Black Genocide: Abortion and African Americans

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." How is her vision being fulfilled today?

Minority women constitute only about 26% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion. On average, 1,452 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had over 13 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated "Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 41 million persons. It would be 35% larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."

A highly significant 1993 Howard University study showed that African American women over age 50 were 4.7 times more likely to get breast cancer if they had had any abortions compared to women who had not had any abortions.

You Can Promote Life!

From L.E.A.R.N (Life Education and Resource Network) -- http://www.learninc.org/
**************************

Dr. Alveda King, on behalf of the African American Culture of Life Movement:

Our mission includes a dedication to restoring family values with the possibility of strengthening the Black family unit by restoring respect for marriage between a mother and a father devoted to sharing the responsibility or raising their children together. We consider marriage and parenting classes to be a significant deterrent to teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion. By revisiting family values initiatives; by encouraging delayed gratification strategies in matters of processes that effect our health and well being; by offering assistance such as educational and cost of living incentives to young married couples starting out with babies and young children; we expect to produce strong and healthy families where babies, children and their parents are safe and able to reach their full potential in life. If you as Congressional leaders could craft legislation to redirect funding streams towards life affirming solutions, we are sure that you could garner support and encouragement from sources that are waiting to assist you.

Because the government has an ability to avow life, we offer our voice in support of life affirming efforts including informing the communities how to embrace life affirming educational and preventive solutions to sickness and diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, obesity and sexually transmitted diseases; social challenges such as teen pregnancy, harmful addictions to drugs, violence, pornography, promiscuity and abortion; educational deficits; economic barriers and inequities; unfair judicial treatment and the plethora of problems and issues that face Black Americans.

We believe that the wellbeing of our youth is fundamental because they are a vital connection to the survival of the human family. The perpetuity of the human race is continued through the procreative process of the fundamental model of marriage reflected in the union between one man and one woman.

The broader community is an extension of the healthy and functional family unit. The strength of a nation springs from the value of human life, dignity and civil rights in every stage, from the womb to the tomb. America is being weakened at an alarming rate due to the high rise of genocide impacting Blacks and other minorities. Currently, African Americans make up 12% of the nations population but suffers 36% of the abortions performed on women in this nation. The Hispanic community in America is steadily replacing the Black work force and middle class in America, yet the Hispanic community suffers 22% of the abortions performed. Add to these statistics the alarming rates of heart disease, hypertension, deaths by HIV/AIDS, breast and prostate cancer, and other diseases that kill Blacks at higher rates than other ethnic groups living in America. Condoms and calories are not the solution to filling the spiritual and emotional voids that are beleaguering our people. Instant gratification is causing more problems when we are in need of more solutions. This pattern is another link to the undeniable genocidal force that is attacking minorities in America.

Let us assure you that you are not alone in your quest to forge a better tomorrow. We welcome the opportunity to share statistics driven by the culture of death, and seek your wisdom in crafting solutions springing from the culture of life to these problems that weigh heavily on our nation and our people. By examining the mission and core values of the parties invited to the table as it were, we can perhaps come away richer than we were when we started on our journey to find the answers together. We remain optimistic and engaged in the hopes that we can all see a brighter day and a better way. Thank you for your interest, your compassion and your life of service.

A Grave Mistake and an Abiding Hope

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life

Americans have made a grave mistake in electing Barack Obama to the presidency. Yet America herself remains great and is not a mistake, which is why so many of her citizens will continue, with even greater energy and determination, to defend her founding principles.

The man elected to the Presidency said during the campaign that he does not know when a human being starts to have human rights. How can one govern from that starting point of ignorance? Governing is about protecting human rights; to do it successfully, you have to know where they come from, and when they begin.

The President-elect has already failed that test miserably.

The American people do not share Barack Obama’s extreme and offensive views on abortion. They never have and they never will. The coming four years will see a widening gap between the people and their President on this fundamental issue. As Americans come to know how extreme his position is, the intensity of the struggle to protect these children will only increase.

The pro-life movement has made significant gains in the courts and in the law in these last eight years. For the next four, the movement will work to prevent the erosion of that progress.

It would be a serious mistake for people to think that this election means the pro-life movement has no political power. All politics is local. Political power is about people. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was once told that given the political realities, civil rights legislation would be impossible to pass. “We’ll just have to see about that,” he replied. And the civil rights movement was born, stirring the hearts of the people to lead the nation to the victory of justice.

So it is with our movement. The vast majority of Americans are pro-life. They will fight abortion on the local level, opening pregnancy centers and closing abortion mills, activating their Churches and educating their children, proclaiming the message in the media and demonstrating in the streets. The pro-life movement is winning this battle in the hearts and minds of the American people, as opinion polls show and as the shrinking number of abortion mills and abortion providers prove.

Political races are always a swinging of the pendulum. As soon as you win, you begin to lose, and as soon as you lose, you begin the ascent again to winning. In the next two election cycles (2010 and 2012) the pro-life movement will make up for political ground lost in this one.

It is all right to be disappointed at the end of an election season, but one must never walk away. Amidst disappointment is abiding hope in America, where everything remains possible, and where a new chapter of the pro-life movement has just begun. The efforts that were made, and the sacrifices endured in this election season made a difference, and we will build on that difference to see another day when the work and the ballots of pro-life people will dismantle the Culture of Death. We will keep marching toward that pro-life America we seek, and won’t stop until we get there.

