Recently in Punditry Category

Ads proclaiming, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake," will appear on Washington, D.C., buses starting next week and running through December from the American Humanist Association $40,000 holiday ad campaign.

Though why believe in good? And if you are going to believe in good than was is the objective absolute you base good on, or is good just whatever you "feel" is good. If good is subjective, why not believe in a god if it makes you feel good?

Fellow ex-atheist John C. Wright also weighs in on this and makes great points.

Because, of course, rational and critical thinking is an exclusive province of the atheist camp.

In my own life, I just had a fan of secularism tell me this in all sobriety. When I produced examples and evidences to the contrary, he retreated to the posture of merely repeating himself without addressing any of the points raised. In other words, it was an dogma of faith with him, not open to dispute. Ironic, no?

Regarding the article, this is the part that gets me: "Edwords said the purpose isn't to argue that God doesn't exist or change minds about a deity."

Oh, rubbish. That is exactly your purpose, and if it is not your purpose, you are a disgrace to the cause of atheism. If you are an atheist, you believe that belief in God is false, if not morally wrong, then it is your duty, your duty damn it (does that word mean nothing to you?!), to argue that God does not exist and to change minds about a deity: because all honest men must oppose what is false, and all virtuous, what is wrong.

I must say that I did not depart the atheist camp because of my disgust with my fellows, but the disgust did make the departure pleasant rather than filled with lingering regret when it came. My fellow atheists who were reasonable, not merely anti-clerical bigots, were a small and silent minority, and the choir of yammerheads was the majority.

I still regard men of reason, men of the mind, to be my allies against the forces of unreason, whether the unreason issues from within the Church or from without it. A logical man respects the LOGOS, whether he calls it divine or not.

When the atheist movement turns into a secular form of religion, it has lost its soul.

Religion News Service's Dan Burke reports that next week's much-awaited public discussion among the bishops on political support for abortion was struck from the agenda this afternoon: [source]

Somehow I have the strange compunction to sing the Sir Robin song from Monty Python and the Holy Grail to the bishops.

Update: Still on the agenda after all.

The election of Barack Obama as the first African-American US President could pave the way for the election of the first black Pope, according to a leading black American Catholic.

...Archbishop Gregory said that the next time cardinals gathered to elect a Pope they could "in their wisdom" choose an African pontiff. "My own election as head of the US Bishops Conference was an important signal. In 2001 the American bishops elected someone they respected regardless of his race, and the same thing could happen with the election of a Pope."

I agree with everything that American Papist had to say in reaction. No doubt the article was written through a specific lens, but I still find some of the quotes to be problematic.

For one thing is he saying that his election was really an important signal. That before that time I guess we had prejudiced Catholic bishops unwilling to elect a Bishop who happened to be black? It is the newspaper that implied that "The election of Barack Obama as the first African-American US President could pave the way for the election of the first black Pope." Though if the Bishop actually implied such a thing it would be rather silly to suggest that Catholic Cardinals were prejudiced and somehow resistant to electing a black Pope even if they thought he was the right man for the times. That we have many saints who happened to be black, but we would draw the line at making one pope. Besides Cardinal Arinze was certainly one of the papabiles last time around and it certainly didn't take an American election to guide them in such a consideration. The Catholic Church has long been on the forefront in fighting racism including excommunications of slave owners.

Besides isn't the Jesuit General known as the Black Pope? Or is that like Bill Clinton being the first black President?

You so often hear how Catholics have "baptized" some Pagan practice to sanctify it. While no doubt this has certainly happened many times (wedding rings for example), the most famous examples of this happening is for All Saints Day and Christmas.

But the question is are these valid examples? On plenty of otherwise solid articles on Halloween I see the nebulous "scholars say" in reference to Pope Gregory III moving the celebration from May 13th to Nov 1st that he was doing so to override a pagan celebration. I have though never seen any evidence to really back this up. Father Augustine Thompson, O.P. in Catholic Parent in 2000 wrote:

It's true that the ancient Celts of Ireland and Britain celebrated a minor festival on October 31--as they did on the last day of most other months of the year. However, Halloween falls on the last day of October because the Feast of All Saints, or "All Hallows," falls on November 1. The feast in honor of all the saints in heaven used to be celebrated on May 13, but Pope Gregory III (d. 741) moved it to November 1, the dedication day of All Saints Chapel in St. Peter's at Rome. Later, in the 840s, Pope Gregory IV commanded that All Saints be observed everywhere. And so the holy day spread to Ireland.

The day before was the feast's evening vigil, "All Hallows Even," or "Hallowe'en." In those days Halloween didn't have any special significance for Christians or for long-dead Celtic pagans.

In 998, St. Odilo, the abbot of the powerful monastery of Cluny in southern France, added a celebration on November 2. This was a day of prayer for the souls of all the faithful departed. This feast, called All Souls Day, spread from France to the rest of Europe.

So now the Church had feasts for all those in heaven and all those in purgatory. What about those in the other place? It seems Irish Catholic peasants wondered about the unfortunate souls in hell. After all, if the souls in hell are left out when we celebrate those in heaven and purgatory, they might be unhappy enough to cause trouble. So it became customary to bang pots and pans on All Hallows Even to let the damned know they were not forgotten. Thus, in Ireland at least, all the dead came to be remembered--even if the clergy were not terribly sympathetic to Halloween and never allowed All Damned Day into the church calendar.

