I’ve heard a lot of folks complain about Rick Santorum’s “cafeteria Catholicism.” There’s been a lot of it in the comboxes here at CatholicVote. Even Ron Paul (or at least his website) has gotten into the act. I can understand Ron Paul not seeing why this is a frivolous charge, but I am sort of amazed (ok, maybe not that amazed) that so many Catholics do not understand the difference between the judgment of a pope or prelate about a particular matter, on the one hand, and Church teaching on the other; or the difference between intrinsically evil acts and matters about which there can be legitimate disagreement.

Most of the charges I’ve seen alleging Santorum is a phony Catholic have to do with his support of the War in Iraq, his alleged support for torture, his stance on immigration, or his preferences in social welfare policy. I may address the immigration and social welfare questions later, but for now I’ll handle the first two objections. I intend here to neither defend nor refute his positions, but simply to explain why the criticism of these positions as un-Catholic or Cafeteria Catholicism, is unfair and at best unhelpful.

First, regarding torture: Everything I have ever read or heard Santorum say indicates that he is opposed to torture precisely because torture is intrinsically evil. No problem there; that’s Church teaching. What is at issue, it seems to me, is Santorum’s support for the use of certain interrogation methods, in particular “waterboarding,” which he does not believe constitute torture. (If someone knows of a place where Santorum has justified torture as torture, please let us know.)

Personally, I don’t know if waterboarding is torture. It certainly seems very unpleasant. But even if one is very uncomfortable with the practice, can one say with absolute moral certainty that something thousands of American soldiers have voluntarily undergone in training constitutes torture? Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, has said about waterboarding, “If you’re willing to try it, it’s not torture.” I’m not sure I find that entirely persuasive, but is there not a grain of truth in it?

As the New York Times points out, many Catholics, of varied political stripes, vociferously disagree with Thiessen’s position—and by extension, Santorum’s. Regardless, there simply is no official Catholic teaching on whether or not the specific practice of “waterboarding” constitutes torture. Catholics cannot in good conscience disagree about whether or not torture is permissible, but they can and do disagree about what constitutes “torture”—similar to how American jurists can disagree in good faith about the definition of “cruel and unusual” punishment under the U.S. Constitution.

This isn’t to argue that Santorum is right about waterboarding not being torture; it simply means that there is nothing in his position that necessarily places him in a posture of dissent from Church teaching on torture or the dignity of human life.

The same goes for Santorum’s support of the War in Iraq. It is no secret that the War in Iraq was…er…unpopular…in the Vatican, as was the First Gulf War. But even then-Cardinal Ratzinger, who at the time made no bones about his opposition to the invasion (see the Ron Paul link above), allowed that, “One cannot simply say that the catechism does not legitimize the war.”

The point is that the Church has no “official” teaching on whether or not that specific war (or any other particular war) was just or unjust. Unlike an intrinsic evil, say abortion, which no prudence or responsible deliberation can ever justify (thus making all abortions illicit), the Church teaches that war can sometimes be justified. Santorum may well be wrong about the justice of the War in Iraq, as he may well be wrong about whether or not waterboarding is torture—and if he is wrong, he is likely culpable in some way for his choices—but if he’s wrong, it’s not because he denies Catholic teaching, and it’s certainly not because he’s not Catholic.

Here’s a succinct statement of what I’m talking about. This is from then-Cardinal Ratzinger, writing as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2004, after the Iraq Invasion, in a letter to American bishops about American politicians. (Keep in mind that no one who is not Catholic, or who is not in communion with the Church, is considered worthy to receive Holy Communion):

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. [Emphasis added.]

In sum, a politician’s support for the Iraq War may tell us something about that politician’s judgment or prudence, and may well influence our willingness to vote for him in the future, but it tells us next to nothing about whether or not that politician’s standing within the Catholic Church or about his posture with regard to Catholic teaching. To suggest otherwise only confuses the faithful and further complicates the Church’s important task of forming the consciences of faithful citizens.

Stephen P. White is a fellow in the Catholic Studies Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and coordinator of the Tertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society. The views expressed here are his own.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 5, 2012

Contact: Joshua Mercer
Email: mercer@catholicvote.org

CHICAGO, IL – CatholicVote.org, a leading national grassroots Catholic advocacy organization, today proudly announced their endorsement of Senator Rick Santorum for President.

CatholicVote.org President Brian Burch issued the following statement explaining the endorsement:

“Pennsylvania’s Rick Santorum represents our best hope to rally the nation behind a unified moral and economic vision that Americans are clamoring for in a President. CatholicVote.org is proud to stand with Rick Santorum, and is prepared to mobilize our rapidly-growing grassroots network to help secure him the GOP nomination, and ultimately win the White House.

“Catholic voters are looking for a candidate who can successfully combine the principles of the dignity of life and the dignity of work. Senator Santorum understands better than any other candidate the profound link between the moral, cultural and economic principles foundational to the success of America. We are convinced that Rick Santorum is the candidate best equipped to win not only the political arguments, but also the hearts of American voters as he did in Iowa on Tuesday.

“Rick Santorum is a workingman’s Republican with a record and a plan which are especially appealing to Catholic voters. His record in Pennsylvania, and his record as a presidential candidate confirms that Senator Santorum understands why four more years of President Obama would be devastating for America, but also why a GOP message focused too heavily on taxes, spending, and debt is simply not enough.

“Too often our debates on ‘social issues’ are fought at the margins with stale-talking points which pit economic justice and moral virtues against each other. The candidacy of Rick Santorum represents a chance to present an integrated approach to voters who are hungry for this kind of message.

“Catholic voters looking for moral and economic leadership also understand that the 2012 elections will inevitably focus on judges and the courts. With the Supreme Court poised to rule on immigration law, Obamacare, and potentially so-called same-sex marriage this summer, judges and our courts will dominate the debate this fall. On this score, there is no debate over which candidate has led, and can best be trusted to lead the fight over the role of our judiciary and the nomination of qualified judges to the courts that will respect our Constitution.

“Finally, Senator Santorum is a man of honor, integrity, and authenticity. What you see is what you get. He has faithfully served the cause of life and marriage as an elected official and as a husband and father. And while no political candidate, or human being for that matter, is perfect, Rick Santorum’s baggage contains his clothes.

“Republicans hoping to win back the White House in November must unite behind the candidate most dedicated to the foundational issues of faith, family and freedom. If the GOP hopes to defeat President Obama, it takes a Rick Santorum to get it done.”

###

Background on CatholicVote.org:

CatholicVote.org was launched in September 2008 as a new effort to educate, organize, and mobilize the Catholic vote. The national group was responsible for one of the most watched online commercials during the 2008 presidential campaign, watched by nearly 3 million viewers on YouTube alone. The group also received national attention for a second life-affirming viral ad depicting ultrasound images celebrating the life of President Obama. The popular website hosts the award winning American Papist blog, along with other political commentary relevant to Catholic voters. The organization regularly communicates with nearly 600,000 email subscribers and supporters.

To schedule an interview, please contact Joshua Mercer at mercer@catholicvote.org

Recently there has been a lot of discussion about the declining power of the USA. Many books have been written stating that the American Era or Empire is in decline. Books like Pat Buchanan’s “Will America Survive to 2025: Suicide of a Superpower”, Niall Ferguson’s “Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire”, Ivan Eland’s “The Empire Has No Clothes: US Foreign Policy Exposed” or Ronald Pollina’s “Selling out a Superpower.” These books present some hard facts that are alarming. As we enter 2012, the US seems to be at a critical point in its history. Decline is no longer a theory or an opinion, but we are witnessing it everyday. The old world, America of post-Cold war has past and many cracks in the US are beginning to show.

However, I think there are some thoughts worth noting as we step into 2012. Yes, the world is undergoing a dramatic transformation and the rise of new powers (Brazil, India, China, Turkey), both economically and militarily, are new realities.  America Inc. has lost its triple A rating, and the west is in financial crisis. But is all this imminent decline talk and power shift all we can think about?

First, it gives most Americans pause, I believe, to think of the US as an Empire. When did the US claim an empire or to be the Superpower of an era? It isn’t the US, but rather the rest of the world in many respects (not all) that knighted the US as “World Emperor.”

