The Cathoholic

The Year of the (Pro-life) Woman

In today's New York Times op-ed page, Ramesh Ponnuru  marks a promising political development -- "The Year of the (Pro-Life) Woman":

"There are many millions of pro-life women, but there are only 13 in the House. The Senate has no pro-life women. Even Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas Republican who votes with pro-lifers on many issues, says she favors Roe v. Wade. All of the women who have served on the Supreme Court have supported Roe, too.

Pro-life women have not even found representation among Republican first ladies, all of whom in the post-Roe era have been pro-choice. One reason that Sarah Palin’s nomination for vice president in 2008 was so immediately polarizing is that she instantly became the most prominent pro-life woman American politics has ever produced.

Sarah Palin is about to get some company. Two pro-life women won Republican nominations for the Senate this week. A Tea Party favorite, Sharron Angle, and the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina are running for the Senate from Nevada and California, respectively.

A third pro-life woman, Susana Martinez, became the party’s nominee for governor of New Mexico, and a fourth, Nikki Haley, a South Carolina state legislator, is expected to be a gubernatorial nominee in her state. If they win their primaries, Kelly Ayotte, the former attorney general of New Hampshire, and Jane Norton, the former lieutenant governor of Colorado, will also be pro-life Senate candidates in November.

None of these candidates is a single-issue pro-lifer. But these women have not been shy about discussing the issue, either. Neither Ms. Fiorina nor Ms. Haley would have been likely to get Ms. Palin’s endorsement — valuable in a Republican primary — without firmly opposing abortion. Likewise, Ms. Angle would not have been able to unite populist conservatives and beat the party establishment’s candidate had she been pro-choice."

Bishop Tobin, Rep. Kennedy & Chris Matthews

When Bishop Tobin countered Rep. Kennedy's broadside against the U.S. bishops' stand on abortion and health reform, the Providence ordinary clearly struck a nerve among pro-choice Catholics. In the latest installment, Chris Matthews interrogated Bishop Tobin on Hardball and suggested that the good bishop had made unacceptable demands on Kennedy.

Ramesh Pomeru follows up with a brisk repudiation of Matthews' stance on National Review, and makes several excellent points:

"The Church's teaching is that the state has a duty to protect peaceable human beings in the embryonic and fetal stages of development (as at all subsequent stages) from being deliberately killed; to wish that the law would ignore that teaching is to reject it.

"The second point is ridiculous (and the third therefore collapses too). Let's say that the bishops said that the government has a duty to help the poor and sick by enacting legislation to expand the number of people with health insurance. Would Matthews really rule their comments out of bounds unless they went on to draw up a bill to reach that goal? (Would it have to be 2,000 pages long?) In that case I suspect that Matthews would be fine with their laying out of a goal. Would he criticize the bishops' comments on the death penalty unless they outlined a detailed penal code they would support? In that case I think he would be able to see that they could support a wide range of legal regimes so long as they did not involve capital punishment. In the case of abortion, as well, a wide range of legal regimes is compatible with adherence to the norm that the law should prohibit the intentional killing of unborn human beings. Not only do the bishops not need to pick one of those regimes; they would be wrong to suggest that the Church's teachings lead to one specific regime of penalties.

"There are other sound arguments that could be deployed against Matthews, but I'll just mention one more thing: The Church isn't actually ordering the congressmen to vote in any particular way; it is telling him the conditions for his reception of communion."

Update: I was out in California over the Thanksgiving holidays and was surprised to read a Los Angeles Times editorial strongly attacking the Manhattan Declaration, already noted in a previous post. After what might be called a kind of truce, we are witnessing a new era of increased hostility toward assertive church leaders. Stay tuned for the next installment.

Bishop Tobin Denies Kennedy Communion

The Providence Journal reports today that Bishop Tobin of Providence, RI has moved to deny Rep. Patrick Kennedy Communion. Diocesan priests have been told to enforce the directive, but it remains to be seen how ordinaries in Massachusetts or Washington, D.C. will respond to Bishop Tobin's decision.

This fall has seen an escalation of concern within the Church regarding threats posed to traditional Catholic teaching on abortion, marriage and religious freedom. Earlier this week, a number of Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical leaders issued a statement, The Manhattan Declaration, affirming their principled and practical opposition to threats posed to the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage and religious freedom.

