The American Catholic History Research Center and University Archives
announces a new website: “American Catholics and Nazi Antisemitism:
Father Maurice Sheehy, Father Charles Coughlin, and the 1938 Catholic
University Kristallnacht Broadcast.” The site can be found at the
following url: http://libraries.cua.edu/achrcua/kristallnacht/index.html

Our newest primary source materials website features digitized primary
documents and audio from the American Catholic History Center and
University Archives related to U.S. Catholic responses to the Nazi
regime in 1930s Germany. The materials on the site suggest that American
Catholics responded to the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany during
the anti-Jewish pogrom known today as Kristallnacht in ways distinct
from Catholics outside of the United States. Users will find, for
example, a recently discovered November 16, 1938 broadcast featuring a
group of 5 American Catholic clerical leaders and one layperson
condemning the Nazi violence against Jews. The broadcast was made under
the auspices of the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.
and received considerable media attention as it presented an instance,
unusual at the time, of Catholic priests and bishops voicing support for
a religious group other than their own on a national level. In contrast,
another prominent Catholic clerical leader with millions of devoted
fans, Father Charles Coughlin, responded to Kristallnacht with a
November 20, 1938 broadcast that justified the Nazi atrocities as a
natural defense against a Jewish-dominated global communist movement. A
transcript of that Coughlin broadcast is reproduced here. In addition to
the CUA broadcast audio and the Coughlin transcript this site features a
photo gallery of participants in the CUA broadcast and related
correspondence and press materials that help contextualize the
broadcasts.

Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa is a Franciscan Capuchin priest and since 1980 the Preacher to the Papal Household. In that job, he gives weekly homilies during Lent and Advent to the Pope and officials of the Roman Curia. He is also an internationally-renowned preacher. His words carry. I especially liked his recent sermon on the “Render unto Caesar” Gospel passage. Here, via ZENIT, is a choice passage:

Christian cooperation in building a just and peaceful society does not stop at paying taxes; it must also extend itself to the promotion of common values such as the family, the defense of life, solidarity with the poor, peace. There is also another sphere in which Christians must make a contribution to politics. It does not have to do with the content of politics so much as its methods, its style.

Christians must help to remove the poison from the climate of contentiousness in politics, bring back greater respect, composure and dignity to relationships between parties. Respect for one’s neighbor, clemency, capacity for self-criticism: These are the traits that a disciple of Christ must have in all things, even in politics.

It is undignified for a Christian to give himself over to insults, sarcasm, brawling with his adversaries. If, as Jesus says, those who call their brother “stupid” are in danger of Gehenna, what then must we say about a lot of politicians?

And bloggers…?

…A major component of the new document, reported today by CNS, is to screen out men who, as Rome put it before, “are active homosexuals or who have “deep-seated” homosexual tendencies.” The document says psychological testing was appropriate in “exceptional cases that present particular difficulties” in seminary admission and formation, and “whenever there is a suspicion that psychic disturbances may be present.” According to CNS, “Such problems may include “excessive affective dependency,” disproportionate aggression, incapacity to be faithful to obligations, incapacity for openness and trust, inability to cooperate with authority and confused sexual identity…”

It also cites as red flags “excessive rigidity of character and lack of freedom in relations.”

This won’t be welcome news for ideologues–nor, sadly, for gay men either considering the priesthood or already ordained. Alas, that’s nothing new. The Vatican did indicate this document (13 years in the making!) was a response to the sexual abuse crisis, which could be fodder for unfortunate conclusions about homosexuals:

A psychologist who helped prepare the document, Father Carlo Bresciani, alluded to the priestly sex abuse crisis when he told a Vatican press conference that such precautions were prudent and necessary. “One cannot forget that unsuitable people with inconsistencies in their sexual-affective and relational life provoke negative repercussions on the church and on the faithful,” he said.