So the idea of Pope Gregory III specifically choosing this day to override the Celtic holiday of Samhain seems to me to be totally lacking in evidence. Ireland was certainly no longer a Pagan country by 741 and it seems more likely that it was moved to this day simply because it is the dedication day of All Saints Chapel in St. Peter's at Rome. Besides this feast was not raised to a universal feast by Pope Gregory IV until almost 80 years after the transference by Pope Gregory III. It would be rather odd for Gregory III to move it to Nov 1 to offset a Celtic celebration when it was only a local feast and not even celebrated in Ireland yet.

Now when it comes to Christmas I think Mark Shea aptly shows that Sol Invictus was actually created as a response by Pagans to Christians celebrating the Nativity of Christ and not the other way around as so-called popular knowledge says. Often the more we learn sometimes means the more we have to unlearn.

Now in the spirit of secular Halloween, here is something really scary.

If Obama wins on November 4 with the help of Catholic voters, the biggest factor in his favor will be the bishops' own document and Web site, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship."

I never thought it likely that Catholic voters could be persuaded to support a candidate with both the most extreme record on abortion and who favors gay marriage. Yet, barring a miracle, that paradox is only a week away: The New York Times is reporting Obama 22 points ahead among Catholic voters. [article]

I wouldn't put it on the USCCB doc at all. The USCCB could have published Faithful Citizenship with one line saying "Abortion is the preeminent issue of our time." and they would still have found wiggle room with a Clintonesque meaning of "is". Like Vatican II we have a "spirit of Faithful Citizenship." It does not matter what the totality of a document says, they will strip it out of context.

The main things about many dissenters is that they are basically liars. For example Fr. Reese, S.J. recently saying "Democrats are finally emphasizing that it should be rare" when they actually stripped "rare" from their platform and made a stronger statement supporting abortion "rights". Sure sometimes they are just mistaken and pass on something that somebody else said. Often though dissenters just lie to our face and expect us to accept what they say. So many dishonest things are said that it is hard to find a charitable explanation. No doubt some read a document and interpret them through their own lens and actually think it says what they say it says. That is always a danger for everyone. Mainly though they ignore strong statements and grasp at straws. Look at what they have done to scripture? So can we be surprised what they do this to a USCCB document.

As to Faithful Citizenship itself it certainly is not without flaws. It is way to wordy, long and, repetitive. Obviously written by a committee and not having a strong editor to clean it up. Though that is kind of the nature of USCCB documents in the first place. It does though have some of the clearer statements on abortion and that it is not just one issue of many and it much better than the documents released in 2000 and 2004.

Somebody who understands how horrific an evil abortion is, is not going to read Faithful Citizenship and say "Wow, I guess I can vote for Obama if I want to." People who are willing to overlook abortion, ESCR, euthanasia, cloning, and homosexual marriage are not likely to be swayed by a USCCB document anyway.

Besides how many average people in the pew have actually read Faithful Citizenship anyway. Or in fact any USCCB document. I have never seen a bishop's document passed out or on a table as you enter a church. Sure wonks such as myself read all the documents coming out of the Vatican and USCCB, but surely this is not common. Probably the average Catholic knowledge on these documents is often third hand if at all. So I think blaming the Faithful Citizenship is a bit of hyperbole.

Though I must admit I applauded when Bishop Morlino said "The USCCB doesn't speak for me." The problem with all bishop's conferences is that they are a created structure and really have no theological justification. Like pretty much all committees you end up taking weaker positions in the name of collegiality. For the USCCB the abuse scandal was about anything but Bishop's who helped enable abusers. Nobody was surprised when the USCCB said it was up to each bishop to decide whether to withhold Communion from pro-abortion politicians. The USCCB can easily become a scapegoat, but Bishop Morlino was right in multiple ways. It is the local ordinary who is the official teacher for his diocese. Sometimes it seems to me that we have bishops conferences so that individual bishops can avoid making tough decisions. Thank God that more and more bishops are taking seriously their role as shepherd and are speaking out. Though there have been some great statements coming from the USCCB recently. This is due though to individual bishops part of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities. This Secretariat has been there for a long time and never managed to make a statement against a pro-abortion candidate until now.

So certainly there are things we can complain about the USCCB on, but we also give it more credit for what it can do than it deserves.

A Vista, Calif., megachurch is canceling all worship services this weekend and leaving no excuse for Christians to stay in the pews and out of "being" the church.

"So many people think of a church as a self-contained religious club - but it's not," said Pastor Larry Osborne of North Coast Church. "A healthy church is a community of Jesus-followers who live out their spiritual commitment 24/7."

Over 6,000 North Coast attendees are living out their commitment as they tackle 139 community service projects at 70 sites throughout North San Diego County. On Oct. 25 and 26, the church is closing its doors for a "Weekend of Service" and providing churchgoers the opportunity to show the love of Jesus. [article]

Well one aspect of "being" the church is that you can tithe to yourself.

Now it is very good for them to be getting involved in community projects, but they are in need of a little both/and. Loving God and loving neighbor are not mutually exclusive activities..