True Compass by Edward Kennedy

The ongoing dispute -- between Bishop Tobin of Providence, RI and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, a son of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy -- over the role of abortion in the House health care bill reminds us that  Kennedy policies must be understood as an inter-generational phenomenon. In the National Catholic Register opinion page, I look at Ted Kennedy's best-seller: "True Compass" and suggest that the family's deeply partisan version of Catholicism continues to shape our understanding of the church's role in the public square.

There wasn't space in my article to add an additional insight gleaned from the memoir.  While the Kennedy family's rise to political power unleashed a kind of primitive tribal euphoria among American Catholics, it's also true that many church leaders permitted the Kennedy men to operate as if the great opportunities for social change secured through political influence trumped the individual moral obligations of church membership.

Bishop Tobin to Rep. Kennedy: "What Does It Mean to be a Catholic?"

The Rhode Island Catholic published this letter from Bishop Tobin of Providence to Rep. Patrick Kennedy. The bishop reveals a remarkable capacity for moving from the general to the particular in his challenge to self-identified "Catholic" politicians who dismiss the teaching authority of their bishops.

WITHOUT A DOUBT

Dear Congressman Kennedy

BY BISHOP THOMAS J. TOBIN 11/12/09

Dear Congressman Kennedy:
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” (Congressman Patrick Kennedy)

Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.
For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.
For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)
Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)
There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”
But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?
Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.
Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?
In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?

ur rejection of th be honored and happy to do soSincerely yourThomas J. Tobin

Bishop of Providence

Update: The AP  offers Rep. Kennedy's response. No surprise:  he is "troubled" by Bishop Tobin's letter.

Tony Blair's "faith foundation"

Catholics around the world were thrilled with the news that the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had decided to adopt the faith of his wife and become a Catholic. True, some particularly sharp-eyed Catholics had been concerned about Blair's refusal to confront the Labor Party's position on abortion and gay rights, but even they hoped for the best. 

Then, in the wake of the global tempest over Pope Benedict XVI's ad hoc remarks on condoms and AIDS in Africa, Blair and his wife issued a statements suggesting that it was time for the  church to "rethink" its position on condoms and homosexuality. At that  point, I began to wonder why Blair had decided to join the church and whether he truly understood the moral foundations of Catholicism. 

Now the National Catholic Register provides this interesting perspective on Blair's new "faith foundation" and its mission to update the world's religions. 

Arcbishop Wuerl and Gov. Sebelius

I recently checked in with Archbishop Wuerl's spokesperson, Susan Gibbs, to confirm his position on the issue of Gov. Sebelius receiving the Eucharist when/if she moved to the District. Gibbs told me" 

"The practice of the Archdiocese of Washington is to act in pastoral solidarity with bishops throughout the United States and, therefore, to respect the pastoral guidance and directives made by a public official’s own bishop while the official is working in Washington, D.C. The official’s own bishop clearly would be in a better position to know the person and his or her situation.  Archbishop Joseph Naumann, the Archbishop of Kansas City and HHS Secretary–Nominee Kathleen Sebelius’ Archbishop, has made public that he has asked her to refrain from presenting herself for Holy Communion.  It appears that she has respected his request."

 

Gibbs also pointed me to a May 1, 2008 Catholic Standard column by Archbishop Wuerl that outlined his view that the home bishop of a pro-choice Catholic politician should establish a dialogue and make the ultimate decision regarding whether the individual should receive the Eucharist. 

Gibbs also forwarded the text from a March 6,  2009 EWTN interview  with Archbishop Naumann.  During the interview, Raymond Arroyo asked about the responsibility of ministers of Communion to avoid sacrilege.

Raymond Arroyo: If a sacrilege remains, aren’t the ministers of Communion bound to protect it or Him, rather, from sacrilege?

Archbishop Naumann: Well, uh, Raymond, in my efforts with the governor I felt it was most prudent to put the burden upon her and not the sacramental minister. And, to this point, I must say, that she is, after the second request I made of her, she has been observant of it so there is not a problem to my knowledge of her presenting herself for Communion.

