Forty Days for Life

This past Monday I stood in front of a local Planned Parenthood facility and prayed the Rosary as part of Forty Days for Life. I was part of Forty Days for Life last year, and I found it a moving experience. Last year I was there praying with a friend of mine from our parish. This year, however, I missed the day our parishioners were attending. I didn't know if anyone would be there (I went around 10:00 AM). I was dreading it, frankly. I went to a Communion service at another parish that morning for encouragement. I was feeling a bit like Jonah--I wanted to run in the opposite direction from the place to where God was calling me. Like Jonah, I was a reluctant witness. I went to Planned Parenthood and there was a familiar face--a man who is there most every day. He is a familiar fixture in the neighborhood. He is joyful, encouraging, and compassionate. It was comforting to see him there. I paced up and down the sidewalk, praying on my son's red hand-made twine rosary. I was wondering if this was enough, and tonight I just came across this quotation from St. Francis of Assisi: "It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching." That gives me some consolation that my timid efforts still have some effectiveness.

I was thinking about how to speak with others who may not agree why abortion is wrong. Here are ten reasons that came to mind:

1) Because whether a fetus is a human being or not should not depend on whether he or she is wanted or not.

2) Because the weekly growth of an embryo into a fetus into a born child clearly demonstrates the continuity of human development.

3) Because if you can convince yourself that killing an unborn child is not only permissible but a human right, then society can rationalize any atrocity.

4) Because if you do not know when human life begins, then you should err on the side of caution and assume it begins earlier rather than later.

5) Because tearing a sprouting acorn out of the ground and destroying it is the same as cutting down an oak tree.

6) Because abortion comes from the domination of hope by fear.

7) Because aborting an unborn child in cases of rape or incest is like killing a born child for the crimes of his or her father.

8) Because sacrifice is an honorable act, unless the adjective “human” precedes it.

9) Because abortion is an answer to half of a question. If one asks, “What do I do now?” when faced with an unexpected pregnancy, then abortion seems like an option. But if one asks instead, “What do I do now in the best interests of the person I helped to create through my free choice of engaging in an act that by its very nature creates life?” then one’s options appear very different.

10) Because an unborn child is not a problem to be fixed but a gift to be received—or given.

Thanks to Tate for a couple of wonderful resources for talking to others about abortion. The first focuses on how a baby develops:

Diary of an Unborn Child

Chronology of the New Life

1. On day 1, I already have a unique DNA which includes whether I’m a boy or a girl.

2. At 7 days, I implant in my mother’s womb.

3. At 18 days, my heart starts beating

4. At 19 days, my eyes start to develop.

5. At 28 days, my arms and legs are forming.

6. At 30 days, my ears and nasal are developing.

7. At 42 days, my skeleton is complete and my reflexes are present.

8. At 43 days, my brain wave patterns can be recorded. I’m now considered a thinking person.

9. At 7 weeks, I have the appearance of a miniature doll with complete fingers, toes and ears. I’ve even been caught in pictures sucking my thumb.

10. At 8 weeks, all of my organs are complete and functioning. Everything is now present that will be found in a developed adult.

11. At 9 weeks, I can squint, make a fist and move my tongue.

12. At 10 weeks, my sense of touch is working, and I can feel comfort or pain.

13. At 12 weeks, I can smile.

14. At 16 weeks (four months), I’m swimming, kicking and doing somersaults.

15. At 18 weeks, my vocal cords are working, and I can cry.

16. At 20 weeks, I’m approximately 12 inches long, weighing 1 pound.

17. At 22 week, I can live outside the womb.

Then there is this excellent dialogue (of sorts) in 1999 between then-Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and California Senator Barbara Boxer on when life begins:

Senator Santorum: I think the issue of where we draw the line constitutionally is very important. And I’m sure the Senator from California [Senator Boxer] agrees with me. I think the senator from California would say that she and I, and the senator from Illinois and the senators from Arkansas and Kansas here, we are all protected by the Constitution with a right to life. Would you agree with that, senator from California -- [would you] answer that question?

Senator Boxer: I support the Roe versus Wade decision.

Santorum: So you would agree any child that’s born has the right to life, is protected under the Constitution? Once that child is born?

Boxer: I agree with the Roe v. Wade decision. And what you are doing goes against it and will harm the women of this country. And I will speak to that issue when I get the floor myself.

