Feminists for Life of America Proud of McCain's Pick

[August 29, 2008] Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, has been selected by Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain as his running mate.

According to The Anchorage Daily News published August 6, 2006, "Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child." The article went onto say that "she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life." "I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life,' she said."

Feminists for Life's policy is that all memberships are confidential. However, since Governor Palin has been public about her membership, we can confirm that Palin became a member in 2006.

Earlier this week Feminists for Life reacted to the inclusion of woman-centered solutions in the Democratic Party platform, and the inclusion of FFL's trademarked message, "Women deserve better® than abortion,©" in the Republican Party platform.

FFL President Serrin Foster said "It is unprecedented to see the platforms of both major U.S. political parties incorporate key pieces of FFL's unique message."

"Of course there is a certain excitement about the recent movement toward FFL's woman-centered solutions and message by the parties, and now the selection of a pro-life feminist as the Vice Presidential nominee. But as a nonpartisan organization, we cannot endorse any candidates," Foster said.

"FFL members represent a broad political as well as religious spectrum, and we remain both nonpartisan and nonsectarian. There are many issues outside Feminists for Life’s mission. Feminists for Life is dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion - primarily lack of practical resources and support - through holistic, woman-centered solutions. We recognize that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women and that too often women have settled for less. Women deserve better than abortion," said Foster.

As each party takes steps to acknowledge and meet the needs of women, Feminists for Life is prepared to work with our elected leaders on behalf of girls and women who deserve far better than abortion. FFL has a long track record of working with both sides of the political aisle on major legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act, Child Support Enforcement Act, and much more. Many members of Congress have already stepped forward to cosponsor the FFL-inspired bill with bipartisan support, the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act.

"We invite all parties, all public servants, and all people to join us on the bridge of woman-centered solutions," Foster said.

McCain-Palin '08: YES WE CAN!

With multiple media outlets confirming now that Governor Sarah Palin will indeed join the Republican ticket as John McCain’s running mate, McCain has clearly chosen to play offense rather than defense. Instead of a safe choice, such as closest runner-up Mitt Romney or genial Everyman Tim Pawlenty, McCain took some risk with a relative newcomer to national politics. Palin will inject risk, excitement, controversy, and an unexpected historic note to the Republican convention.

First, though, let’s assess the risk. Palin has served less than two years as Governor of Alaska, which tends to eat into the experience message on which McCain has relied thus far. At 44, she’s younger than Barack Obama by three years. She has served as a mayor and as the Ethics Commissioner on the state board regulating oil and natural gas, for a total of eight years political experience before her election as governor. That’s also less than Obama has, with seven years in the Illinois legislature and three in the US Senate.

However, the nature of the experience couldn’t be more different. Palin spent her entire political career crusading against the political machine that rules Alaska — which exists in her own Republican party. She blew the whistle on the state GOP chair, who had abused his power on the same commission to conduct party business. Obama, in contrast, talked a great deal about reform in Chicago but never challenged the party machine, preferring to take an easy ride as a protegé of Richard Daley instead.

Palin has no formal foreign-policy experience, which puts her at a disadvantage to Joe Biden. However, in nineteen months as governor, she certainly has had more practical experience in diplomacy than Biden or Obama have ever seen. She runs the only American state bordered only by two foreign countries, one of which has increasingly grown hostile to the US again, Russia.

And let’s face it — Team Obama can hardly attack Palin for a lack of foreign-policy experience. Obama has none at all, and neither Obama or Biden have any executive experience. Palin has almost over seven years of executive experience.

Politically, this puts Obama in a very tough position. The Democrats had prepared to launch a full assault on McCain’s running mate, but having Palin as a target creates one large headache. If they go after her like they went after Hillary Clinton, Obama risks alienating women all over again. If they don’t go after her like they went after Hillary, he risks alienating Hillary supporters, who will see this as a sign of disrespect for Hillary.

For McCain, this gives him a boost like no other in several different ways. First, the media will eat this up. That effectively buries Obama’s acceptance speech and steals the oxygen he needs for a long-term convention bump. A Romney or Pawlenty pick would not have accomplished that.

Second, Palin will re-energize the base. She’s not just a pro-life advocate, she’s lived the issue herself. That will attract the elements of the GOP that had held McCain at a distance since the primaries and provide positive motivation for Republicans, rather than just rely on anti-Democrat sentiment to get them to the polls.

Third, and I think maybe most importantly, Palin addresses the energy issue better and more attuned to the American electorate than maybe any of the other three principals in this election. Even beyond her efforts to reform the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, she has demonstrated her independence from so-called “Big Oil” while promoting domestic production. She brings instant credibility to the ticket on energy policy, and reminds independents and centrists that the Obama-Biden ticket offers nothing but the same excuses we’ve heard for 30 years.

Finally, based on all of the above, McCain can remind voters who has the real record of reform. Obama talks a lot about it but has no actual record of reform, and for a running mate, he chose a 35-year Washington insider with all sorts of connections to lobbyists and pork. McCain has fought pork, taken real political risks to fight undue influence of lobbyists, and he picked an outsider who took on her own party — and won.

This is change you can believe in, and not change that amounts to all talk. McCain changed the trajectory of the race today by stealing Obama’s strength and turning it against him. Obama provided that opening by picking Biden as his running mate, and McCain was smart enough to take advantage of the opening.

Archbishop Chaput Admonishes Nancy Pelosi

ON THE SEPARATION OF SENSE AND STATE: A CLARIFICATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE CHURCH IN NORTHERN COLORADO

To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:

Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the "separation of Church and state." But their idea of separation often seems to work one way. In fact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest, not as a "political" issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.

Interviewed on Meet the Press August 24, Speaker Pelosi was asked when human life begins. She said the following:

"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose."

Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue "for a long time," she must know very well one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery's Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective (Loyola, 1977). Here's how Connery concludes his study:

"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."

Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."

Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.

Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that - alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief. Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the "separation of Church and state" does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But of course, it's always important to know what our faith actually teaches.

+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
+James D. Conley
Auxiliary Bishop of Denver

Darfur Not A Genocide?

I have found one of the most absurd assertions: the situation in Darfur isn't a genocide. Come again?

Abortion and the Healthcare System

The debate over abortion and healthcare has become heated after a White House proposal redefining abortion sparks debate over religious freedom and patients' rights.

In continuing coverage from a previous edition of Health and Life Sciences Law Daily, The Washington Post (7/31, A1, Stein) reports in a front-page story, "A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting healthcare workers who object to abortion and to birth-control methods...has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious freedom and patients' rights." The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is considering a draft of the proposal "that would deny federal funding to any...entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions."

Proponents of the regulation "are welcoming the initiative as necessary to safeguard...health workers." But, opponents of the proposal "say the regulation would create overwhelming obstacles for women seeking abortions and birth control." The regulation's critics also expressed concern over the way the draft defines abortion, "as anything that affects a fertilized egg," and the possibility that it "could raise questions about a broad spectrum of scientific research and care."

