeed, been Catholic instead of the funerally / instant canonization that was allowed to take place), or with Cardinal O'Malley's participation therein.

But I do - again, with all due respect - take issue with the demonization of those who have been scandalized by the whole thing as the chief culprits who are being "divisive" and acting "sinfully", while Sen. Kennedy's outspoken advocacy for and record of working dilligently to ensure expansion of the availability of abortion on demand are dismissed as merely "a lost opportunity".


UPDATE #2 (8 September)
More reactions:

From the man with the black hat: "Rights of Burial".

Sean Cardinal O’Malley, as Archbishop of Boston, may have been obliged to make provision for a Catholic burial, but he was more than obliged to keep the event as unadorned as possible. Any of us riff-raff who, say, married outside the Church, or otherwise lived a public life that was less than exemplary, would never have gotten so much as the parish choir to show up, even if we paid them. And you can just forget about them serving lunch afterwards.

What impression does this give us? That “the Church” has one set of rules for people they’re trying to impress, and another set for the rest of us. We’re the ones who have to mind our P’s and Q’s, mind you, as these poncy cake-eating pontificators wrap themselves in the mantle of orthodoxy, as if it were little more than talking a good game.

And these guys wonder why some people don’t take them seriously. These are the times when I don’t.

From Chris Blosser at Against the Grain: "The problem wasn't the funeral".

... Speaking of the recent funeral of Senator Edward Kennedy, the Archbishop of Boston, Sean Cardinal O’Malley, endeavors to defend his participation in the event -- to which Fr. John Zuhlsdorf provides a helpful fisking. On the Archbishop's own blog there are already 100+ comments from readers -- the first comment by "Grace" will suffice, and indicates my thoughts exactly...

From the Happy Catholic: "Catholic Funerals".

There has been a lot of talk back and forth between those who criticized Ted Kennedy's funeral and those defending it. Up to and including Cardinal O'Malley who had it mostly right. Mostly. He also had it wrong. In which case, he practically handed detractors an argument with both hands. As we shall see.

***
Notice the specific mention of avoiding a eulogy? That's where Cardinal O'Malley got it wrong. He allowed the funeral to be derailed from the lines that the Catechism outlines by allowing eulogies. And we see where that got him and everyone.

Finally, from The Curt Jester: "Scandal".

... In large part nothing has been done to reduce this scandal and some have promoted the culture of death for decades directly leading to the death of others. No good is done for the person who have not yet repented. In fact harm is done by not offering a medicinal remedy to aid them towards repentance. The history of the Church is full of wonderful stories of repentance as a result of excommunication. The scandal caused is secondary to the caring of the soul of the person who promotes intrinsic evils.

Cardinal O'Malley who expressed "disappointment" with the Senator's record on abortion, had much stronger words for critics of the funeral. Now I certainly agree largely about people making harsh judgement and the problems this causes. If only the Cardinal had managed strong words for the Senator while he was alive and not just to critics of the funeral. Besides the Cardinal fails to mention that there were a whole range of intrinsic evils other than abortion that Sen. Kennedy voted for. Or the fact that the Senator was the leader of dissident Catholics and was involved in shaping Catholic support for abortion. I wish the Cardinal would spend a little time to understand the outrage even when it is put by some in imprudent and harsh language. He could have done a lot in the way of communication before the funeral. It would have been nice if before hand he had written about the numerous evils that the Senator was involved with and then go on to talk about God's mercy and our hope that the Senator had indeed repented of the evils he supported. This would have been quite helpful to reduce scandal and at the same time advance the teachings of the Church. No doubt some would have still objected to the funeral no matter what, but the Cardinal would also have had an opportunity to teach ahead of time instead of responding to the aftermath...