Santorum: But I would like to ask you a question. You agree, once that child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?

Boxer: I would make this statement: That this Constitution, as it currently is -- some of you want to amend it to say that life begins at conception. I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born -- and there is no such thing as partial-birth -- the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights. But I am not willing to amend the Constitution to say that a fetus is a person, which I know you would.

But we will get into that later. I would prefer to address --I know my colleague is engaging me in a colloquy on his time, and I appreciate it -- I will answer these questions.

I think what my friend is doing, by asking me these questions, is off point. My friend wants to tell the doctors in this country what to do. My friend from Pennsylvania says they are "rogue" doctors. The AMA will tell you they no longer support you. The American nurses don't support you. The obstetricians and gynecologists don't support you. So my friend can ask me my philosophy all day. On my own time I will talk about it.

Santorum: If I can reclaim my time: First of all, the AMA still believes this is bad medicine. They do not support the criminal penalties provisions in this bill, but they still believe -- I think you know that to be the case -- that this procedure is not medically necessary, and they stand by that statement.

I ask the senator from California, again: you believe, you said "once the

baby comes home." Obviously, you don't mean they have to take the baby out

of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree -- completely separated from the mother -- you would agree that baby is entitled to constitutional protection?

Boxer: I will tell you why I don't want to engage in this. You did the same conversation with a colleague of mine, and I never saw such a twisting of his remarks. [Editor’s note: See Nov. 14, 1996 NRL News, page 24, for transcript of an exchange between Santorum and Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wi.).]

Santorum: Well, be clear, then. Let's be clear.

Boxer: I am going to be very clear when I get the floor. What you are trying to do is take away the rights of women and their families and their doctors to have a procedure. And now you are trying to turn the question into, "When does life begin?" I will talk about that on my own time.

Santorum: What I am trying to do is get an answer from the senator from California as to where you would draw the line? Because that really is the important part of this debate.

Boxer: I will repeat. I will repeat, since the senator has asked me a question – I am answering the question I have been posed by the senator. And the answer to the question is, I stand by Roe v. Wade. I stand by it. I hope we have a chance to vote on it. It is very clear, Roe v. Wade. That is what I stand by. My friend doesn't.

Santorum: Are you suggesting Roe v. Wade covered the issue of a baby in the process of being born?

Boxer: I am saying what Roe v. Wade says is, that in the early stages of a pregnancy, a woman has the right to choose. In the later stages, the states have the right, yes, to come in and restrict. I support those restrictions, as long as two things happen: They respect the life of the mother and the health of the mother.

Santorum: I understand that.

Boxer: That is where I stand. And no matter how you try to twist it, that is where I stand.

Santorum: I would say to the senator from California, I am not twisting anything. I am simply asking a very straightforward question. There is no hidden question here. The question is --

Boxer: I will answer it again.

Santorum: Once the baby is born, is completely separated from the mother, you will support that that baby has, in fact, the right to life and cannot be killed? You accept that; right?

Boxer: I don't believe in killing any human being. That is absolutely correct. Nor do you, I am sure.

Santorum: So you would accept the fact that once the baby is separated from the mother, that baby cannot be killed?

Boxer: I support the right -- and I will repeat this, again, because I saw you ask the same question to another senator –

Santorum: All the person has to do is give me a straight answer, and then it will be very clear to everybody.

Boxer: And what defines "separation"? Define "separation." You answer that question. You define it.

Santorum: Well, let's define that. Okay, let's say the baby is completely separated. In other words, no part of the baby is inside of the mother.

Boxer: You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in its mother's

arms? That baby is a human being.

Santorum: Well, I don’t know if it’s necessarily in its mother’s arms. Let’s say in the obstetrician's hands.

Boxer: It takes a second, it takes a minute – I had two babies, and within seconds of their birth --

Santorum: We’ve had six.

Boxer: Well, you didn't have any.

Santorum: My wife and I had babies together. That’s the way we do things in our family.

Boxer: Your wife gave birth. I gave birth. I can tell you, I know when the baby was born.

Santorum: Good! All I am asking you is, once the baby leaves the mother's birth canal and is through the vaginal orifice and is in the hands of the obstetrician, you would agree that you cannot abort, kill the baby?

Boxer: I would say when the baby is born, the baby is born, and would then have every right of every other human being living in this country. And I don't know why this would even be a question, to be honest with you.