Americans never forced their culture or the capitalist free enterprise model and spirit of exploration on anyone. It just worked and was the preferred model. It was the world who stood in line to see Madonna or Michale Jackson wiggle in front of them, or Mickey Mouse make them laugh and be charmed by our heros, Indiana Jones, Superman, or Spiderman sweep in to the rescue while world audiences roundly applauded. This is as true just as China has framed their businesses after the American superstars such as Wal-mart, GE and Exxon Mobil.

Many can argue successfully that the US has embarked on a massive militarization over the last century. I think, at present, we have over 1,000 military bases throughout the world. Yes, this aspect is true. The scale and scope of the US as a military superpower and its multiple wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, to some extent Libya) does justify the notion of the US emperor flexing its muscles and maintaining its sphere of influence.

However, no one forces the estimated 20 billion dollar of foreign investment that pours into our country from students from abroad. Foreign students flock to our universities because of their excellence, their one-of-a-kind experience. Just walk around our top universities and the sense of “big stuff” going on is still quite palpable.

This kind of soft power doesn’t seem to be in decline. In fact our top universities increasingly attract students from across the globe. When these students return to their mother countries they import more than knowledge and skill. They import the American spirit, which is identified as optimism, flexibility, concern for community and a surprising ability to re-invent itself when needed.

We still have the world’s biggest economy, the most innovative technology (Google, Facebook, Microsoft) and a cultural force (the good and the bad–Mickey Mouse and Madonna) that resonates with a modern world. Yes, our dwindling productivity is worrisome, one can moan and groan that debt is the only thing really made in America today, our economic calamities of failure and our military overstretch in a new post-modern world is complex and expensive, but this is exactly the time when the US’s unique ability to be nimble and re-invent itself should be emphasized.  

I think the worn-out paths of the past need to be avoided and the American pioneering spirit needs boldly to be deployed. Re-orienting America towards the 21st century, creating the new American era requires progressive, innovative leadership. Unfortunately, I think most Americans are still seeking old world answers and loosing with increasing speed one of our most precious assets: the ability to dream and daring to re-create ourselves.

Happy 2012 America. May she continue to shine her light!

Surveying all my Christmas cards on the mantle, I marvel at the variety of beautiful renderings of Madonna and child paintings.  As many years as I have been receiving cards, I am continually surprised that I rarely receive the same cards. All this leads me to believe that the subject of the Madonna and Christ-child has provided a wealth of inspiration for artists throughout the centuries.

Just today, I spent some time looking up what modern art renditions were done of mother and child. After looking on-line a bit, I stumbled on the painting above by Picasso.

To compare the Picasso painting with the one here by Hans Zatzka (1859-1949), it is obvious to see the dramatic change introduced with modern art. The traditional painting fosters a love of beauty and displays a subtle balance of colors.

Whereas modern art throws out the notions of traditional beauty in exchange for experimentation, traditional art forms maintain that beauty is paramount. Traditional work disciplines the artist and in these restrictions, we find a peaceful mediation on love and loveliness.

The period of modern art begins loosely in the 1860s through the 1970s. Realism was forsaken for abstraction and a use of unusual materials. Picasso was certainly one of the most important modern artists and cannot be totally discounted.

Although I prefer the traditional portrait of the Madonna and child, I do have to admit that I have a certain fascination with the Picasso painting because it reflects a sense of humanity’s incipient struggle to maintain faithful to Christ. It does convey a feeling of emotional drama that is absent from more traditional mother and child paintings.

Pablo Picasso was influenced by Lautrec, Gauguin and Cézanne.  As an innovator Picasso made cubist paintings based on Cézanne’s idea that all depiction of nature can be reduced to three solids: cube, sphere and the cone. These inventions are characterized by the artist wish to break with tradition. The notion of his art is closely related to society’s break with traditional Christian values.

Once upon a time after going through a cubist exhibition in NYC, I took tea and scones with friends. After some discussion, there was a moment of quiet reflection, and I penned the following small poem:     Cubist form, sides broken; Angles hard, fast spoken; Color shapes in fact and fiction; Artist speaks in foreign diction.

For me, the idea of abstraction or cubist form as a foreign language became a new way of understanding and appreciating modern art. It has its place in the canon of art history, and although more of a traditionalist myself, I do enjoy very much modern works of art.

While ultimately beauty always does prevail, I think Picasso’s painting does enable us to reflect on a different side of life.  I think by nature we are attuned to something appealing and comforting. However, we also must recall that the traditional paintings allow for a more realistic  documentation  of the message of God’s love. It is a legacy at once artistic, but also philosophical. So no matter how interesting a modern portrait may be such as Picasso’s painting, one returns to the deeper meaning presented in such loving depictions as this Sassoferrato painting.  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_______________________________________________________________________

Jennifer Roche has authored many articles for secular and Catholic publications including the National Catholic Register, Inside Catholic, Crisis Magazine, the Catholic Herald (London, UK) and written a travelogue on the Maltese Islands called Cat Tails from Malta. She has also contributed to GodSpy, Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) college guide, MeloMag art magazine, Absolute Arts, and the Henry Koerner Review Catalogue. She welcomes your comments!

Recently in the Catholic Herald there was an article posted about women not dressing in pants. Here is the link:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/12/05/in-1960-cardinal-siri-urged-women-not-to-wear-trousers-he-may-seem-like-a-blimp-now-but-i-suspect-he-had-a-point/

This made me wonder what was in the bible regarding this subject. In Timothy 2:9, women are told to “adorn themselves in modest apparel.” There is no absolute edict that women must not wear trousers/pants. However, I do think women/girls do look so much more feminine in dresses/skirts.

Today when the lines between male and female are getting increasingly blurred, it does make sense that Christians make more of an effort to dress for these distinctions. However, the bible only states in the New Testament that we should be modest in apparel. There is not an absolute statement against trousers/pants. This is what the Bible says, and it isn’t a matter of opinion. If a woman who fears God does care then naturally she is careful in the way she clothes herself.

In addition, Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that “outward apparel should be consistent with the estate of the person, according to the general custom.” Since we see so much sloppy dress in ripped jeans, sweatshirts and skin-tight pants or even skirts, I think it is important to educate girls to think when they go shopping and before they get dressed. After all, clothes make a statement about who we are and what we believe.

What goes through a man’s mind when he sees a girl in a dress that would cause him to react differently than if she were in a pair of jeans, I don’t know because I am not a man!  But it is true that the clothes women wear do send a message. Mark Twain said, clothes make the man.

The word modest used in 1 Timothy 2:9 comes from the Greek word kosmios which means “of good behavior”. It seems that as long as suggestive clothing isn’t worn then one conforms to God’s law. After all, God made the human body and it is up to us to make it look its most beautiful and honored.

Advent is not really understood today. Some Christians don’t even know why we have Advent wreaths. So often in our consumer society, Advent is totally forgotten. We should remember that there is no true Christmas without Advent.

In fact, the word Advent means coming or arrival. We anticipate the coming of the Christ child, and this is what prepares us for Christmas–the longing for the savior.

Advent also symbolizes our journey towards becoming Christians, welcoming Christ not only into the world, but also into our hearts. The Church celebrates this preparation time with Advent wreaths and candles near the altar.

The wreath and candles represent the coming light of the world casting out darkness. Drawing near a home wreath with family and friends allows us to meditate on the mystery of this coming light. Around the wreath, everyone can sing and/or pray which opens our hearts to the deeper meaning of Christmas. This allows us to remember how we were delivered from sin and darkness.

The tradition of the wreaths comes from the old European tradition of lighting candles, and placing them around bundles of evergreen. During the darkest months of the year, these decorations looked to the light of spring. Jesus, in many ways, can be seen as our spring, who gives light to our lives.

Later on, Christians adopted this practice. As early as the 16th-century, Advent wreaths were made essentially as we see them today with four candles–3 purple and 1 rose.  The 3 purple candles represent hope, peace and love (or prayer, penance and preparatory sacrifices). The 1 rose candle represents the joy of the arrival of Christ, which ends our Advent experience, and we celebrate the beauty of Christmas.