It is rather interesting all of the divergent paths Protestantism has followed since the Reformation. Then we had the false charge that Catholic's believed justification came via works and now we have a Protestant Megachurch canceling "worship" to do works. Over the last couple of years there have been Megachurches that canceled Christmas services to give family time. But the idea that going to church is about us an not giving the due worship and thanks to God is not confined to just Protestants. Bishop conferences have transferred Holy Days of Obligation to Sundays to make things more "convenient" or we have parishes tailoring liturgy as entertainment.

Another priest has broken ranks with California's bishops on the Protect Marriage initiative, telling his parishioners in the church's weekly bulletin, "I cannot in conscience unequivocally support Proposition 8."

The remarks came in a "dear parishioners" letter published Oct. 5. by Claretian Fr. Steve Niskanen, pastor of San Gabriel Mission in the Los Angeles archdiocese.

The same day that Fr. Niskanen expressed his opinion in San Gabriel, Fr. Geoffrey Farrow told parishioners at the St. Paul Newman Center in Fresno following his Sunday morning homily that he opposed the marriage initiative - and admitted during a television interview before the Mass that he was a homosexual.

In his "dear parishioners" letter at San Gabriel Mission, Fr. Niskanen went through each of the ballot measures endorsed by the Catholic bishops of California one by one. He said he supports Proposition 4 - the family notification before a minor's abortion initiative, and that he opposes Proposition 6 - the "Safe Neighborhoods Act," which would add new crimes and tougher penalties to state law. Fr. Niskanen's positions on Props 4 and 6 are in line with the recommendations of the bishops.

But when it came to Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriages, Fr. Niskanen disagreed. After reprinting a portion of the bishops' arguments in favor of the proposition, he wrote: "I deeply respect and submit to the authority of our bishops and the force of traditional Catholic teaching limiting sexual relations to the love and life-giving commitment of heterosexual marriage. But I cannot in conscience unequivocally support Proposition 8 because I cannot in my heart of hearts say with certainty, at this time, that God would not call His gay and lesbian children into a faithful and life-long covenant with one another." [article]

Plus there are all those examples of same-sex couples in the Old and New Testament living a life-long covenant with one another. Oh wait, funny how the Holy Spirit inspired no one to mention this if homosexual relations are approved by God. Apologists for homosexuality constantly say 5 to 10 percent of the population has same-sex attraction, so it is rather strange for scripture to not even mention that "faithful" homosexual relations were always part of God's plan. Go forth and be fruitful except this segment.

The Archdiocese of San Francisco's Catholic Charities plans to sever its two-year funding relationship with an adoption agency, Family Builders by Adoption, that focuses on placing children with homosexuals.

"The funding from Catholic Charities is ending this [budget] year," Jill Jacobs, executive director of Family Builders by Adoption, told Our Sunday Visitor Sept. 25. Catholic Charities CYO currently provides two staff members for the agency at a cost of about $250,000 annually.

It is not clear what motivated the decision, which means the archdiocese will no longer have any involvement with adoptions. A Catholic Charities spokeswoman declined to comment.

Well that is good news, though they should never have contracted with them in the first place. Previously they had sent paid staff to "Family Builders by adoption" whose goal was "Increasing the number of children adopted by Lesbian, Gay Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) adults." What is sad is how the homosexual lobby has pushed Catholics out of providing adoptions in California and Massachusetts. The goal of the homosexual lobby is not about tolerance but forced acceptance and the Catholic faith has to be pushed into the closet.

Hat tip to Fr. John Malloy, SDB who has been on the forefront with coverage on this for the last couple years.

I was wrong about the first McCain/Obama debate. A third of the way through the event, I said to one of my guests, "My guy is getting creamed!" Note that I did not say, "My candidate is being beaten into the ground." I don't have a candidate. Priests, like columnists, are not supposed to endorse a candidate. But one of the candidates is from my state and my city, and we shared a pulpit once. So of course I hope he wins. But that doesn't mean I endorse him. As I have said repeatedly in this column, I think he will lose because the country is not ready for a smart, attractive, charismatic man -- if he has skin slightly darker than a Sicilian's.

If you couldn't tell, this is classic Fr. Andrew Greeley.

He is from my state, city, far left side of the political divide, and we shared a pulpit! Of course I hope he wins. Never mind that his positions are intrinsically evil - we shared a pulpit doncha know. You must be racist if you can't get past his support of abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, cloning, ESCR, and homosexual marriage. Yes presidential affirmative action - vote for him even if you think he is a moral disaster. Otherwise not only will we throw the race card at you we make it a presidential race card.

"Go after him," I screamed.

"He's just being a gentlemen," my friend insisted.

"Nice guys," I shouted, citing a one-time manager of the Cubbies, "finish last!"

Naturally I couldn't sleep that night. At 3 a.m., I crawled out of bed and turned on a cursed machine to read the data from the instant surveys.

Please breath in and breath out Fr. "I don't have a candidate" Greeley. Yes Sen. Obama was really being a gentleman by calling Sen. McCain "John" repeatedly.

Now you might rightly ask why are you even paying attention to a Fr. Greeley article in the first place? Maybe I am like a dissident paleontologists. Even though these progressive dinosaurs are on the way out, they are still fascinating creatures. The contradictions between their faith and what they advocate is an interesting case study. Though looking at the history of the Church the DIssentosaurus never quite goes extinct.