Santorum: Because we are talking about a situation here where the baby is almost born. So I ask the question of the senator from California, if the baby was born except for the baby's foot, if the baby's foot was inside the mother but the rest of the baby was outside, could that baby be killed?

Boxer: The baby is born when the baby is born. That is the answer to the question.

Santorum: I am asking for you to define for me what that is.

Boxer: I don’t think anybody but the senator from Pennsylvania has a question with it. I have never been troubled by this question. You give birth to a baby. The baby is there, and it is born. That is my answer to the question.

Santorum: What we are talking about here with partial birth, as the senator from California knows, is a baby is in the process of being born --

Boxer: "The process of being born." This is why this conversation makes no sense, because to me it is obvious when a baby is born. To you it isn't obvious.

Santorum: Maybe you can make it obvious to me. So what you are suggesting is if the baby's foot is still inside of the mother, that baby can then still be killed.

Boxer: No, I am not suggesting that in any way!

Santorum: I am asking.

Boxer: I am absolutely not suggesting that. You asked me a question, in essence, when the baby is born.

Santorum: I am asking you again. Can you answer that?

Boxer: I will answer the question when the baby is born. The baby is born when the baby is outside the mother's body. The baby is born.

Santorum: I am not going to put words in your mouth –

Boxer: I hope not.

Santorum: But, again, what you are suggesting is if the baby's toe is inside the mother, you can, in fact, kill that baby.

Boxer: Absolutely not.

Santorum: OK. So if the baby's toe is in, you can't kill the baby. How

about if the baby's foot is in?

Boxer: You are the one who is making these statements.

Santorum: We are trying to draw a line here.

Boxer: I am not answering these questions! I am not answering these questions.

The Catholic Church's reasoning for opposing abortion is based on thoroughly logical philosophical methods, not simply divine revelation. I have often said that if I became an atheist tomorrow I would still staunchly oppose abortion merely on the grounds of human reason. Senator Boxer's exchange with Senator Santorum shows how her ideology prevents her from examining the philosophical and logical inconsistencies and gaps of her position.

The Rhetoric of Planned Parenthood

Today I attended a local Life Chain. We held up signs along a busy local state route for an hour. As Peter said to Jesus at the Transfiguration, "Master, it is well that we are here" (Mark 9:5). There were a number of motorists who honked in support. It was encouraging to see so many people on the sidewalk and in the cars expressing their concern about legalized abortion.

The other day I was reading through Planned Parenthood's website. I was struck by their rhetoric. Not by their rhetoric's audacity (though there was a little of that) but much more so by their rhetoric's subtlety. I found their use of rhetoric deft but disturbing.

Here are some examples:

Abortions are very common. In fact, more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion-4260.htm

This bit of information is used, not so that the reader will think, "That's awful; we should do something about that," but rather so that the reader will think, "Oh, an abortion is no big deal; many people do it." President Obama has publicly expressed his support for reducing the number of abortions. If that is the President's goal, Planned Parenthood, a vocal supporter of the Administration on abortion issues, does not appear to share his goal.

Most women want to have children. And they want to have children when they are ready and best able to care for them. But millions of women face unplanned pregnancies every year. In fact, half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/pregnancy/pregnant-now-what-4253.htm

We are supposed to think that because half of all pregnancies are unplanned, that also means that they are a problem. And Planned Parenthood wants to present itself as a solution provider. This is a very common marketing strategy: present a problem, and get the consumer to envision your company as the one who can solve your problem.

If you are pregnant, you have three options to think about — abortion, adoption, and parenting. Reading and learning about each one will help you get the facts and may help you decide. It may also help to weigh the benefits and risks of each one. Think about which benefits and risks are most important to you.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/pregnancy/pregnant-now-what-4253.htm

Of course, "abortion" is the first option given. That is because Planned Parenthood is in the business of abortion and cannot make money off of the other two options. And then we come to the intellectually dishonest attempt to equalize all three options based on "risk." But what are the "risks" of adoption vs. abortion? Look and see:

Here's what they say about "How Will I Feel After the Adoption"
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/pregnancy/adoption-21520.htm

Many women who make this choice are happy knowing that their children are loved and living in good homes. And they feel empowered in their role as birth mother. But some women find that the sense of loss is deeper than they expected.

You may feel some grief after the adoption is complete. Or you may be reassured by knowing that your child is in good hands. A range of emotions is normal. And your feelings may be complicated for a while.