_________________________________________________________________________

Jennifer Roche has authored many articles for secular and Catholic publications including the National Catholic Register, Inside Catholic, Crisis Magazine, the Catholic Herald (London, UK) and written a travelogue on the Maltese Islands called Cat Tails from Malta. She has also contributed to GodSpy, Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) college guide, MeloMag art magazine, Absolute Arts, and the Henry Koerner Review Catalogue. She welcomes your comments!

Heavenly Christmas angels will take your breath away. The National Gallery in London, UK stages major art exhibition, Leonardo da Vinci: Painter at the Court of Milan from now through February 5, 2012. It is the most complete display of da Vinci’s rare surviving paintings ever held. Bringing together a wide selection of international loans, it is truly an unprecedented exhibition.

The exhibition features several splendid artworks of angels from the 15th-century Renaissance artist. Before the Christmas rush, these masterpieces are splendid to see at this time of the year, even if just on the National Gallery (London) website. Each painting shows the elegance and graceful figures of Da Vinci’s interpretation of angels.

Study of an Angel (chalk on paper) (b/w photo) by Leonardo da Vinci

The show mainly concentrates on the work Da Vinci produced as court painter to Duke Lodovico Sforza in Milan in the late 1480s and 1490s. Although Leonardo da Vinci (1455-1519) is recognized as the legendary painter, he was also an inventor and scientist. As a consummate draughtsman, his painting surfaces reveal the mystery and power of great art.

In addition, Da Vinci’s famous The Virgin of the Rocks, which was recently restored is part of this exhibition. Hopefully, Christmas cards will be reproduced of the newly restored and celebrated painting.

Enjoy these celestial and musical angels, a truly special exhibition.

___________________________________________________________________________

Jennifer Roche has authored many articles for secular and Catholic publications including the National Catholic Register, Inside Catholic, Crisis Magazine, the Catholic Herald (London, UK) and written a travelogue on the Maltese Islands called Cat Tails from Malta. She has also contributed to GodSpy, Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) college guide, MeloMag art magazine, Absolute Arts, and the Henry Koerner Review Catalogue. She welcomes your comments!

Construction on the Vatican Nativity scene started in mid-November. This year the Nativity scene will feature environmentally-friendly LED lights. There will also be a special emphasis on the Virgin Mary. A Christmas tree from Ukraine has already been installed in St. Peter’s Square.

Two Vatican architects designed this year’s project. The Vatican Nativity scene is one of the most visited in the world.  In keeping with tradition, the Nativity scene will be unveiled on Christmas Eve in St. Peter’s Square. In 1982, Pope John Paul II started the outdoor Nativity tradition.

For the origin of the Nativity scene, here is an except from Wikipedia:

St. Francis of Assisi is credited with creating the first nativity scene in 1223 at Greccio, Italy, in an attempt to place the emphasis of Christmas upon the worship of Christ rather than upon secular materialism and gift giving.  Staged in a cave near Greccio, St. Francis’ nativity scene was a living one with humans and animals cast in the Biblical roles. Pope Honorius III gave his blessing to the exhibit. Such pantomimes became hugely popular and spread throughout Christendom. Within a hundred years every church in Italy was expected to have a nativity scene at Christmastime. Eventually, statues replaced human and animal participants, and static scenes grew to elaborate affairs with richly robed figurines placed in intricate landscape settings. Charles III, King of the Two Sicilies, collected such elaborate scenes, and his enthusiasm encouraged others to do the same.

A tradition in England, United Kingdom involved baking a mince pie in the shape of a manger to hold the Christ child until dinnertime when the pie was eaten. When the Puritans banned Christmas celebrations in the 17th century, they also passed specific legislation to outlaw such pies, calling them “Idolaterie in crust”.

Hugo, a delightful family film

Finally, a family film that you can take your children or nieces and nephews to see, and not feel embarrassed. This film has actual dialogue, vocabulary and a heart-warming message. So many of the films targeted at children have overt violence and ugly bathroom humor. Not Hugo. Of course, no film is perfect. But you can rest assured that this is a holiday film that won’t leave you wondering why you went.

I was even more pleased when a Christina Rossetti poem was recited. I guess I was so pleasantly surprised because Rossetti is known and admired for having written beautiful and very religious poems. It appears very rare in popular culture to quote such a poetess and give her honor, so I was excited for sure.

Hugo is the story of a little orphan boy lives inside of a busy Paris train station (probably Montparnasse) in the 1930s.  At first, he is the apprenctice to his uncle who winds the clocks and lives within the walls of the station.

His final gift from his father is an automaton which has secrets inside. (For classic film buffs, Scorsese surely tips his hat here to Fritz Lang’s masterpiece Metropolis) The history of its maker is revealed when his world suddenly interlocks with an eccentric girl and the owner of a small toy booth in the train station.

The film is a delight. Visually it is stunning as it is set in 3D. Close-ups of the gears and the inner workings of the station’s main clock are captivating. Magnified scenes of the meshed gears, with their wheels and axles turning, are sure to attract the attention and imagination of little ones.

At its core, one could easily say that the film is very life-affirming. Hugo at one point states that everyone has their purpose, no matter how small. He thinks the world seems like a machine, and that everyone is an essential part.

As a sophisticated visual triumph, Hugo renders old-world Paris in an innovative, imaginative way. Yes, this does seem to be the era of 3D, but at least we are spared the goofy, stale effects of low-brow humor from what has been expected for children. Despite a few odd pauses, and what I would suggest a little bit of over-acting on the part of the children, the film is two thumbs up.

The story is based on Brian Selznick’s award-winning, imaginative “The Invention of Hugo Cabret.” The movie magically recreates a vintage Paris feel, with feature highlights of some of the great silent films starring the great Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd.

Director Martin Scorsese masterfully filmed this holiday delight. No worries for the children since the movie steers away from crude humor and excessive violence, which is a pleasant surprise for today’s movie-goers.

If you’ve seen it, tell us what you thought. I would love to know.

_________________________________________________________________________

Jennifer Roche has authored many articles for secular and Catholic publications including the National Catholic Register, Inside Catholic, Crisis Magazine, the Catholic Herald (London, UK) and written a travelogue on the Maltese Islands called Cat Tails from Malta. She has also contributed to GodSpy, Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) college guide, MeloMag art magazine, Absolute Arts, and the Henry Koerner Review Catalogue. She welcomes your comments!

The internet is great for reading magazines that you wouldn’t necessarily ever buy. For me that would be the The Progressive. Very liberal. Very left. Surfing their articles, I recently found one by the provocateur Noam Chomsky. Personally, I always find reading Chomsky interesting. Sometimes I actually agree with him. (I guess if I go so far to the right, and he so far to the left then we meet.)

In this article, he links Obama to the big banks (Wall Street), removing the image of “Obama is grassroots/of the people.” I agree with him, and we certainly wouldn’t hear of Obama linked to Wall Street in normal liberal press.

However, in the same article, he also historically links by association Christians with fascism/nazism. Here is the Chomsky quote:

When farmers, the petit bourgeoisie, and Christian organizations joined forces with the Nazis, “the center very quickly collapsed.”

I wonder if there is any historical evidence for this claim. Ok, Franco in Spain. But he is talking about Germany, not Spain. Further Spain’s revolution isn’t all black and white like the left would like to assert. Returning to the issue at hand, are there real links between fascism and Christianity during Hitler-era’s Germany? I am not aware that any Christian organization was specifically pro-nazi during WWII. After all, weren’t the nazi leaders essentially pagan?

Here is the entire article.            

http://www.progressive.org/wx041210.html

Some final thoughts, I ask: Who is the fascist when Big Brother on high dictates to the Church that Catholic organizations must hand out contraceptives? Also, who is the fascist when Catholics must provide adoptive services to same-sex couples, which blatantly violates a Catholic’s conscience?

Since we are close to Thanksgiving Day, here is a my version of a Holy Song of Thanksgiving. I wrote this little poem today. The title is borrowed from my favorite Beethoven string quartet in A minor, No. 15. (The third movement to be precise called Heiliger Dankgesang or as known in English Holy Song of Thanksgiving by a Convalescent to the Divinity). Beethoven composed this piece after recovering from an illness.

After reading about how some schools have already eliminated penmanship from their curriculum as well as scaling back on basic writing instruction, I wanted to upload my own handwritten version of the Thanksgiving Day poem. Some are even making cursive writing obsolete. In the U.S., Indiana is the latest school to drop handwriting requirements. Officials there say that there “isn’t enough time to teach both handwriting and basic typing skills.”