But will this change much? Do seminarians in the U.S. go through psychological testing now as a matter of course? And won’t bishops and religious orders keep the safety net’s holes as large or small as they like?

I think some form of psychological testing should be a part of formation, obviously. But it has to be done wisely. Vatican officials clearly want to keep psychological testing at arm’s length, in part lest it interfere with a true vocation, I imagine.

I need your help, folks.

Over the weekend of November 7-10, I will be part of a team leading a retreat for a group of inmates at a state prison in Northern California.  Our program–known as Kairos–has many similarities to Cursillo.  We are providing an experience for these men that will hopefully allow them to grow closer to God and bring real change to their lives.

One of the things we do in preparation for the weekend is to recruit individuals who are willing to spend some time over the course of the weekend on behalf of the men making the retreat.  We create a poster with the first names and last initial of the people who have committed to prayer at a particular hour.  In addition to the spiritual benefits of such prayer, it is very powerful for these men to see that individuals on the outside have taken time away from their busy schedules to pray for them.

I am looking for folks willing to commit to holding the retreatants in prayer during a particular hour (e.g. 10am-11am) over the course of the weekend, which runs from about 5pm Pacific Time on the 7th until 2:00pm Pacific Time on the 10th.  You do not have to remain on your knees the entire hour! A simple commitment to pray at some time during that hour is all that is necessary.

If you are interested please email me for more information at:

nixonpca [SPAM AVOIDER: PUT THE "AT" SIGN HERE]excite [DOT] com.

Although all eyes here are on the presidential election, it is worth noting that an important three-day Catholic-Muslim forum is set to start in Vatican City next Tuesday.  The Muslim-born journalist Pope Benedict XVI baptized last Easter has done his best to keep it from succeeding by urging the pope to assail Islam. It’s further evidence that it was a bad idea for the pope to grant such a high profile to Magdi Allam’s christening.

As CNS reported, Allam used his Web page to tell Benedict

“…  he specifically objected to Cardinal [Jean-Louis] Tauran [president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue] telling a conference in August that Islam itself promotes peace but that “‘some believers’ have ‘betrayed their faith,’” using it as a pretext for violence.

“The objective reality, I tell you with all sincerity and animated by a constructive intent, is exactly the opposite of what Cardinal Tauran imagines,” Allam told the pope. “Islamic extremism and terrorism are the mature fruit” of following “the sayings of the Quran and the thought and action of Mohammed.”

As CNS writer Cindy Wooden notes, the Second Vatican Council’s document “Nostra Aetate” urged esteem for Muslims. Muslim scholars expressed esteem for Christianity in their important document “A Common Word,” which led to the upcoming meeting.

Or, pro-choice voters as Muslim invaders? I don’t know if Bishop Robert Finn of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph wanted to go there, but he did, in his latest column in the diocesan newspaper:

“Our Catholic moral principles teach that a candidate’s promise of economic prosperity is insufficient to justify their constant support of abortion laws, including partial-birth abortion, and infanticide for born-alive infants. Promotion of the Freedom of Choice Act is a pledge to eliminate every single limit on abortions achieved over the last thirty-five years. The real freedom that is ours in Jesus Christ compels us, not to take life, but to defend it…

…Join me in calling upon Mary in this month of the rosary. In 1571, in the midst of the Battle of Lepanto, when the future of Christian Europe was in the balance and the odds against them were overwhelming, prayer to Our Lady of the Rosary brought the decisive victory. We ask her now to watch over our country and bring us the victory of life.”

Lepanto is a favorite analogy of many bishops, especially in Europe, where people actually get the reference. I think in today’s interreligious climate, we could find another. Though the Hitler/Stalin route is pretty well-traveled, too.