It's a good idea to find counseling to help you work through your feelings. This can be important during the adoption process as well as afterward. If you work with an adoption agency, they can often provide counseling for you. If you have an independent adoption, you can still receive counseling and guidance through a local adoption agency. No matter which type of adoption you pursue, it's important to find people who will support you during and after your pregnancy.

Now, here's what they say about "If I Have an Abortion, How Will I Feel Afterward?"
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/pregnancy/thinking-about-abortion-21519.htm

A range of emotions is normal after an abortion. There is not one "correct" way to feel. Some women feel anger, regret, guilt, or sadness for a little while. For some women, these feelings may be quite strong.

For some women, having an abortion can be a significant life event, like ending a relationship, starting or losing a job, or becoming a parent. It can be very stressful and difficult. Other women have an easier time after abortion.

Serious, long-term emotional problems after abortion are about as uncommon as they are after giving birth. They are more likely to happen for certain reasons — for instance, if a woman has a history of emotional problems before the abortion, if she doesn't have supportive people in her life, or if she has to terminate a wanted pregnancy because her health or the health of her fetus is in danger.

Ultimately, most women feel relief after an abortion. Women tend to feel better after abortion if they can talk with supportive people in their lives.

So there you have it. If you read these two options carefully, clearly adoption is the greater risk. Adoption may cause "grief" and may be "complicated for a while." Abortion, on the other hand, may result in "regret" but only "for a little while." However, "ultimately, most women feel relief" after an abortion while only "many women" who decide on adoption "are happy knowing that their children are loved and living in good homes."

But here's my favorite bit of propaganda:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/pregnancy/pregnant-now-what-4253.htm

Family planning clinics, like your local Planned Parenthood health center, have specially trained staff who can talk with you about all of your options. But beware of so-called "crisis pregnancy centers". These are fake clinics run by people who are anti-abortion. They often don't give women all their options. They have a history of scaring women into not having abortions. Absolutely no one should pressure you or trick you into making a decision you're not comfortable with.

If you are anti-abortion, you are a "fake" provider of care and counseling. "Beware."

Beware, indeed. But rather, beware of manipulative rhetoric that subtly tries to make women focus on their fears rather than the entire picture, which includes another human life that has the power to immeasurably enrich either their own lives or the lives of others in a better position to raise these children.

Health Care Reform

Let me start with a caveat. I have much to learn about health care in the U.S. and how to reform it. So take my comments as those of one with some definite limits on his knowledge of the subject. That being said, here are my thoughts on the matter.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has done quite a bit in forming a Catholic position on the matter. Their information can be found at:

http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/

The bishops are urging us to contact our Congressional Representatives and Senators:

Call your members of Congress (use the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 to contact your Representative or Senators) and tell them health care reform should:


Include health care coverage for all people from conception until natural death, and continue the federal ban on funding for abortions;

Include access for all with a special concern for the poor;

Pursue the common good and preserve pluralism, including freedom of conscience; and

Restrain costs and apply costs equitably among payers.

Here is what my wife and I sent to our Congressional Representative and Senators:

While we do want to see more extensive health care coverage for Americans, such significant legislation should not be rushed and it should not promote certain agendas that expand abortion and restrict religious liberty. We support the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' position on health reform, which includes health care coverage for all people from conception until natural death, and continues the federal ban on funding for abortions; preserves freedom of conscience clauses; and restrains costs and apply costs equitably among payers. Our concerns include not duplicating the experiences of the United Kingdom, Canada, or the Veteran Affairs department in terms of rationed health care, and not duplicating the experiences of Medicare in terms of inadequate cost containment. In addition, we do not want to see more situations such as Belmont Abbey College which is being compelled by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] to offer contraception as part of their medical insurance package to employees, even though this is explicitly against the college's religious affiliation with the Catholic Church. Please support responsible health care reform. Thank you.