I think the point is that many of our Bishops would rather climb a tree to publicly denounce faithful Catholic pro-lifers as "divisive sinners" whenever pro-lifers react to scandal by becoming overzealous in their rhetoric than they would stand on the ground and admonish dissident Catholic abortion mongers in political life for causing the scandal by their zealous complicity in the ongoing homicide of the least of these.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
With All Due Respect ... [UPDATED]

With All Due Respect ... [UPDATED]

... to Cardinal O'Malley, for whom I have great admiration, Fr. Z, Red Cardigan, and Larry D. are correct: the Cardinal's explanation - which, among other things downplays the role and extent of Sen. Kennedy's rabid abortion advocacy in causing much of the political divisiveness that exists among Catholics (a divisiveness that His Eminence appears more eager to blame, instead, on those who are outspoken in opposition to abortion) - leaves much to be desired.

Yes, Sen. Kennedy was entitled to a Catholic burial Mass. And, given the prominence of the Kennedy family, I have a hard time arguing against the presence of the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston at his funeral. So, I don't take issue with His Eminence on those matters. Still, the celebratory and overtly political aspect of the funeral was deeply troubling to many, and Cardinal O'Malley has done absolutely nothing to address that. In fact, I believe his explanation, by focusing on how "uncharitable" Sen. Kennedy's pro-life detractors are, makes things worse.

But perhaps the Cardinal's blaming the pro-life zealotry of Kennedy's detractors is understandable if one takes at face value this particular exercise in understatement from Cardinal O'Malley, which makes Sen. Kennedy's postion on abortion sound downright benign (emphasis and commentary are Fr. Z's):

Needless to say, the Senator’s wake and Catholic funeral were controversial because of the fact that he did not publically support Catholic teaching and advocacy on behalf of the unborn. [That is certainly one way to put it. Another way to put it is that he aggressively promoted laws expanding abortion.] ­­­Given the profound effect of Catholic social teaching on so many of the programs and policies espoused by Senator Kennedy and the millions who benefitted from them, there is a tragic sense of lost opportunity in his lack of support for the unborn. [There is also a tragic sense of lost life of the unborn.] To me and many Catholics it was a great disappointment because, had he placed the issue of life at the centerpiece of the Social Gospel where it belongs, he could have multiplied the immensely valuable work he accomplished.

(I like Red Cardigan's fisking of this passage even better, but in the interest of brevity, I went with Fr. Z's. But definitely check out Red Cardigan's.)

Commenting at Red Cardigan's blog, Sr. Lorraine responds to Cardinal O'Malley, and perfectly captures what I find most troubling about his explanation:

Sr. Lorraine said...

Dear Cardinal O’Malley,

I have been pondering Pope Benedict’s words in his new encyclical “Charity in Truth”:

“To defend the truth, to articulate it with humility and conviction, and to bear witness to it in life are therefore exacting and indispensable forms of charity.”

To speak the truth is an indispensable form of charity, especially when that truth is unpopular. Our society does not want to hear that the unborn child must not be killed.

Despite whatever good he did, Senator Kennedy spent the better part of his long political career actively working for legislation that would favor abortion. That is not a judgment; it is part of the public record. He even voted in favor of partial-birth abortion, a horrendous procedure in which the baby’s brains are sucked out.

He did immense damage to the pro-life movement. Is that of any consequence in the eyes of the bishops?

While we pray in charity for his soul, it is indeed a deep scandal for the Church to imply that his record on abortion is of no consequence. I realize you were in a difficult position, but I am deeply disappointed that the overall impression given by the funeral was that it doesn’t really matter if a Catholic politician ardently supports abortion.

Who is speaking up for the millions of innocents who have been slaughtered and continue to die every day?

While Ted Kennedy had a magnificent funeral, these innocent children are thrown into dumpsters. And no one weeps.

September 3, 2009 9:33 PM

I'm beginning to get the feeling that our own Bishops don't really, themselves, believe about abortion what they claim it to be.