The Wall Street Journal (7/31, A11, Simon) adds that the proposal's broad abortion definition "treats most birth-control pills and intrauterine devices as abortion because they can work by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. The regulation considers that destroying 'the life of a human being.'" But many medical groups contend that anything that disrupts egg fertilization should be deemed as contraception, not abortion. "The draft regulation...would have no immediate effect on the legality of the pill or the IUD if implemented because abortion is legal." Opponents fear, however, that it "would undercut dozens of state laws designed to promote easy access to these methods of birth control, used by more than 12 million women a year."

In addition, the "proposed federal rule change to redefine pregnancy and abortion would override" some state laws "requiring all hospitals to offer rape victims emergency contraception," Minnesota's Star Tribune (7/30, Marcotty) added. "The rule is still being debated within [HHS], and medical organizations, family planning groups, and women's advocates across the country have been up in arms about it." In Minnesota, "women's health advocates and legislators held a news conference at the State Capitol urging lawmakers to resist attempts to make the proposed rule a reality."

Obama Won't Own Up To His Abortion Record

Obama Lying About His Abortion Record
By Rich Lowry

Barack Obama had a mini Bob Dole moment after the Saddleback presidential forum the other night. Asked on the Christian Broadcasting Network about a controversy over his opposition to legislation in Illinois protecting infants born alive after surviving abortions, an irked Obama replied, "I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."

Obama's line recalled Dole's plaint on national TV after the first George Bush beat him in New Hampshire in 1988, "Tell him to stop lying about my record." Dole's outburst would live in infamy as evidence of his distemper. Obama's problem isn't his temperament, but the unsustainable exertions necessary to attempt to square his reasonable-sounding rhetoric on abortion with the extremism of his record.

Asked by Pastor Rick Warren when a baby gets rights, Obama said, "I'm absolutely convinced that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue." This is a crashing banality couched as thoughtfulness. If Obama is so sensitive to the moral element of the issue, why does he want to eliminate any existing restrictions on the procedure?

In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation that he would sign as president. The act would not only codify Roe v. Wade, but wipe out all current federal, state and local restrictions on abortion that pass muster under Roe, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion. This is not the legislative priority of a man keenly attuned to the moral implications of abortion.

At Saddleback, Obama said determining when a baby gets rights is "above his pay grade." Leave aside that presidents usually have an opinion about who deserves legal rights. If Obama is willing to permit any abortions in any circumstances, he'd better possess an absolute certainty about the absolute moral nullity of the fetus.

He told Warren that he favors "limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother's health." But the exception he wants is so broad it makes the restriction meaningless. Obama opposed the partial-birth bill that passed the House and the Senate, 281-142 and 64-34 respectively, and has criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the law.

It's not just partial-birth abortion where Obama is outside the mainstream, but on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act -- the occasion for his televised accusation of lying.

In 2000, Congress took up legislation to make it clear that infants born alive after abortions are persons under the law. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League opposed the bill as an assault on Roe, but it passed the House 380-15. Back in the Illinois state Senate in 2001, Obama spoke out against and voted "present" -- effectively "no" -- on a similar bill, aligning himself with the tiny pro-abortion rump of 15 congressmen.

In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a "neutrality clause" specifying that it didn't affect Roe one way or another. The bill passed without any dissenting votes in the House or the Senate and was signed into law. In 2003 in Illinois, Obama still opposed a state version of the law. He long claimed that he voted against it because it didn't have the same "neutrality clause" as the federal version. But the National Right to Life Committee has unearthed documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted to kill it anyway.

Confronted about this on CBN, he said the pro-life group was lying. But his campaign has now admitted that he had the legislative history wrong. Obama either didn't know his own record, or was so accustomed to shrouding it in dishonesty that it had become second nature.

Here's one of the central dilemmas of Obama's candidacy. Nothing in his career supports his contention that he's a post-partisan healer. So, as someone as splenetic as Bob Dole might put it, he's forced to lie about his record.

Democrats: Let’s Abolish The Caucus System

I’m fully behind Hillary Clinton supporters calling for the abolition of the caucus system. This isn’t entirely noise being made for the sake of doing so because we’re mad Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama, but because the caucus system is very flawed—though, it is arguable that Clinton would have wiped the floor with Obama if there were only primaries.

Caucuses undermine core democratic values because it is a very undemocratic way to nominate someone. I think all states should be required to hold primaries instead. Caucuses are inherently unfair to the elderly, the disabled, shift workers, parents, overseas members of the military, and others whose circumstances prevent them from sitting for hours in a caucus vote. In a primary vote, people have the entire day to vote, but caucuses last only for a few hours, usually in the evening (past midnight in Texas this year) and that disenfranchises voters with obligations that prevent them from participating.

Many caucus rules profoundly violate the one person-one vote principle. For example, in certain states' rules if a precinct is entitled to elect four delegates to the county convention and the vote is 59 percent for candidate A and 41 percent for candidate B, the mathematical rules may require a 2-2 division (because candidate A did not win 60 percent). Therefore, 59 percent to 41 percent—a landslide—results in a 50-50 tie and an even split of delegates.

The worse case is in the state I live in (Texas) and that’s the “Texas Two Step” system. This year nearly three million voters participated in the March 4th Democratic primary. Then the caucus began at 7 p.m. when the polls closed. The people who voted in the primary—I’m not kidding you—may return and vote again. But not all votes are equal! Say, you live in Houston or Austin and the 2006 Democratic candidate for governor carried your precinct by a large margin, your vote could be twice or even three times as influential as if you lived in south Texas, which is mostly rural, strong Republican-dominated counties.

How is any of that democratic, particularly when the principle of one-person, one-vote is violated? Doesn't that embarrass a party that calls itself the "Democratic" Party?

Moreover the average turnout in the caucuses—which Obama did very well in—for all of 2008 was under 10 percent. Even in the highest profile caucus state of all, the “I-must-always-be-first-in-the-nation-to-go,” Iowa had their strongest caucus turnout ever this year. 218,000 Iowans made it to the Democratic caucuses that night, in a state with 2.982 million citizens, for a 7.3-percent showing. It doesn’t get any better in other states: New Mexico (11 percent), Nevada (9 percent), Minnesota and Maine (5 percent), North Dakota (4 percent), Colorado and Nebraska (3 percent), and Idaho, Wyoming, and Kansas (2 percent).

More than twenty years ago, the Democrats switched from winner-take-all contest to a proportional allocation of delegates to be more “fair.” Well, the current system is anything but fair with the silly mathematical formulas for allocating delegates.

In the Texas primary on March 4, Hillary defeated Obama by a margin of 100,000 votes out of nearly 3 million. Clinton was awarded 65 delegates, while Obama received 61. But in the Texas caucus over 42,538 caucus goers – 1.4 percent of primary voters – overturned the will of the other 98.6 percent. Talk about stealing democracy from the people by an exclusionary process. In the end, Obama won 38 delegates to Clinton’s 29. Put all this together and Obama came out of Texas with 99 delegates to Clinton’s 94, despite the fact that Clinton handily won the contest where votes were actually counted.

Look at Nevada and New Hampshire. Hillary won the Nevada caucus and the New Hampshire primary yet Obama received more delegates than her in both states.

Or look at Idaho and New Jersey.

