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

Did "Catholics Abandon Democrats" in 2014?

Folks, it comes as no surprise to you, given my absence, that I'm no longer blogging. Haven't been for a while. So, don't be surprised if this is the last post you ever see at this blog. But I felt like I needed to say something, and, given the overriding theme of this blog for the past 10 years, a post about the so-called "Catholic Vote", and whether such a thing even exists, seems as good a way to wrap things up as there is.

Today, the Catholic League put out a press release on the results of the 2014 elections:

Just two years ago, Catholics voted for President Barack Obama by a margin of 50 percent to 48 percent. On Tuesday, they abandoned Obama’s party: 54 percent voted for Republican candidates and 45 percent went for the Democrats (60 percent of white Catholics chose GOP candidates). What is most startling about the Catholic vote is that it represents an exact turnaround from 2008: 54 percent voted for Obama and 45 percent cast their ballot for Senator John McCain.

Catholics are pragmatic. Until the McGovernization of the Democratic Party in 1972, they were among the most reliably Democratic voters in the nation. Since that time, they have been politically homeless, which is why both parties vie for their vote so aggressively. Catholics are a bellwether: whoever wins their vote, generally wins the election. By contrast, Protestants vote Republican and Jews vote Democrat...

I'm sorry, but these particular numbers regarding "the Catholic Vote" just don't stand out to me. In fact, it's time we stop talking about "the Catholic vote" or "Catholic voters" because such a thing no longer exists. 

Bill Donohue says "Catholics are pragmatic." But when I look at these numbers, all I see is Catholics supporting the Democrats in 2012 by the same proportion as the rest of the country, and Catholics supporting Republicans in 2014 by the same proportion as the rest of the country.

In other words, there doesn't appear to be anything unique to or distinct about Catholic voters that differentiates them from the rest of the country at large. Catholic voters appear to be merely a mirror of the rest of society in their voting patterns. And that's just sad.  

Catholics appear to have become what many of our forebears, culminating in the election of President John F. Kennedy, seem to have wanted - to just fit in. To be seen as "normal Americans". To not be seen by the rest of the country as in any way beholden to our Faith (certainly not be be seen as beholden to a "foreign power", i.e. the Pope).

But "fitting in" isn't what is required of us. We're called to be in the world, but not of it. We're called to be counter-cultural. We're called to be witnesses of our Faith. We're supposed to change the world, NOT let the world change us.

So, no, I don't believe that "Catholics abandoned Democrats" in the 2014 elections. The VOTERS abandoned the Democrats in the 2014 election, and Catholics just went along for the ride. By contrast, our evangelical brethren voted against the Democrats in a proportion that FAR exceeded the proportion of the electorate at large. THERE's an instance where faith seems to make a difference in voting patterns. With us Catholics, not so much. Again, sad.

The Passion of the Kmiec Revisited: WTF?

Doug Kmiec has, apparently, gone off the deep end. Seriously, I got nothing. In fact, this latest cry for attention is ... well ... just sad:

... Since he has returned, I’ve followed his curious posts on Facebook and Twitter. He consistently refers to himself in the third person as Ambassador, and posts these odd videos and photos of himself in his Ambassadorial role. But a few months ago, it got really weird. He started posting images promoting himself as Vice President in 2016.

At first I thought it may be some kind of joke, but it wasn’t. Then on October 6, 2013, he announced his “decision to run for vice presidency in 2016,” and noted that he had a “steering committee.” ...

Read more at "Pepperdine Law Prof, and former Ambassador to Malta, Doug Kmiec Seeks To Be Clinton’s VP. Huh?".

Please tell me I'm not going to have to start blogging about this guy again.

(Hat tip: Michael Denton via Facebook)


UPDATE:
Kmiec's Facebook page bears every indication that he's taking himself seriously in this regard. Sad, really.

And his support for Hillary's candidacy proves that Kmiec's decision to venture into the party of abortion-on-demand - the party that forces Catholic organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their Faith - wasn't just a one-time fling with The One. 


UPDATE #2 (27 January):
My friends Matthew Archbold at Creative Minority Report and Donald McClarey at The American Catholic have posted recent commentary on Kmiec's bizarre behavior:

Heh. Doug Kmiec Wants to Be Hillary's Running Mate

Doug Kmiec Jumps Shark



The Passion of the Kmiec - A Pro Ecclesia Timeline:

January 2014 
The Passion of the Kmiec Revisited: WTF?