The cultural shift of handwriting to typing is not just a phenomenon of the West. One study found that Chinese youth are increasingly having difficulty with writing various characters by hand. Further, according to the same study, 69% of respondents claimed that they have not received handwritten notes or letters in more than a year.

HOLY SONG OF THANKSGIVING

Jennifer Roche has authored many articles for secular and Catholic publications including the National Catholic Register, Inside Catholic, Crisis Magazine, the Catholic Herald (London, UK) and written a travelogue on the Maltese Islands called Cat Tails from Malta. She has also contributed to GodSpy, Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) college guide, MeloMag art magazine, Absolute Arts, and the Henry Koerner Review Catalogue. She welcomes your comments!

In his first day on the campaign trail, Gov. Rick Perry does some good housecleaning, making amends in explaining his decision to mandate the vaccine Gardasil to 11-year old girls in Texas.

As I said earlier, his executive order easily could have hurt him with Catholic and evangelical voters.

When a voter in New Hampshire confronted Perry on this issue, he gave a great response:

“I signed an executive order that allowed for an opt-out, but the fact of the matter is I didn’t do my research well enough to understand that we needed to have a substantial conversation with our citizenry,” he said. “I hate cancer. Let me tell you, as a son who has a mother and father who are both cancer survivors.”

Perry said he’d invested government resources in cancer cures, adding, “I hate cancer. And this HPV, we were seeing young ladies die at the early age. What we should have done was a program that frankly should have allowed them to opt in, or some type of program like that, but here’s what I learned — when you get too far out in front of the parade they will let you know. And that’s exactly what our legislature did…

Had Rick Perry not addressed this issue, Michelle Bachmann surely would have pounced on it. I’m glad the Texas Legislature overruled Perry. And I’m glad that he calls it a mistake.

I don’t mind designer clothes, but Kenneth Cole’s campaign comparing the “right” of women to chose to have an abortion with the “right” of women to choose which handbag they buy is just ridiculous.

More than ridiculous – it’s morally unseriousness. Even the video that accompanies the Kenneth Cole image featured in this post shows a woman anguishing over a decision — we think the decision to abort or keep her baby — then she walks over and picks up a handbag. Apparently that was the choice which was tearing her up inside.

Feminist Naomi Wolfe admitted in 2004 “I used to think of abortion as being somewhat trivial; the moral equivalent of serious root canal dentistry.” … but you won’t find many pro-aborts being so flippant about abortion now, at least in public when they argue for legal abortion “rights”.

Kenneth Cole evidently hasn’t caught up, despite all of its efforts to be contemporary and trendy.

As part of this campaign, Kenneth Cole has a series of “debates” surrounding “pro-choice” issues, such as “allowing a minor to have an abortion” and “keeping abortion regulated and safe.” How does Kenneth Cole think abortion can ever be truly made safe when we have to worry about minors getting abortions? I guess they’re too cool to worry about questions like that.

The current debate is “Making it the government’s right to choose.” Frankly, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. And my job is to understand and comment about what people say. Currently 452 people are responding “No” to this question and 47 are responding “Yes.” Normally I love rocking abortion-related polls toward the pro-life side but this time around I see no reason to give Kenneth Cole more attention than I already have.

If you feel compelled to, however, you’re welcome to leave a comment. I would say something like this:

Comparing abortion to shopping is totally offensive to me. Because I believe in supporting women to choose LIFE I’m choosing NOT to support you. Everyone who buys from you had a mother who chose life. Maybe your next campaign should focus on honoring them.

As Mark points out, Rick Santorum has recently argued that the Republican Party would be wise to nominate a Catholic candidate for president: “That might not be a bad idea when you think of Iowa, Pennsylvania, Florida and some of the big swing states in the east.”

Santorum’s argument is a little too compressed to let us be entirely sure what he means, but let’s unpack it in the most likely of the ways in which he might have meant it. The first premise seems to be:

1. There exist Catholic voters who will support a Catholic candidate above a non-Catholic candidate,

(a) because such a Catholic candidate shares their views of political order and public morality more than a non-Catholic candidate does, and they tend to support the candidate who most shares their views, or

(b) because such a Catholic candidate shares their religious identity (as something akin to an ethnic and cultural identity), and they tend to support a candidate who shares their religious analogue to ethnicity or culture.

The causes 1(a) and 1(b) are not mutually contradictory, of course, and I don’t blame Santorum for not trying to distinguish them in a radio interview.

But if they don’t exclude one another, they can at least potentially exist apart from one another:

The first cause seems to allow the possibility that such voters would not support a Catholic who failed to share their political views (Catholic conservatives rejecting the Catholic Nancy Pelosi, for example).

The second cause seems, in turn, to allow the possibility that Catholic voters could support a Catholic candidate even when he failed to share their political views (the only two votes my Republican grandmother ever cast for Democrats were for Al Smith and John F. Kennedy, because . . . well, because they were Catholics, like her).

Meanwhile, Santorum’s implied second premise is presumably:

2. The number of such Catholic voters—the ones who will, for whatever combination of reasons, support a Catholic presidential candidate above a non-Catholic presidential candidate—outnumber the non-Catholic voters who will vote against a presidential candidate simply for being Catholic (at least in certain key “swing states”).

There are a number of other implied premises: that (3) the Republican party platform is something a Catholic candidate or voter could support in good conscience, and that (4) the Republican party process works well enough to allow a Catholic candidate to be nominated and reach the point where the Catholic effect could kick in, as Santorum claims it will, during the general election, and that (5) the Republican party should want to nominate the candidate most capable of winning the general election, etc.

But the two main premises are 1 and 2, the ones I mentioned above.

The question, of course, is are they true?

Little noticed among even Catholics was a recent quiet visit to the Vatican by Vice President Joe Biden. Catholic News Agency learned about the June 3 visit, reporting that both sides had been tight-lipped on reasons and details. The visit wasn’t even listed on the pope’s daily public schedule.

“I have no comment,” Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi told CNA. “It was a totally private meeting and there will be no communiqué.”

Biden had been in Rome for a ceremonial function relating to the anniversary of Italy’s unification.

The CNA article was left with little to nothing to add. The reporter smartly suggested that the meeting might have had something to do with Biden’s stance on abortion. The reporter noted Biden’s previous battles with his bishop in Wilmington, Delaware, the late Michael Saltarelli, and also noted the precedent of the private meeting that Nancy Pelosi, another “pro-choice Catholic,” had with the Holy Father in Rome two years ago.

A brief recent history of Biden’s Church troubles on the life issue is worth revisiting here:

In the fall of 2008, just before the presidential election in which a majority of professing Catholics voted the Obama-Biden ticket into the White House, Biden appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, where he was asked by Tom Brokaw: “If Senator Obama comes to you and says, ‘When does life begin? Help me out here, Joe,’ as a Roman Catholic, what would you to say to him?”

“I’d say, ‘Look,’” Biden answered forcefully, “’I know when it begins for me.’ It’s a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I am prepared to accept the teachings in my Church.”

What does that mean?

Biden translated, explaining to a nationwide audience that while he personally believes life that begins “at the moment of conception,” other people of other faiths have different definitions. Thus, “For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I, seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.”

Biden’s judgment, of course, is that even though life begins at conception, a mother should have the legal right to terminate that life for whatever reason—and then some. He also favors the dissection of human embryos for research purposes. Needless to say, these are not the teachings of his Church.

Biden’s statement to Brokaw was a perfect Cuomo/Pelosi/Ted Kennedy-like moment.

The bishops, to their credit, didn’t hesitate to respond, especially as they sensed that the flock was on the verge of electing into the presidency the most radical abortion advocate ever to sit in the Oval Office. Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, issued a statement saying that Biden’s remarks do “not reflect Catholic teaching.” The bishops responded by noting that the Church does not teach that life begins at conception “as a matter of faith” but, rather, “as a matter of objective fact.”

Biden wasn’t shy about issuing judgments on life throughout the 2008 campaign. He publicly took a swipe at Sarah Palin, who chose to bring to term a Down syndrome baby. To Biden, this made Palin a hypocrite; after all, she opposes embryonic research—which, in the mind of the modern liberal, is a slam-dunk cure for everything from Parkinson’s to Alzheimer’s to babies with Down syndrome. “If you care about it,” Biden asked Sarah Palin, “why don’t you support [embryonic] stem cell research?”

