A Sixth Catholic on the Supreme Court?

News sites are abuzz this morning with the question of what it will mean if Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, a nominal Roman Catholic, is confirmed.

Probably nothing at all.

It rather seems like the beginning of a joke: "How many Catholics does it take on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade? Five? Six? Guess again.

But the joke's on us.

According to a White House official, Sotomayor "was raised as a Catholic and attends church for family celebrations and other important events." I don't know what family celebrations this is talking about. Birthday parties? I take it this is meant to suggest that she doesn't attend Mass every week. The Lord's Day, apparently, isn't an important event--not even though it is a holy day of obligation, required by the 3rd Commandment, and is celebrated (as it always is in Catholic Parishes) with the Holy Eucharist. If God changing bread and wine into His Body and Blood and giving it to us to eat and drink for our salvation isn't an "important event", I wonder what is.

As reported by Belief.net and First Things, the nominee said in 2007:

"There is no such thing as a 'Catholic judge.' The bottom line is that the Catholic faith seems to me to have little effect on my work as a judge...Just as there is no 'Catholic' way to cook a hamburger, I am hard pressed to tell you of a single opinion of mine that would have come out differently if I were not Catholic."

Clearly. The Catholic faith doesn't seem to have much effect on Judge Sotomayer at all. Besides, how would she know how to cook a Catholic hamburger anyway. Why cook when you can go to the cafeteria?

Most Americans Disagree with Notre Dame Invitation

Notre Dame Honor for Obama Seen as Mistake
Poll Reveals Majority Disagrees With University

NEW YORK, MAY 7, 2009 (Zenit.org).- More than half of all Americans oppose the University of Notre Dame's decision to honor President Barack Obama with an honorary degree, according to a Rasmussen poll.

The telephone survey, released Tuesday, asked 1,000 adults if the university should be giving the president an honorary degree, given the 2004 guidelines established by U.S. bishops stating that Catholic institutions should not honor people whose actions conflict with the Church's moral principles. Fifty-two percent of those polled said no, and among Catholics, 60% said no.
The statement of the U.S. bishops says: "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."
Only 25% of those polled agreed with the university's decision, and 19% said they were unsure.
When asked if it's important that commencement speakers for universities with a religious affiliation share the religious views of that university, nearly two-thirds (63%) said yes. Of Catholics, 56% said yes, while 87% of evangelicals answered in the affirmative, along with 63% of other Protestants.

While the majority disagrees with the university's decision to honor the president, only 30% of American adults believe the president should cancel his appearance at Notre Dame. Among Catholics, just 34% think Obama should cancel.

Of those polled, 15% say they are following the story "very closely," and another 23% are following it "somewhat closely."

Among Catholics, 25% are following the story "very closely," and another 27% are following it "somewhat closely."

Mr. Terry, follow the Bishop.

The latest news in the Notre Dame Scandel is that Mr. Randall Terry, along with Alan Keyes, is planning another protest with the hopes of being arrested, and is encouraging area pro-lifers to join him. All this in opposition to the wishes of our Bishop John D'Arcy.

I had not realized that Randall Terry had converted to Catholicism until this present news coverage, and frankly, I am appalled by his actions in defiance of our Bishop and his venomous response. Unlike Mr. Terry, Bishop D'Arcy has chosen the high road of pastoral leadership rather than public, self-indulgent grandstanding.

When Mr. Terry became Catholic, he pledged "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God." This pledge requires us to be faithful to (and respectful of) our Bishop. Consider these words of St. Ignatius:


"Plainly therefore we ought to regard the bishop as the Lord Himself" — Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 6:1.

"Therefore as the Lord did nothing without the Father, [being united with Him], either by Himself or by the Apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and the presbyters." — Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 7:1.

"Be obedient to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was to the Father [according to the flesh], and as the Apostles were to Christ and to the Father, that there may be union both of flesh and of spirit." — Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 13:2.

"follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to the deacons pay respect, as to God's commandment" — Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnans 9:1.

He that honoureth the bishop is honoured of God; he that doeth aught without the knowledge of the bishop rendereth service to the devil" — Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnans 9:1.