Fr. Frank Pavone Addresses the United States Government

An Open Letter to “Pro-choice” Candidates
October 27, 2008

Dear brothers and sisters,

In these days you are seeking the votes of your fellow Americans for public office. At the same time, you take the position that abortion, however regrettable it may be, should remain legal.

I write to express the convictions of tens of millions of citizens. Your position is a blatant contradiction to the very meaning of public service, the first requirement of which is to be able to tell the difference between serving the public and killing the public!

We ask, first of all, Have you ever seen an abortion? So many who defend abortion’s legality cannot even bring themselves to look at the horrifying pictures of children torn apart by the procedure (www.unborn.info). But if we cannot look at it, why should we tolerate it?

We likewise ask, Are you willing to publicly describe what you think should be legal? Abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell, in sworn testimony, described the “D and E” abortion procedure, still legal throughout our nation, by saying, “Typically the skull is brought out in fragments rather than as a unified piece…" (Madison, WI, May 27, 1999, Case No. 98-C-0305-S). In the same case, abortionist Dr. Hylan Raymond Giles, when asked, “Can the heart of a fetus or embryo still be beating during a suction curettage abortion as the fetus or embryo comes down the cannula?” answered, “For a few seconds to a minute, yes.”

When you say the word “abortion,” is this what you mean? When you say it should be legal, are you willing to quote those who explain what it is?

Your position is undermining the fabric of our nation. We repeat to you again the question posed by Mother Teresa in her speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC on February 3, 1994. “And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

We have not yet heard a “pro-choice” candidate answer any of these questions.

That’s why people cannot vote for you, and you shouldn’t be asking for their vote. If you can’t respect and protect the life of a little baby, how are you supposed to respect and protect our lives, or any other right we possess?

When you ask someone for your vote, you are actually asking them to share in your failure to protect these children. You’re asking them to share in the deception by which you justify that failure. You’re asking them, too, to contradict the meaning of public service. They are not morally permitted to say yes to what you are asking.

We in the pro-life movement do not need any reminders about the plight of young mothers. We serve them every day, providing real alternatives to abortion.

Nor do we accept the accusation that we are narrowly focused on a “single issue.” We are not ashamed of the fact that we recognize a holocaust when we see one, and that we understand the foundation, heart, and core of our concern for all the other issues – life itself.

We’re not a vote for you to court or an interest group for you to appease. Rather, our movement represents the heart and core of every movement for justice. That is why, whether you end up elected to public office or not, we will be there – in the halls of government, in the media, and on the streets of every city, town, and countryside across America – pressing the cause of justice for a group of human beings whose rights you have forgotten.

We will neither cease to remind you, nor will we wait for you to remember. Our cause is as great as America itself, and it will prevail. May you have the wisdom to join us.

Sincerely,

Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life

Catholic Social Teaching and Healthcare Reform

In Matthew 25, Jesus paints an image of His return in glory. On the Day of Judgment, Christ will separate His sheep from the goats. The sheep are those that cared for "the least" of Jesus' brothers: the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the stranger, those sick, and those in prison. The goats didn't remember "the least" among them and as Christ foretold, "in all truth," they have "received their reward," in this life and will not in the next. Jesus’ teaching is unavoidable.

This message is especially relevant to the injustice of the American healthcare system. To call American healthcare—as a system—immoral makes no judgment on healthcare professionals or hospitals, but rather on the design itself. Many have advocated for universal healthcare in our country and have been rejected for proposing so-called "socialized medicine." I am personally a proponent of a universal healthcare system. We have the medical care, the financial resources, but we seem to lack the moral will to acknowledge that we are our brother's keeper.

Does the United States have the best healthcare in the world? It depends. In reality, there are at least five different co-existing healthcare systems in our country. They can be described as follows: first, at the top of the system are the wealthy and well-insured, particularly those with indemnity, fee-for-service health insurance. In this case, the United States has the highest quality, most technically advanced medicine in the world; second from the top is the private, employer-based insurance for the middle class, usually with some features of "managed care" and some restrictions on what the insurance company will cover; the third layer consists of insurance for lower-income workers in the form of tightly managed health maintenance organizations (HMO), substantial out-of-pocket payments and moderate restrictions on the doctors that can be seen and treatments covered; the fourth layer is Medicaid, Medicare, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which are grossly underfunded systems of federal and state insurance for the lowest of middleclass families, the poor, for children, the disabled, and the elderly. This group faces severe restrictions on doctors that can be seen and on treatments covered; the bottom of the ladder is "charity care" and emergency room care, which is available to those who have no medical insurance.

The American healthcare "system" translates into a socio-economically based distribution of medical care, which is fundamentally more of a medical caste system than a healthcare system. This hardly seems compatible with Jesus' teaching in Matthew 25. The results aren’t either. In virtually every form of basic statistics measuring days of illness, death rates, and life expectancies, the United States ranks behind almost every other industrialized nation. The U.S. ranked last in 2007 of every industrialized nation in terms of the citizens dying from preventable disease; France ranked first. In France 64 people died from preventable disease, in the U.S. approximately 101,000 died from preventable disease. The difference couldn't be starker, particularly given the fact we spend more on healthcare than any other industrialized nation in the world and for us it is only partial, not universal coverage as in other countries.