Seriously, I'm really starting to wonder - if our Bishops are unwilling to do the heavy lifting of taking to task even those publicly prominent Catholics who are the most radical advocates for abortion, and if all that pro-lifers get for our efforts is a kick in the teeth from our own shepherds - why we even bother. Why should we take upon ourselves the derision and scorn that our fellow countrymen, that our fellow Catholics who are more "enlightened" and "thoughtful" than we, and that, quite often, many of our own Bishops heap upon us?

In the end, I suppose we bother because, while the Princes of the Church are busy rubbing elbows with and paying homage to Caesar, someone needs to weep for those innocent dead children in the dumpsters.

(Hat tip: Don McClarey at The American Catholic)


UPDATE (7 September)
Carl Olsen hits the nail on the head!

... Once again, it's interesting how easy it is to chastise pro-life Catholic bloggers for being "vicious" and "bullying" and "sowing seeds of hatred" and being "agents of destruction and violence", but how hard it is to state the facts about Sen. Kennedy's public record. I suppose it was Kennedy's good fortune that he was never a pro-life Catholic blogger, otherwise he might have had to face public criticism from Catholic clergy.

At the Head of the Table: Churchill, Kennedy, & Palin

Definitely read this terrific piece at The American Spectator:

... The British statesman was a guest at a dinner in a private home. The dinner hour arrived and the guests made their way to the dining room. Churchill moved to a chair along the side of the table. Mortified, the hostess was quickly at his side, gesturing to the empty chair waiting for him. "Mr. Churchill," she said, "your seat is at the head of the table." To which Churchill responded in typical Churchillian style. "Madame," he said, "wherever I sit is the head of the table." And with that -- the Great Man sat down where he was.

***
This is a rare quality in political leaders. In reality it's a human trait, not a political one. Your Aunt Sally could possess Churchill's "head of the table" characteristic and not your Uncle Jim. Yet in the rarefied world of politics, where there is by definition a handful of nationally prominent politicians at any given moment, possessors of Churchill's "head of the table" trait stand out.

They possess, as did Winston Churchill, an unquantifiable capability that can not just electrify a room full of supporters but send them into passionate fits of ecstasy -- while simultaneously sending opponents into a furious, foaming rage. If these politicians master the art of using this quality, they can instantly play a huge role in anything from a winning political campaign to driving a piece of legislation across the legislative finish line. Or stopping it.

By now, a year after her emergence on the national scene, it is crystal clear that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has this "head of the table" gene in spades. She is, in a remarkable way, the real heir -- make that heiress -- to Senator Kennedy. She is charismatic, she has a decided point of view and she is a lightning rod for controversy. Just as Kennedy managed to sink a once sure-thing Supreme Court nomination with his famous Bork speech, Governor Palin has managed to explode Section 1233 of the ObamaCare House bill with her vivid description of "death panels," severely damaging the President's entire legislative priority in the process.

***
Are there other Americans on the political scene like this right now? Yes indeed, with some having one-word name identification with most Americans. Hillary and Newt would be two in this rarified crowd. Former vice presidents Dick Cheney and Al Gore are another two, making headlines regularly, both out of office with the presidency in each case seemingly never in the cards.

***
This is what really drives Sarah Palin's critics nuts. She sits up there in Alaska with Todd and the kids, taps out a few words on her Facebook page -- and presto! ObamaCare has a torpedo amidships! Without doubt this causes Palin's rivals, just as it once did with Churchill's and Teddy Kennedy's, to fret and fume if not foam.

***
There are a zillion talk radio hosts in America these days. I need not mention the "R" word for everyone out there to know who is, instantly, understood by all to be "talk radio." This is Churchill's head of the table factor on radio. She may be quiet over there in the State Department at the moment, seething about her treatment in the White House or elsewhere, but there isn't an American awake who doesn't know Hillary is there, plotting, planning --well, something. This is Churchill's head of the table factor momentarily setting up shop in the State Department.