RA: We should tell people this is a long term conversation you had. This wasn’t something you arbitrarily woke up one morning and kind of, you know, dropped on the front page of the paper. You’ve been speaking with the governor over a series of years. Correct?

AN: That is correct. We’ve had numerous conversations and written correspondence. And, at some point, after you mentioned in the lead in she had vetoed a couple of bills, two of which were really to try and regulate abortion clinics and help enforce Kansas law for late term abortions, at that point, I felt it was not fruitful to continue the dialogue and I had written her at that point and asked her not to present herself for communion. My intention was not to make it public, but when she violated the request, I made a second request and made it public 

------------------

On more than one occasion, I have pondered how Archbishop Wuerl might handle this matter judiciously and prudently -- given that pro-choice Catholics are heavily represented in his diocese. Archbishop Naumann's policy, and Archbishop Wuerl's follow up make sense: "home bishops" should step up to the plate, while pastors and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist should not be under pressure to police the altar rail. Now, let's see whether it's as simple to implement as it sounds. 

 

If Sebelius Moves to D.C.: What Will Her New Bishop Do?

George Weigel addresses the nomination of Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas as Secretary of Health and Human Services and sees a larger strategy of spin by pro-abortion Catholics. His remarks also suggest that until the U.S. bishops hammer out a uniform policy governing the reception of the Eucharist by pro-choice politicians, the ad hoc approach now in place will continue to sow confusion. 

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas established a dialogue with the governor, and finally told her to desist from receiving the Eucharist. But one pro-Democrat group: Catholics United, has challenged Archbishop Naumann's judgment and offered its own assessment of Sebelius' voting record {"Kathleen Sebelius has made clear that she agrees with church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief."}

Now, as Sebelius heads for the nation's capital, Weigel reviews the evidence and ponders how the ordinary of her new diocese will respond. Writes Weigel:

"There is no question here that the governor does not understand the teaching of the Church and what the Church’s leaders believe to be the public-policy implications of that teaching, and there is little likelihood that the governor, as a cabinet secretary in an administration that has already unfurled its pro-abortion flag, will be persuaded by further catechesis, further argument, or further pleas from Church authorities.

"What, therefore, will other local bishops do when Secretary Sebelius establishes a residence within their jurisdictions and begins to attend Mass there? Perhaps yet another effort at dialogue can be attempted. But if, as seems likely, that fails, then what? Is Kathleen Sebelius not to receive Holy Communion in Kansas, but welcome to do so elsewhere? And if so, what are we to conclude from that?

"Then there is the challenge posed by those pro-Sebelius Catholics. Their strategic goal seems clear: to nail down the “pro-life/pro-Obama” position pioneered by Douglas Kmiec and others, and indeed to extend it by arguing that the “universal health care” to which the Obama administration proposes to lead us is the real and overarching pro-life position, irrespective of the administration’s reversal of the Mexico City policy, its likely assault on the conscience rights of Catholic health care professionals, and what one can reasonably assume will be its refusal to revisit the RU-486 controversy or to examine the abortion/breast-cancer link.

"This attempt to spin and redefine the pro-life position, such that one can claim to be a pro-life Catholic while supporting candidates or nominees who have taken extreme pro-abortion positions, must be publicly repudiated by the appropriate Catholic authorities at Gov. Sebelius’ hearings so that, no matter what the fate of her nomination, a clear, bright, and unmistakable line is drawn."

Bobby Jindal - Catholic Convert, Pro-life Hope

Many pro-lifers have high hopes for Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana who gave the GOP's responseto President Obama's State of the Union speech. I was disappointed with Jindal's response, and I'm not alone. But Rush Limbaugh sees Jindal as a major national force . It is interesting that while the Democrats employ two pro-choice Catholics--Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and Vice-President Joe Biden -- to run interference for the party's increasingly aggressive defense of abortion rights, Jindal, a Catholic convert, articulates clear Catholic principles on life issues.  

Pelosi-Benedict "pastoral dialogue" revisited

Here are two additional takes on Pelosi's "pastoral dialogue" with the Holy Father. The first  is George Weigel's comparison of two parallel realities. The second, is a  hilarious, fictional account of Pelosi's "photo-op" with the pontiff constructed by the editors of National Review.