February 2012
Doug Kmiec Back in Obama's Embrace

Doug Kmiec Thinks He's Breaking Up With Obama, But Obama Already Jilted Him First


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


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


May 2009
Kmiec Tells Another Lie in Service of Obama

Robert P. George on "Obama and His Pro-Life Apologists"

Robert George vs Douglas Kmiec: How Should a Pro-Life Citizen Respond to Obama? [UPDATED]


April 2009
Cardinal Rigali Calls Out Kmiec on His ESCR Lies

A New Front in the Church's Civil War

Fr. Z Fisks Pathetic Sycophant Kmiec on Notre Dame's Obama Invite

Prof. George Schools Prof. Kmiec ... Again


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


February 2009
Kmiec Calls Pope's Comments "Intrusive"

Catholic World Report: "Douglas Kmiec and His Misinformation Offensive for Barack Obama"


January 2009
Kmiec Claims He's In the Loop for Vatican Post

 American Papist's Open Letter to Prof. Kmiec

Kmiec the Martyr

Prof. Kmiec Eulogizes Fr. Neuhaus in a Manner That is All About Prof. Kmiec and Justifying his Obama Vote [UPDATED]


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


November 2008 
Vatican Official Says Kmiec Will Not Become New Vatican Ambassador

The Kmiec Catholic Re-Education Camp

Former Student of Prof. Kmiec Calls Him Out on "Revealing His True Colors"

A Modern-Day "Vicar of Bray"

Douthat Smacks Kmiec

Amy's "Wrap-Up" of Pre-Election Abortion Coverage

Pathetic


October 2008 
George Weigel on Kmiec's "Flawed Thinking"

Archbishop Chaput: Kmiec Doing a "Disservice to the Church"

Mainstream Media Compliant in Obama's "Faith Outreach" Pitch

Bill Donohue: "I'm Catholic, Staunchly Anti-Racist, and Support David Duke" [UPDATED]

Debate Over at Amy's: Should Catholics Work for Legal Restrictions on Abortion?

Deacon Fournier Puts Smack Down on Prof. Kmiec

Kmiec's Payoff? [UPDATED]


September 2008 
The Obama-Kmiec Magical Mystery "Faith Tour"

Deacon Fournier: "Doug Kmiec’s ‘Can a Catholic Support Him?’ Asks the Wrong Question"

Ponnuru Raps Kmiec for Defending Obama's Born-Alive Vote

"Separate But Equal" Redux - Pro-Life Edition

Mark Stricherz: "Why the Democratic Abortion Strategy is Worse"

Whither the "Catholic Vote"? Some Interesting Posts at the Fidelis Blog


August 2008 
Darwin Catholic: "Douglas Kmiec, Master of Dissembling" [UPDATED]

Prof. Rick Garnett on Kmiec's "Missing the Point"

A Former Student of Prof. Kmiec Speaks Out ...

Prof. Kmiec Shifts the Goalposts

Kmiec's "Bridge Too Far"? Obama's Attacks on Justice Thomas

Without Further Ado: Doug Kmiec on McCain v. Obama at Saddleback [UPDATED]

Paging Prof. Kmiec ...

Doug Kmiec Claims Democrats Making "Steps Toward Honoring Life" in Platform

Prof. Garnett Takes on Prof. Kmiec ... Again

Casey Jr. to Get Prime-Time Slot in Denver to Appease Catholics [UPDATED]


July 2008 
Fr. Neuhaus Responds to Doug Kmiec

Deal Hudson's Open Letter to Doug Kmiec

National Catholic Register on Catholics, Kmiec, and Obama

Prof. Hadley Arkes: "Political Distraction Among the Catholics"


June 2008
 Doug Kmiec - What He Said Then vs. What He Says Now Re: Constitutional Jurisprudence

What is the "Pro-Life Position" Regarding Abortion?

Traumatized

Unrequited Love

Doug Kmiec: "After Meeting with Barack" [UPDATED]

Cranky Conservative: "But At Least He Says It with a Smile"

Doug Kmiec Again Places Platitudes Above Policy [UPDATED]

Prof. Bainbridge on "Obama, Abortion, & Catholics"

Prof. Rick Garnett on Kmiec's Latest Nonsense

Deacon Keith Fournier: "Why I Disagree with Doug Kmiec, Once Again"

Give It a Rest Already, Prof. Kmiec!