It seems to me that the bishops have it right. My thoughts on their points, and a couple of my own, are below:

1. How to reform health care is a prudential judgment. Unlike the issues of abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or euthanasia, which are intrinsically evil under all circumstances, health care reform can take one or more of many forms and be consistent with Catholic social teaching. I would argue that expanding coverage is a good thing and should be a primary goal. However, that goal should not be achieved at any cost (either monetarily or morally).
2. The maintenance of conscience clauses is a non-negotiable for health care reform. We cannot allow even a beneficial expansion of health care coverage at the expense of religious liberty. We must continue to protect health care workers from being forced to participate in activities that are antithetical to their moral and religious convictions. In addition, we must also make sure that religious institutions are not forced to offer medical insurance packages that are contrary to their religious missions. The recent situation where Belmont Abbey College is being pursued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to force the college to include abortion, sterilization, and contraception coverage, is deeply disturbing.
3. The explicit statement that federal funding of abortion will not be allowed is a non-negotiable for health care reform. We cannot allow for abortion to become part of a federal health care package. If explicit provisions are not in the legislation, abortion will become part of the coverage. If abortion becomes a basic right of health care, there will be tremendous pressure on Catholic hospitals and doctors to become complicit in abortions. It will expand promotion of abortion and use tax-payer dollars from those who know abortion to be intrinsically evil.
4. Faith and Morals Catholics need to think more about the poor and the uninsured and under-insured, and Peace and Justice Catholics need to think more about intrinsically evil health care issues such as abortion. As one who primarily tends to be more focused on the former set of issues, I need to remember that the Catholic Church is universal in her scope and vision, and that Catholic teaching requires Catholics to promote both faith and orals and peace and justice. We don't get to choose one over the other.
5. All health care is rationed; the question is what is the least rationed model? As long as there are limited resources, health care will always be rationed. It simply has to be. Under our current health care system, there is significant rationing. If you work and don't qualify for Medicaid but your employer doesn't offer health insurance, then your health care is rationed by what you can afford. If you have an employer with health insurance, it is undoubtedly managed health care, which means there are judgments about what is covered and what is not. But we must be careful not to jump from one form of rationed health care into a more severely rationed form. State run, single payer systems seem to be pretty good for maintenance and preventative health care, and pretty poor for severe, chronic, or catastrophic health problems.
6. Health care reform must reduce or control costs or it will not help the people its advocates claim to be helping. Medicare and Medicaid are not self-sufficient. Social Security is not self-sufficient. Federal programs have not shown in recent decades an ability to contain costs. We need to see that this process will be different if we are expected to support it. In addition, the demographics of the current U.S. birth rate significantly affects our ability to support such programs when the number of workers is disproportionate to those who are requiring the most health care.
7. Rushing health care reform will result in bad health care reform. When legislation is pushed through, many, many undesirable things are tucked into the legislation that are not examined by most legislators, let alone most of the public. We need to deliberate and discuss and compromise (but not compromise foundational values). The town hall meetings seem to be mostly for show rather than real exchanges of information, but there have been some exceptions. In addition, the debate cannot go on forever. We need to be committed to real reform, and we need to hold our representatives and senators accountable to such real reform.
   

Prayers for Senator Edward Kennedy

As everyone who has any link to any media knows, Senator Edward Kennedy died today. He sincerely sought to improve the lives of the poor, workers, and racial and ethnic minorities, among other legislative areas. For his efforts in these area, we should be grateful. We should also use it as an opportunity to reflect on how much we ourselves do to help those who need our help. I know that I do not do enough in the area of social justice as the Church has reiterated through her social teaching, as the Old and New Testaments direct us.

We should also bear in mind the areas where he significantly strayed from Church teaching, such as the sanctity of life. His relentless public support of abortion, as well as his support for embryonic stem cell research, was, sadly, very successful in undermining the culture of life. He led the way in trying to legitimize Catholic politicians taking positions on fundamental moral issues contrary to the teachings of the Church. Perhaps, he let his partisan loyalty darken his vision and faith.

May God have mercy on his soul, as we would hope that God will have mercy on ours. For the good that he did, despite the evil he did, we pray for his repose and salvation.

Abortion - Taking Away Parents' Rights to Choose How to Parent Their Children

Abortion is first of all a human rights violation. However, the pro-abortion agenda also includes a concerted effort to restrict how parents are allowed to parent their children.

I was thinking about the things that our children cannot do without written parental permission, even though our daughters can get an abortion without our permission. In Ohio, the law requires that one parent be notified of the intended abortion, unless the minor gets approval from a judge (through "judicial bypass"). Judges could approve the abortion without the consent of a parent if the judge deems that a) the minor is mature enough to make the decision on her own, b) the minor has been the victim by one of the parents of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, or c) it is not in the best interests of the minor to notify the parents. See the 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Ohio v. Akron Center. Even with the parental notification, a parent only needs to be notified; a parent's consent is not required. Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood referred to even this inadequate accommodation of parental rights as one of "two major blows against abortion rights." The extremism of Planned Parenthood's position is clear in this statement.