***
like Ted Kennedy, Sarah Palin has a gift. An ability to make Americans focus on the issue of the day -- and likewise the head of the table ability to lead the country in a specific direction. In fact, she just did it on health care, making her sentiments plain with a Kennedy-style "Robert Bork's America" pronouncement. No other losing vice-presidential candidate in American history has drawn this kind of attention -- whether the passionate applause or the enraged disdain -- as Sarah Palin. Every time her enemies disparage her it only serves to underline the point, just as Ted Kennedy's enemies did the same with him.

[Read the whole thing]

The Catholic Donnybrook Over Kennedy's Legacy

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

Elizabeth Scalia writes at the First Things blog On the Square:

... Something like that is occurring within the Catholic web community over the death and subsequent mainstream media—glorification (and alternate media grimaces) of the man often called the Liberal Lion of the U.S. Senate.

Here is what’s going on: Over at the National Catholic Reporter, Sr. Maureen Fiedler posted that Kennedy made her proud to be Catholic. It would be dishonest to pretend that there are not thousands of Catholics, particularly those of Boomer-age and older, who completely understand Sr. Maureen’s sentiment.

Taking an opposing viewpoint, writer Patrick Madrid responded ...

***
Well. Over at America magazine, the usually restrained Michael Sean Winters did not like that—did not like that at all ...

***
The Catholics are going to tear each other apart over Ted Kennedy. Is that really the legacy anyone wants to bequeath to him?

***
With all due respect to Winters, it appears his sentimentality is being allowed to overrule simple truth, here; we Catholics, having been warned about the “dictatorship of relativism” by a bishop of Rome, have a responsibility to make sure we are serving the truth even as we endeavor—as we absolutely must for the sake of Christ—to serve compassion.

Madrid’s work may be unknown to the “better elements” of Catholic punditry, but his career is a respectable one and while his undeniably rough piece displeased Winters in tone and timing, he did have a point.

By all means, the good done in every life should be remembered and celebrated, but in the twenty-first century it is a problematic hagiography that dismisses some genuinely deleterious public behavior with a shrugging, “as we’re all flawed, let us on this be silent!”

***
He and other Catholic politicians made America dizzy with the oddball notion that one could be “personally opposed” to abortion but too broad-minded to “impose my views on others.” That sounded so reasonable and tolerant that it simplified the abortion debate for people who did not care to consider how nonsensical it was. Being “personally opposed” to the death penalty, would Kennedy have tried not to “impose those views” on states, had he the chance? Had he been “personally opposed” to slavery 150 years ago, would he not certainly have tried to “impose” his views on others?

In terms of perception, Kennedy’s public positions did and do make life difficult for priests and bishops, but scandal is not at issue, here. Catholics find myriad ways to bring scandal to the Bride of Christ, every day. This is about the credibility that Kennedy’s endorsement gave to the abortion movement, and how that endorsement contributed to the subsequent decrease in respect for, and defense of, life-issues...

[Read the entire outstanding piece]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
A Political Realignment Among Catholics?

Modern-Day Richard Rich Glosses Over Abortion in Eulogizing Sen. Kennedy and Sucking Up to Pres. Obama

Canon Lawyer on Kennedy Funeral: "It Could've Been Worse ... I Suppose" [UPDATED]

Was Kennedy “More Right Than Wrong”?

Fr. Z Defends Well-Known Catholic Apologist Patrick Madrid ... [UPDATED]

What Might Have Been ... [UPDATED]

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (1932-2009)

Washington Post "Style" Writer Proves to be a Partisan Hack

Writing at The Weekly Standard blog, Mary Katharine Ham notes a telling double standard at the Nation's Capital's favorite brand of fishwrap:

Washington Post Style writer Robin Givhan has a reputation for occasionally channeling her political predilections in petty fashion critiques of certain Washington actors. George Bush's hair is a "dull gray thatch," but Kerry should "gloat" over his "silver" mop, and John Edwards' mane "demands to be nuzzled."