Bear in mind: This question was asked by the Catholic to the non-Catholic.

Biden also caught the bishops’ attention with his remark to Brokaw about how a public official like himself allegedly cannot “impose” his moral values on other Americans. This is one of the nonsensical claims that liberals reserve exclusively for issues like abortion. Biden’s bishop, Michael Saltarelli, was in no mood for that one, stating: “No one today would accept this statement from any public servant: ‘I am personally opposed to human slavery and racism but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.’ Likewise, none of us should accept this statement from any public servant: ‘I am personally opposed to abortion but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.’”

In short, Biden found himself in a firestorm. Saltarelli’s successor, W. Francis Malooly, publicly stated that he wished to sit down with the senator to help him “understand how crucial the sanctity of human life is to a just society.” Also requesting a meeting with Biden was Carl Anderson, head of the Knights of Columbus, and the entirety of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

That was merely the fall of 2008, and it was mainly just talk from Biden. Since then, Biden has helped his partner and president push an unprecedented advance of abortion, along with his Democratic Party’s handmaidens in Congress.

And so, it would be no surprise that Joe Biden might have earned himself an invitation to the Vatican—just as Nancy Pelosi apparently did two years ago.

On that, the CNA piece noted:

Biden isn’t the first senior Democrat who supports legalized abortion and is Catholic to meet Pope Benedict XVI.

In 2009 then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also visited the Pope at the Vatican. Afterwards she claimed, “I had the opportunity to praise the Church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming, as well as the Holy Father’s dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel.”

This version of events, though, was somewhat contradicted by a Vatican statement issued only hours later:

“His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.”

Indeed, “somewhat contradicted” is an under-statement. Pelosi’s account was like something that had flown in from the planet Neptune.

Of course, at least with Pelosi we had some sort of record of conversation with Pope Benedict. In Biden’s case, we have nothing, not even contradictory statements. Why not?

I don’t know. I have no access to the vice president.

Could someone in our media who does have access probe a bit, perhaps asking a question or two? Maybe take a break from scouring Sarah Palin’s emails? Some of us would like to know what this meeting between Biden and Benedict was all about. And if these life issues were raised, Joe Biden has some very serious soul-searching to do. He has no excuses and will be held accountable.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

And the Pope has cast his arms abroad for agony and loss,
And called the kings of Christendom for swords about the Cross…
– Lepanto by G. K. Chesterton

I have sympathy for the sentiment Emily expresses. I do. I know it’s a lament shared by many Catholics when they look at the state of the Church now. It’s important we acknowledge past sins of omission — personal, pastoral, institutional. It’s important that we get our history straight.

But why? So we can better shape the future.

I agree that we can’t win this fight for the culture on the legislative or legal fronts alone. But these are important fronts we cannot afford to abandon. Culture isn’t just shaped by personal conversations and conversions. It’s also shaped by foundational structures such as law and government. That’s why Catholics need to be active warriors in the public square. The fight for religious liberty, after all, is a battle to preserve the right to have those personal conversations and conversions.

Basically I’m arguing that we need two specific things: optimism and priorities. Optimism because the resources at our disposal are immense. In addition to our human potential, we have Christ. So ultimately, we win. But to avoid the cost and unnecessary suffering which would result from a domineering state denying our religious liberty: we have to win this critical battle first. It’s the most important priority, because everything the Church stands for in public and everything the Church safeguards concerning the common good is premised on the right of the Church to be free to do so.

There is a time for sackcloth and ashes — it’s after the battle has been won. But when the innocent are threatened and the one thing standing in the way of government tyranny is the Church and the right of Christians to believe in peace and live out the truth, now that’s a time for swords and shields.

Bishops across America are raising their voices against the onerous mandate issued by the Obama Administration through Kathleen Sebelius at HHS commanding Catholics to subsidize contraception, sterilization and abortifacient pills. UPDATE: thank you to everyone who has sent me more statements by bishops reacting to this news. They are included at the bottom of this post.

Bishop James Conley of Denver:

Let’s be clear. This decision does nothing to respect religious freedom. Without change, Catholic institutions will soon be legally required to provide services which violate a fundamental principle of our religious beliefs. If plans go unchanged, the Catholic Church, acting through our Catholic institutions, will no longer have legal protection for the free exercise of religion.

…Unity has never been more important. Certainly, there is disagreement among Christians about the legitimacy of contraception. But there should be no disagreement among Christians about religious freedom. Each of us has an interest in defending liberty. Now is the time. The bell tolls for us all.

Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria is calling on all Catholics to resume praying the St. Michael Prayer starting at all Masses in the diocese (an excellent idea!):

Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Ill. has asked parishes, schools, hospitals and religious houses to insert the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel into the intercessions at Sunday Mass to pray for Catholics’ freedom.

…“It is God’s invincible Archangel who commands the heavenly host, and it is the enemies of God who will ultimately be defeated,” the bishop said in a Jan. 24 letter to the Catholics of his diocese.

[...]He asked that the intention of the prayer be announced as “for the freedom of the Catholic Church in America.”

Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh has by far the strongest response:

It is really hard to believe that it happened. It comes like a slap in the face. The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, “To Hell with you!” There is no other way to put it.

… A million things are wrong with this: equating pregnancy with disease;  mandating that every employer pay for contraception procedures including alleged contraceptives that are actually abortion-inducing drugs; forcing American citizens to chose between violating their consciences or providing health care services; mandating such coverage on every individual woman without allowing her to even choose not to have it; forcing every person to pay for that coverage no matter the dictates of their conscience.

Let’s be blunt. This whole process of mandating these guidelines undermines the democratic process itself.  In this instance, the mandate declares pregnancy a disease, forces a culture of contraception and abortion on society, all while completely bypassing the legislative process.

Bp. Zubik also gets practical — an important step to take:

It is time to go back to work. They have given us a year to adapt to this rule.  We can’t! We simply cannot! Write to the president. Write to Secretary Sebelius. Write to our Senators. Write to those in Congress.

He’s absolutely right: getting angry is not enough. We have to get active!

Here I have to part ways with CV-blogger Emily Stimpson, who asks today if this reaction to the onerous mandate is “Too Little, Too Late?”

Absolutely not. It’s never too late to stand up for religious freedom and for Catholic identity.

First of all, the issue here is not contraception. The issue is religious liberty. The issue is that Catholic individuals and institutions are being forced by the government to violate their conscience. I particularly disagree with this line:

As grateful as I am for the fiery witness of Bishop Zubick and others like him, it’s hard to make the case that our present situation is a wonder. It’s hard to argue that it is a surprise. To a large extent, we’ve made our own bed, and now we have to lie in it. And we might very well have have to keep lying in it until the Church gets her own house in order on these issues.

How is the Church supposed to get her own house in order when she is being forced by the government to keep her house out of order?! The quest to establish and strengthen Catholic identity within her own institutions can and must continue without government interference and coercion. How are Catholic supposed to stand up for not condoning and subsidizing the evils mandated by the Obama/HHS decision if the very same individuals and institutions are daily participating in it by the government?

That’s why it is so important to fight now, and fight hard. We won’t back down.

There are numerous tools at our disposal. We can lobby Congress as I’ve advocated. We can support the groups pursuing a legal recourse, such as the Becket Fund (especially because top legal scholars are already saying they believe the HHS mandate is illegal).

And, most importantly, we can continue to stand up for religious liberty and articulate to our friends, neighbors and anyone who will listen why this right is foundational to the peace and justice of our country.

To those who would shirk from this task, see Bishop Zubik’s words. To those who would ignore the gravity of the threat, see Bishop Conley’s words.

And to all of us, let us heed Bishop Jenky’s exhortation to pray to St. Michael for victory.