Doug Kmiec's Newfound Celebrity Status Among Those on the Left

Doug Kmiec Soon To Be Sorely Disappointed

E.J. Dionne on Kmiec Being Denied Communion [UPDATED]


May 2008 
Deal Hudson on Prof. Kmiec and Blurring the Lines Between "Pro-Choice" and Pro-Abortion
 
Did Doug Kmiec Just Now Catch On That Obama and NARAL Are Politically Conjoined? [UPDATED]

Deal Hudson on "How Obama's Catholics Will Dodge the Infanticide Question"

Kmiec's Dishonesty [UPDATED]

Catholic Teaching and Political Risk Taking: When Credit Isn't Given Where Credit is Due [UPDATED]


April 2008
 Kmiec's Wishful Thinking on Obama and Abortion


March 2008 
The Curt Jester: "Shameless Garment" [UPDATED]

So-Called "Catholic Reaganite" Doug Kmiec Endorses Obama [UPDATED]

No'bama for Me, Thanks"

Can a Catholic Vote for Obama?


February 2008
 Obama's Pledge to Planned Parenthood: "I Will Not Yield"

"Why American Catholics are Supporting Barack Obama"

How the Catholic Left Will Tackle McCain

Why Does Kmiec Criticize McCain for Positions on Which He Gave Romney a Pass?
 
Deal Hudson on "Douglas Kmiec and the Lure of Obama"

Douglas W. Kmiec on "The Moral Duty to Inquire"

Professor Bainbridge: "Will Catholic Reaganites Go for Obama?"

Deal Hudson: "Preacher Man: Barack Obama and the the Gospel of Liberalism"

"Sorry, Doug Kmiec, But This Catholic Isn't Buying Obama"

Ramesh Ponnuru on Douglas Kmiec and "Catholic Reaganites for Obama" [UPDATED]

Romney Advisor Says Obama "a Natural for the Catholic Vote"

Allegedly "Pro-Life" Romney Holds Fundraiser With Abortion Drug Manufacturer; CatholicVote Sells Soul in Response

DO NOT VOTE FOR THAT FRAUD MITT ROMNEY !!!

MIAMI, FLORIDA, May 17, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney scheduled a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at the home of Phil Frost, the executive of the company that makes the Morning After Pill, on Wednesday night. Plan B One-Step is produced by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Frost’s company.

The pharmaceutical executive’s residence was one of several stops scheduled to increase Romney’s war chest during a two-day swing through Florida.

“It’s a huge disappointment,” Brian Camenker, director of the Massachusetts-based pro-family organization MassResistance told LifeSiteNews.com. “You wouldn’t see someone who was really pro-life doing a fundraiser with somebody who helped the abortion industry.”

Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org, didn’t seem troubled by the fundraiser saying, “What matters is whether a President Romney will end all taxpayer support for abortion-inducing drugs, repeal unconstitutional mandates that force private institutions to cover such drugs, and whether he will make progress in building a culture of life.” [ED.: But isn't this a fairly good indication that Romney is NOT what he proclaims himself to be on life issues? On what basis are we to conclude that Romney will follow through on the pro-life initiatives that CatholicVote proclaims are "what matters"? On what basis are we to believe that Romney is going to cut off federal funds from flowing to a guy who just hosted a $50,000 per plate fundraiser for him?!?!?]

[More]

... But for Wales, CatholicVote? Look, we know you're in the tank for the guy now that Santorum is out, but at least have the decency and consistency of principle to call the guy out in no uncertain terms when he does crap like this.

Folks, don't listen to the professional Catholics who inevitably expose themselves as Republican-first-pro-life-second political hacks. You DON'T have to settle for the fraud Mitt Romney. You DO have a pro-life choice in this election.

Vote the 100% pro-life (with no exceptions) Constitution Party and its 100% pro-life (with no exceptions) nominee for President, Virgil Goode.

Meet the Catholics in Congress

National Catholic Register lists the Catholics in Congress and ranks them according to their pro-life voting records:

WASHINGTON — Catholics make up about 28% of the members of Congress, compared to 30% when the 111th Congress began. But both figures are higher than the percentage of Catholics in the U.S. population, 24%.

Following is a list of the members of the 112th Congress who refer to themselves as Catholics.

The percentage next to them is their pro-life rating since 1997, as compiled by National Right to Life. Information prior to 1997 was unavailable at press time. They are listed from the highest pro-life rating to the lowest.

[More]

Of course, the newly added Catholic members of Congress do not have congressional voting records on life issues thus far.

