Bishop Morlino talks about Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Biden in a homily today. The bishop starts out with a disclaimer that he isn't talking about Democrats but about specific Catholics who are Democrats. He first gives his critique about Nancy Pelosi and then goes on to talk about what Senator Biden said today. Hat Tip Rocco Palmo.

Here is a of a section of his homily that I transcribed from the mp3.

"Senator Biden does not understand the difference between articles of faith and natural law. Any human being regardless of his faith, his religious practice or having no faith. Any human being can reason the fact that human life from conception unto natural death is sacred. Biology not faith, not philosophy, not any kind of theology; Biology tells us science that at the moment of conception their exists a unique individual of the human species. It's not a matter of what I might believe. What my faith might teach me. What other people might ... Science the best science says at the moment of conception there is a unique individual of the human species. Senator Biden has an obligation to know that and he doesn't know it. Again I believe that after the Council some theologians, probably some priests, and some bishops allowed him to be confused about this matter. It's not pretty. The reason I bring this up is because Speaker Pelosi and Senator Biden are Catholics and there on television and they're giving out their ideas to Catholic people and they are causing confusion. They're suppose to believe in separation of church and state. They're violating the separation of church and state by confusing people. I have an obligation to teach. They're stepping on the Pope's turf and mine and they're violating the separation of church and state confusing God's good people. But why? Because they themselves were confused after the Council and I don't blame them for that. Bishop's allowed it, theologians did it and some priests did it and in Canada even some bishops did it."

I obviously like that the bishop has made the same point on natural law and religious faith that I made earlier today. His mentioning the effects of the aftermath of the Council I think are quite good. This is a nicely charitable look at these two Catholic politicians while still being firm on what they should know.

SEN. BIDEN: I'd say, "Look, I know when it begins for me." It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths--Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others--who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life--I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. And I know you get the push back, "Well, what about fascism?" Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism's all right? Fascism isn't a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea.

MR. BROKAW: But if you, you believe that life begins at conception, and you've also voted for abortion rights...

SEN. BIDEN: No, what a voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it's a moment of conception. There is a debate in our church, as Cardinal Egan would acknowledge, that's existed. Back in "Summa Theologia," when Thomas Aquinas wrote "Summa Theologia," he said there was no--it didn't occur until quickening, 40 days after conception. How am I going out and tell you, if you or anyone else that you must insist upon my view that is based on a matter of faith? And that's the reason I haven't. But then again, I also don't support a lot of other things. I don't support public, public funding. I don't, because that flips the burden. That's then telling me I have to accept a different view. This is a matter between a person's God, however they believe in God, their doctor and themselves in what is always a--and what we're going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care, the assistance and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children.

I previously joked about Nancy Pelosi's comment that at least she left St. Thomas Aquinas alone since he is the one that normally gets this bad rap in regards to abortion. Well as Rocco Palmo says "Let the fisking begin."

"Look, I know when it begins for me."

Look up relativism in the dictionary and Biden's statement should be used as an example.

There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths--Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others--who have a different view.

Within Protestantism and Islam pretty much the dominant view matches the Catholic Church since this is a natural law issue and based on science, not just a theological questions. So this is a rather odd defense. Sure there are people within these groups that have a differing view since this is true even among some Catholics - but it is certainly not the majority view.

The defense of pluralism is one of the silliest defenses of all. It would mean you could not act on anything as a politician, but this is not what they do. No matter what you do you are going to go against some group of people and in this case he is going against the majority of wishes in a pluralistic society. Pluralism is a smokescreen used to obscure an action, not answer it. Abortion has poisoned everything including reason. This excuse could not be used on any other issue without people laughing out loud by this response. I can't impose what I believe is the truth because there are differing views on this. Funny how it is that he is able to vote for a bunch of things that there are differing views on and is willing to impose his view on a host of issues. Funny how protecting human life he would consider fascism, but forcing abortion, homosexual marriage isn't what he considers fascism. To the Senators credit though he voted against partial birth abortion so how is it he can by his terms impose his view on this? But expecting reason in the defense of abortion is too much to ask, especially consistency.