The "every-man-for-himself," radical individualist strategy of American healthcare not only is disastrously irresponsible, it seriously violates basic Christian teaching. Make no mistake, this is not an endorsement to eradicate personal responsibility and moral virtue (communism, in other words), but an observation that a private sector dominated healthcare system is bad business without some sort of minimal regulation. The Catholic principle of subsidiarity is an organizing principle that calls us to allow the smallest, most local institution to handle matters if it can be done more efficiently than or just as efficiently as would be done at the national level (or state level in America). But, if the task cannot be done efficiently at this level, then the national (or state) government has an obligation to have some sort of role to ensure the common good.

Any healthcare system—in my view—that is based on private insurance with no government intervention is fatally flawed. The incentive of private insurance is upside down. After premiums are paid, the less care they provide, the higher their profits—this is undoubtedly their goal. Hence, all the horrid stories one hears about insurance companies searching for the smallest technicality to not cover something. Thus, public health and human welfare is not the incentive, but rather profit. Profit over health and dignity is not a Christian value. Fundamentally, health and wellness should not be treated like any other consumer-based industry.

The problem with healthcare costs is hard to deal with in the current system. With thousands of different private health insurance plans, it's virtually impossible to negotiate consistently lower costs with healthcare providers and drug companies. A universal healthcare system, on the other hand, has the potential to rein in costs. More importantly, private insurance is a colossal waste of money. Administrative costs for Medicare, for example, which is government-financed (not government-run) are 2-3% of the total cost. Approximately 30% of private insurance premiums go to overhead, profits, and executive salaries. Overall the administrative costs of private insurance exceed $400 billion dollars in a year. That is arguably sufficient to cover all the uninsured without raising taxes.

Many conservative-leaning thinkers are concerned about the loss of freedom and the efficiency of a national healthcare plan. Ironically, the freedom that many people fear will be loss at the implementation of a universal healthcare system is already gone. Many choices in healthcare are at the discretion of the private sector insurance companies. They choose what doctors you can see, whether you are qualified to be covered (if you have a history of illness, good luck—you cost too much), what they will and will not cover and how long you can receive treatment, and this is all if they don't find some small technicality on which they can drop coverage all together to preserve their profits. It seems that we fail to realize how much is already controlled by large corporations—at least government officials can be voted out of office.

Even more so, we already pay for people to get medical care. When people go to the emergency room to receive medical treatment without health insurance, the cost is spread amongst everyone else. This is one reason why insurance premiums skyrocket and we're also taxed, since hospitals can receive government grants to offset some of their losses. Wouldn't we rather have paid for the preventative care than wait until it is much more expensive?

Additionally, it is nothing unusual for a hospital to have to bill more than 700 different payers and insurers--HMOs, PPOs, MCOs, IPAs, and an alphabet soup of other organizations. Each one has its own set of rules for what services are covered, the level of reimbursement and the kinds of documentation and pre-approval required. It is an administrative nightmare. And for this mess, we Americans shell out $2.2 trillion a year (more than any other nation) and all this inefficiency costs patients tens of billions of dollars each year. Billing, collection, and payment administration represents some 20 percent of that $2.2 trillion we spend on healthcare. There is nothing even remotely "conservative" about this—it’s nothing but “big spending” and for what results?

To consider this again in Christian thinking—we have a call from the Lord to give preferential option to the most vulnerable among us. Poverty and ill health travel often together. Poverty puts one's health in jeopardy, ill health with its attendant high medical bills, impairment of working ability, and days lost from work, make it difficult to find and hold a good job. This is a terrible and vicious cycle. The current healthcare system is evidently not accommodating.

Now there is a "safety net" of charity healthcare that ought to be commended. The Veterans Administration healthcare system, the Indian Health Service, state and local departments of public health, public hospital emergency rooms, community health centers and clinics, faith-based clinics for the poor and homeless, and the list goes on. Despite their tireless work and efforts, many lack the funding and the resources to address the problem at hand—they adequately cannot overcome the effects of the lack of good, regular access to mainstream healthcare.

Hispanics, African Americans, people with less education, part-time workers, and foreign-born persons have the highest rates of being uninsured. Guess what? They also are the same people who have more abortions. 1 in 2 African American pregnancies end in abortion. African American children are born into this world more often than not with the odds against them—the black community is experiencing a terrible crisis of missing fathers, thus single parent households. Statistically, children that grow up in such environments are inclined to have a weak parent-child relationship, prone toward committing crime, drugs, alcohol, sexual promiscuity, more likely to repeat a grade, less likely to graduate high school, and are often victims of abuse and neglect. And single mothers, particularly young ones, face a long, uphill battle toward economic self-sufficiency and the current healthcare system does little to help those in this sort of situation.

The elderly have limited economic productivity and healthcare is getting exponentially more expensive; we have a moral obligation to see that their needs are met, particularly for a group that often has very dire medical needs. While there is Medicare, it faces problems in providing long term care of chronic conditions, incorporating new technology, and lacks the financial resources needed.

Much of this may be slightly more "liberal" than one's own political perspective, but Catholic Social Teaching is beyond "left" and "right" politics. If we subjectively identify with one side of the political spectrum more than the other, we must do so as Catholics, which entails crossing party lines. We cannot continue to allow our politicians to cover unborn children in the children’s healthcare program to encourage women not to have abortions only to denounce expanding coverage, or redirect funding from the program. This isn't all "liberal" either. We need to heed the Bishops advice on the both/and approach. There is another side of this debate that conservatives need to win. That debate is in regard to much of the content of American healthcare and this debate involves religious freedom, Catholic and private hospitals, abortifacents, emergency contraception, patients rights', and the full range of so-called "reproductive health services," in vitro fertilization, genetic manipulation, etc.