According to a Lifenews.com article in 2003, the Akron Beacon Journal conducted a study which showed that Ohio judges approved judicial bypass requests 86% of the time.
It is worth considering what minors can and cannot do without parental permission:

• Written permission from a parent is required for a minor to go on a field trip, but a minor girl can kill her unborn child without parental consent.
• In Ohio, parental consent is required for a minor to marry, but a minor girl can kill her unborn child without parental consent.
• Written parental consent is required for a minor to enlist in the military, but a minor girl can kill her unborn child without parental consent.
• In Ohio, parental consent is required for a minor to get a tattoo, body piercing, or ear piercing, but a minor girl can kill her unborn child without parental consent.
  

Parents need to be parents, especially when their daughters are in a confusing, complicated, and frightening situation like an unexpected teen pregnancy. But apparently we need the consent of the government for us to exercise what is clearly a fundamental human right.

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and the Politics of Ignorance

Let me start with saying that I do not consider myself either a Democrat or a Republican. I consider myself first and foremost a Catholic. Partisan politics, be it Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, is like a prism that separates the light, and then chooses only certain colors of the spectrum. By contrast, the Catholic vision is integrated.

It is clear that the Democratic Party is actively courting Catholics. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what political parties do: they solicit voting blocs, and as many as they can get. The Republican Party has certainly been doing the same, especially with evangelical Christians, but also with Catholics. My objection with the current approach by the Democrats is that their strategy appears to be a focused one of disinformation from within the Church. They have been using very high profile Catholics who prey on the ignorance of most American Catholics regarding Church teaching and history. Nancy Pelosi was certainly the most vocal and appalling in her grossly erroneous "lesson" on abortion and the history of the Catholic Church in her interview with Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press. Joe Biden's interview with Brokaw was somewhat less egregious, but his privatization of faith, moral relativism, and total inability to see abortion in terms of science and human rights in addition to faith was not much better.

In an article in the The American Spectator on former Kansas governor and current Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, writer Matt Bowman makes the argument that the Democrats are trying to marginalize Catholic opposition from within:

But the most intriguing component of Sebelius's nomination is her Catholicism. Not that Catholic abortion supporters are rare -- see Obama's failed nominee to HHS, Tom Daschle. But Sebelius is significant as an attempt by Obama to foment a civil war within Catholicism to neutralize its pro-life efforts.

Like a shrewd general, Obama is using Catholics themselves as his ground troops. Two dozen prominent Obama supporters quickly launched a letter supporting Sebelius, and claiming that they are Catholic and pro-life. The letter's signers are the same liberal Obama Pro-Lifers from his presidential campaign, led by Professor Doug Kmiec and the Soros-funded group "Catholics United."

What is different about this new strain of cafeteria Catholics is not their support for abortion politicians, but their claim that they are the true abortion opponents within Catholicism. They reveled in Obama's season of audacity, and simply claimed that the most extreme pro-abortion candidate in history was really a pro-lifer. It worked. In an election about economics, they gave Catholics the rationalization they needed to vote for political celebrity but against the unborn.

Bowman's thesis seems to be supported by the recent article in Newsweek by former lieutenant governor of Maryland, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. In a clearly concerted effort to exploit the ignorance of American Catholics of the faith they profess to believe, Townsend trumps faith with crass party and ideological politics.

The title of her article is, "Without a Doubt: Obama Represents American Catholics Better than the Pope Does." As others have pointed out, the Pope does not represent only American Catholics, but the worldwide Church. The Church is catholic, meaning universal, precisely so that the interests of one nation, region, or ethnic group do not overshadow those of everyone else. Furthermore, the Pope does not "represent" Catholics in the way that Townsend represented the people of Maryland as lieutenant governor. The Pope pastors them. He teaches them. He encourages them. He loves them enough to tell them what they need to hear, rather than what they want to hear.