In Idaho, about 21,000 Democrats gathered for the caucus. Obama won in a blowout by a margin of 13,000 votes (80 percent of the vote). For that, he won 15 delegates to only 3 for Clinton — a net gain of 12 delegates. In New Jersey, Clinton won by a margin of 110,000 votes out of more than a million votes. For that, she won 59 delegates to Obama's 48 — a net gain of 11 delegates.

Democrats…please explain, under what system does it make sense for Obama to collect more net delegates for beating Hillary by 13,000 votes in one state than she does for beating Obama by 110,000 in another?

If we kept the mathematical formula of Idaho where Obama picked up 15 of 18 delegates for winning a state with just over 21,000 Democratic votes, then, in a consistent democratic system, using the Idaho math of a net of 12 delegates per 13,000 vote advantage, Hillary’s 215,000 vote win in Pennsylvania should have yielded her a net gain of 198 delegates. Instead, she’s gained a net of only 12 delegates from the Keystone State.

In this case, an Idaho Democrat’s vote counted for 16 times more than a Pennsylvania Democrat’s vote. The system rewards blowout wins in small states and minimizes wins even of 10 or 12 percentage points in big states.

Why should a few thousand people Idaho have an absurdly large say, ultimately quelling a few million in Pennsylvania? One person, one vote? Not in the Democrats’ delegate-allocation system.

Suggestions for the Democratic Party:

One. Abolish the caucus system. Don’t try to bandage it, fix it up, or anything. Just kill it.

Two. Require all states to have primaries; do away with proportional delegate allocation and require a winner-take all system that aligns the nominating system with the Electoral College system for electing presidents—unlike many Democrats, I don’t support abolishing the Electoral College.

Three. Eliminate the super delegates. Nancy Pelosi said she opposed the idea of having super delegates from the beginning yet she was the most biased and the worst behaved. If the political big wigs want to give endorsements and try to sway voters, let them, but their advocacy should not earn any presidential candidate any sort of delegation. By all means, 800 super delegates is beyond excessive and it easily allows party insiders to back a single candidate to the chagrin of the voters. We’re Democrats—let the people decide. Step in if no one reaches the total number of delegates needed by the end of the primary season; it is a race to be elected by the people, not your colleagues.

Four. Why not have five regional primaries starting in mid-January, on a set date, maybe even on a weekend when people are off from work and have one region vote each month through May, with the order of regions rotated every four years so everyone gets a chance to go first (cf. Florida and Michigan controversy; the divine right of Iowa and New Hampshire to always go first to the anger of other states in the union.)

I think this is a sensible and fair request. While those terms are oxymoronic when associated with the Democratic Party’s presidential nominating system, I can always pray and hope.

Adult Entertainment Expo 2008...Come Again?

I didn't know such a thing existed until just now...

There is a convention for the adult film industry that I just currently ran across on television. Videos, sexual toys, and a host of things are sold for consumer "satisfaction." Porn stars sign autographs and meet their fans, better known as pornography addicts. Porn films are recognized for their style and content (as if it is artistic expression), given awards and so are the "actors" who star in them.

There are even interviews with some of the adult "actors." I watched one (it was brief) with a woman discussing how she got into the porn industry. It all broke my heart. These people were all addicted to sexual pleasure and nothing more and the industry had no problem exploiting them for profit.

That's all I could allow myself to watch.

I pray for America because she is being led to ruin...

Why Obama is in Trouble

Over at Real Clear Politics, I found an article that is right on the money in its criticism and questioning of Senator Barack Obama's candidacy. The author boldly concluded: "'[t]he pundits can talk until they are blue in the face about Obama's charisma and eloquence and cross-racial appeal. The fact of the matter is that Obama has no chance of being elected president in 2008.' I am more convinced of this conclusion than ever."

I recommend it. It's a good read, provides valuable arguing points, and is food for thought for Obama supporters.

Obama and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

Considering this, how could anyone support a candidate that is more pro-abortion that NARAL?

The 2008 Democratic Platform on Abortion

I was heartened to see that Kristen Day, Director of Democrats of Life of America, expressed her views on the 2008 Democratic platform saying that it is a step forward (semantically and in recognition, maybe), but not at all perfect. She praised the emphasis on promoting childbirth and helping pregnant women, but calls the unequivocal pro-abortion position out of touch.

The platform reads, "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."

Day stated that advocating unlimited abortions financed by taxpayers won't go over well with Americans. She further said, "We do not believe that the first paragraph of the [abortion] section that 'strongly and unequivocally' supports Roe v. Wade and federal funding of abortion accurately represents the common ground position that Americans are seeking." She reiterated the committment of pro-life Democrats despite this, saying, "Democrats for Life of America will strongly and unequivocally champion the sanctity of life from conception to natural death and will continue to oppose any and all legislation that infringes on that right." Amen to that.

Day also expressed unhappiness that a proposed conscience clause proposed by Democrats for Life saying "we respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues," was rejected and replaced with a general conscience clause not specifying the abortion issue, which is the most critical. In fact, the pro-choice base and elected officials balked at the language.

"Democrats for Life of America appreciates the Platform Committee adding this statement of general inclusiveness, but we will continue to work with the Democratic Party to explicitly recognize and welcome pro-life Democrats in the big tent of the Democratic Party," Day said.

I fully agree with Day on this and believe that all pro-life Democrats, particularly Catholics, should not be so easily fooled. While it is indeed positive that pro-lifers in the party are being recognized and even Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. will be allowed to speak at the Democratic convention (hopefully he'll take the opportunity to stand up for the unborn) in Denver after his father was denied a speech in 1992 because of his pro-life views, we should ask ourselves: do they really understand our concerns or are they throwing us a bone because they realize how critical we are this election (after two losses in 2000 and 2004)?

The platform states, "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay." There is very little room for common ground with people who believe abortion is murder in that statement, but rather it is totally reflective of the views of NARAL and Emily's List. Moreover, "regardless of ability to pay" sounds off an alarm to my Catholic conscience especially when Barack Obama pledged in 2007 to fund abortion through the medium of his universal healthcare plan, which would undermine the Hyde Amendment and allow abortion to be funded by tax-payer dollars.

The Democrats say they "oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." That's why they support the Freedom of Choice Act and their presidential nominee has vowed to sign it, which would virtually overturn every federal and state pro-life laws which restrict and undermine the so-called right to abortion. This means the partial-birth abortion ban would be reversed, parental consent and notification laws overturned, mandated ultrasound viewing options overturned, laws against traveling state lines for abortion overturned as well, conscience laws that protect pro-life doctors would be overturned and they would be obligated to perform abortion as standard medical procedure, and the list goes on. Essentially, this would call for abortion-on-demand from conception to birth, maybe even after. (cf. Barack Obama's vote on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act).

I am not surprised they would throw pro-life Democrats a bone by supporting reducing unwanted pregnancies and thereby the abortion rate because that's all we'll have once they enact the Freedom of Choice Act. But as a Catholic, their proposed solutions to reducing abortions are a bit problematic, so much that I would oppose them even while I agree with the principle idea. The Democratic Party "supports access to affordable family planning services." Well, no, that's not Natural Family Planning (NFP), but tax-payers dollars being used to fund wanton distribution of contraceptives, the morning after pill and other abortifacents, and lastly they would advocate comprehensive-sex education (not education on health and disease that I received in school that promotes abstinence) which will "empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives." It is obvious that abstinence is not in that education packet, and if it is, it is in the background. Someone should alert the Democrats that Catholics (who they are courting) don't oppose contraception because we think it's a nice little rule, we oppose it because we believe it to be contra-human nature and no good can ever come from its use. Moreover, we can't use evil (contraception) to stop evil (abortion).