H/T: Catholic World News

UPDATE: Via Rocco, Baltimore Archbishop Edwin O’Brien’s election eve column, which recognizes the division within the hierarchy…but he hews to first principles, takes a serious and sensitive approach, and says he will not engage in public battles over reception of the Eucharist:

Our Conference of Catholic Bishops has agreed overwhelmingly that there can be differing pastoral approaches at this critically teachable moment. Some American bishops, after engaging public officeholders to no avail on this serious issue, have opted to forbid their reception of the Eucharist within their jurisdictions. In so doing they are within their rights, and I respect their decision. However, and upon soul-searching reflection and prayer, I have decided that I will not take this public step. Let me note the following points in support of what I pray is a prudent decision on my part:

1. In contrast to and in spite of the measured tones of several bishops who have made this decision, many of the letters I have received and advertisements I have seen calling for this penalty reflect an uncharitable anger and even a vindictiveness that undermine the healing intent of those bishops’ decrees.

2. At this stage, the divisive result of such an action in the Archdiocese of Baltimore both within and outside the Catholic community would, in my opinion, prove counterproductive to our evangelizing efforts and to our overall unity.

3. In this unique and highly charged atmosphere, it is likely inevitable that such a step, in spite of any appropriate attempts on our part to explain it, would be distorted as constituting an unwise and unwarranted intrusion of the Church in the political life of the community. It might even undermine pro-life politicians, suggesting that their position is simply a consequence of pressure from the institutional Church, rather than the result of the Church’s clear obligation to defend the dignity of every human life.

How grateful we must be to those public figures (a good many of whom are not Catholic) who often put their careers on the line in defense of innocent human life. As for those Catholics unwilling to defend life, I would hope that prayer and the graces that would accompany discussion and persuasion would help bring about a conversion of mind and heart. We ask no politician to do anything unconstitutional or immoral in pursuing legal steps to avoid the killing of innocent human life and in defending women too often victimized and traumatized by a powerful abortion industry.

We ask all our public servants to reflect upon the words of St. Thomas More, the patron saint of those who hold public office. From the gallows which would soon claim his life, he declared that he would die “the king’s good servant, but God’s first.” Whose servant, my admirable friends in public life, do you claim to be?

As a bishop of the Catholic Church, I must be authoritative in explaining the Church’s 2,000-year teaching on a matter as basic as life and death. I pledge not to be confrontational, however, and would welcome a private discussion of this message with those who seek or hold public office.

Finally, I ask for your prayer for me and our Conference of Bishops as we meet here in plenary session next month in efforts to provide just and effective moral guidance for our people and our leaders whom we seek to serve. 

BTW, Rocco also updates his original “guesstimate” of 50 “single-issue” bishops with a detailed reckoning–and raises the total to more than 60. He lists them, with links to relevant documents for those who wish to peruse. The post-election meeting of bishops in O’Brien’s Baltimore should be interesting…

UPDATE PLUS! (Exciting, huh?) Dan Burke at the RNS blog cites David Brody’s report from CBN that McCain campaign workers in Las Vegas are passing out “Catholic voter guides” from CatholicAnswers.com, not a church-authorized group. He also cites one estimate of the number of “single-issue” bishops at 89. Hmmm…

Despite all the wayward threads this election season, there have been some substantial and useful discussions here on Catholic faith and public life, in particular on the employment of prudential judgments–the lifeblood of politics. That said, a constitutional amendment on the ballot in Colorado offers an interesting story line, in that it seeks to define a ”person” as ”any human being from the moment of fertilization,” with all the constitutional rights that confers.

Sounds like a pro-lifer’s dream. Except the Catholic hierarchy of the state is not backing it, the anti-abortion governor (Bill Ritter, a Catholic) is against it, and national pro-life groups aren’t supporting it either. This AP story is the best overview I’ve found. Apparently the concern is much like that of the NRA with the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment (which went their way–phew!), namely, that passing this amendment might provoke an up-or-down decision on the legality of abortion. A June statement from the Colorado bishops explains their thinking, or their strategy, you might say.