The Democratic Party is currently the natural home of legislative proposals for healthcare reform. I firmly believe that universal healthcare is going to come sooner or later and if Catholics aren't sitting at the table, our values will be off the table. I see this fundamentally as a "life issue" in its own respect and from a pro-life perspective, the status quo is not acceptable. We may not agree on the details, but on fundamental principles of human dignity, basic civil rights, and the end goal of, in some way or another, providing universal access to quality and affordable healthcare, there should be agreement. No one should be left out. That’s the ideal goal.

Back to the fundamental question: does America have the greatest healthcare system? Not at all and I don't even think it's debatable. And reform is not only necessary, it is required.

FACE AIDS: A Growing Crisis

Frequently in discourse with non-Catholics, or some Catholics even, when the issue of contraception and the AIDS epidemic arises, there is uneasiness about the Church’s teaching on dealing with this deeply troubling matter. One might argue that by maintaining opposition to the use of condoms, the Catholic Church contributes rather to the spread of AIDS in Africa, for if the “Vatican hierarchy” cared more about people’s lives than rigid doctrines that even most Catholics reject, they would change their view to prevent the spread of AIDS. Why? It is the more “pro-life” thing to do given that it would save millions from dying from unprotected sex.

While the presented argument is well-intentioned, it is also profoundly incorrect. The Catholic Church doesn’t oppose contraception on the basis that it is a “nice rule” that Catholics should follow, but rather contraception is contra-human nature—it is an objective, moral evil that disrupts the purity and creative design of the sexual act. Much can be said on the matter, but what is relevant is that by isolating sexual pleasure from the procreative element built into the sexual act itself, one subconsciously (and consciously) affirms the sinful tendencies of lust, self-gratification, and promiscuity.

Why? If a man can sleep with multiple women (separately or even together) and experience sexual pleasure in abundance without any concern of producing children in doing so, he’ll be inclined to do it—and maybe he’ll become addicted to it (‘it’ being sexual pleasure). The result? Men objectify women, see them as objects and not as equals; men (and women too) have routine, recreational and meaningless sex unconcerned with reproduction because that “problem” has been solved. The consequences of such actions are grave and unfortunate. Not only is such action self-destructive objectively for all persons involved, it is harmful to society. Naturally such behavior leads to single mothers and dire poverty, abortions, the oppression of women, skyrocketing divorce, the growth of other vices, and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

To the issue of AIDS — statistics repeatedly show that condoms really have not been very effective in the fight against AIDS despite the fact it has been the principal prevention device for the last twenty years. Billions of condoms have been shipped to Africa in order to deal with the epidemic. The countries that stress condom use are not seeing any great decline in the virus, but rather, the opposite. Luckily, there is a clear example of an African nation turning back the epidemic of AIDS by other means. In the late 1980s Uganda was viewed as the worst nation in the world in terms of HIV/AIDS infections. Currently, instead of placing the primary emphasis on condoms, they emphasized abstinence and faithfulness first. As a result, they have experienced the greatest decline in HIV in the world.

Some might assume, “Well, some protection is better than none.” Of course, this would seem to be a logical argument at first. After all, condom use can reduce the odds of HIV transmission during an act of intercourse. But it still remains that in the presence of an epidemic, unless a person changes his or her behavior, it may be only a matter of time before he or she is infected. When people are not taught the difference and are left thinking that risk reduction equals protection, they are more open to take risks that they cannot afford. Another reason why condoms have failed to stop AIDS is that when a person is infected with other STDs, they are up to five times as likely to get HIV if exposed. There are several reasons why this occurs; one reason is that many STDs cause sores that can serve as portals of entry for the virus. For example, a woman’s reproductive tract is often able to protect her from HIV. However, this natural barrier is compromised when she is infected with certain STDs. Considering that the number one determinant of STD infection is multiple sexual partners, any strategy to stop HIV that does not reduce sexual activity will have limited effect.

Why is abstinence so effective? In abstinence programs, people are encouraged to abstain from sexual activity until marriage and are encouraged to be tested for HIV regularly. The contraceptive approach doesn’t take a fundamental reality into much consideration: the infectivity rate of HIV. The infectivity rate of a disease or virus measures the likelihood of its transmission. For HIV, it is estimated on average, the odds of being infected with HIV through a single act of intercourse (without a condom) is about one in a thousand. However, when a person is first infected with HIV, he or she is highly contagious. But if this person were to get tested for HIV right away, the test would show that he or she is HIV negative, despite the fact that he or she does have the virus and can easily transmit it. Here’s why: Technically, the HIV test does not look for HIV, but for antibodies against the virus. Antibodies are what your body creates to fight off intruders. But viruses are pretty smart and it can take months before your body knows that you have one (and maybe even a decade before you know it). So if your body does not know that you have been infected with HIV, it won’t produce antibodies to attack the virus. So if the HIV test doesn’t find the antibodies, the doctors will tell you that you’re HIV negative. Meanwhile inside the body of a newly infected person, the HIV plasma viral level is very high, especially in the genital fluids (semen and cervical-vaginal fluids), because there aren’t any antibodies around to reduce their levels. Since the viral load is thousands of times higher, and the person is shedding viruses, the infectivity rate soars in the early weeks on infection.