It seems to me that at present the Democrats have not changed at all and to quote Obama, "on this fundamental issue," they will "not yield." I sometimes wonder why I don't leave the Democratic Party. With all my soul, I pray they lose their White House bid this November and after three straight presidential losses and more pro-life Democratic seats in Congress and inclusion in the party, they will begin to reassess their priorities. But, at present, I am a dissenter in the ranks and I will be until the Democratic Party stops warring with her own principles.

On a final and very important note: all pro-life Americans who are voting for Barack Obama for whatever reason, do so because you believe that you cannot violate your conscience. I believe that you're profoundly mistaken, but I will not pass my judgment on any of you. Those of you, particularly my Christian brothers and sisters, who are speaking out against war, for peace, for economic justice, for fighting poverty and access to quality healthcare, and your most pressing concerns, do so standing upon the right-to-life if you wish to be morally coherent. In fact, it is the only way to be truly human and truly a humanitarian.

A False Apostle in Texas?

According to the news, a man named Martin Davila Gandara is claiming apostolic succession by posing as a Catholic bishop. Bishop Farrell of Dallas, Texas has warned the faithful in the diocese of the false bishop who is charging people money to receive the sacraments. Allegedly, the false bishop has been performing baptisms for fees between $100 and $200 in hotels.

I’m not sure how Catholics were fooled into believing a legitimate Bishop would ask them for money to receive sacramental ministry nor why they weren’t suspicious that he was not operating inside churches. I think a healthy level of prudence and skepticism wouldn't hurt. Despite this, I pray that this man is brought to justice for misleading people, selling the spiritual services (baptizing infants) of the Catholic Church for profit, and identifying himself as a bishop when he is not to get over on people. Even more so, I pray for his immortal soul.

An Unrequited Letter to Prof. Doug Kmiec

Sent on June 8, 2008.

Professor Kmiec,

In the words of St. Paul: Grace and Peace from our Lord Jesus Christ. I'm writing to you because of your political statements that have caused quite a stir in Catholic circles. This letter is not intended to be an attack of any sort. All I offer is a humble consideration, if you conscientiously disagree, I will not (and as I don't now) doubt your dedication to the Catholic faith, though I think you are making a serious error. I just hope that you will consider my words and if my reasoning is not faulty, you may change your position.

I'm a student at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas, a practicing Roman Catholic, and a pro-life Democrat. I will concede that I am convinced for a variety of reasons that the Republican Party puts on a pro-life facade every four years and pro-life Christians (people of good will) take the bait and get little out of it. I think it is terrible that the pro-life voice is found only on one side of the American political discourse because it enables the Republican Party to make promises that it has no intention of keeping. Moreover, changing American culture and its moral environment is far more crucial to the abortion situation than the law itself—though that does not mean that the law is of no consequence.

The entire primary season, I backed (and voted for) Hillary Rodham Clinton because I felt she was the strongest candidate, the most morally sound, and the only one who had a clear plan and not words. I think she is an intelligent and very capable woman. Truth be told, I am no fan of Hillary Clinton's politics. But she and I became friends because we had a common enemy: Barack Obama. That's over now and I'm voting for John McCain.

First, Barack Obama has very little political experience. He entered the Senate in 2005 and after 143 days of experience in office he announced his presidential bid. Obama has not championed many bills, has voted "present" on too many bills for someone not even finished with his first term, nor has he reached across the playing field for bipartisan agreement. Instead, he was number 16 in rank of the most liberal Senators in 2005, number 10 in 2006, and number 1 last year. He is a clear leftist. His rhetoric sounds wonderful and lofty—uniting the country, reaching across the political divide, etc, but his political actions and voting record suggest otherwise. Don't actions speak louder than words? In essence, Barack Obama has found a political gimmick that works magnificently. John McCain has said that he would have Democrats in his Administration; McCain has made bipartisan agreements with Democrats, he's voted against Bush's tax cuts, has bucked the GOP on torture and immigration, and even argues with fellow conservatives about the reality of climate change. He's pretty bipartisan and he has a record that offers proof—he should be running on Obama's slogan.

In many of your statements, I believe (rightly or wrongly) that you accept Obama's supposed-bipartisan rhetoric too quickly particularly on the abortion crisis. Your argument for the moral equivalency between McCain and Obama's position on Roe v. Wade is quite a statement—one that will not go unchallenged. Unless I am totally mistaken, your assessment in "Reasons for Catholic Hope in the General Election" is that since neither McCain or Obama take a natural law standpoint on abortion (one being pro-choice and the other being pro-federalism rather than favoring a constitutional reading that sees the inalienable right to life—thus, we are truly nine judges away from overturning Roe v. Wade instead of one judge) there is no qualitative difference between their views and a Catholic could easily vote for either. I profoundly disagree with you. A Catholic is obliged to certain moral principles that promote the common good, but there is a clear hierachy of issues and we have to vote for the candidate that will clearly bring us closer to an end to abortion. It is clear to me that Obama's pledge "on this fundamental issue, I will not yield" and promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into federal law rolling back every federal and state law restricting abortion since the Roe v. Wade (including partial-birth abortion) is an ominous sign that Obama's "unity" abortion rhetoric is false.

As a Democrat, I would agree that Republicans don't give abortion the primacy it deserves and that they may not be all that serious about ending it. Sure. But that does not immediately justify a Democratic vote. McCain's view would allow many states to outlaw abortion. Obama has pledged to roll back any restrictions and abortion-on-demand will be the law of the land. Again, as a Democrat I believe women who get abortions are faced with the most difficult and tragic circumstances they may ever find themselves in and we need to work to eliminate the "abortion climate." I'm very compassionate toward women and aware of the social and economic crises women who opt for abortion face. But I don't see why we cannot legislate pro-woman policies and work to provide legal protection for the unborn simultaneously. Obama has talked real big, but there is no actual evidence of Obama's supposed tendency to "reach out" to people he in disagreement with. Unless he's talking to some massive audience and giving a lofty speech about "unity"—I find that any disagreement he rejects as "divisive" and "not what people care about..." followed by an hour long speech about gas prices and healthcare.

Lowering the abortion rate under a Democratic Administration is one thing, but to do so at the cost of having possibly every pro-life law since Roe v. Wade rolled back by the Freedom of Choice Act passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President is another thing. The ground we would lose on ending abortion is unfathomable. In the Illinois State Senate he voted against legislation similar to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act which passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate. Not only did he take the bill down, he kept it off the floor. There was a story in the news about babies who survived abortions dying in Chicago hospitals a few years ago and he was cited in the story as why the bill could not pass for about 5 years until he left the State Senate and then it passed. Truly, I do not wish to insult you or demean you as a Catholic. I am sure you have good intentions and you want to see human flourishing. But I cannot conceive how anyone in good conscience could vote for a man who believes that a child outside of the mother's womb does not deserve basic legal protection and medical treatment and instead votes in favor of the child being left to die in a utility room—jurisprudence goes out the window, bill language out the window—how can anyone vote for that? I don't think our Lord would vote him.