No, what a voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it's a moment of conception.

Once again he frames this as religiously based. When I was an atheist I became a pro-life atheist during my wife's first pregnancy. My previous pro-abortion views dissipated with the first kick. But as a pro-life atheist I was not alone since there are a number of pro-life atheists and agnostics. Nobody would argue for example that Nat Hentoff's views against abortion are religiously bases. This is just a red herring thrown in to once again obscure. He might as well argue that "Thou shalt not kill" is religiously based and since serial killers obviously believe they have the right to do so we can't legislate morality on them. Though of course this Commandment is part of the natural law available to everyone, just as being against abortion is.

But what we really once again have is the evil that Mario Cuomo brought to us with the "personally opposed, but" dodge. This saying is pure evil and I don't just say this as hyperbole. "I personally believe that abortion is the intentionally murder of an innocent child, but I will vote to support it because there are differing views." This is obscene language that should instantly disqualify somebody from public office. They are saying that they will vote against their conscience and not stand up for the truth. That he is a consciousness objector to his own conscience. Nancy Pelosi while highly problematic is at least more honest than Joe Biden's to some degree.

There is a debate in our church, as Cardinal Egan would acknowledge, that's existed. Back in "Summa Theologia," when Thomas Aquinas wrote "Summa Theologia,"

I think his bringing up Cardinal Egan is quite a mistake. Surely we will have a reply from him shortly since he wrote one of the more scathing responses to Nancy Pelosi. I guess he also didn't read the USSCB's recent statement.

In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas made extensive use of Aristotle's thought, including his theory that the rational human soul is not present in the first few weeks of pregnancy. But he also rejected abortion as gravely wrong at every stage, observing that it is a sin "against nature" to reject God's gift of a new life.

Aquinas' objection to abortion at all stages is never referenced by progressives and abortion supporters. They are like Bible proof-texters looking to pull any phrase out of context to support their own view.

Now will we have twenty-six different Bishops respond to Sen. Joe Biden? Though there are some differences between what Nancy Pelosi said in distorting the history of the Church's view and what Sen. Biden says with his typical "Personally opposed, but..." dodge. Though I think "personally opposed" is much more in need of correction, especially since so many use this. This should have been responded to immediately when Cuomo first used it, but it is better late than never.

In other recent news Nancy Pelosi has accepted the invitation to talk with her bishop. The cynic in me thinks not much will come of this, thank God the Christian in me has seen the paths of grace throughout history and prays for her conversion.

I have just created a new Facebook group called Praying for Pro-abortion Politicians Project (P4) so if you are on Facebook and want to join in here you go.

Update: American Papist adds his always excellent overall coverage.

Father Z adds his comments.

Christopher at Catholics Against Joe Biden also weighs in with a good post.

Whatever they put in the water at the last bishop's meeting I hope they keep using it. Spinal-fluoride to prevent truth decay.

I had a good laugh when I saw that Karen Hall had written "Nancy Pelosi's bishop threatening her with a "conversation.""

Though maybe she isn't aware of some translations of Matthew 18:15 that say.

"If your brother sins against you, go and invite him to a conversation, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen then take it to the next level a dialogue. If he refuses to listen then perhaps a listening session is in order."

Since I had previously referenced Archbishop Niederauer lack of response to Nancy Pelosi, it is nice to see the actual column that was promised. The column is mostly quite good, though I agree with the comments Father Z made in his look at the document.

I especially liked:

Authentic moral teaching is based on objective truth, not polling. For instance, in 1861, as the Civil War began, a majority of the residents of Massachusetts opposed slavery, a majority of the residents of South Carolina approved of slavery, and in Missouri people were sharply divided on the issue. Does that mean that, in 1861, slavery was immoral in Massachusetts, moral in South Carolina, and something of a moral "wash" in Missouri? Sound moral teaching demands much more good sense than that.