This means that if people abstained from sex or were encouraged to wait until marriage (rather than seeing sex as a recreational activity that you can just “band-aid” with a condom), then the odds of HIV transmission would be reduced dramatically. Within a generation, HIV would no longer exist at its current epidemic levels.

Why is this important? AIDS is a transnational global health phenomenon that isn’t unique to third world countries. The Democratic Party is very concerned about this growing epidemic and often ranks it high in their list of things to do. This is certainly commendable. But, the Democrats endorse a strategy—wanton distribution of condoms—that has proven fatal and ineffective. It perhaps even makes the situation worse. The Republican Party under the leadership of President Bush began to promote abstinence in Africa (which works), but this is not very high on the list of things to do despite the fact that this is an international health crisis that is spreading at an alarming rate. In essence, neither party is giving us much needed headway. Democrats simply wish to throw money and condoms at these people (nothing surprising there); Republicans cut funding and promote abstinence. (nothing surprising there either; I’ll add here, I’m not opposed to budget cutting given domestic problems, if we’re advocating for more international support in place of solely American money).

On a side, but relevant, note, I think it can be agreed upon that the most common view of many American Catholics is that the Republican Party is comprehensively right on family, marriage, and the “life issues,” while the Democratic Party is more in alignment with the Church’s teachings on “social justice.” I can easily see how a person falls into the temptation of this sort of thinking, but I do think it’s profoundly mistaken.

If we were to follow the just-described view, the Democrats are better positioned to combat the global AIDS epidemic—which is regarded as a “life issue” and one issue among many others (healthcare, war, etc.) that Catholics use to support pro-choice Democratic candidates, namely, a collect set of issues they deem Democrats better equipped in to bring about “social justice.”

I personally sympathize with their view. Nevertheless, a well-formed Catholic conscience begs to differ and would see the profoundly flawed thinking in strategy that is far from life-affirming, thus, no social justice at all. We can’t settle for what the media tells us nor the latest novelties or refashioned dishonest rhetoric of liberal-partisan groups like Catholics United. Additionally, the fact that the Democratic Party is profoundly wrong in strategy doesn’t lead us to just settle with current Republican efforts—much more can be done.

This can’t be a small matter for Catholics. Every 11 seconds someone dies from AIDS. We can’t call ourselves morally coherent and pro-life if we stand by idly as this horrendous cancer fueled by sin kills our brothers and sisters. Are we not our brother’s keeper?

Pray for those with AIDS.

Why The Catholic Church Condemns Torture

By now we have all heard of the Middle Eastern religious and political “dissident” taken captive by a Western government, interrogated, ridiculed, made to endure denigrating postures, beaten and eventually killed.

His name? Jesus of Nazareth.

Two thousand years later, Christ remains with us, and so does torture. Meditating on the sufferings of Christ ought to help bring Christians to call for an end to torture, particularly in America. The painful scourging, the mocking crowning with thorns, the carrying of the cross, and the crucifixion were carried out with state sanction.

This relates directly to the controversy of interrogation (torture) at Guantanamo Bay. It is shameful to see many Catholic politicians, including pro-life Senator Sam Brownback, in favor of this horrendous endeavor and the continual existence of Guantanamo.

The safety of the American people is fundamental. Nevertheless, every human being is made in the image and likeness of God and their dignity—and the rights that flow from it—is inviolable. Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear. It degrades everyone involved—policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation's most cherished ideals. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable.

Catholics, especially politicians, should stand with the Church and not with the arbitrary, and at times unjust will of the State.

House Rejects Legislative Bailout

From the Washington Post: 'Why the Bailout Bill Failed'

So how could a major bill described by the president and both parties' leaders as critical to the well-being of the nation's -- and the world's -- economy go down to defeat?

There are no easy answers here, as the House's stunning defeat moments ago of the financial bailout legislation is putting us into seemingly uncharted territory. But while the final tally, with 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats voting no, was a surprise -- all morning, Hill sources were predicting narrow passage -- the signs were there that the measure was in trouble:

1) Poor Salesmanship. Did you know that the general consensus is now that this bill will not cost $700 billion? If you didn't, it's because the bill's proponents did a poor marketing job. From the start, the Bush administration did not do enough to emphasize the point that taxpayers would get at least some of the money back, and that gigantic price tag got stuck in the head of the public (and the media).

The administration was also too eager and ambitious with its initial proposal, alienating many lawmakers right from the start by seeming to ask for the moon -- give us everything we want, with no oversight. This White House has long played political hardball, but this was not the time for hardball. This was the time for begging. The administration also let the "bailout" label stick to the package right from the start. By the time President Bush started calling it a "rescue" measure, it was too late.

2) Vulnerables Scared. If you have a difficult reelection race, what was your motivation to vote for this bill? "I voted in favor of a bill that I didn't really like, because I had no choice," doesn't make for a particularly snappy campaign slogan. "I stood up to my party and Wall Street," sounds much better. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) both made the argument that lawmakers needed to rise to the occasion and not think of their own political futures. But members of Congress ALWAYS think of their political futures. It's much easier to talk of sacrifice for the greater good when you're going to get reelected with 70 percent of the vote, like nearly every leader on both sides of the aisle will.