NARAL Pro-Choice America did not oppose the bill. I cannot fathom a candidate more pro-choice than NARAL, but Barack Obama is that candidate. Even in regard to healthcare Obama is a terrible choice. At a Planned Parenthood Forum in 2007, Barack Obama and John Edwards promised to include abortion coverage in their healthcare plans (and this was later confirmed by both campaigns). Therefore, Obama not only wants to allow access to abortion-on-demand at any point during pregnancy, not only will he apply a strict pro-choice litmus test to Justices he appoints, but he wants to cover abortion in universal healthcare and all citizens—including pro-life citizens—would have to pay for it. To even fathom that idea somehow says that he does not believe a word of all the hot air he spouts off in his speeches.

Even if Obama did believe what he was saying—I'm not convinced—he is naive to think that after 8 years of the President Bush horror (and it has been horrible), Democrats are ready for change. He'll pick for his Administration from the same run of the mill politicians, possibily with Hillary Clinton on his ticket, a Democratic Congress, and a solid pro-choice Supreme Court after his appointments. Basically, he'll be surrounded by politicians—more experienced than he, unless he picks a totally unexperienced Administration—glad to be back in control, eager for power, and not sharing his ideals for change, if they even exist. He has basically written a check that he cannot cash either way or doesn't even plan on cashing.

I don't doubt that you are a man of good will. In fact, it is unfortunate that you had to suffer the horrible experience of being denied the Eucharist. Perhaps, such an incidence may make it harder to concede. But I do hope that you prayerfully consider your position. If I'm right in regard to Sen. Barack Obama, his presidency could be a very grave setback for the pro-life cause. At one point, slavery was an issue and it wasn't until it is outlawed that the political climate changed; the same is true of civil rights. What is law, for some people is the way things should be and to let Roe v. Wade be enacted into federal law would be a real blow to the pro-life movement. Lastly, consider that it would be better in the long run for states to be allowed to determine what to do on abortion than let it stay legal in all 50 states while only trying to reduce the abortion rate—it could and would be illegal in many states. Illegal in many states is far better than illegal in no states. It is a mere step closer toward a total abolition of the holocaust of the unborn.

The Catholic obligation is not only to reduce the abortion rate, but to end its practice and the legality of abortion does matter. If there were a different candidate not with Obama's voting record and history and lack of legislative and executive experience, whom was mildly or even moderately pro-choice, I think things may be somewhat different, but Obama is too far to the left on a number of issues especially abortion. Obama by far is the leftist-leaning, most pro-abortion candidate in history and it is hard to fathom how he at all will receive or why he deserves a Catholic vote.

A Message to GOP Catholics

Michael Novak’s article, Catholics for Obama?, is a well-written and insightful look at Catholic political engagement and abortion. Though, I don’t disagree with what he says, there are a few criticisms I think Novak and other Catholics should at least consider—not that I think my “two cents” really count for much.

Novak is right-on when he says that many Catholics try to avoid calling abortion what it is—murder—and they will tirelessly say or do anything to justify their insatiable partisan desire to vote for Democrats. He is also right that many Catholics on the Left have an incorrect understanding of the “consistent life ethic,” and often equate other issues to abortion.

Nevertheless, Novak displays a flaw that I can’t help but notice. There is a lack of criticism of the Republican Party in Catholic circles. Yet, there is ready (and certainly warranted) criticism of Democrats particularly on the sanctity of life issues and dissenting Catholics on the left side of the political spectrum who hide behind pro-choice rhetoric. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be criticism of Democrats; I’m saying that there is a double standard.

Catholics of all political persuasions often cite the U.S. Bishops’ document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” The document provides a rich understanding of Catholic Social Teaching, but as a voting guide, it proves to be a disaster. Catholics are given a crash course of natural law morality applied to politics, told to consider a litany of issues, adhere to Christian principles, and make a judgment based on their conscience. Given all these priorities, what good Catholics ought to do is often lost in a sea of heated opinions. The Bishops, for example, clearly say that Catholics cannot vote for a candidate who advocates an intrinsic evil, e.g. abortion, if one is motivated by a desire to advance that evil. By that logic, taken in the context of considering a broad set of issues, a Catholic can come to the conclusion based on their reading that they have “room” to vote for a pro-choice candidate, if abortion is not their reason for supporting that candidate. Or at the very least, there are “proportionate” and morally grave reasons, given certain circumstances that Catholics may vote for a pro-choice candidate. The problem is that the Bishops don’t say what those reasons may be nor do they take the counter extreme of saying, in no uncertain terms, that Catholics cannot, absolutely, whatsoever vote for pro-choice candidates. Therefore, it becomes a matter of (often heated) debate.

Certainly, there are non-negotiable issues that Catholics cannot disagree on and all other issues of “prudential analysis” (like the best way to deal with immigration) permits legitimate disagreement among the faithful. It is obvious that a Catholic who adopts an unacceptable position, e.g. a pro-choice position on abortion, and advocates those policies would be in a state of mortal sin. Interestingly enough, I find, particularly among Catholic conservatives, that the issues that aren’t non-negotiable, that call for “prudential analysis” leads to a sort of relativism. The fact is “prudential analysis” only implies that such issues are not grave enough to bar a Catholic from receiving communion. It does not mean that any position on other matters is morally equal, i.e. whatever the GOP position is because they are the pro-life party nor should are these issues irrelevant. More often than not, one position is arguably more consonant with the Gospel and in fact, true social justice. I personally happen to think the Democrats are more often than not closer on a lot of those issues.

Despite the fact that I am a Democrat, I am voting against Barack Obama in November because I’m pro-life, but abortion is not the only issue in the scope of my concerns. Yet in my discourses with other Catholics, it concerns me that they don’t really care about—or are totally ignorant of—other issues besides life issues and gay marriage. The global food crisis that arose from making ethanol from the once-cheapest food on the market, corn, has disproportionately affected third world countries with rising costs of food. Is this not a pro-life concern to at least think about? Another issue is the genocide in Darfur, in which, the Bush Administration has yet to fulfill its two year old promise of intense diplomatic efforts in the region and to rally the U.N. to join them despite the nearly half a million death toll.

Another issue that is very important to me, not only as a Catholic but as an African American because it affects so many people in my family who borderline or sink below the poverty line, is the healthcare system—or medical caste system—that is direly in need of repair. Public health is dominated by consumerism and there are little safeguards ensuring public interests and respect for human dignity. The healthcare lobby, by and large, is a conservative constituency. I think it is fair to say that the GOP had an opportune time (1994-2006) to attempt to fix the broken healthcare system and provide a just system where more Americans had access to basic, quality healthcare. But rather millions of tax-payer dollars went to funding the Clinton scandal witch hunt and instead of ensuring the common good, Republicans made politics into a circus.