***
This week, the Pulitzer-winning critic waxes predictably poetic about the be-Dockered and deck-shoed style of the Kennedys, obviously nostalgic for the "look of rich tradition" and refinement embodied by the kids from Hyannisport. She bemoans the inability of the modern American politician to wear it without apology (or, rather, the American people's alleged inability to countenance a look of easy affluence).

She wasn't nearly as nostalgic in her pettiest of attacks, in 2005's "An image a little too carefully coordinated," which took aim at John Roberts, his wife, and his two knee-high children. What was their sin, you might ask? Flip-flops at the White House? Tony Hawk t-shirts and Ninja Turtle shorts? No, their transgression was apparently trying to achieve "refinement" without being Democrats. What was the look of rich tradition on the Kennedys became "syrupy nostalgia" on Roberts' family:

When President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.

On the Kennedys, such fashion was a "style of dress that might best be described as both aristocratic and democratic," a mix Givhan regrets is "virtually impossible today, at least on the political stage."

But when Roberts' son Jack wore an "ensemble that calls to mind John F. "John-John" Kennedy Jr.," Givhan declared it "not classic" but "old-fashioned. These clothes are Old World, old money and a cut above the light-up/shoe-buying hoi polloi."

The verdict, on the Kennedys: "The modern fashion industry has argued that clothes can make a man look rich. Those images of the Kennedys recall the days when it was assumed that a man did that for his clothes."

[More]

Modern-Day Richard Rich Glosses Over Abortion in Eulogizing Sen. Kennedy and Sucking Up to Pres. Obama

Red Cardigan fisks Doug Kmiec's latest boot-licking of his new pro-abort overlords so that I don't have to.

Canon Lawyer on Kennedy Funeral: "It Could've Been Worse ... I Suppose" [UPDATED]

Ed Peters offers his take.


UPDATE
The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts had this to say:

The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts today decried the scandal which occurred this morning at Boston's most historic Catholic shrine --- the Minor Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, known as Mission Church --- where a Mass of Christian Burial was used to “celebrate the life” of one of America's most notorious opponents of Catholic morality, the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Senator Kennedy fought for more than three decades to keep the killing of pre-born children legal and unrestricted in the United States.

***
President Barack Obama delivered the eulogy, in which he alluded to Kennedy's support for gay rights. One of the Prayers of the Faithful was a petition to end divisions “between gays and straights”.

***
Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle stated: “Senator Kennedy supported legal abortion, partial-birth abortion, the public funding of Medicaid abortions, embryonic stem cell research, birth control, federal family planning programs, and so-called emergency contraception. He defended Roe v. Wade, endorsed the proposed Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), and opposed both the Human Life Amendment and the Hyde Amendment. Kennedy maintained a 100% rating from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood. In 1993, he received the Kenneth Edelin Award from Planned Parenthood, and in 2000 received the Champions of Choice Award from NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts at the hands of the same Dr. Kenneth Edelin, the infamous abortionist.

"During his 1994 reelection campaign, Kennedy said ‘I wear as a badge of honor my opposition to the anti-choicers.’ His successful obstruction of the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 effectively prevented the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Beyond his specific positions on human life issues, Senator Kennedy, along with the late Congressman Robert Drinan, provided the cover and the example for two generations of Catholic politicians to defect from Church teaching on the sanctity of innocent human life.

"No rational person can reasonably be expected to take seriously Catholic opposition to abortion when a champion of the Culture of Death, who repeatedly betrayed the Faith of his baptism, is lauded and extolled by priests and prelates in a Marian basilica. This morning's spectacle is evidence of the corruption which pervades the Catholic Church in the United States. The right to life will never be recognized by secular society if it is not first vindicated and consistently upheld within the institutions of the Church itself."

(Hat tip: The Curt Jester)

No Plea for Forgiveness, Only Grandstanding, in Pro-Abort Catholic's Letter to the Pope

Chris Blosser has the details at The American Catholic.

Was Kennedy “More Right Than Wrong”?