3) No Center of Gravity. Who's running Washington right now? Bush is the lamest of lame ducks, with a minuscule approval rating and no clout or political protection left to offer. Bush and Vice President Cheney were reportedly making calls to wavering Republicans right to the end; obviously that didn't do the trick. Barack Obama and John McCain both supposedly support the bill, but neither of them has been exactly wholehearted in their backing, and there haven't been any reports of either candidate calling members of their own party to lobby.

House leaders, meanwhile, did support the bill and did whip it. But this wasn't a party-loyalty vote; lawmakers were asked to vote yes, but they weren't threatened. They (probably) weren't bribed. Add all that up, and you had a power vacuum.

4) Ideological Problems. The simplest explanation of all for the loss was that a lot of members just didn't like the bill. Capitol Briefing outlined last week all the reasons why House conservatives balked at the initial proposal, and the basic point still stands: A massive expenditure of taxpayer funds and intervention in the free market, combined with tough new regulations, simply offended too many conservatives' most basic principles. And Republicans, being in the minority, feel no responsibility to govern. They calculated that the bill's failure will be blamed on Bush (so what?) and the majority Democrats.

On the liberal end of the spectrum, most members believe this really does represent a "bailout" of Wall Street and a power grab by the Bush administration, and that the current crisis vindicates their longtime warnings that the financial system was riven by greed and insufficient regulation. For those members, the final package didn't have nearly enough help for struggling homeowners.

5) Partisanship? House Republican leaders gave a press conference right after the vote, and they have strongly suggested that Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) floor speech toward the end of the debate was at least partly to blame for the loss. "I do believe we would have gotten there had the Speaker not made this partisan speech on the floor of the house," Boehner said.

It's too early to know whether Pelosi's speech, which laid much of the blame for the whole financial crisis at the foot of the Bush administration, really made much of a difference. But if several House Republicans actually did switch their votes on a momentous piece of legislation just because they were irritated by a speech, what does that say about them? As Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) mockingly characterized the GOP's argument: "Somebody hurt my feelings, so I'm going to punish the country."

It's possible despite weeks of warnings, and a stock market that is cratering as we speak, that a lot of members still aren't taking any of this seriously enough. And that, ultimately, may be the real reason for today's vote.

Click here to see Nancy Pelosi's speech.
Click here to see GOP responses.

A Catholic Democrat's Reflection On His Party

From the Democrats for Life of America website:

Democratic analyst: The Party has been hijacked by secularist elites
Denver, Sep 25, 2008 / 05:33 pm (CNA).

The Democratic Party has been hijacked by elites hostile to religion, said Mark Stricherz, author of the book Why Democrats are Blue and a Democrat himself, during the Casey Lecture delivered on Tuesday at the Archdiocese of Denver.

The Casey Series of Lectures was started by the Archdiocese of Denver in 2006 to promote Catholic thinking in political life, inspired by the life and political activism of the late Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey, a devout Catholic and a Democrat.

Stricherz, who has focused his investigation on the historical transition that turned the Democrats from a Catholic-friendly organization to the pro-abortion rights party it is today, explained the decisive role played in American politics by staunch Catholic Democrats like Gov. Casey, Robert Kennedy and David Lawrence.

"These politicians provided a political leadership and a push for human rights based on religious convictions and personal prayer life, thus becoming promoters of Christian Humanist values," he said.

Explaining an argument he makes in his book, Stricherz said that the Democratic Party created internal rules that favor Secular elites and limit the participation of common people. He mentioned caucuses in Iowa as an example: they are established to run from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., "preventing the participation of common people like third-shifters, military men and women or young mothers.” As a consequence, "56% of those attending the caucuses are pro- choice folks," he said.

Thus, Secularism and hostility to religion have become the dividing line between the Democratic Party of the past and today's Democratic leaders.

Asked about how to change the Democratic Party back to its original connection with average Americans, Stricherz said that is was critical to democratize the internal process, but added that, "I just don't see the constituency, the drive to bring that change... those with college degrees, who tend to be more secular are in control of the party, whereas more religious, working folks are kept out of the loop."

"There have been some small victories from the pro-life people inside the Democratic Party, they are very small, but I encourage people to take up the fight... even if I am very skeptical about the results."

Stricherz highlighted the importance of bringing the common people back to power. "I think the average folks are more commonsensical and less inclined to corruption than the elites." "I would take the first hundred people from the phone book in Boston rather than the first 100 academics from Harvard to run the country."

Finally, he said that, despite current polls, Republican presidential candidate John McCain has a greater chance to win the election because "the Republican party has a more democratic process of candidate-selection, and therefore have chosen the strongest candidate; whereas the Democratic Party’s system promotes the desires of the political leadership and [they] have selected the weakest candidate."

Barack Obama and the "Liberal Media"

Media Campaigns Hard for Obama
By Tony Blankley

The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight-out propagandists for the Obama campaign.

While they have been liberal and blinkered in their worldview for decades, in 2007-08, for the first time, the major media consciously are covering for one candidate for president and consciously are knifing the other. This is no longer journalism; it is simply propaganda. (The American left-wing version of the Völkischer Beobachter cannot be far behind.)

And as a result, we are less than seven weeks away from possibly electing a president who has not been thoroughly or even halfway honestly presented to the country by our watchdogs -- the press. The image of Obama that the press has presented to the public is not a fair approximation of the real man. They consciously have ignored whole years of his life and have shown a lack of curiosity about such gaps, which bespeaks a lack of journalistic instinct.