Now there are in fact Republicans who support a reform in healthcare (cf. Republicans for Single Payer), even a single-payer universal healthcare system and they demonstrate how it would not handicap the free-market economy. I believe, ultimately, this is a pro-life issue in its own respect, particularly when the current “pro-life” Republican President is vetoing bills to expand healthcare coverage to socio-economically disadvantaged children and the fact that this crisis is overlooked or dismissed by other Catholics is very problematic in my view. To have concern for these social justice issues doesn’t require you to be a Democrat or that you vote for one. It means that you are Catholic. By all means, show the GOP that its pro-life base has social justice concerns.

Moreover, the GOP does not give abortion the primacy it deserves though their rhetoric would surely have everyone think the opposite. And I’m not saying that the Democrats are the solution to that problem. Seven of the nine on the Supreme Court were nominated by Republican presidents after Roe v. Wade, yet only four are pro-life—obviously their commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade could not be as pressing as even the most die-hard pro-life Americans would like to believe. Even in the Republican-controlled Congress from 2000-2006, The Right to Life Act, The Human Life Amendment, and other pro-life bills never once made it to a vote on the floor. Not once. I honestly doubt the GOP's credibility and only the action of the party in the coming years will change or solidify my skepticism. But it remains that the credibility of the GOP at large does not change the debate over whether or not Catholics can vote for a Democrat in this election or at all.

Recently, I criticized “Roman Catholics for Obama ‘08” for the inherent flaws of their pro-Obama arguments, but even more so because they are not even critical of their candidate nor the Democratic Party. I hold the same disapproval for Catholics who turn a critical eye to the Democrats, but not to the Republicans and their failures. I contended (and still do) that those Catholics advocating Obama could gain credibility by acknowledging his terrible position on abortion and demanding change through a large-scale campaign for more pro-life policies, rather than ignoring the matter—after all, uncritical support of pro-abortion candidates will not reap any change on the Left. Other Catholics, including me, will disagree with them, but they wouldn’t seem as dubious. Nevertheless, Catholics who consistently cast their ballots for Republicans ought to expect that the GOP will take advantage of them and ignore their most pressing concerns if they expect they can do it and receive a mindless stamp of approval on all their other policies as long as they promise to be pro-life on abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research.

To another point: there is an unspoken understanding among many that no good Catholic can vote for a Democrat and we must vote for Republicans. I disagree with that assessment and I’m not endorsing the idea of campaigning for and fully supporting pro-choice candidates without so much as a blink. The current strategy, it seems, is to elect only Republicans both at the federal and state level, so they will elect anti-Roe judges so that we can position ourselves to overturn Roe v. Wade. I’m all for overturning Roe v. Wade. Yet, I’m not at all sure if that’s the best strategy. I have a negative view of one-party controlled government and particularly with President Bush’s abuse of his presidential powers and the GOP going along with it. For example, I firmly oppose the absurd notion that the United States has some right to detain people for years at a time, on the basis of “suspicion,” without any substantial and credible enough evidence to even give a reason as to why they are being detained. This is a clear violation of human rights. You don’t arrest someone and hold them for years when you have no proof that they did something, don’t tell them what they did, and won’t give them a fair trial with some means of protecting American intelligence. And it was the four “conservative” judges of the Supreme Court who disagreed with everything I just said. I’ll flip the script here and say that I’m sure they’ll hide behind the banner of “prudential analysis,” but judgment on a not-so-grave matter does not immediately equal a morally-right or even morally-neutral position. Moreover, just because other issues do not carry the same moral weight as abortion and other attacks on human life does not mean that we can call ourselves morally coherent when we put those all other concerns—all important in their own right—on the back burner or passively allow legislation that is not just, all in the name of prudential judgment.

In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus paints an image of his return in glory and he separates the goats from the sheep. The sheep are those who served “the least” of His brothers: the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, strangers, those sick and in prison. The goats repeat the sin of Cain by not acknowledging we are our brother’s keeper. Catholic Democrats often cite the “consistent life ethic” as the reason why they are voting for the Democratic candidates and they often receive a lot of criticism. Those in the GOP while criticizing them (and it’s often warranted) never own up to their party's failures on the “consistent life ethic” and over-emphasize the hierarchy of issues so much that we neglect many of Jesus’ brothers and sisters despite what the Lord told us.

Catholics can and must be fully pro-life and support initiatives that produce a social and economic environment that is ultimately pro-life—a culture of life—founded upon the family. I have never understood why Catholics divided between the right and the left insist on having it one way (change the law) or the other (change the culture). This means that Catholics who consider themselves to be Republicans—and this applies not only to them—should be breathing a firestorm on the Right because if we are pro-life and pro-family, and are going to include “the least” of our Lord’s brothers in our social vision, all of them, we must oppose continual cuts in funding to education, weak maternity-leave laws that enable pregnant women—who sometimes by their socio-economic status are statistically inclined toward abortion—to lose their job and healthcare, neglecting our obligation to find innovative ways to reduce the poverty rate that doesn’t always include social programs, not finding a real solution to the healthcare problem, and the list goes on.

I believe if Catholics demanded results on abortion, more would be done by Republicans. Surely, other aspects of their agenda have been carried out with fervor—weakening the social-safety net, privatizing, deregulating, lowering the influence of labor unions, belligerent foreign policy, anti-immigration legislation—that I think the GOP, if serious about abortion, could repeatedly introduce the same bills over and over again, meet with pro-Roe Justices and talk to them about abortion, bring scientists into the debate, etc. Anything would do. Show more effort.

Ultimately, I think that the lack of Catholic criticism to the right is the source of some of the problems that we are facing today. If we demanded results on the life issues and demonstrated that other policies need to be moderated or more inclusive to the concern for the weak and vulnerable in society without handicapping the free-market economy I think it would do a number of things: (a) it would be incredible witness to dissident Catholics who put partisan politics before their moral obligations (b) the Democrats could not argue that their policy positions are more reflective of the social justice teachings of the Church and more Catholics would join the GOP without fear of other critical issues being ignored, (c) it may inspire change on the Left after a heavy loss of an already shrinking constituency.

Granted the purpose of Novak’s article was to question the legitimacy of Catholic support for Barack Obama, I still find that it unfailingly added confirmation to my conviction that there is a lack of GOP criticism by Catholics. One might get the impression that if we just vote Republican, everything will be alright. On the contrary, there is much work to be done and Catholics need to know that voting for GOP candidates still requires much more. Sure, not everyone is as skeptical as I am; I firmly believe that the GOP in large part puts on a pro-life façade every 4 years and forgets about efforts to end abortion after the elections. The fact that the pro-life voice is not on both sides of the political spectrum easily allows Republicans to make promises to the pro-life movement that it has no intentions of keeping because for many of us, this cause is so insurmountable that we will not vote for the other side under any circumstances, even if they put up a candidate like John McCain. Where else are we to go? We either sit at home or suck it up and vote to stop the pro-choice candidate from winning. Isn't that the situation Catholics are facing this election?