“Unfortunately, even if this year’s personhood amendment is passed in Colorado, lower federal courts interpreting this amendment will be required to apply the permissive 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is also likely that the Supreme Court, given its current composition, will either decline to review such a case, effectively killing the state amendment, or worse, actively reaffirm the mistaken jurisprudence of. While the Church respects those promoting this personhood amendment, the Catholic Bishops of Colorado decline to support its passage because it does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or even reducing abortions in Colorado. Constructive alternatives to reduce abortions and advance the ultimate objective of ending abortion, however, do exist at the state level.”

And earlier this month Archbishop Chaput of Denver released a statement (PDF) chiding Ritter over remarks on the personhood question. But it did little (for me) to clarify the church’s thinking here, or why the hierarchy’s prudential (political) savvy in this case (if indeed this is the best move) is not applicable elsewhere. For example, overturning Roe v. Wade under the current climate of opinion and lack of pregnancy support could very likely lead to a stronger affirmation of abortion rights. (Such was the spur to the dreaded FOCA.)

In any case, I’d be interested in thoughts on the prudential and political merits here, from those in the know, or those in Colorado who may have better insights from up close. Which is my way of saying, let’s try to keep the demonizing to a minimum.

HT Andrew Sullivan:

Fifty years ago today, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli was elected pope and took the unlikely name of John XXIII. (“Pius” had been the favored name for almost two centuries, and there hadn’t been a Pope John since the fourteenth century–fifteenth if you count the anti-pope with the same number as Roncalli.)

I was in my first months at St. Joseph’s Seminary, Dunwoodie. When the news that the white smoke had been seen, we were gathered in the refectory where we listened to the “Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum” on the radio (no transmissions of TV by satellite yet). When we heard the news, we went immediately to an issue of Life magazine which had a spread on the papabili, and there we found a photo of a cardinal who looked like nothing more than a fat, self-indulgent Renaissance prelate. We wondered what we were getting.

We found out soon enough. Fewer than a hundred days after his election, he announced that he intended to convoke an ecumenical council, and thereby became “a transitional pope” in senses not dreamed of by those who elected him to fulfil that role.

Deo gratias.

Amid the final campaign push, the 10th anniversary of the nation’s landmark covenant on international religious freedom passed largely unnoticed on Monday. That is more than a shame. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA) was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic president who proved to be better at promoting this issue than his ostensibly faith-friendly successor, George W. Bush.

This issue is not only one of the pressing moral concerns of the day, but good for national security, as well–and smart politics, if either campaign had noticed. The issue is one I have spent a good deal of time researching, and I wrote about IRFA and the lost opportunity in an op-ed for The Star-Ledger of New Jersey on Sunday. 

This is an issue of great concern to Catholics, and one where the global reach and traditions of Catholicism offer a particular contribution. In the Ledger piece I cite Georgetown scholar-in-residence and former diplomat Tom Farr, and his excellent new book, “World of Faith and Freedom: Why International Religious Liberty Is Vital to American National Security.”  Farr is one of the best go-to sources I’ve found.

Let’s hope that whoever wins on Tuesday, they’ll appreciate the advantages and virtues of promoting religious rights abroad.

In case you don’t look at our homepage as often as you visit our blog, I’d like to call to your attention to a new web-only article — one more perspective on the complications of voting as a Catholic in this election. Here’s a sample of the piece, which is by William J. Gould:

In this political and religious climate, I find Doug Kmiec’s support for Sen. Barack Obama a salutary and refreshing development. I say this as someone who does not fully share Kmiec’s enthusiastic embrace of Obama or his high expectations regarding what an Obama presidency is likely to achieve. Instead I write as someone who has long been disenchanted with American politics and who fully expects that we will continue to be ill-governed no matter who wins the election.

Read the whole thing here.