Apparently, Townsend is looking to promote Obama from president to pope. She notes where President Obama and Pope Benedict XVI agree, and then notes where they disagree, indicating that the Pope should fall in line with the President's views. She accuses the Pope of hypocrisy, saying: "While the pope preaches love, listening to the other has been a particular stumbling block for the Catholic hierarchy (as it is for many in power)." She refers to Humanae Vitae as a "heinous decision." She criticizes Pope Paul VI for upholding Church teaching on abortion and contraception because he went against an advisory panel on the subject which had voted "69 to 10." Again, Townsend seems to be confusing majority rule with issues of truth and falsity.

She does not seek to understand the Church's teaching on any subject with which she does not agree, including the ordination of women or homosexuality, and in so doing mischaracterizes the Church's views on these issues. She says that a 1979 meeting at the Vatican on the role of women in the Church was "greeted with revulsion," and that "Despite the rhetoric of love and truth, the Vatican shows disdain (if not disgust) toward gays." Townsend is silent on the President's opposition to same-sex marriage. Townsend herself does not show much interest in either love or truth.

Townsend asserts: "For Obama, respectful disagreement and a willingness to recognize differences was the animating spirit of the presidential campaign, and it was central to his Notre Dame speech." The President may respectfully disagree with others on such matters as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, but the result is not simply one of disagreement. Rather, the result is setting in place policies that promote his positions on these matters. Townsend's contention that the President's path is more compassionate than the Pope's is simply naive at best, disingenuous at worst.

After her litany of polls, Townsend ends her article: "The pope has a lot to learn about Catholic politics in America. Barack Obama can teach him." What she does not seem to grasp is that the Pope is not in the business of American politics, but of shepherding souls. Fortunately, the Holy Father quite clearly discerns that distinction.

Such attempts to use American Catholics as political pawns will not end any time soon. We should take this opportunity to commit ourselves to bolstering the efforts of recent years to catechize Catholics better, from the pulpit and from the pew. The better we know our faith, the better we will be able to see through such pandering, and then we can get on to meaningful political discussion of how to address the issues of ethics and social justice that challenge our nation.

George Tiller, Scott Roeder, Alessandro Serenelli, Abba Apollo and Redemption

Dr. George Tiller was a late-term abortionist for many years. He was murdered while serving as an usher in his Lutheran church on May 31, 2009 by Scott Roeder. What Roeder did was horrific and showed a complete lack of understanding regarding the Christian vision of the dignity of human life. No one who truly follows the One who said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) could commit such a terrible act.

Dr. Tiller also seemed to not understand the Jesus who is the way, the truth, and the life. No one who kills unborn children for a living as he did is walking the way of truth and life. That being said, he did not deserve to be murdered. Quite the contrary, he needed to live longer to repent and change his life.

I have been thinking of Alessandro Serenelli, the man who attempted to rape and then killed St. Maria Goretti. Serenelli spent thirty years in prison. While in prison he repented of his crime, and after his release sought the forgiveness of St. Maria's mother, Assunta. She forgave him, to the point where they received the Eucharist at Christmas Mass together. Serenelli became a Capuchin tertiary and worked on the grounds of a Capuchin monastery for the remainder of his life.

Serenelli committed a terrible crime. Rather than committing himself further to evil, he changed. Through St. Maria, God worked a miracle in Serenelli, and he spent his life trying to serve that miraculous God.

There is also the story of Abba Apollo. He was one of the Desert Fathers--religious men (and sometimes women) who lived alone or in small communities in the Egyptian desert from the latter part of the second century to about the mid-fourth century. Abba Apollo did not start out as a holy man:

It was said of a certain Abba Apollo of Scetis, that he had been a shepherd and was very uncouth. He had seen a pregnant woman in the field one day and being urged by the devil, he had said, ‘I should like to see how the child lies in her womb.’ So he ripped her up and saw the foetus. Immediately his heart was troubled and, filled with compunction, he went to Scetis and told the Fathers what he had done. Now he heard them chanting, ‘The years of our age are three score years and ten, and even by reason strength fourscore; yet their span is but toil and trouble’ (Ps. 90:10). He said to them, ‘I am forty years old and I have not made one prayer; and now, if I live another year, I shall not cease to pray God that he may pardon my sins.’ In fact, he did not work with his hands but passed all his time in prayer, saying, ‘I, who as man have sinned, do you, as God, forgive.’ So his prayer became his activity by night and day. A brother who lived with him heard him saying, ‘I have sinned against you, Lord; forgive me, that I may enjoy a little peace.’ And he was sure that God had forgiven him all his sins, including the murder of the woman; but for the child’s murder, he was in doubt. Then an old man said to him,’ God has forgiven you even the death of the child, but he leaves you in grief because that is good for your soul.’ (The Sayings of the Desert Fathers by Benedicta Ward, SLG, p. 36)

Abba Apollo murdered a woman and aborted her child. From that heinous crime he turned his life toward God and became a changed man. God turned the evil which Abba Apollo had done into something that caused him to become holy through remorse and forgiveness.