Abortion is all about moral relativism so this is a great point. Morality by vote should be mocked.

I regret the necessity of addressing these issues in so public a forum, but the widespread consternation among Catholics made it unavoidable. Speaker Pelosi has often said how highly she values her Catholic faith, and how much it is a source of joy for her. Accordingly, as her pastor, I am writing to invite her into a conversation with me about these matters. It is my obligation to teach forthrightly and to shepherd caringly, and that is my intent. Let us pray together that the Holy Spirit will guide us all toward a more profound understanding and appreciation for human life, and toward a resolution of these differences in truth and charity and peace.

While I am rather skeptical such a meeting will take place, but you never know about the paths of grace so we should pray that not only does it happen but that their is a change of heart involved.

And while the Archbishop is inviting people for conversations may I recommend Gavin Newome.

San Francisco's "Catholic" mayor will join tomorrow in the official launching of the "No on 8 - Equality for All Campaign" at the old Tower Records store on Market Street.

In early January, on the occasion of his inauguration to a second term, Mayor Gavin Newsom and his family attended a Mass at the historic Mission Dolores Basilica. And to this day he continues to describe himself as Catholic.

Newsom, said to have his eyes on the governorship, will be acting in open defiance of California's bishops, who have officially endorsed Proposition 8 and have urged Catholics to support it.

But Newsom is no stranger to defiance of Church teachings or to thumbing his nose at prelates. It was Newsom who provoked a constitutional crisis in 2004 by granting marriage licenses to 4,000 same-sex couples in a case that eventually led to the May 15 California Supreme Court decision upholding same-sex marriages. Proposition 8 would undo that 4-3 ruling by amending the state constitution.

In 2006, the divorced San Francisco mayor, who describes himself as a "lifelong Catholic," abruptly canceled a trip to Rome for the installation of former San Francisco Archbishop William Levada as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Newsom said at the time that he decided to boycott Levada's installation in protest over the Church's prohibition on homosexuals adopting children.

In a February 2008 interview with The Santa Clara, the magazine of his Jesuit-run alma mater, Santa Clara University, Newsom said he "still has tremendous admiration for the Church and very strong faith."

Joining Newsom at the Northern California headquarters of the No on 8 Campaign tomorrow at 10 a.m. will be Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, also a San Francisco Democrat, as well as County Supervisor Tom Ammiano, Equality California executive director Geoff Kors, and National Center for Lesbian Rights executive director Kate Kendell, according to a flier announcing the event.

"With only 59 days to go, everyone needs to work to protect equality for all!" said a flier announcing the event. "We have come too far to let it slip away."

I find it rather interesting that it is progressive Catholics and the liberal news media that are bringing up that Sarah Palin was baptized as a Catholic.

The America Magazine blog has two posts on this today with one asking is "Is Palin an Apostate?" Though that is rather silly claim since apostasy is the total rejection by a baptized person of the Christian faith he once professed. Maybe he meant that she was in schism.

As canonist Ed Peters notes:

Sarah Palin's probable Roman Catholic baptism and her life spent outside the Church is of little import in assessing her character. Unlike the case of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who seems to have left the Church as an adult, Palin's parents apparently took her out of the practice of the Faith while she was yet a child, so Palin cannot be said to have decided against her Catholic identity, nor can anything be concluded about her remaining outside of full communion. Her "re-baptism" at age 12 or so, if that's what it was, would not however be recognized by the Church (1983 CIC 845.1)

On the question as to whether she can be considered as making a formal act of defection he goes on to say.

Ironically, the only thing that Palin's Catholic baptism and her life-time spent in good faith outside the Church does, I must say, is underscore again how unsustainable is the interpretation of "formal act of defection" that was handed down in April 2006. How so? Well, if "formal defection" per 1983 CIC 1117 can only be accomplished in writing (a completely new requirement, and one unattested, as far as I can tell, in canonical history!), then Palin never formally defected, which means that she is still bound by canonical form per 1983 CIC 1108, and that therefore her marriage cannot recognized by the Church!