Mr Duffy Goes to Washington [UPDATED]

At CatholicVote, Tom Peters reports on his recent meeting in D.C. with Catholic dad of six, Congressman-elect Sean Duffy, and his lovely wife Rachel Campos-Duffy:

Last night I had the opportunity of meeting Representative-elect (and CatholicVote PAC-endorsed!) Sean Duffy along with his awesome wife Rachel and their little baby Maria Victoria here in Washington DC.

My friend Eric spotted this wonderful photo of Sean as he “narrates and records a video for his Facebook page while walking around Statuary Hall inside the U.S. Capitol Hill” earlier in the day...

Meanwhile, Rachel blogs on their children's front-row seat to history and the challenges of parenting when one of the parents is in the middle of running for Congress:

On November 2, my husband, Sean Duffy, had the honor of being elected to represent Wisconsin's 7th District in Congress. In a decisive eight-point victory, our northwestern and largely rural district voted for a Republican candidate for the first time in 41 years.

Election night was the culmination of a tremendous amount of work and sacrifice. I can now say with absolutely certitude that unless you've been through it, it's difficult to understand the toll it takes on candidates and their families. It was probably a good thing that we didn't know what was in store for us in the 18 months following my husband's announcement.

As a spouse, the campaign transformed me from a busy-but-happy at-home mother of five to a frazzled and often lonely single mother of six (we discovered we were pregnant three weeks after Sean announced his candidacy and we had our sixth child, Maria Victoria, on April 1). With my best friend and partner crisscrossing one of the largest congressional districts in the country to hit every dairy breakfast, polka Mass, parade and county fair, my workload doubled instantly.

[More]

May God continue to bless the Duffys as they begin this next chapter in their lives. And may Sean continue to be guided by his strong Catholic faith in his governing decisions. I'm looking for good things from Congressman Duffy. He has a bright future ahead of him.


UPDATE
Sean has added these videos to his Facebook page:





Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Washington Post Profile of Catholic Father of 6 Running for Congress

Rachel Campos-Duffy: "Have We Become Too Casual? Why I Dress My Kids Up for Church"

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

Rachel Campos Duffy: A Real Housewife of Wisconsin

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

Cardinal George: Catholics Should Not Fear "Political Isolation"

From Catholic News Agency:

Baltimore, Md., Nov 15, 2010 / 01:40 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Cardinal Francis George opened the annual U.S. bishops' meeting today by stressing that Catholics “should not fear political isolation” when upholding their beliefs in the public square.

[...]

The cardinal opened his remarks by recalling the bishops' public involvement in opposing President Obama's health care bill which passed this last March.

Although he called health care a “moral imperative,” he decried the removal of the Hyde Amendment from the legislation – a clause which bars federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother.

Laws “that have permitted now 50 million children of our country to be killed in their mother's womb” are “immoral and unjust,” he said. “They are destroying our society.”

Cardinal George then referenced challenges to “unity” within the Church on its position in the health care debate, saying there are “those who want to remake the Church according to their own designs or discredit her as a voice in the public discussions that shape our society.”

Catholic Health Association leader Sr. Carol Keehan and the social justice lobby of sisters called Network incited controversy this year for their public support of the health care overhaul in opposition to the bishops, a move that some have claimed was critical for the bill's passage.

Who “speaks for the Catholic Church?” the cardinal asked. “The bishops in apostolic communion and in union with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, speak for the Church in matters of faith and in moral issues and the laws surrounding them.”

The role of Catholics in political debate was also touched on by Cardinal George, who called for “orthodoxy in belief” and “obedience in practice” from the faithful.

“Orthodoxy is necessary but not enough,” he said, “the Devil is orthodox. He knows the Catechism better than anyone in this room; but he will not serve, he will not obey.”

“We should not fear political isolation,” Cardinal George added, saying the “Church has often been isolated in in politics and diplomacy.”

“We need to be deeply concerned, however, about the wound to the Church's unity that has been inflicted in this debate,” he said, expressing his hope that “ecclesial communion” could be restored.

[More]

GetReligion on the “Is Rubio Catholic?” Story

GetReligion has taken up the story of whether Marco Rubio remains a practicing Catholic. (One of the links in the post is to my own post on the subject last week.)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on the subject:
Is Marco Rubio Still Catholic?

Is Marco Rubio Still Catholic?