Hat Tip Matthew K.

A reader sent me a link to the Maryknolls called "U.S. Elections 2008: Loving our neighbor in a shrinking world" pdf This is quite an excellent document. I really like how it informs the Catholic voter about such important issues such as abortion, euthanasia, cloning, ESCR, and homosexual marriage. It does a great job of making the difference between topics that are intrinsically evil and things such as government supported social programs that are prudentially decided upon. It is great to see a document that talks about loving our neighbors that includes both the financially poor and the unborn without any kind of moral equivocation. I am quite impressed.

And if you believe anything I wrote above about this document then you know nothing about the Maryknolls. The part I mentioned about "abortion, euthanasia, cloning, ESCR, and homosexual marriage" is of course totally missing with no reference whatsoever.

I bet the majority of my readers know what topic their "voting guide" starts off with - of course global warming. Yes organic farming and talking about the dangers of nuclear power are fundamental parts of Catholic social teaching. Though this guide like other progressive religious guides condemns corn-for ethanol subsidies though doesn't mention why. I totally agree with this since it makes food prices rise, but ironically of course it came about mostly because of the global warming crowd. Even when I was a bleeding-heart liberal environmentalist I never understood the massive opposition against nuclear power. That somehow Japan was able to become the third largest user of nuclear power and we continue to stigmatize it since it is "nuclear."

Then we get the typical boilerplate on immigration and while I agree with part of it, the impetus is always on the U.S. instead of the countries that are contributing to poverty through their policies. The reform called for is always on our side.

The section on HIV/AIDS could be written by any Democratic organization and there is nothing specifically Catholic about it and it is pretty much all on the medical side without a word about how teaching the truth of Catholic moral teaching on human sexuality. Like other parts of the document they once again blame racism for problems and ask "How would you address the racial disparity in HIV/AIDS prevention and services in the U.S.?" I guess if you just say something it must be true. Must be the racist administration, you know the same one that signed a $14 billion dollar international HIV/AIDS bill and has spent more in Africa than any previous administration.

Than some more boilerplate on the military and a call to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now I was quite dubious on the war in Iraq in the first place, but I don't see how pulling out now will lead to peace. Afghanistan certainly seems to fulfill all parts of just war theory and once again I don't see how pulling out will lead to peace. Even sillier is to "Begin immediately to convert the U.S. military budget to conflict prevention. ... and peace education." Though I totally agree with them about ending torture in all its forms and circumstances.

But mainly what gets me about documents of this type is what they ignore and what they emphasize. There are many areas where Catholics can prudential disagree on something and it is usually these very areas that progressives seem to dogmatize as "social teaching." But to totally ignore abortion and all the other threats to life involving an innocent human person is quite another thing to do. It is like sitting in the middle of a concentration camp with people being slaughtered amongst you and then demanding that prisoners be fed from organic gardens. 45 million and counting people killed in abortion and yet that doesn't even get a mention. Somehow the preferential love of the poor doesn't seem to apply to the innocents in the womb. Somehow trying to create a non-violent culture does not include killing the unborn via abortion, euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, and ESCR. We need to preach the whole Gospel and not a gospel that runs along party lines - a lesson that needs to be learned by members of all political parties.

It seems to me that the USCCB's statement on Sen. Joe Biden is something rather historic. Has there ever been such a statement on a person who is on a national presidential ticket? This is quite an interesting development considering that in the past that the same types of things said by Sen. Joe Biden have been previously said by countless others with no comment.

As Thomas at American Papist noticed there is pretty much a news blackout on this by the media. Look at this Google news search and only one story talks about the bishop's statement. Maybe this will change as time goes on, but the bishop's statement on Speaker Pelosi got plenty of coverage right away.

Ironically I was about to write a post on how embryonic stem-cell research being pretty much a non-issue this election cycle. In the last presidential cycle and the last congressional cycle ESCR was brought all the time among Democrats. This issue was used a lot to try to show those that opposed ESCR as being really mean and of course Sen. John Edwards had said 'the work we will do when John Kerry is president -- people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again..' With continuous breakthroughs with adult stem-cell research and no progress on the ESCR front there has been less and less media advocacy on this issue. Some scientists have even abandoned trying to use human cloning as a source for ESCR and have moved on to adult stem-cell research. Politically I have heard very little about ESCR in the last year or two and you got to bet that some voters suckered into funding state research are having second thoughts. So this was pretty much the state of things until today.

"I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both the joy, because there's joy to it as well, the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect. Well guess what folks? If you care about it, why don't you support stem cell research?"

Now the context of what he is saying is in relation to embryonic stem-cell research since there is pretty much no one on the face of the Earth against adult stem-cell research. This was always the trick of the media before to talk about stem-cell research generically and Sen. Biden does the same. First off just how crass is this in bringing up her child for political purposes? Democrats have been charging her with using her child for political purposes when that charge can be laid squarely on their shoulders. Earlier today someone from the Democratic Underground put up Sarah Palin's baby Trig on eBay selling it as a prop. The number of "retard" jokes now told by Democrats in relation to her baby are quite despicable.