And another point needs to be made. Fr. Jenkin's has grieviously sinned against the Holy Spirit in opposing the Bishops. Mr. Terry, and those who follow him, are guilty of the same sin. By rejecting the pastoral leadership of Bishop D'Arcy, Mr. Terry sends a message to all Catholics that it is okay to do what you want, regardless of what the bishop says.

Actions speak louder than words. And Mr. Terry's actions are no different than those of Fr. Jenkins, and the host of Cafeteria Catholics who refuse to support the Church's teaching on Abortion.

Mr. Terry, if you're not going to act like a Catholic, go back from whence you came.

Declining Support for Legalized Abortion

From The Bulletin

Survey: Abortion Support Falls 8 Percent

By JOHN P. CONNOLLY, The Bulletin
Monday, May 04, 2009

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center shows that the number of people who support legalized abortion has fallen by 8 percent.

According to the survey, 46 percent of people polled were in favor of legalized abortion, a drop from 54 percent last August.

The survey, conducted from March 31 to April 21 and sampling 1,521 adults, showed that 43 percent of men and 49 percent of women thought that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Those numbers decreased from when the same question asked in August 2008, where 53 percent of men and 54 percent of women said abortion should be legal in most cases.

While 42 percent of both men and women said abortion should be illegal in all or most cases in August, the number of men opposed to legal abortion rose to 46 percent. The number of women opposed to abortion remained at 42 percent in the recent poll.

“There has been notable decline in the proportion of independents saying abortion should be legal in most or all cases; majorities of independents favored legal abortion in August and the two October surveys, but just 44 percent do so today,” said the survey report. “In addition, the proportion of moderate and liberal Republicans saying abortion should be legal declined between August and late October — from 67 percent to 57 percent. In the current survey, just 43 percent of moderate and liberal Republicans say abortion should legal in most or all cases.”

When broken down by religion, mainline Protestants showed a 15 percent decrease in abortion support since August, dropping to 54 percent from 69 percent support. The 33 percent support for abortion from evangelical Protestants fell by 10 percent to 23 percent. Among non-Hispanic Catholics, 49 percent favored abortion, down from 51 percent in August and 55 percent in October.

John P. Connolly can be reached at jconnolly@thebulletin.us

The War in Iraq and Abortion

In the uproar over the Notre Dame scandel, Mary Ann Glendon has come under fire for her supposed hypocrisy for accepting her appointment to the Vatican by the George Bush, but refusing to recieve the Laetare award from Notre Dame. The first criticism of this sort I dismissed as just more nonsense from brain-dead liberals who did too much LSD in the sixties and seventies. But now, it seems, the argument is being advanced by those I would expect to know better.

An example, here in Friday's USA Today.

When I was in college, I remember marching against abortion at the University of Michigan Diag. One counter protester, a young woman approached me and asked if I was in favor of the death penalty. I said that I was (today I would answer differently). She proceeded to "expose" my hypocrisy. I was dumbfounded. So I asked her. So you feel that both Abortion and Capital Punishment are wrong. She said, "No." "So you think they are both morally permissable." Again, she said no. "I am against Captital Punishment, but respect a woman's right to abortion."

My point was simple, even if she didn't see it, and eventually became so angry that further discussion was pointless. If Christians are hyprocritical for opposing abortion and favoring capital punishment, then the otherside is equally hypocritical for the opposite view point. Their position, is by their own standard, horribly inconsistent.

At least with the death penalty, it is the guilty (at least it is hoped) who pay. With abortion, children are executed without presumption of innocence, trial and the right to appeal. Moreover, at least an argument can be made in favor of capital punishment in so far as it's goal it to protect the lives of innocent people by executing violent offenders and by establishing a deterant to such crimes (how effective that deterant is, however, is hotly debated.) I can respect this argument, even if in disagreement.

Likewise, if any argument can be made to justify the war in Iraq, it must be made on the grounds of saving lives. Can't that argument be reasonably made? (Even if you disagree with it?)

But if you are against the war in Iraq on the grounds that it is immoral to take human life, on what grounds can you defend abortion? To argue that the lives of terrorists and rapists, but unborn children, should be protected is not only hypocritical. It's reprehensible.

Bishop praises Democratic Abortion Bill

Yeah, I know.