Both Alessandro Serenelli and Abba Apollo found redemption and forgiveness. May George Tiller and Scott Roeder also find redemption and forgiveness. Let us pray for both of them.

President Obama and Notre Dame

Today, of course was the day that President Obama gave the commencement address and received an honorary degree from the University of Notre Dame. Here is what I wrote in an email to Father Jenkins, president of Notre Dame:

Dear Fr. Jenkins:

I urge you to rescind the invitation to President Obama to speak at Notre Dame's commencement this year. During his short time in office, President Obama has been relentless in spearheading assaults on human life and dignity as regards the Mexico City policy, embryonic stem cell research funding, and health provider conscientious clauses, as well as the potential for passing the "Prevention First" bill or the "Freedom of Choice Act." Please do not both embolden him in these pursuits and cause scandal and confusion among the Catholic faithful. God has made you the shepherd of an important Catholic institution, and your flock needs you to stand up for the most vulnerable in our society, and to firmly and loudly oppose such devaluing of human life and constriction of religious liberty. Otherwise, some day Notre Dame will simply become just another school reflecting contemporary cultural values, indistinguishable from secular universities, and the university's Catholic trappings will be but tokens of a forgotten purpose, like walking into a room and not remembering why you went there.

While we must voice our objections to President Obama and Fr. Jenkins, we must do so in charity and reason and temperance, and that part I agree with in President Obama's speech today. We must also take comfort in Jesus' words to his disciples in the "farewell discourse" in the Gospel of John:

Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me. (John 14:1).

Let us put our trust there.

J.R.R. Tolkien Gives Us Insight into Abortion

In his "Introductory Note" to Tree and Leaf, J.R.R. Tolkien wrote about the inspiration for his story "Leaf by Niggle," which comprises the second portion of the book. Tolkien writes:

One of its sources was a great-limbed poplar tree that I could see even lying in bed. It was suddenly lopped and mutilated by its owner. I do not know why. It is cut down now, a less barbarous punishment for any crimes it may have been accused of, such as being large and alive. I do not think it had any friends, or mourners, except myself and a pair of owls.

Of course, the context for Tolkien's passage has nothing to do with abortion. And yet, it immediately struck me as applicable to abortion. Unfortunately, women who commit abortions are duped into thinking that they are "owners" of a "fetus," rather than mothers of a baby. The "crimes" of these babies--being large and alive. While the mothers (and fathers) often later come to mourn these babies, at the time, such babies may indeed have no friends or mourners, other than perhaps some sidewalk pro-life witnesses.

Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God

Today is the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. In a recent posting I included Christina Rossetti's poem, "A Christmas Carol," which is the text for the song, "In the Bleak Midwinter." It is especially appropriate for today's solemnity:

Angels and archangels
May have gathered there,
Cherubim and seraphim
Thronged the air,
But only His mother
In her maiden bliss,
Worshipped the Beloved
With a kiss.

As the Mother of God, she is both mother and creature, both parent and disciple to Jesus, the God-Man. She gives to us a model of a particularly intimate relationship with Jesus.

Also on this Solemnity, we should keep in mind Mary's eucharistic aspects as the woman who carried Jesus in her womb. She is the "ark of the new covenant," "mother of the Eucharist," and a "living tabernacle." Her womb held the Son of God, the Word made flesh, so the Divine redeemed the human, and the human sheltered the Divine.

Unfortunately, because of abortion, sometimes a womb becomes a tomb. Franciscan University, in Steubenville, Ohio, has a Tomb of the Unborn Child on campus. We need to look to Mary, asking for her intercession for the Unborn, and for her help so that we will treasure all human life at every stage.

Therefore, as a Eucharistic people, we need to do all we can to end legalized abortion in our country. The next thing we can do is oppose the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA). To learn more about what FOCA is and what you can do to prevent it from becoming law, go to Fight FOCA.