Damian Thompson is reporting that Senator-Elect Marco Rubio attends an evangelical protestant church:

I assumed until this morning that Marco Rubio, the pro-life new senator-elect from Florida, was a Catholic. That’s because I kept reading in articles that he was “a conservative Roman Catholic”. Then I came across this curious article from Politics Daily which (without apparently realising that it is doing so) reveals that he has abandoned the faith of his Cuban parents ...

[...]

All very confusing: the author of the piece seems to think that attending Christ Fellowship Church is compatible with Catholicism. It is not...

[...]

According to the St Petersburg Times, Rubio not only attends this evangelical church but gives generously to it...

[...]

Conservative Catholics, in contrast – and they are a growing community, especially in Middle America, admire Rubio not only for his stance on life issues but also because they mistakenly assume that he shares their faith. I’m sorry to have to disillusion them. And I wonder why Rubio has not said, very clearly, that he is an evangelical, not a Catholic.

[Read the whole thing]

My Comments:
An interesting revelation, and one that I assume will be fleshed out in additional detail on the Catholic blogs in the days and weeks to come.

Is it relevant? I suppose it might matter to faithful Catholics to some extent. But I must say that one of the funnier comments I've read in response to Thompson's story is along the lines of "Get back to me when he claims to be a Christian but is actually a Muslim."

Now that right there is funny, I don't care who you are. *


* NB: For the record, I do not believe that any prominent U.S. politician claiming to be a Christian is actually a Muslim in disguise. But the meme is out there, and that's what makes this comment funny.

The Catholic Vote and What Really Matters [UPDATED]

CatholicVote.org has a new video out in time for the elections:



Also just in time for the elections, Rich Leonardi links to Pope Benedict's ad limina address to the Brazilian Bishops and wonders "what is it about Brazil that brings out the best in Benedict?":

"First, the duty of direct action to ensure a just ordering of society falls to the lay faithful who, as free and responsible citizens, strive to contribute to the just configuration of social life, while respecting legitimate autonomy and natural moral law", the Holy Father explained. "Your duty as bishops, together with your clergy, is indirect because you must contribute to the purification of reason, and to the moral awakening of the forces necessary to build a just and fraternal society. Nonetheless, when required by the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls, pastors have the binding duty to emit moral judgments, even on political themes".

"When forming these judgements, pastors must bear in mind the absolute value of those ... precepts which make it morally unacceptable to chose a particular action which is intrinsically evil and incompatible with human dignity. This decision cannot be justified by the merit of some specific goal, intention, consequence or circumstance, Thus it would be completely false and illusory to defend, political, economic or social rights which do not comprehend a vigorous defence of the right to life from conception to natural end. When it comes to defending the weakest, who is more defenceless than an unborn child or a patient in a vegetative or comatose state?"

"When political projects openly or covertly contemplate the depenalisation of abortion or euthanasia, the democratic ideal (which is truly democratic when it recognises and protects the dignity of all human beings) is betrayed at its very foundations. For this reason, dear brothers in the episcopate, when defending life we must not fear hostility or unpopularity, rejecting all compromise and ambiguity which would conform us to the mentality of this world".

In order to help lay people live their Christian, social and political commitments in a unified and coherent fashion it is necessary, said the Holy Father, to ensure appropriate "social catechesis and an adequate formulation of Church Social Doctrine. ... This also means that on some occasions, pastors must reminds all citizens of the right, which is also a duty, freely to use their vote to promote the common good".

(Hat tip: Don McClarey at The American Catholic)


UPDATE
From Creative Minority Report comes this story about Catholic voters turning to the GOP:

Are Catholics finally turning their back on the party of death? As we all know, a majority of self identified Catholics voted for Barack Obama for President.

But this past week a number of polls have shown a stunning turnaround; an exodus of sorts from the Democrat Party. The Telegraph reports:

The Democrats' 10-point lead among Catholic voters has been reversed into a 24-point Republican advantage.

That's pretty startling.

[Read the whole thing]

UPDATE #2
Michael Voris speaks out on "murky" electoral messages coming from Bishops:

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.

Matt Archbold: Vote Your Conscience [UPDATED]

Matthew Archbold writes at National Catholic Register:

... I’m just a voter and I’m done trying to be smart. I mean it. I’m done. I’m done playing the angles and reading the polls. I’m voting my conscience. Every time. And it drives me crazy to hear people telling me to vote with my head and not my heart. It drives me crazy to be told to “be smart.” Smart gave Republicans Arlen Specter.