And because they have uncritical support of pro-lifers and coin themselves as anti-abortion, they can run the economy into the ground, implement bad foreign policy, support torture, support economic policies that are clearly an unjust distribution of resources, cut services to the poor, tell third world countries to be economically responsible for themselves while permitting America's greedy consumption of 70 to 90 percent of the world’s resources, run up our national debt from $5.63 trillion to a mind-numbing $9.5 trillion in only seven years, carry out unilateral pre-emptive wars before exhausting diplomatic efforts, ignore the health care crisis, and despite such injustices, they face absolutely no reprehension at all from their pro-life base (unless, and only if, they don’t put up a pro-life candidate), whatsoever just because they are against abortion. We just have to vote for them, throw our vote away on a third party, or don’t vote at all. This disturbs me greatly. The power they have is astonishing. They can ignore critical issues and still be protected from being held responsible for their faults.

The Democrats champion a great number of progressive positions that seem more "pro-life" to me and these positions are unpopular in the Republican Party and I think they're profoundly wrong about them. I could be wrong about them. I certainly don’t think everyone has to agree with me nor do I think all these "progressive" positions should just be legislated based only on my views. I think a key to progression is dialogue and debate over the issues. While other Catholics may disagree with me on social and economic policies, I pray that at least that we agree on principle that we must be critical of both political parties and more concerned about being Catholic than our commitment to any secular school of thought. And if this is so, it means that Catholics will have to call Republicans out on their failures with just as much concern for justice as when they criticize Democrats.

Catholic conservatives have no more hold on Catholic orthodoxy than Catholic liberals do—defending life, supporting the family, and pursuing the common good is what animates real Catholics of all political persuasions. I've often been told you can't be Catholic and a Democrat. I disagree. I’m a pro-life Catholic fighting in the trenches for the soul of the Democratic Party that has lost its natural law thinking and gone to war with its own principles of defending the most vulnerable among us. I believe that it’s a noble cause.

That’s my "two cents" for GOP Catholics. Take it as you will.

New English Mass Translation

The New English Translation of the Order of the Mass is now available.

This analysis is from the blog Vivificat and I truly commend it:

...the newly approved English translation of the Order of the Mass is now available on the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. In my view, this first revision of the unchanging parts of the Mass after 40 years goes a long way in addressing the rather informal and at times colloquial translation we've all been chafing under for decades. The new translation is much closer to the Latin standard edition and therefore, better conforming to the collective mind of the worshipping, universal Church.

The Liturgical Movement and the purpose of Vatican II liturgical reforms

The Mass in the vernacular language was a concession made by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council who, guided by the Holy Spirit, wanted to make the liturgical treasures of the Church available and understandable to a wider audience, thereby ensuring the full and active participation of the People of God in the highest act of worship of the Catholic Church, the re-presentation of the one Sacrifice of Christ in Calvary, the offering of the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" in a renewed Paschal Feast, and the continuance of the Risen Christ's Real Presence in the heart of the Church.

Whether the post-Conciliar reforms achieved in whole or in part the wishes of the Council Fathers has been a matter of intense controversy ever since. The wanton, unauthorized adaptations, improvisations and changes made by self-declared liturgical reformers in search for "relevance" on one side, and the resistance to any change by traditionalists on the other, has for too long polarized the debate as to where the Liturgical Renewal should have gone after Vatican II. The false dilemma posed by "progressives" – for whom reforms have fallen short of some mythical democratic ideal – and "traditionalists" – for whom reforms have gone too far or were not needed at all – has led to collective confusion among the faithful and to a subsequent loss in the understanding of the purpose, means, and end of the Church's liturgical action.

The polarizing debate has led to unnecessarily competing visions of the Holy Mass. For example, some talk about the Mass exclusively as a Paschal Supper or Feast preferring to stress its "horizontal" dimension of fellowship and communion at the expense of its sacrificial character, or vice versa: some see the Mass solely as an action belonging almost exclusively to the priest-celebrant and altar ministers, where "full, active participation" is relegated to the realm of the passive and individual. The truth is that the Mass is all of this, sacrifice and feast, worship and communion, Presence and missio. The Mass is all of this and its reality does not exhaust any one meaning exclusively at the expense of another one.

Towards a liturgical hermeneutic of continuity

Since the inauguration of the pontificate of Benedict XVI we have seen a focused effort – which really started, tentatively at first but late in the pontificate of Paul VI, and with more vigor in that of John Paul the Great – to restore the original liturgical intent of the Fathers of Vatican II of fostering the full, active and conscious participation of all the faithful at Mass. Pope Benedict's liberalization of the so-called Tridentine Liturgy – now the extraordinary form of the Latin Rite – demonstrates the Sovereign Pontiff's desire that the Liturgical Movement validated by Vatican II proceeds in strict continuity with the venerable liturgy of the Church. All attempts to see the "New Mass" of Paul VI as a rupture with the past and as a field for impertinent experimentation should be rejected in favor of Pope Benedict's vision of extending his "hermeneutic of continuity" from the field of biblical exegesis into the Church's liturgical actions.

What that means to us, I believe, is that the way we worship at Mass today should take its cues from the extraordinary form as to, among other things, the right attitudes, recollection, respect, gestures, and solemnity of the liturgical action; whereas those who prefer to worship in the extraordinary form of the Holy Mass should find legitimate ways to make their participation one that is fully conscious and active in accordance to the intent of the Fathers of Vatican II. I believe that the Holy Father's intent is to have both forms influence each other beneficially, thereby restoring a continuity and balance that many on both sides of the liturgical debate considered lost.

Much remains to be done since too often also, the music, art, and architecture of the post-Conciliar Church has led to a practical forgetfulness of the Real Presence which our temples are meant to house and our hymns to honor. Sadly, too many of our temples have become mere auditoriums or meeting halls and not places of prayer simply because the dwellers behave accordingly. Noise and loud conversations prevail at the expense of recollection and silence. The sacred arts should be the next objects of the Holy Father's restoration of the "exegesis of continuity."

A Holy Mass in true vernacular English

I see this new translation of the Order of the Mass as a great first step toward restoring theological sanity to our Liturgy. Mass "in the vernacular" does not mean Mass "in the colloquial." When we pray, we are praying not only as an isolated assembly but also with the great cloud of witnesses, martyrs, and saints, canonized and not, who also become present every time unto us whenever we witness Christ's Sacrifice in the Mass.

The Mass should have its own liturgical language that, through beauty, rhythm and poetry highlights the solemnity of the liturgical action. Clearly, much remains to be done in terms of music, architecture, and church décor to restore our temples and sacred spaces into houses of prayer once again. God is not my "buddy" in heaven and our language should reflect that fundamental truth.

The Mass is not solely the action of isolated national churches and language groups. The Mass is the action of the entire Church and should reflect its universal character in its particular celebration. Therefore, no group can claim sole ownership of the vernacular language of the Mass since Mass in any language belongs to the common patrimony of the Universal Church.

An ideal opportunity for liturgical catechesis and formation

Priests and those of us in the liturgical assembly now face a new learning curve. Our communal dialogue with the Lord is going to change and, I am convinced, for the best. I find the objection to the new translation as the loss of the way we have prayed at Mass "for the last 40 years" silly. Those who wield this objection are generally the same people who once had little qualms in ditching wholesale the way we prayed for at least 400 years in favor of an English translation which was originally conceived to be as merely tentative and transitional. Bishops, priests, and the faithful will relearn to pray in a proper, liturgical language consonant to the Mind of the Church, given the proper catechesis. Hopefully, the changes will cascade into our hymns, songs, and sacred architecture.