But moving on from Biden's lack of class let me answer the question for him. Because she doesn't believed in killing an innocent person in order to benfit another. Though the reality is that even if their was a breakthrough in ESCR it would have n effect. Francis Beckwith mentioned that commentator ["george"] at the Commentary Mag blog said "it is absolutely impossible to treat trisomy 21 with stem cells. EVERY cell in the baby's body has an extra chromosome 21. One would have to physically replace every cell in the baby's body to see an effect. Not only is Biden a boor, he is a scientific illiterate. Just what we need in charge."

The real question is why do you Sen. Joe "life begins at conception" Biden believe in ESCR? This doesn't fit you narrative about not wanting to criminalize abortion and the excuses you have used to justify your abortion votes (except partial birth abortion). Sen Biden the other day said that Sarah Palin would be a step back for women. Why is it that you want research that involves hazarding the life of women in order to get eggs for use in research? That some women will have to deal with the severe effects of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome with the drugs used to extract eggs. To paraphrase the charge often leveled at pro-lifers "why don't you care about the health of women?"

Is it any wonder he skipped the installation Mass of his new bishop where Bishop Malooly said:

We will continue to stress the constant teaching of the Church that each person must respect every life from conception to natural death. And we will continue to seek the intercession of Saint Thomas More for Statesmen, Politicians, Supreme Court Justices, Judges and Lawyers--that they may be courageous and effective in defending and promoting the sanctity of human life, the foundation of every human right, the foundation of our love for the poor.

Joe Biden is certainly no Thomas More. "I am personally opposed to the King setting himself up as the head of the Church in England, but because of differing views in a pluralistic society I will sign the parliamentary Act of Succession."

To her credit Gov. Palin is against ESCR in all forms. I wish I could say the same about Sen. McCain. His view on ESCR is that he "opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes." This though is still the dominant type of research being used for those doing ESCR so it pretty much means that he supports ESCR research using so-called leftover embryos from ESCR. This though is still intrinsically evil. Though this is not currently an avenue of research that is being used much. It is difficult for scientists to get access to these frozen human beings and they need to be donated from the parents. Plus the reason they prefer cloning is that there are tissue match problems involved. I don't think Sen. McCain understands this very well - maybe he has been taking science lessons from Sen. Biden.

Sometimes I think that Sen. Biden was picked to be like a gaffe lightning rod for Sen. Obama. That Biden would take most of the heat and Obama's multiple gaffes could be covered up by the gaffe emitting cloud of Sen. Biden.

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.

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!

When an artist wants to be provocative and to "start a conversation" they all seem to be provocative in the same way. The banality of being provocative. Yes to push the envelop your "art" must:

1. Use a crucifix in some way (bonus points for using urine or a corpus made out of chocolate)
2. Substitute the people in the Last Supper with your own figures (bonus points for nudity or making Jesus a woman)
3. Mock some other form of sacred art especially of Our Lady (Bonus points for using excrement preferably from a large gray animal with a trunk)

Artists are a lot of teenager who often rebel in exactly the same way and wear/pierce/tattoo exactly the same things as a sign of their "individuality."

An Italian museum has defied Pope Benedict by refusing to remove a statue of a crucified green frog clutching a beer mug and an egg.

The Vatican had condemned the modern art sculpture as blasphemous.

The board of the Museion museum in the northern city of Bolzano voted it was a work of art, however.

Of course we get the typical hyperbole with Pope's fury as crucified frog statue goes on display at Italian museum.

I knew television commercials havr gotten really bad, which is why I pretty much record everything so I can skip through commercials. Last night I caught a bit of some Clint Eastwood movie on AMC only to be treated to a commercial for Trojan's Vibrating Touch a masturbation aid for women. It was so bad it made me long for erectile dysfunction commercials instead.

It was really nice to see the number of responses by several bishops about Nancy Pelosi's faulty Church history lesson. This is exactly the type of response that should be more common. Though I wonder which is worse 1) Misrepresenting the Church on a Sunday news show or 2) Voting for something intrinsically evil? It seems to me that a diocese should respond whenever a lawmaker from their dioces votes for something intrinically evil. This can be done charitably, but forcibly as Archbishop Chaput has done.

So far as I know Archbishop Chaput has been the only bishop to come out and mention that Sen. Biden is pro-abortion and specifically that he should not be receiving Communion. I would like to see the USCCB also make a statement about this. A selection of a pro-abortion Catholic should not go unnoticed by the Bishop's conference since it will certainly not go unnoticed by Catholics and others.

I get the feeling many bishops don't want to speak up because they don't want to be seen as political and that is just a bit icky. This is certainly how it is always framed by the media when they do. It is just a sad thing that the Culture of Life is something political in the first place. I would love nothing more than if the political parties were all fully pro-life and all of are arguments could come down to just prudential decisions. Pray that this may be so. But speaking up for the unborn is not political, it is something required by the Gospel. Speaking up against evil whether it is when the Republicans promote torture and at times ESCR or when the Democrats the party of death promotes the myriad ways of the Culture of Death is something that must be done in political season and out of political season. If one party gets condemned more than the other it not partisanship, but because they are out of line with the natural law. So when a bishop does speak up for the truth - email or write to thank them. But most of all pray for your own bishop.