It’s a curious assertion by the pope, it seems to me, but it is the headline in the ZENIT report on Benedict’s address to the new ambassador to the Holy See from the Philippines. Here’s the full quote:

“The Catholic Church is eager to share the richness of the Gospel’s social message, for it enlivens hearts with a hope for the fulfilment of justice and a love that makes all men and women truly brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. She carries out this mission fully aware of the respective autonomy and competence of Church and State. Indeed, we may say that the distinction between religion and politics is a specific achievement of Christianity and one of its fundamental historical and cultural contributions.”

I know Ratzinger is a great proponent of the “hermeneutic of continuity” rather than “rupture,” but this statement seems to elide a lot of history. Like, a lot. What am I missing? Any ideas on his thinking? As I write this, I am reflecting on Ratzinger’s passion for Augustine–I think of Benedict as a church “primevalist”–so perhaps that’s the well he’s drawing from. Ressourcement, toujours ressourcement!

That’s one intriguing element in the final message from the Vatican Synod on the Bible to the world’s Catholics. It was news to me–weren’t women already reading at mass? But yes, Proposition 17 (there is a Proposition 8, but I suspect the Roman version has little to do with the California version), approved by the 253 bishops, regards “The ministry of the word and women,” and says in its final sentence:

“It is hoped that the ministry of lector be opened also to women, so that their role as proclaimers of the word may be recognized in the Christian community.”

It’s now up to the pope as to whether he’ll okay this motion (he has the final word on all the propositions), and according to John Thavis, who has the story at the CNS Blog, this proposition passed with 191 votes in favor, 45 opposed and three abstentions–the highest “no” tally by far. (Most propositions passed with five or fewer negative votes, an indication of the sort of unanimity synods seek, often at the price of substance.)

Of course, my reaction was, Huh? I don’t want to get any of my previous pastors in trouble, but I’d swear we’ve installed women lectors along with men. (Actually, I think “Lady Lectors” would be a great name for a Catholic team, no?) I had known female altar servers weren’t strictly legit until they were. But as for women lectors, I guess I was conflating events, or making assumptions based on the absolute commonplaceness of women readers. John Thavis clears up my confusion:

The issue, of course, is not whether women can act as lectors, or Scripture readers, in Catholic liturgies. They already do so all over the world, including at papal Masses.

The question is whether women can be officially installed in such a ministry. Until now, the Vatican has said no: canon law states that only qualified lay men can be “installed on a stable basis in the ministries of lector and acolyte.” At the same time, canon law does allow for “temporary deputation” as lector to both men and women, which is why women routinely appear as lectors.

The reasoning behind church law’s exclusion of women from these official ministries has long been questioned. For centuries, the office of lector was one of the ”minor orders,” generally reserved to seminarians approaching ordination. While seminarians still are installed formally as “acolyte” and then as “lector”  before being ordained deacons, since the 1970s service at the altar and proclaiming the readings at Mass have been seen primarily as ministries stemming from baptism and not specifically as steps toward ordination.

“It’s important to emphasize that any proposition for women lectors would simply arive from their baptism and not from any presumptive opening for orders,” said one Vatican source.

Well, let’s hope this makes the final cut.

Interesting piece in Sunday’s NYTimes about the Democratic Party fielding and backing a dozen anti-abortion candidates in congressional races, the most anyone can recall. This was a response to the 2004 defeats. Does this signal the start of a sea change? A new openness? Simple tactical, short-end calculation? Will these candidates, should they win, be a leaven, a force, within the party, or window-dressing? Will it pose a challenge to pro-life lobbies, in deciding whether to back these Democrats?

You’ll laugh, you’ll cry.  (HT DailyKos)

This is interesting.  It seems to me that, with the exception of Kmeic, what the “Obamacons” all have in common is that they are not members of the Religious Right.  It suggests the collapse of the Republican Coalition.  In light of this exodus, it’s interesting that many in the Church’s leadership have decided to double down on the Republican nominee.  If Obama hangs on and wins, exactly how much influence do the Catholic Bishops expect to have in an Obama administration?  HT Cass Sunstein:

Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School, has long been one of the most important conservative thinkers in the United States. Under President Reagan, he served, with great distinction, as Solicitor General of the United States. Since then, he has been prominently associated with several Republican leaders and candidates, most recently John McCain, for whom he expressed his enthusiastic support in January.