Thus, the public image of Obama is of a "man who never was."

I take that phrase from a 1956 movie about a real-life World War II British intelligence operation to trick the Germans into thinking the Allies were going to invade Greece rather than Sicily in 1943. Operation Mincemeat involved the acquisition of a human corpse dressed as "Major William Martin, R.M.," which was put into the sea near Spain. Attached to the corpse was a briefcase containing fake letters suggesting that the Allied attack would be against Sardinia and Greece.

To make the operation credible, British intelligence concocted a fictional life for the corpse, creating a letter from a lover and tickets to a London theater -- all the details of a life, but not the actual life of the dead young man whose corpse was being used. So, too, the man the media have presented to the nation as Obama is not the real man.

The mainstream media ruthlessly and endlessly repeat any McCain gaffes while ignoring Obama gaffes. You have to go to weird little Web sites to see all the stammering and stuttering that Obama needs before getting out a sentence fragment or two. But all you see on the networks is an eventually clear sentence from Obama. You don't see Obama's ludicrous gaffe that Iran is a tiny country and no threat to us. Nor his 57 American states gaffe. Nor his forgetting, if he ever knew, that Russia has a veto in the U.N. Nor his whining and puerile "come on" when he is being challenged. This is the kind of editing one would expect from Goebbels' disciples, not Cronkite's.

More appalling, a skit on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" last weekend suggested that Gov. Palin's husband had sex with his own daughters. That show was written with the assistance of Al Franken, Democratic Party candidate in Minnesota for the U.S. Senate. Talk about incest.

But worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting are the shocking gaps in Obama's life that are not reported at all. The major media simply have not reported on Obama's two years at New York's Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks, the media have focused on all the colleges Gov. Palin has attended, her husband's driving habits 20 years ago, and the close criticism of the political opponents Gov. Palin had when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

But in two years, they haven't bothered to see how close Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.

Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Obama's rise in Chicago politics. How did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley? Despite the great -- and unflattering -- details on Obama's Chicago years presented in David Freddoso's new book on Obama, the mainstream media continue to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, The Economist, to give Freddoso's book a review with fair comment.

The public image of Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Obama, his publicist (David Axelrod) and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media.

Perhaps that is why the National Journal's respected correspondent Stuart Taylor wrote, "The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis."

That conspiracy not only has Photoshopped out all of Obama's imperfections (and dirtied up his opponent McCain's image) but also has put most of his questionable history down the memory hole.

The public will be voting based on the idealized image of the man who never was. If he wins, however, we will be governed by the sunken, cynical man Obama really is. One can only hope that the senior journalists will be judged as harshly for their professional misconduct as Wall Street's leaders currently are for their failings.

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...

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.

The Most Recent Cases Of The Supreme Court

The most recent declarations made by the United States Supreme Court has sparked a lot of debate. I have personally had several debates in regard to the decision on Guantanamo, the Second Amendment, and the Death Penalty. On the issue of the death penalty, I actually didn't argue over the decision, but over the morality of the act of capital punishment in our current historical context and the argument for the decision. Recently, it was said, that I am not "really a Democrat." In fact, I'm a "compassionate conservative." Maybe. I beg to differ. I can read my own blogs. I think I'm a liberal on most issues.

On the Supreme Court rulings...

One: The suspected terrorists being held at Guantanamo. I'm surprised that there was disagreement on this. I firmly believe that counter-terrorism is a pertinent issue and is profoundly complex to deal with. But the real issue in this case was about whether non-Americans have a constitutional right to file habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus was originally understood, and still does despite the expansion of access, to apply to those held in custody by officials of the Executive Branch of the federal government.

President Bush issued a Military Order back in November of 2001 claiming authority to detain suspects of terrorism, indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Obviously, it was this controversial decision that led way to the case before the Supreme Court. I think the president's move was a direct violation of his constitutional powers, anti-habeas corpus, anti-human rights, and just unethical. Even when thwarted by the Supreme Court, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed by a then-Republican majority Congress and signed by, of course, the President.

I'm no legal scholar, but it seemed to me that the officials implementing the commissions would be making up the rules as they went along and there was no convincing evidence that I had seen or heard that the respect for the dignity of these persons on some basic level regardless of their crime was ensured. This was my first concern. Secondly, there was a lack of established rule of what amounts to evidence. Moreover, when asked why such suspects couldn't be tried before courts martial (military courts) or before U.S. federal courts, the Bush Administration argued that military commissions would save time, which is a weak argument. Why no supervision?

Basically, the Supreme Court in its decision declared that people have a right to appear before a neutral decision-maker. The Supreme Court said that even in times of war, people have a right to a hearing to say whether they are wrongfully or rightfully held. After all, habeas corpus is the right of a person to appear in a court of law to answer the charge made against him. It places the burden of proof on those detaining the person to justify the detention. If there is no evidence, what right do we have to detain a person? In the same way, would we detain an American citizen, in which, we have no reason to?

Military personnel could be appointed to the jury or other measures can be taken to ensure American interests in not giving up military intelligence, et cetera. But if we are going to accuse people of heinous crimes, then yes, I think they have a right of habeas corpus, a right to fair and just trial. And if found guilty, they should be punished, to the maximum, in the same court of law.

It isn't true that "all is fair" during times of war. Divine Revelation and human reason both assert the validity of and continuum of the moral law. The mere fact that there is war does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties. The Catechism affirms "Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to...universal principles are crimes."