My blog friends Steve Dillard, Christopher Blosser, and Jay Anderson have started up the Catholics Against Joe Biden blog. I certainly hope they are as effective as the Catholics Against Rudy effort was. All pro-abortion politicians are annoying, but pro-abortion Catholic are a special effrontery to the Gospel of Life. Sen. Joe Biden is not as pro-abortion as Sen Obama is, though very few people on the face of the planet are. Sen. Biden's voting record is decidedly mixed and I applaud him on his vote that were pro-life and pray that he repents of his votes that weren't.. It is rather sad that like other Democrats that seek power in the Democratic Party that he was once pro-life. Even from a political perspective being pro-abortion is a liability for the most part and few such as President Clinton manage to overcome it (though by pretending to hold a more moderate view).

The new blog has a good synopsis of his voting record.

Maybe there are some Catholics that will be upset by a pro-abortion Catholic veep that would have been willing to vote for Obama otherwise - but it is probably a small group. Though I also suspect that there are many Catholics who don't realize how radically pro-abortion Sen Obama is, though finally this issue is getting some mainstream coverage. We are not likely to get a sequel to the Sen. Kerry so-called Communion wars since Sen. Biden's diocese currently doesn't have a bishop. Bishop W. Francis Malooly will be installed on September 8th.

I do hope that this ticket goes the way of other tickets that included a pro-abortion Catholic. Kerry-Edwards, Mondale/Ferraro, and Obama/Biden would make a nice tripple-play.

Dawn Eden reminded me of this quote from Sen. Biden in 2005

The next Republican that tells me I'm not religious, I'm going to shove my rosary beads down their throat.

Many people are not aware of the Uvula Mysteries.as one of my Plurk friends replied are only prayed on election day.

In the Uvula Mysteries you have the following meditations

For there is no truth in their mouth;
their heart is destruction,
their throat is an open sepulchre,
they flatter with their tongue. Psalm 5.

Let the high praises of God be in their throats and two-edged swords in their hands, Psalm 149

You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Matthew 12

Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and so passes on? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man.

"Their throat is an open grave,
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips." Romans 3

Senator Biden certainly picked a set of mysteries that fit politicians to the T.

Dawn Eden also quipped in her hilarious style "Keep your rosaries off my uvula!"

Democrats have invited more than two dozen religious leaders to pray or speak at their upcoming convention with a notable exception: Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, a policy wonk and the leader of Colorado's largest religious denomination.

Well this is not exactly a surprise. The Archbishop is not one to hold his tongue just to get along. When he recently spoke to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) he brought up the topic of holy obedience, a message not exactly warmly received by this group.

But the Democrats does have Sister Catherine Pinkerton who is on Obama campaign's Catholic Advisory Council and hold to a relativisitc version of the seamless garmet. When you play word association with these types this is what happens.

• Abortion: Death Penalty
• ESCR: Health Care
• Euthanasia: War
• Homosexual Marriage: Equality

You will almost certainly always get an answer that is a prudential matter in relation to something intrinsically evil.

Though I do wonder historically if Bishops are invited to the conventions generally from either the Democratic or Republican Party? I don't know the answer to this.

Update: A commenter mentions that Cardinal Mahoney spoke at the Democratic Convention - figures.

In a related note Archbishop Chaput was interviewed last night on the Hugh Hewitt show in a fairly long interview about his new book Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life which I will certainly have to buy. It was a really good interview and I am glad that it is also now available for download.

American Papist on the new Cathedral in Oakland currently being constructed.

And it's not like we can hope for a natural disaster to free us of this aesthetic effrontery - it's rated to withstand a 1000 year earthquake. Well, I guess we can always pray for a miracle.

My own theory is that they are working for bragging rights about who can build the ugliest cathedral in California.

Via Lex Communis comes this article.

In most of the United States, 24 abortions are carried out for every 100 live births. In New York, 72 abortions occur for every 100 live births.

The continuing boom in abortions--90,157 were performed in the city in 2006, the last year for which statistics are available--apparently means that many women are using abortion as their birth control method of choice. That concerns health advocates, who point out that the procedure sometimes causes complications and is more expensive than contraception. The high rate also shows that these women are not protected against AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

"No doctor would ever tell a woman that abortion was one of the choices she should rely on for contraception," says Iffath Hoskins, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn.

The high rate is especially troubling because it indicates that more city residents are turning to abortion. Years ago, most abortions in the city--up to two-thirds in some years--were performed on women from out of town who flocked to New York because of its liberal abortion policies. Now, however, 93% of the abortions in New York City are performed on city residents.

The easy availability of abortion and not enough access to affordable contraception may be reasons behind the city's high abortion rate. An average of 250 abortions are performed in the city each day at more than 200 clinics and doctor's offices. And even though free or low-cost contraception is offered through 59 publicly funded programs at 218 sites in New York state, mostly in New York City, more could be provided, says Deborah Kaplan, deputy commissioner of the city Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

"To me, the problem is access," says Ms. Kaplan. "If we improved access to contraceptives, there would be a reduction in abortion."

"I keep pouring gas on the fire and it keeps getting bigger. If only I had more gas."

The question for pro-choicers is why is a high rate of abortion troubling anyway? If it really is a morally neutral act than it doesn't matter if there is one or one thousand. So what if it is a backup-contraceptive?

That would be good news to taxpayers. In a time of fiscal constraints, abortion is costing the state at least $16 million in Medicaid spending annually, and city taxpayers still more through a city Health and Hospitals Corp. policy that provides free abortions to poor women at its facilities. The surgical costs alone are between $1,000 and $1,800 per abortion, compared with the $425 average annual cost for birth control pills.