Any talk from the Democratic leadership suggesting that they want to reduce the number of abortions is hollow. And I have a suspicion that some of this comes from the so-called Catholic pro-choice democrats who want to answer the criticism they have been receiving. Let me be the first (o.k. I'm sure I'm not the first) to say, "NOT ENOUGH! Abortion is genecide, and we will not be happy until you understand that.

On the other hand, if this bill is really going to save some unborn lives, then I am all for it. That is, the bottom line. But that is a big "if." Who knows what the Bill will look like once it reaches the oval office. I'm not optimistic.


From US News and World Report:

U.S Bishops' Pro-Life Chief Praises Democrats Abortion Reduction Bill
April 24, 2009 03:13 PM ET

By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

When's the last time you heard Catholic bishops praise the Democrats on the abortion issue? Don't worry—I can't remember either.

But Cardinal Justin Rigali, who chairs the Committee on Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a letter today urging passage of the Pregnant Women Support Act, the Democrats' main legislative vehicle for their "abortion reduction" program. During Barack Obama's presidential inauguration, Rigali quietly convened a meeting of antiabortion activists to devise a strategy to combat an expected Obama/Democratic assault on antiabortion policies, so this is a significant development.

Rigali has written to all members of the House of Representatives urging support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, which was introduced this week by Rep. Lincoln Davis, a Democrat from Tennessee.

I'll be watching to see how antiabortion groups and antiabortion Republican lawmakers react to the bill. Much of the antiabortion movement has been highly skeptical of the Democrats' abortion reduction plan so far, but it's going to be tough to challenge the antiabortion bona fides of the Catholic bishops' pro-life committee chief.

Read the full text of Rigali's letter here.

An excerpt from the Conference of Catholic Bishops' press release:

"The Pregnant Women Support Act reaches out to women with a helping hand when they are most vulnerable, and most engaged in making a decision about life or death for their unborn children," Cardinal Rigali said.

The Cardinal said that the PWSA offers "an authentic common ground, an approach that people can embrace regardless of their position on other issues."

"There are some statements that almost everyone can endorse. First, the fact that over a million abortions take place every year in this country is a tragedy, and we should at least take steps to reduce abortions," said Cardinal Rigali.

"Second, no woman should ever have to undergo an abortion because she feels she has no other choice, or because alternatives were unavailable or not made known to her. An abortion performed under such social and economic duress meets no one's standard for 'freedom of choice'," the Cardinal continued.

Video exposes Planned Parenthood

from Foxnews.com.


Planned Parenthood Tells 'Teen': Lie To Get an Abortion
Friday , December 05, 2008


A college student posing as a pregnant 13-year-old was told at a Planned Parenthood clinic to lie about the age of her baby's father to skirt Indiana laws on parental consent for abortion and on reporting child sex abuse.

According to a report in the Washington Times, Lila Rose, 20, went undercover as a 13-year old named "Brianna," who said she was pregnant by a 31-year old man. Rose, president of a pro-life organization at UCLA, recorded the interaction with a hidden camera; the video has been posted on YouTube.

Click here to see the video.

The video shows "Diana," a nurse at Planned Parenthood in Bloomington, Ind., telling Brianna that she is required to report the pregnancy to Child Protective Services, because it "could be reported as rape." But she goes on to tell Brianna that if she lies about the age and identity of her baby's father, she can avoid turning him in.

"I didn't hear the age. I don't want to know the age," Diana says in the video.

She tells Brianna, "You've seen him around, you know he's 14, he's in your grade and whatever. You know what I mean?"

Indiana law requires that sexual acts between an adult and children under 14 be reported to law enforcement and Child Protective Services.

The nurse also is seen giving Brianna information on where to get an abortion in Illinois, where parental notification laws are not enforced.

The Washington Times reported that Rose said her organization had taped several examples of similar conduct.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana suspended the nurse on Wednesday, the Times said, and issued a statement.

"We are deeply concerned about the content of the video. ... The apparent actions of the employee would be in violation of our strict policies and procedures," Betty Cockrum, the state chapter's president, said in the statement.

The organization said it would investigate the incident.

Click here to read more on this story from The Washington Times.