Read Darwin's excellent post at The American Catholic: Was Kennedy “More Right Than Wrong”?

... Honestly, what does it mean to say that Kennedy “got many more things right than he got wrong”? I cannot tell that it means anything other than, “Kennedy is one of my political tribe, and so I find it easy to forgive his faults.” What, surely Winters does not propose something so trivializing as a weighted check list: “Kennedy was in favor of expanding welfare, and we’ll weight that at an 8. He was in favor of increased immigration, and we’ll give that a 10. Unfortunately, he was in favor of abortion, we’ll weight that at a 4. So far a +14 total, what next?”

Political and moral issues are not trading cards with varying numbers of hit points which can be stacked, compared and rated. Some certainly are more grave than others (and indeed, I think that any reasonable analysis would find Kennedy to have generally been on the wrong side of the most important moral issues with the most far-reaching effects) but really I can see little point in counting and weighing issues. At best, which issues a Catholic politician seems to be in union with the Church’s thinking on, and on which he chooses to defy Church teaching, is doubtless indicative of his worldview.

From a Catholic perspective on the public square, the concerning thing about Winters’ assertion is that it is based on a highly tribal and dualistic approach to politics. According to this, Kennedy is lauded for his positions on topics ranging from education and minimum wage to immigration and health care, because the author believes that the progressive policies supported by Kennedy are likely to contribute positively to the common good — and because support for these policies marks Kennedy as belonging to the “good guys”. However, Kennedy’s often forceful opposition to Church teaching on topics such as abortion, cloning, embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage is considered “minor” or “incidental to his record”, primarily because opposition to Church teaching on these topics is considered an acceptable (and indeed, expected) failing within the tribe of progressive politics. Since actually following the Church on issues such as abortion, marriage and euthenasia is generally seen as an attribute of the “bad guys” by the progressive political tribe, even those members of the tribe who consider themselves in tune with the Church on these issues (which on abortion, I believe Winters does) are urged by the sense of political tribalism to see dissent from the Church on those issues as emminently forgivable...

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)


UPDATE (2 September)
John Henry follows up on Darwin's post with "Which Comes First, the Church or the Party?":

... Notice, Mr. Winters, has already said he thinks Senator Kennedy was wrong about abortion. But he then finds it necessary to uncharitably caricature those he agrees with as ‘ranting’ in order to defend Senator Kennedy’s legacy. And again, he suggests that remedying their (alleged) ignorance would somehow help the pro-life movement, and mitigate the criticisms of Senator Kennedy’s record on abortion. This is all very puzzling. Mr. Winters has asserted that 1) Senator Kennedy was wrong; 2) That those who criticize Senator Kennedy for being wrong are wrong to do so; and 3) That they would not criticize Senator Kennedy if they were better informed about why Senator Kennedy was wrong, but that exculpatory reason (known to Mr. Winters) is not shared with the reader. It seems clear that something else is going on here, and I think Mr. Winters’ conclusion makes clear what it is:

Besides, Ted Kennedy got many more things right than he got wrong.

Translation: Ted Kennedy was a Democrat. And Democrats, in Mr. Winters judgment, are more right than wrong. Therefore, to criticize them when they are wrong, is to invite dismissive remarks about ignorance and ‘ranting’ pro-life leaders.

...I think this passage highlights one of the chief problems with the Catholic Church in the United States: in the political realm, we sometimes present the Gospel as partisans of a particular party first, and Catholics second. It begins innocently enough: we decide one party is more in line with the Church’s vision of the human person. Then we begin to defend the party on those grounds, and on some other issues where there is room for prudential judgment. And then, as we support the party for a longer period of time – and it captures more of our sympathies – occasionally we find ourselves defending our favorite politicians and parties against the Church’s position.

(emphasis in original)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Fr. Z Defends Well-Known Catholic Apologist Patrick Madrid ... [UPDATED]

What Might Have Been ... [UPDATED]