Two: The Defense of Second Amendment rights. I don't support banning guns. I think the law in Washington, D.C. was in direct violation of the Constitution and should have been overturned. But that wasn't what I was arguing about. I may not be anti-guns (banning guns), but I am certainly pro-gun control. Given that, the Supreme Court decision I did not oppose, but I was concerned that it would reaffirm what I believe to be bad gun policies.

The gun policy in America is flawed because it is nearly nonexistent. The U.S., virtually alone in advanced countries, has combined the ready access to guns with minimal regulation to produce an ongoing public safety disaster. It is a given, I think, that guns do not necessarily cause more crime, but they intensify it and make it more dangerous and lethal. It is easier to rob someone, to threaten someone, and to kill someone with a gun than any other readily available weapon. It is a convenient tool and it can easily be used for evil.

Currently, up to 40 percent of guns sales are between private parties and that doesn't require background checks. As far as I know, the law on this hasn't changed. The government should close down the secondary market, in my opinion, and require mandatory registration of guns and requiring that all sales go through federally licensed dealers with adequate background checks. This isn't a measure to take away guns, but to save human lives.

The same legislators who call themselves "pro-life" vote against measures such as waiting periods, higher sales taxes, and limits on the numbers of guns purchased at a particular time to slow the flow of guns. The list goes on and much more can be said, but I'll say one thing. If a person vehemently opposes a waiting period and cannot wait 24, or even 48 hours to receive his or her gun, common sense, I repeat, common sense, dictates that they shouldn't get a gun because someone who needs a gun so direly and cannot wait a few days probably doesn't have good intentions.

In the same way, when certain weapons (machine guns) were banned, I had an argument about how that decision went against our second amendment rights. But then I wondered: why do we need machine guns? Imagine if everyone in your neighborhood had one or that anyone with a gun license, driving on the road might have one. And all the talk about "law-abiding" citizens truly irritates me. Aren't all criminals "law-abiding" citizens before their first crime? And just how realistic is to say that you need a gun that fires off entire rounds of bullets in a matter of seconds to protect your family? You don't need a rifle, you don't need revolver, you need an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.......

I am of the opinion that pro-second amendment conservatives (or liberals, e.g. Bob Casey, Jr.) approach the gun issue like most liberals tend to approach the abortion crisis. They talk about lowering the rates of violence by removing the underlying factors while simultaneously opposing any legal measures to ensure that guns don't get into the wrong hands. Isn't that almost identical in rhetoric as those who want to lower the abortion rate while simultaneously blocking any legal protection of unborn human life? It doesn't work. If you want to save unborn lives, you must have legal restriction, if not, abolition of abortion. If you want lower crime rates, you shouldn't be making guns so readily accessible without sufficient background checks and without any sort of waiting period or other measures of precaution. It's inconsistent with your rhetoric on other issues, with reality, and I'm sorry, it's just irrational.

Third: The Supreme Court and the Death Penalty. I firmly hold to the Church's teaching that capital punishment is excessive and unnecessary punishment because life imprisonment is sufficient to protect society. If we are going to be committed to the sanctity of human life, we must be consistent in that respect and not needlessly take human life, if it isn't necessary. A kill for a kill is not always justice. This is obvious.

Moreover, I find it problematic that the death penalty is applied later in life for crimes committed as a minor, going as low as sixteen years old or even younger. The only other places in the world that joins us in doing so is Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen. The moral compass of those countries provides even less comfort.

But in regard to the Supreme Court decision, I have mixed feelings. I agree, yes. I am an opponent of the death penalty and would repeal its use in virtually all cases. I jumped for joy this time last summer when Republican Sen. Sam Brownback introduced the Abolish the Death Penalty Act of 2007.

Nevertheless, I am not precisely persuaded by the reasoning in Kennedy v. Louisiana. I'm also dismayed that four of the five Catholics disagreed, though Catholics are not obliged to oppose the death penalty. It seems preferable to err on the side of mercy, repentance, and second-chances. Kennedy conceded that the rape of a child is a depravity and admitted that there are "moral grounds for questioning" a ruling that restricts the use of the death penalty to homicide. I agree. Still, the five more liberal Justices concluded that the principle of proportionality in punishment, preclude the use of the death penalty in the cases of child rape.

The U.S. Constitution has much to say about the processes of criminal law, of search and seizure, interrogation, jury trials, etc., than about the inescapable moral problem, that is, justified punishment. The Constitution itself leaves the hard work of assigning blame and issuing sanctions to legislatures and juries. The challenge for the Court is to carefully say what is in the Constitution without overstepping and improperly substituting its own view for that of the American people and elected representatives.

I oppose the death penalty nearly as much as I oppose abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. But even I have a few reservations with Kennedy's logic, his understanding of the judiciary, and the logic used in reaching the court's conclusion. I believe many who oppose the death penalty as I do will wonder whether or not it is constitutional to have removed such a decision from legislators of whether or not to implement capital punishment against criminals convicted for child-rape.

A woman was quoted saying in regard to the decision: "Execute this man. Justice has a sword and this sword needs to swing today." Instead, both men will get new sentences and as undeserving of sinners as any of us, a chance at repentance and forgiveness.

It cannot go unsaid that the Lord God Himself has a sword of Justice and His sword will swing toward us on any given day. We had better pray that His Justice is His Mercy, for if it isn't, Heaven help us.