And we’re even being told to “be smart” in who we vote for in the primary because pro-lifers may vote for a candidate who can win a primary but not a general election. Are they kidding? Republicans have had that kind of majority before. How’d that work out?

We’re being told to ignore our conscience during the primaries and choose candidates who we’re told can in the general election. But why the heck shouldn’t I vote my conscience in a primary? If a majority of Republicans vote for a candidate they don’t really like what you’ll likely get is a candidate that nobody likes.

Their way gave us the disastrous Republican majority we had during the last decade. Their way gave us John McCain. I’m tired of their way.

I’m voting my conscience. Stop telling me to be a strategist. I’m just a voter who’s horrified at the number of unborn children being killed. I’m just a voter who worries about the collapsing American family...

[More]

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

My sentiments exactly.

And we're seeing this a lot lately with people who generally tell us that we shouldn't vote for that pro-abort Democrat under any circumstances suddenly finding no qualms about supporting the pro-abort, pro-ESCR Catholic Republican Mike Castle over his pro-life opponent in the Delaware GOP primary election for U.S. Senate.

They keep telling us what a flawed candidate the pro-lifer is, but they seem to ignore just how deeply flawed Mike Castle is from a pro-life Catholic perspective.

They keep telling us that the pro-lifer can't win in blue Delaware, but that the pro-abort Mike Castle CAN win, as if just electing someone with an "R" next to his name is all this should be about for pro-life Catholic voters.

One blogger for whom I have a great deal of respect but with whom I couldn't possibly disagree more on this issue has actually gone so far as to argue that voting for Mike Castle - one of the most vocal and most active pro-abort and pro-ESCR Catholics in Congress - over his pro-life opponent will "limit the damage to the pro-life movement".

It all sounds so familiar (see, e.g., Toomey, Pat vs. Specter, Arlen, and the political wranglings of Santorum, Rick to get the latter elected).

Look, I can understand why someone identifying as a Republican might want to support Castle for purposes of achieving power. In order to gain power, you need an "R" next to the name. But I absolutely draw the line and call BS on any attempt to justify voting for one of the most egregious anti-life Catholics in Congress as being "more pro-life" than voting for his ... you know ... ACTUAL pro-life opponent. To try to justify such a vote as "limiting the damage to the pro-life movement" is a rendering of the words so as make them absolutely meaningless.

The chances of a Castle win being THE seat that puts the Senate in GOP hands is VERY speculative, at best. But the chances of Castle being a pro-abortion, left-wing thorn in the side of the Senate GOP (not to mention a scandal to the Catholic faithful as a high-profile, vocal pro-abort Catholic in the pro-life party) is 100%. Castle can do SERIOUS damage to the pro-life cause as the "bipartisan" go-to guy that Democrats will seek out for cover on issues like ESCR, abortion legislation, federal judges, etc.

There is absolutely NO pro-life argument in favor of Mike Castle. Because of his horrific record on the unborn, and because his identification as a Catholic makes his record doubly scandalous, I would NEVER vote for him under ANY circumstances, regardless of the shortcomings of his opponent.

In the end, I'm a socially conservative Catholic voter; I'm NOT a Republican. So I have absolutely no problem with seeing the U.S. Senate seat from Delaware stay Dem rather than having an outspokenly pro-abort, pro-ESCR Catholic sitting in the seat and undermining the pro-lifers within his own party and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Like Matthew Archbold, if I were a voter in the Delaware GOP primary, I'd be voting my conscience.


UPDATE
For those of you who see voting for Castle as part of an overall GOP "strategery" for retaking the Senate, Ed Morrissey puts that strategic gamesmanship into perspective:

... This seat matters strategically in one narrow set of circumstances, and one only: if the GOP picks up a net of exactly nine other seats. If the GOP nets eight or fewer Senate seats besides Delaware, then this election wouldn’t give them control of the Senate anyway. If the GOP picks up ten or more seats without Delaware, then this seat again doesn’t matter much either in terms of controlling the agenda. Netting enough seats to win the Senate is a long shot in any case, probably in the range of a 5-1 against, with or without Delaware...

(emphasis added)

Basically the same thing I said above regarding the speculative nature of the Delaware seat being THE seat that puts the Senate back in GOP hands, only Ed says it better than I did.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Mike Castle and the "Deadly Dozen"

Most Un-Self-Aware Quote of the Day

Prof. Bainbridge Takes On So-Called "Holier-Than-Thou Right"