UPDATE — two three six seven nine more bishops bravely speaking out:

• Bishop Walker Nickless of Sioux City: “We object to this mandate, not only because it is violence against the Church’s religious liberty, not only because it clearly violates the Constitution and undermines the rule of law, but also because contraception, sterilization, and abortion are very grave moral evils that are bad for women, and bad for families.”
• Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington: “I will speak out consistently in the weeks and months ahead on this gravely important struggle for the freedom to practice our faith as full citizens of this great nation.”
• Bishop Jerome Listecki of Milwaukee: “When the government cries, “be tolerant” they forget that that command should go both ways [...] This action violates the teachings of the Catholic Church. That edict clearly violates the right of conscience.”
• Bishop Kevin Vann of Forth Worth and Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas: “As the shepherds for nearly 2 million Catholics in North Texas, we cannot stand by silently. This decision is outrageous. It is an unprecedented and untenable abrogation of religious freedom in the United States.”
• Archbishop Dennis Schnurr of Cincinnati: “We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom.”
• Bishop William Medley of Kentucky: “[V]isit www.usccb.org/conscience to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Administration’s decision.”
• Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta: “If the administration will not rescind this violation of our First Amendment rights, we must call on our elected leaders to do so. I ask you to pray that wisdom and justice may prevail, and work together to restore our religious liberty.”
• Bishop David Ricken of Green Bay: “This ruling sets a very dangerous precedent. We are no longer going down the slippery slope of invasion of individual conscience,” said Bishop Ricken. “We are now falling off the cliff.”"

2012 could be a “make or break” year for marriage, as the press is reporting today.

In New Hampshire, Minnesota and North Carolina, pro-marriage advocates are on offense, working to repeal gay marriage (NH) or adding marriage to state constitutions that don’t have it yet (MN, NC).

In New Jersey, Maryland and Washington State, gay marriage activists are trying to legalize gay marriage, and are attempting to prevent the issue going before a vote of the people in those states.

Today in Maine, gay marriage activists announced that they will attempt to pass gay marriage by a vote of the people in 2012. The people of Maine defeated gay marriage in 2009 by a 53%-47% margin.

Meanwhile, the presidential election in November will between a Republican candidate who supports marriage and Barack Obama, whose record on marriage is abysmal.

The outcome of this race will directly influence the future make-up of the Supreme Court and, in turn, how this issue is ultimately decided in the courts.

There are three outcomes to this year’s marriage battles:

1) gay marriage activists and advocates of protecting marriage split these battles and the war for marriage continues on into the future.

2) gay marriage activists succeed in more states than they fail, convincing themselves that momentum to redefine marriage is on their side, emboldening them to press on, while religious liberty continues to be rolled back as a result.

3) advocates of protecting marriage succeed in a majority (if not all) of these contests and we go on to remember 2012 as the year that efforts to redefine marriage were stopped in their tracks. Emboldened by success, advocates of protecting marriage go on to repeal gay marriage where it is currently legal and are left free to dedicate themselves wholeheartedly to the important task of building up marriage as the foundational social institution of our country.

… I don’t know about you, but I want to see #3 come to pass this year.

Why is it important for Catholics in particular to work actively to protect marriage? The seven bishops of New Jersey explain why succinctly today:

Why should citizens care about the state’s definition of marriage?

Citizens must care about the government’s treatment of marriage because civil authorities are charged with protecting children and the common good, and marriage is indispensable to both purposes. Citizens have the right and the responsibility to hold civil authorities accountable for their stewardship of the institution of marriage. Citizens also have the responsibility to oppose laws and policies that unjustly target people as bigots or that subject people to charges of unlawful discrimination simply because they believe and teach that marriage is the union of man and a woman.

Their entire letter is well worth reading. They recommend doing three things to help protect marriage:

First, pray for all married couples and all families. Second, reflect on this important question, “How can I help my family and the families I touch to grow in hope, love, peace and joy.” Third, we ask everyone to reach out to your neighbors, your legislators and the governor with a simple message: “Preserve the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.”

I would add a Fourth thing to do: join/support the National Organization for Marriage (where I work) which is dedicated to protecting marriage across the U.S. and a Fifth thing to do if you live in one of the states I mention above: find the local group in your state in charge of protecting marriage and join them.

They will have things for you to do which will enormously help in the fight to protect marriage.

Sixth, take action on these pending action alerts right now:

• New Hampshire SSM Repeal Vote
• Stop the NJ Same-Sex Marriage Bill!
• Help Stop Same-Sex Marriage in Washington!
• Tell Governor Christie You Expect Him to Keep His Promises on Marriage
• Thank Senate President Mike Miller! (MD)

Seventh, share this post on Facebook, Twitter and via Email!

I’ve written many times before about the threats of redefining marriage, to religious liberty, to individuals, to Catholic institutions, and — most importantly — to the next generation and to society. Please join this important fight. Let’s make 2012 a year of marriage victories we can be proud about. THANK YOU!

“Tolerance is not a Christian virtue.”

This is probably one of my favorite phrases of Arcbishop Chaput.

Here’s the phrase in its original context:

“We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty — these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it’s never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil.”

I’ve been thinking a lot about this point in the days since the Obama/HHS mandate was announced.

Tolerance, after all, has been used in our public discourse by liberals to argue first for a diversity of opinions, only to then remove the mask and argue for intolerance towards opinions that liberals disagree with.

Example 1: “We should be tolerant of those who think abortion is moral” turns into “People who believe abortion is immoral are intolerant!”

Example 2: “We should be tolerant of those who believe two men can make a marriage” turns into “People who believe marriage is between a man and a woman are intolerant!”

The same thing has happened to the so-called “primacy of conscience” arguments, a tactic used since the 1970′s to “justify” Catholics dissenting from the Church’s teaching on a host of issues while still attempting to claim they are in fact still good Catholics.

I’m not trying to get into a debate about conscience here. I’m trying to simply point out how absurdly warped the “tolerant” view of conscience has become in this Obama/HHS decision.

This leads me to Example 3: “We should be tolerant of those who think contraception is moral” has become “People who believe contraception is immoral are intolerant!”

BUT NO! THE OBAMA/HHS MANDATE GOES FARTHER THAN EVEN THIS!

It actually says: “People who believe contraception is immoral and refuse to pay for the contraception of others who believe it is moral …are intolerant!”

Now tell me, how on earth do you justify this extreme position of “tolerance” as a position that respects the rights of conscience? How does forcing some people to subsidize the viewpoints of others constitute tolerance?!

For the life of me I cannot get this “logic.” How anyone can say that the principle of forcing some people to violate their conscience is a respect for conscience is beyond me.

Furthermore, it’s not as if this particular expression of conscience (“Catholics ought not to subsidize contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient pills”) is a “fringe” definition (although we do accomodate in our laws even less common expressions of conscience as the Catholic one I’ve just described) — this definition of conscience is shared by significant number of people, including all believing Catholics, all Catholic institutions that remotely care about their Catholic identity, and the authoritative structure of the universal Catholic Church.

If this institution and these people do not have a right to their conscience, who does?

The simple answer is no one.

Let me re-state my challenge in simpler terms: someone who denies the right of this institution and these people to follow their conscience must turn in their “pro-conscience” card. You simply cannot claim you are “for” the rights of conscience.

I’m thinking in particular of Jon O’Brien, the President of Catholics for Choice, who has sanctimoniously prostituted the concept of “conscience” for over two decades. I recently forced myself through the nauseating experience of reading and watching him bloviate about how Catholic bishops are guilty of “violating” the rights of conscience of dissenting Catholics.

For O’Brien, Catholic bishops (and faithful employers of all Catholic institutions) are “violating” the rights of conscience because they refuse to subsidize contraception.

That’s like saying I’m refusing to respect the rights of people to eat Big Macs because I refuse to pay for their Big Macs and deliver them as many Big Macs as they desire.

But we’re not talking about Big Macs, are we?

Let’s flip this on it’s head. According to the Obama/HHS definition of conscience, whereby to not subsidize my right to act on my conscience makes them guilty of discrimination, Obama/HHS should be paying me to write this post! After all, how are they truly tolerant of my desire to write this unless they pay for my laptop, internet connection, web hosting fees, and bottled water I’m sipping as I write this?

Insanity.

Or, at the very least, the deepest hypocrisy.

So, please, Jon O’Brien and other self-appointed crusaders of conscience, explain to me why your view of conscience justifies forcing faithful Catholics to violate their conscience by paying for things they don’t believe in?