Whatever you subsidize you get more of.

But the biggest concern over the high abortion rate is the impact it is having on women's health.

Most health experts agree that it is wise to keep abortion safe, legal and available in New York, but some are also concerned that too many women are not using other methods to prevent unwanted births.

Surgical abortion always carries risks, though slight, of complications--including ones that can tear or scar the uterus and compromise a woman's ability to have healthy children in the future, Dr. Hoskins says.

What there are risks? How did did that make it into the aritcle, must be a mistake by the editors..Next we have one of the strangest bits of logic I have seen.

It may be especially difficult for black women in communities where men are scarce, due to incarceration or addiction problems, to insist that their partners use condoms.

Yes scarce men cause pregnancies.

A reader sent me a link to a voters guide from the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Monroe, Michigan.

Catholic Answers in their voting guide list five non-negotiable issues that are always intrinsically evil.  Abortion, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem-Cell Research, Human Cloning and Homosexual "Marriage."  The UCCB's Faithful Citizenship also mentions these issues with a lot of emphasis on abortion and making it clear that it is not just one of several issues.

Now if I ask you how many of these items made it into the Sister's voting guide, what would be your answer.  If you answered zero then bingo - pat yourself on the back.  For them the most important issues are Militarism, Immigration, Global Climate Change (bet you knew that would be in there),  and Peace.

Ironically their section on militarism starts with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet Union.  I guess they thought this happened because people threw some blood on some missiles or something.  For them militarism means actually having a military that might be able to defend us.

Their section on immigration says that the Minuteman "mounted their own attacks on immigrants" so their definition of "attack" must be pretty loose.  And of course the border fence is all about racism doncha know.  They cite Church documents yet fail to find the fact that the Church says "Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the subject to various juridical conditions immigrants duties toward their country of adoption."  The problem with so many social justice types is that they are very selective on Church teaching.  If they advocated a very open immigration policy while at the same time limiting illegal immigration they would be much closer to the mark.

In their section on global warming they quote Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai who thinks that HIV/AIDS was created by Western governments to kill Africans.  Well since she also believes in global warming I guess she is consistent.  At least they mentioned the fact that biofuels are reducing food supplies and increasing food prices.  Though this is only the result of the global warming hoax in the first place.

There section on Peace I think was written by Rep. Dennis Kucinich since it has that recommendation for the "Department of Peace" in it.

It is not that I disagree with everything they say in this document, it is just so lopsided and sounds like it was issued by Sen. Obama instead of an order of Sisters in the religious life.  There was another nun that talked about peace and set a much better example:

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.

We will certainly never move towards a non-violent culture while we ignore the most violent of institutional murder.

They also the follow the infallible guide to identify progressive religlious orders.  That is they have plenty of links to the  U.N. Millennium Development Goals and zero to the Vatican. Sustainability gets 50 hits on a search while abortion gets one and hen it is just included as a bunch of issues.  Though I guess the easier tell-tale sign is that no one wears habits and it is impossible to differential pictures of a groups of progressive nuns from a woman's groups in a retirement home.

From an interview with Professor P.Z. Myers from the National Catholic Register.

I decided to call his bluff. "Has Christianity contributed anything to humanity?" I asked him.

"Well," he said in a matter-of-fact tone, "there is this general property of religion -- it's great at building community. Religion has been a good thing for many individuals; it has brought them together and given them comfort. But over all, religion ... holds back humanity."

What, I asked, about the Church's role in founding the first Western hospitals, universities, banks and even many breakthroughs in science? He interrupted me, irate and incredulous:

"No, people made those contributions to Western Civilization." 

What a cringe-inducing answer.  It really makes me sorry for him that his hatred of Christianity has destroyed any vestige of objectivity.  Say for example somebody asked me.

"Do you think science has contributed to humanity?  What about science's role in developing medicine, technology, and helping us to come to a greater understanding of the universe?"

"No, people made those contributions to Western Civilization."

I would deserve a good slap to my head for such an answer.

Jeff Gardner of NCR sums it up.

As I talked with Myers I was struck by an irony: For a scientist whose job it is to observe cause and effect, he has a poor understanding of the cause, Catholicism, and its effects on world culture. He does not see Christianity as an elevating force in the world, but rather as a strange superstition -- akin to banging a pot to scare away the moon.

Fr. Stanley Jaki showed how it was the Catholic Church because of her theology became the midwife for the scientific method in the first place in his must-read book "Science and Creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe"  The title is a bit off-putting, but it gives an in depth overview of cultures and how their understanding kept them developing science.  Carl Olson comments on the article and says:

Perhaps this will help do away with one of the greatest myths of our time: that scientists are objective, ideologically-free, and intellectually-balanced people who care only about the facts. Not so. Not even close. They put on their pocket protectors one pocket at a time, just like the rest of us, and some of them, like Myers, are intellectually brilliant in this or that scientific discipline, but are completely clueless about nearly anything else, including basic respect and common civility. That we are shocked that Myers talks and acts as he does indicates that the joke is on us--except, of course, it isn't a joke. It is, I think, far more common than most people realize. Perhaps it's time we stopped buying the bill of goods sold by those like Myers who claim to be intellectually superior and scientifically objective while all they really want to do is gleefully slash our tires. Kudos to Gardner for helping expose this jerk.