The new translation of the Order of the Mass offers us a great opportunity for a renewed liturgical catechesis. We now have the opportunity to relearn what the Mass is all about. The USCCB has made available a treasure throve of information to support this catechetical effort. We should avail ourselves of all these aides. I humbly propose that we should engage in a serious effort at liturgical catechesis should be pursued in every parish and oratory.

Let us seize this providential moment to form a liturgical consciousness in our Catholic faithful, a consciousness both in continuity with out liturgical heritage and in true accord with the intent of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council. Let us, then, come and worship the Lord, for we are his people, the flock that he shepherds (Psalm 95).

Desecration of the Blessed Sacrament

Recently in the Catholic news, a story broke out about an atheist that purposely and deliberately desecrated a consecrated Eucharistic host. This is a clear violation of religious freedom, which protect people's right to live out their faith peacefully. The act in question is undeniably aggressive against the Catholic faith and disrepectful to religious people, of any faith.

Catholics should pray for the souls of people whose hearts are filled with such hatred and contempt for religion. Justice will always prevail. Let us not be swept with hatred and hostility, but with righteous anger.

Fr. Tom Euteneuer, President of Human Life International wrote (heatedly) about the subject:

As if we needed more evidence of the growing rejection of God in our modern world, in July, a college professor in Minnesota, Paul Myers, publicly vowed to desecrate the Eucharist to make a point about his sick atheistic beliefs. Apparently now he has done the blasphemous deed with the help of someone who sent him a Host stolen from a Mass in London. This person posted a video of the theft on the internet proving that the arrogant sin of one has spawned the sacrilege of another.

Unfortunately, in the internet age, it is likely that this kind of crime against Our Lord will generate even more profanity. Never in the history of the world has there been such a deep-seated and wide-spread campaign of blasphemy against Jesus, and there is only one word for it - satanic.

Prof. Myers claims to be a militant atheist; I only hope, for the sake of his own soul, that he is invincibly ignorant of the terrifying consequences of his "faith." In this society, the First Amendment allows him to practice any religion, including atheism, which is a belief system that generally appeals to narrow-minded people like liberal college professors, newspaper editors and Hollywood elites. Yet, even so, he is not entitled to maliciously desecrate the beliefs and Sacraments of others! His act of sacrilege should be taken as a heinous offense against any and all of us who believe in God.

Myers claims to have deliberately desecrated the Most Holy Eucharist last month. These were the words that the professor from hell posted on his blog explaining this satanic act: "I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus's tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffee grounds and a banana peel. My apologies to those who hoped for more, but the worst I can do is show my unconcerned contempt."

That was apparently a fulfillment of his public promise to desecrate the Host where he invited others to join him in this conspiracy against our Lord: "Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them - my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure - but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage..., but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart." Nothing could please the devil more.

Sadly, the person who allegedly stole the Host from the London Oratory placed a video of his connivance on the internet which pictured the Sacred Species next to a condom, blaming the Vatican for the AIDS pandemic in Africa. (I did mention that these people were "narrow-minded," didn't I?)

Our response to these escalating crimes: to renew our Baptismal promises. We forcefully "reject Satan and all his works and all his empty promises," and we reject these particular acts of sacrilege against our Blessed Lord. And as for Prof. Myers and his co-conspirators in blasphemy - let them be forewarned that the malice they show now will be the malice they receive from their unclean spirits who will have an eternity to take it out on them. We, as men and women of faith, will simply pray for their wretched souls to be saved from this evil that grips them.

The Oratorians of London have issued a general call for people of faith this week to make reparation for "all the outrages against the Blessed Sacrament around the world." Given the new glut of internet blasphemy these days, we have our work cut out for us.

St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross

Today is the feast day of St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, also known as Edith Stein—a Jewish woman, Catholic convert, feminist, philosopher, consecrated religious, and a martyr who died in the holocaust. She is amongst my favorite saints and her writings are incredible, in depth and in insight. Though a progressive feminist for her time, she was dedicated to Catholic orthodoxy.

Much of her writings, particularly in regard to what John Paul II coined as the "feminine genius," is present in John Paul II's Theology of the Body. One of my favorite aspects of her legacy is that she expounded on the idea that men and women are inherently different. She asserted that the human soul is not unisex and manhood and womanhood is reflected not only in our bodies, but in our souls. Therefore, men and women are different, but equal. This is explicit Catholic doctine that she explained beautifully in the framework of the philosophical movement known as phenomenology.

Her faith was incorporated into her worldview, particularly her feminism. She advocated women's place in society—in universities, in the workplace, in public office, etc., but she encouraged women to live out their vocation in these secular professions without compromising the dignity of their womanhood. Stein believed that women could enrich the secular world with their feminine gifts. This is reflective of my own "progressive" views and I really admire the wisdom and boldness of this wonderful saint because it is apparent to me that none of these ideas were her own, but a humble reflection of the already revealed truth of the Catholic faith articulated for the modern world.

St. Edith Stein, pray for us.

A brilliant philosopher who stopped believing in God when she was 14, Edith Stein was so captivated by reading the autobiography of Teresa of Avila that she began a spiritual journey that led to her Baptism in 1922. Twelve years later she imitated Teresa by becoming a Carmelite, taking the name Teresa Benedicta of the Cross.

Born into a prominent Jewish family in Breslau (now Wroclaw, Poland), Edith abandoned Judaism in her teens. As a student at the University of Göttingen, she became fascinated by phenomenology, an approach to philosophy. Excelling as a protégé of Edmund Husserl, one of the leading phenomenologists, Edith earned a doctorate in philosophy in 1916. She continued as a university teacher until 1922 when she moved to a Dominican school in Speyer; her appointment as lecturer at the Educational Institute of Munich ended under pressure from the Nazis.

After living in the Cologne Carmel (1934-38), she moved to the Carmelite monastery in Echt, Netherlands. The Nazis occupied that country in 1940. In retaliation for being denounced by the Dutch bishops, the Nazis arrested all Dutch Jews who had become Christians. Teresa Benedicta and her sister Rosa, also a Catholic, died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz on August 9, 1942.

Pope John Paul II beatified Teresa Benedicta in 1987 and canonized her in 1998.

In his homily at the canonization Mass, Pope John Paul II said: “Because she was Jewish, Edith Stein was taken with her sister Rosa and many other Catholics and Jews from the Netherlands to the concentration camp in Auschwitz, where she died with them in the gas chambers. Today we remember them all with deep respect. A few days before her deportation, the woman religious had dismissed the question about a possible rescue: ‘Do not do it! Why should I be spared? Is it not right that I should gain no advantage from my Baptism? If I cannot share the lot of my brothers and sisters, my life, in a certain sense, is destroyed.’”

Addressing himself to the young people gathered for the canonization, the pope said: “Your life is not an endless series of open doors! Listen to your heart! Do not stay on the surface but go to the heart of things! And when the time is right, have the courage to decide! The Lord is waiting for you to put your freedom in his good hands.”