You can start by buying me a Big Mac. Because, if you don’t buy me a Bic Mac, you all clearly don’t respect my conscience.

Obama and the Democrats are intent on creating a society where pregnancy is treated as a disease that must be “prevented” by contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacient drugs. This prevention must be paid for by all taxpayers, including the employers affiliated with the largest identifiable organization opposed to these unethical “preventions”: The Catholic Church.

If we refuse, we are given fines and open ourselves to potentially harsher consequences.

So argues Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan in the Wall Street Journal today:

The rule forces insurance companies to provide these services without a co-pay, suggesting they are “free”—but it is naïve to believe that. There is no free lunch, and you can be sure there’s no free abortion, sterilization or contraception. There will be a source of funding: you.

Some liberal Catholics are scrambling to defend this direct assault on conscience and religious liberty. Patrick Whelan of Catholic Democrats tries to justify the Obama mandate this way:

“…we know Catholic women, and by extension their families, use oral contraception at the same rate as the overall population. For over half a century, since the issuance of Humanae Vitae, Catholics and Catholic theologians have taken issue with the Church’s teaching on birth control.”

This is a red herring. The question is not to what degree Catholics have chosen to ignore the Church’s teaching on contraception. This is about government forcing Catholics who do agree with the Church’s teaching to violate their consciences. Surely this fact is not lost on Patrick Whelan. And just as surely, he’s choosing to ignore the real issue.

Here’s another liberal Catholic attempting to change the subject:

James Salt, executive director of Catholics United, a group supportive of the health-care overhaul law, said the contraception debate “is an issue that rank-and-file or pew-sitting Catholics aren’t spending a lot of time thinking about.” But he said he expected the bishops to maintain vocal opposition to the decision, keeping the controversy alive during the 2012 campaign. “This has the potential to be a major distraction for Catholic voters,” he said. [WSJ]

He wishes.

Does he honestly thing Catholics won’t care that their Churches and public institutions are being forced by the government to subsidize things they don’t believe in? Apparently the position of Catholics United is that religious liberty — and by extension, Catholic liberty — is no more than a “distraction” from the liberal agenda. I think we all appreciate what his clarification reveals about his liberal Catholic mindset.

Bill McGurn, also writing in the Wall Street Journal, argues that faithful Catholics should hope that liberal Catholics unite with us in standing up for religious liberty. I entirely agree. As I wrote yesterday, this Obama mandate should serve as a litmus test for Catholics to reveal where their true priorities and allegiances are placed. I will continue to highlight examples of liberal Catholics failing this litmus test (as I did above) and when they pass it (as I did in my post yesterday). Here is how McGurn states his hope:

“…for those who care about issues such as life and marriage and religious liberty that so roil our body politic, we ought to wish Catholic progressives well in their intra-liberal fight. For we shall never arrive at the consensus we hope for if we allow our politics to be divided between a party of faith and a party of animosity to faith.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself: supporting the Obama mandate is equivalent to harboring animosity to faith. Whatever our differing views are about the Catholic faith, we must be in agreement that animosity towards the faith is completely unacceptable.

As Congressman Chris Smith, a pro-life hero in the U.S. House recently said: “The mask is off. It’s about time we woke up.”

What will it take to rouse liberal Catholics from their slumber? Simple: it will take all of us faithful Catholics promising to loudly wake them.

UPDATE: Even the liberal Washington Post editorial board agrees that the administration should respect religious exemptions.

I wrote on the day of the Obama ruling forcing Catholic institutions to pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs that I hope “liberal Catholics [will] acknowledge how foolish they have been to support Obama’s anti-Catholic policies.”

That was probably too much to ask for, but now at least one liberal Catholic has said he cannot vote for Obama again: Michael Sean Winters of The National Catholic Reporter.

Roger Cardinal Mahony, the former Archbishop of Los Angeles, someone I have also strongly disagreed with in the past, has come out swinging against Obama’s HHS attack on Catholic institutions, writing:

“I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience than this ruling today. This decision must be fought against with all the energies the Catholic Community can muster.”

I commend him for that, and agree with him. He continues in excellent fashion:

For me there is no other fundamental issue as important as this one as we enter into the Presidential and Congressional campaigns. Every candidate must be pressed to declare his/her position on all of the fundamental life issues, especially the role of government to determine what conscience decision must be followed: either the person’s own moral and conscience decision, or that dictated/enforced by the Federal government. For me the answer is clear: we stand with our moral principles and heritage over the centuries, not what a particular Federal government agency determines.

As Bishops we do not recommend candidates for any elected office. My vote on November 6 will be for the candidate for President of the United States and members of Congress who intend to recognize the full spectrum of rights under the many conscience clauses of morality and public policy. If any candidate refuses to acknowledge and to promote those rights, then that candidate will not receive my vote.

Amazing stuff, right?

Now it’s time to drill deeper and call other liberal Catholics to task. I’m not asking for them to repudiate their previous support for Obama (although they should). And I’m not asking for them to agree that I and others who warned them that this would come to pass under Obamacare were right (although they should).

I’m asking for them now, with this new information available, to publicly repudiate the President and Kathleen Sebelius for this vindictive, insulting decision and to pledge to abstain from voting for him in 2012 and to urge other Catholics and citizens who care about religious liberty to do the same.

Frankly, on a prudential level, I think they should pledge to vote for whoever opposes Obama in the general election. Simply abstaining is not enough, considering the gravity of the threats and the greater gravity of future threats a second Obama term would entail.

Matt Bowman has already done us a service by reminding us of the letter a group of liberal Catholics published at Catholics United (they’ve since hastily taken down the letter — but the internet has a long memory). Before the people who signed their names to this letter write publicly again about Catholic issues they need to share their thoughts with the public about what HHS did. Do they support violating the first amendment and forcing Catholic institutions to violate their individual and corporate consciences? Their answer on this central question has more bearing on their reputation than whatever other issues they may feel eager to discuss.

As others have written, Obama’s choice destroys any pretense of common ground between faithful Catholics and this administration. Even Michael Sean Winters gets a point that I’ve been making since before Obama became President — that Obama’s idea of “common ground” means Catholics giving up their beliefs:

“I accuse you, Mr. President, of failing to live out the respect for diversity that you so properly and beautifully proclaimed as a cardinal virtue at Notre Dame. Or, are we to believe that diversity is only to be lauded when it advances the interests of those with whom we agree? That’s not diversity. That’s misuse of a noble principle for ignoble ends.”

And yet, so it goes. As the editors of National Review wrote, the Obama decision is more than some sort of ersatz “failing to observe diversity” — it’s an assault on our basic freedoms:

It should be no surprise that the government’s takeover of health care is a threat to every kind of freedom. But the HHS insurance mandate — bad enough in itself for its hostility to a culture that affirms life — is a direct assault on the religious freedom of individuals and institutions that cannot, in good conscience, be complicit in such hostility. Congress, the courts, the voting public — all must come to the defense of conscience and the Constitution, and turn back the tyranny of this administration.

There are practical things liberal Catholics can do to support Catholic conscience rights, such as urging Democrats to support Rep. Jeff Fortenberry’s bill (HR 1179, the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act”). The bill could pass the Republican-controlled House but will be shot down by the Democrat-controlled Senate before it could reach the President’s desk, unless we unite to change that dynamic. If momentum could be created behind this bill, so-called Catholic members of the House and Senate would have to go on-record as either favoring Obama’s policies or favoring religious liberty.

All of which is to say again, where Catholics fall on supporting or opposing the HHS decision is a reliable litmus test for where they stand on religious liberty and a host of other civil liberties. It’s up to us to see that this litmus test is applied consistently and vigorously.

Liberals are crowing about what they see as a huge victory for them — and they are right — because this victory comes at the expense of religious liberty.

Welcome to the Obama 2012 reelection plan: ignore and marginalize people of faith, pander to the far-left’s sexual-political priorities.

This via the far-left site ThinkProgress:

Today, in a huge victory for women’s health, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that most employers will be required to cover contraception in their health plans, along with other preventive services, with no cost-sharing such as co-pays or deductibles. This means that after years of trying to get birth control covered to the same extent that health plans cover Viagra, our country will finally have nearly universal coverage of contraception.