Yesterday my wife and I were down in the Orlando area and decided to attend the Vigil Mass, at the National Shrine of Mary, Queen of the Universe - a Church not far from Disney World and which primarily serves the tourists.  I have been to their excellent gift shop a couple of times which has a pretty good selection of solid Catholic books along with other items.  The church itself is quite nice looking for a modern Church though the furnishing in the sanctuary leave something to be desired.  But the stained glass windows are quite beautiful and the chapel is also very nice. The constructions is such that the chapel is behind the Tabernacle that goes through the wall and on the Chapel side they have a monstrance.  Though on that side they also have a transparent door on the tabernacle which is not allowed by Canon law 938.

The Mass was said by an Irish priest who started with what I guess you could call a census (people never learn from King David).  "How many of you are from out of town?" pretty much everybody raised their hands.  "How many of you are from outside the U.S.?" He then proceeded down the isle extracting country of origin from a number of people who raised their hands.  We are no five minutes into the Mass.  Next it was "How many are married over 50 years please stand up."  Followed by encouragement for applause and then "Stand up if you are a grandparent" Here he inserts mandatory joke about them being free babysitters."  Then we had the "everybody introduce yourself to the people around you ."  I had heard of this practice at some parishes, but never had to suffer through this false bit of community that has everybody glad handing the other (I though this was reserved for the Kiss of Peace).  We are now ten minutes into the start of Mass and we haven't even got to the confeitor yet.  Now if priests are going to act like a Vegas lounge act can I also be a heckler?  Unfortunately a Vegas lounge act all to accurately describes this type of behavior at the beginning of Mass, though some do this type of thing at the end of Mass.   He used the type of jokes that would make Hennyman groan.

Surprisingly the rest of the Mass was without experimentation and according to the GIRM.  The music was also totally without standard Haugen/Haas fare with no hymns newer than a hundred years old sung by an older gentlemen with a rich voice as he played the organ. Though the first and last hymns were standard Protestant ones.  The homily though was quite a different matter.

The priest really opened my eyes to Matthew 14 and 1st Kings 19.  The stepping out in faith of Peter is really all about steeping out in faith in your community for comprehensive healthcare doncha know, fair business practices, violence and other bits of social justice.  No mention of pro-life or other social justice items though.  But I was trying to be fair to what the priest was saying and not to impose or read too much into what he was saying.  Then he got to the "still small voice" where he said he had a still small voice and that it was called a "vote" and that we all needed to be registered to vote as he was to exclaim your still small voice in the voting booth.  Again he reiterated comprehensive healthcare and this time being a community activist in your neighborhood along with the list of social justice issues minus the social justice issues that are actually intrinsically evil. So I guess this was the only vote for Obama homily I have had the non-privilege of hearing.  So aren't you all glad that you now know that stepping out in faith means and what the still small voice is?

The National Catholic Reporter reporting on the latest priestette "ordination" this time in a Universalist church in Lexington, Ky. 

... She said that at the end of the ceremony, Sevre-Duszynska told the congregation that she often thinks of something Dominican Sr. Marge Tuite told her many years ago: "Never stop making the connections between sexism, racism, militarism, nationalism and all forms of violence."

Making those connections, Maguire said, was really the theme of the day's ordination. "Roy and Janice represent the merging of these (struggles of justice), of making these connections," Maguire said. 

Yeah what is with that sexist Jesus guy?  Surely he knew the "prophetic voice" that would arise 2000 years after he was crucified and died for our sins.  Didn't he know that these women would come along and interpret his will correctly for him?

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington condemned the Roman Catholic Womenpriests movement as "in opposition to the church's authentic teaching" and warned that "members of the Catholic faithful should not support or participate in Saturday's event." Participation in the event, "carries with it very serious penal sanctions in Church Law," a statement on the diocese's Web site warned.

I read that paragraph and thought that what the diocese was saying was not quite right since the excommunicaton applies to "he who shall have attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, as well as the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy Orders, incurs in a latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See."  Not to everybody that participates in the event.  In this case we just have a really badly constructed paragraph that does not accurately reflect what the Archbishop wrote.

In the Roman Catholic Church, only a baptized male is capable of receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders validly. What will take place on Saturday, August 9, 2008, has no connection to Roman Catholic Liturgy or Sacraments and cannot in any way be recognized as a valid reception of Sacred Orders. Simulation of a sacrament carries with it very serious penal sanctions in Church Law. Members of the Catholic Faithful should not support or participate in Saturday's event.

He certainly did not imply that imply that all people who attended the event came under penal sanctions of Church law.  Though certainly their support of this is quite sinful.

In a previous article NCR interviewed Maryknoll Fr. Roy Bourgeois.

In an interview Aug. 7, two days before the ordination, Bourgeois told NCR that he had thought long and hard about participating after receiving an invitation to the ceremony. "I consulted a lot of friends, I've done a lot of discernment, spoken with a lot of women friends. I felt in conscience -- this matter of conscience keeps coming up and I don't know what other word to use -- if I didn't attend her ordination, I would have to stop addressing this issue as I do" in speaking engagements at parishes and other Catholic ve