Don't get me wrong: I think that Palin's marriage (based on what is publically known about it at this time, of course) is valid (and sacramental if Todd is baptized), and that it is this novel interpretation of "formal defection" that needs urgently to be corrected, not Palin's matrimonial status. It's just that I don't like it when law and life seem to be out of step with each other and, for a change, it looks like the law's fault.

But even beyond the question of "formal defection", the continued requirement of canonical form for the validity of marriage needs reexamination. There's nothing new in my saying that: many canonists of the first order have been suggesting for 50 years now.

So this makes for a very interesting canonical questions, but certainly not one that would affect the votes of Catholics as liberals intend it should. It is also rather ironic that they bring this up and yet not to have any problem with Sen. Joe Biden as a culture of death Catholic politician whose voting record at times supports intrinsic evils.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In an amazing admission, pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a feminist group that the basis for legalized abortion should be changed from the so-called right to privacy to the anti-slavery provisions found in the Constitution.

I think she made a mistake. Surely she means the pro-slavery precedence from the Supreme Court such as the Dred Scott decision which is so much like Roe v. Wade.

• Declaring a person a non-person - check.
• Declaring that the non-person is property and that the owner can use their property as they please - check.

So-called abortion rights are all about dehumanization just as slavery was. Turn a person into a "tissue mass" or "product of conception" and you can do with them as you please. Just as the Dred Scott said "and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.'' The Supreme Courts problem with knowing who is a person is nothing new.

Of course there is one big difference between the evils of abortion and slavery. Slaves can be freed, aborted babies stay aborted.

But on other levels Justice Ginsburg idea is just plain wrong. She is basically saying that babies are slave owners who make pregnant women their slaves. So I guess abortion is just a slave revolt.

I am almost starting to feel sorry for Nancy Pelosi as not only more bishops speak up but that the USCCB has now issued an excellent fact sheet Respect for Unborn Human Life: The Church's Constant Teaching.

Pray that she comes to know the truth and act on it.

The best McCain ad so far.

Obama's new radio ad, airing widely in at least seven swing states, tells voters McCain "will make abortion illegal."

I really hope Obama is telling the truth in this hopefully prophetic ad.

If Obama thinks that abortion is such a winning issue I hope he incorporates it in his stump speech instead of just when speaking in front of pro-abortion groups. Yeah abortion is such a winning issue in the Democratic party that the last congressional elections were dominated by pro-life (or somewhat pro-life ) Democrats. Pres Clinton was able to win by not appearing as radical on abortion and his "safe, legal, rare" line (a line removed from the Democratic Platform this time around).

I do wonder though about the lack of ads by the McCain campaign going after Sen. Obama on abortion. The commercials just about write themselves considering that he is the most radically pro-abortion presidential candidate ever. How about an ad with Obama calling the NRLC liars about the born alive infant protection act, and then his campaign saying he misspoke? Sen. Obama has more than just an Achilles' heel on this issue. So I do hope they respond to the Obama ad with a pro-life ad of their own.

The Sarah Palin pick revitalized his campaign for a number of reasons, but really it gave hope to pro-lifers and social conservatives who were so weary of Sen. McCain and now are coming out of the closets and willing to support him. Myself included along with some of my blog friends in St. Blogs. Still though Obama's radical record on abortion and other issues is not as known as they should be and the so-called Catholic vote has shifted away from Obama the more it has become known. So while some of the McCain ads have been quite good in poking fun at Obama, it is time to make better known that he would rather let children die who were born alive than allow in any way a challenge to abortion laws.

President Clinton committing adultery and having sex with an intern - Media says move along.

Presidential Candidate John Edwards committing adultery while his wife has cancer - Media says move along.

Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter committing fornication and keeping the baby - Media says what a moral outrage and front page story!