Opponents of contraception had lobbied hard for a broad exemption that would have allowed any religiously-affiliated employer to opt out of providing such coverage. Fortunately, the Obama administration rejected that push and decided to maintain the narrow religious exemption that it initially proposed. Only houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith will be exempt. Religiously-affiliated employers who do not qualify for the exemption and are not currently offering contraceptive coverage may apply for transitional relief for a one-year period to give them time to determine how to comply with the rule.

Liberals always complain when the Church acts in the public square, tossing out the red herring “separation of church and state!”

But they are perfectly happy to have the state compel the church to do what they want the church (and people of faith) to do.

More from me soon, but there you have it.

UPDATE: Michael Sean Winters, who I have deeply disagreed with in the past, posts his reaction to the news — calling it much more than a disaster:

One sentence in the statement from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stands out: “The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good.”

What can those words “fully committed” possibly mean? They have punched Sr. Carol Keehan and Fr. Jenkins and many other Catholics who have taken shots for this Administration in the nose. They have jumped over the First Amendment to coerce religious organizations to do something we find morally objectionable. They have given people who loved the Affordable Care Act reason for pause, great pause. They have given the Republicans a huge battering ram with which to beat swing voting Catholics over the head.

I say “they,” but the full responsibility for this decision rests with the President. NCR has learned that the President called Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, this morning to tell him the news. Wouldn’t you have liked to be on an extension to listen in on that conversation. The president looked Dolan in the eye in November and said he would be pleased with his decision. I am guessing that Dolan is not pleased. He is not alone.

Winters is right that this decision is a huge blow to liberal Catholics who have tried to cover for Obama. But Winters is wrong that the President’s decision comes as any sort of surprise. Of course Obama would throw his liberal Catholics supporters under the bus to please his leftist secular supporters. Obama’s wedding with liberal Catholics has always been one of convenience and he just filed the divorce papers. I therefore find it hard to sympathize with liberal Catholics who are shocked by this decision, because I’ve been warning for years that their relationship with Obama was bound to end in heartbreak.

I do, however, respect Winters for being right to stand up for religious liberty and criticize a President he supported as a candidate. For that I applaud him and I hope that more liberal Catholics acknowledge how foolish they have been to support Obama’s anti-Catholic policies. I urge them to join me and other Catholics in common cause to begin to address this deplorable state of affairs.

UPDATE 2: Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, in a video posted (on the right side) of the USCCB website, calls on Catholics to contact the Administration and demand they rescind this anti-religious liberty, anti-first amendment mandate. Read the full press release just sent out by the USCCB here.

UPDATE 3: Grace-Marie Turner writes at NRO’s The Corner blog:

This is another assault on the Constitution and the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) called the federal regulation an “unprecedented threat to individual and institutional religious freedom.”

The Obamacare regulation gives faith-based institutions, like Catholic universities and hospitals, the choice of violating the fundamental tenets of their faith by covering the federally mandated coverage in their employee health plans, or of dropping health insurance for their employees — in which case they would be fined for violating the employer mandate.

…As I told Kathryn Lopez for a recent article, there is a war on religion from the Left, and it is very dangerous to the institutions that make our civil society function.

The Catholic Church historically has been a vital part of the safety net — providing aid for the poor, care for the sick, shelter and food for the homeless, and care for mothers in need, as a few examples.

The health-care law threatens to tear gaping holes in that safety net by forcing Catholic health plans to cover contraception, by denying funds to Catholic adoption agencies, and ultimately by forcing taxpayers — including Catholics — to fund abortion.

This is dangerous to the very fabric of our society. It’s a crucial reason why the whole health law, with its centralized control over health-care decisions, must not stand.

I’m in Charleston, South Carolina today and will be attending the CNN Presidential debate this evening at 8PM ET. Stay tuned here for my comments and follow my live updates via Twitter at: twitter.com/AmericanPapist.

PS – recent blogging has been somewhat in suspension since Christmas break because I came back to a very heavy work load which is now mostly under control again. Thank you for all the polite questions about my health and, ahem, priorities.

Meet Jamie Pedersen, the prime sponsor of a bill to redefine marriage in the Washington State House.

Here’s how Pedersen responded to a constituent of his who emailed him asking him not to redefine marriage (emphasis mine):

Thanks for your message.  I strongly disagree with you on this issue and am the House prime sponsor of the bill that will provide marriage equality for same-sex couples.  I can assure you that the legislation will provide strong protection for religious liberty. No priest or clergy person will be required to solemnize any marriage, and no religious organization may be compelled to permit its facilities to be used in connection with any marriage.  But civil marriage is a legal construct of the Revised Code of Washington, and it is very much up to the legislature to define who can marry.  I believe that our state has a strong interest in not discriminating against — and harming — the families of same-sex couples based on the religious views of a small and dwindling minority.

All families in Washington are hurt by our current policy of treating some families as different and inferior.  All families in Washington will be strengthened by making civil marriage available to couples regardless of their sexual orientation.

Okay, a lot of things to respond to here.

First, it takes some gumption to tell a constituent that they are for “harming families.”

Second, “the religious views of a small and dwindling minority.” Hold the phone. A majority of people polled by Gallup in Washington State said religion “was an important part of their daily life.” Gay marriage has never been approved by a majority of citizens, and if gay marriage is voted on by the people of Washington state, it will fail there too. The attempt to call believing Christians a “small and dwindling minority” is offensive, and speaks more of his bigotry against people of faith than anything else.

Third, Pedersen’s promises about religious liberty are a red herring. There is no mention, for instance, of any protections provided for individual religious liberty, and there are numerous and increasing examples of individual religious liberty being curtailed wherever marriage is redefined. What, for instance, will happen to religious adoption agencies? The same thing as what just happened in Illinois because of their civil unions legislation? Not hard to imagine. But of course, Pedersen would be happy to see Catholic and faith-based organizations pushed out of the public square. They are, after all, in his mind, “harming” people.

I’ll stop myself here, but I could add much more.

Dear readers, lets send a message to Mr. Pedersen! It’s important that he hears from the “small and dwindling” community of believers who strongly defend marriage, and who strongly defend the right of Churches to preach the good news about family and promote the common good in the public square! Tell him it’s not “harming” anyone to believe that kids deserve to know and be loved by their mom and dad.

Or you could just send him a link to this blog post.

Here is Mr. Pedersen’s contact info:

Mr. Pedersen’s webpage on the WA State Legislature website.

Email him at: pedersen.jamie@leg.wa.gov

Olympia Office:
330 John L. O’Brien Building
PO Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504-0600
(360) 786-7826

District Office: (206) 729-3206

THANK YOU!

Alexander Burns at Politico has the story (and the audio:):

The organization Catholic Vote is running automated phone calls in New Hampshire to support Rick Santorum’s campaign for president, saying the former Pennsylvania senator will “fight for us” and is the only candidate “talking about the family.”

Catholic Vote, which endorsed Santorum last week, recorded a message from Danielle Bean, a Catholic mother in Center Harbor, N.H. A source received the call on Sunday; Catholic Vote spokesman Joshua Mercer said it has gone out to 130,000 homes.

Here’s the script: “I’m Danielle Bean and I live in Center Harbor. I’m calling because I’m worried. There’s something missing in our country. No one’s talking about the family, and we need to. We need to address it head-on. Only one candidate is talking about the sanctity of life and the value of the family — Rick Santorum. Senator Santorum is one of us, and he’ll fight for us. Don’t forget to vote this Tuesday. It truly does matter. And please… vote for Rick Santorum. I’m a member of CatholicVote.org, which paid for this call. Not coordinated with any campaign or campaign committee.”

Mercer said the group is exploring the possibility of running pro-Santorum TV advertisements in South Carolina, and intends to stay fully positive in its messaging.

“Our robo-call and as we plan our ads over the next week or so, they’re all striking the pro-Rick Santorum positive message,” said Mercer, who explained that Catholic Vote looks favorably on a number of the Republican contenders. “We just think Rick Santorum stands out above and beyond the others.”

Danielle Bean, mother of eight and a great Catholic author, should be familiar to you. If she isn’t, get thee over to her website!

Thanks so much to Danielle Bean – a proud New Hampshirite and a wonderful woman I’ve had the privilege to meet – for helping us get this important message in front of voters before tomorrow’s primary!