This week, Fried announced that he has voted for Obama-Biden by absentee ballot. In his letter to Trevor Potter, the General Counsel to the McCain-Palin campaign, he asked that his name be removed from the several campaign-related committees on which he serves. In that letter, he said that chief among the reasons for his decision “is the choice of Sarah Palin at a time of deep national crisis.”

I’ve been reading and reflecting on a number of the public statements made by bishops about the upcoming election.  While some of this writing rises to genuine eloquence at times, much of it comes across as pro-forma: “Hello, election time is upon us, there are many important issues, abortion is the most important, and while I’m not telling you how to vote, you should take this very, very seriously. Goodbye and good luck.”

With all due respect to the ecclesia docens, I need more than this.

The problem is that I–like a lot of people I know–am genuinely angry about the direction my country has been heading in for the past eight years.  I’m angry about an unjust war fought on false pretenses that has cost tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars.  I’m angry about my own government detaining people indefinitely without trial, establishing secret prisons overseas, and using torture.  I’m angry about the firing of federal prosecutors who refused to become tools of a partisan political agenda.  I’m angry about tax policy that has disproportionately rewarded the wealthy while blowing a hole in the federal budget at a time when we are fighting not one but two wars.  I’m angry about the incompetence that characterized the federal government’s response to Katrina. I’m angry about how the current administration has bungled virtually ever major foreign policy challenge it has faced, from Iraq to dealing with the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea to the relationship with Russia.

I want these people gone.  I want them and everyone who supported them–including their current candidate for president–exiled into the political wilderness for the next 40 years where they can dine on locusts and re-learn some fundamental lessons about governing a country.  In my world at least, this level of incompetence and ideological blindness gets you fired.

And I’m not even going to talk about Sarah Palin.

If all you can say in the face of all this is “well, these aren’t intrinsic evils,” then you’ve lost me.  I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I would walk into that voting booth and vote as if none of this had happened.  It would feel grossly irresponsible.

I can imagine somebody saying to me “Pete, I hear you.  I’m angry at these things too.  Really angry.  I’m frustrated at the choices the system gives us.  But I can’t break faith with the unborn, I just can’t.  They have no voice.  They need ours.”

It’s an argument that continues to ricochet around my brain, because I’m angry about this too.  I’m angry that so many in my own party can get passionate about children dying violently in Detroit or Darfur, but want to change the subject when we talk of children dying violently in the womb.  I’m angry that so many Catholic elected officials have sacrificed the unborn on the altar of their political ambition and then presume to instruct us on Church teaching.  I’m angry that an overwhelming Democratic victory in 11 days could well lead to a rollback of the few legislative protections for the unborn that currently exist.

It’s because of these facts that I can imagine a situation in which the argument I outlined above would convince me to simply walk away from the voting booth in disgust.  But the argument would have to come from someone with a degree of credibility, someone capable of outrage over things that should outrage us, not merely as Catholics but as citizens.  It’s certainly not going to come from those who have spent the last eight years making excuses for the current administration.

The best thing I’ve read on the election so far this year was an essay in America written by theologian Fr. Brian Bransfield, the incoming executive director of the USCCB’s Secretariat on Evangelization and Catechesis.  Reflecting on a passage of Faithful Citizenship that has received a great deal of attention, Bransfield writes:

The application of conscience is often difficult: “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil” (No. 35). It should be exceedingly rare that a person discerns, after continued guidance, “grave moral reasons” to vote for a candidate who holds an unacceptable position. Evidence of “grave moral reasons” to vote for such a candidate must be overwhelming. To resort to such a measure means that the voting booth itself becomes an agony, reflective of society in no small way, and is left moist with the tears of one who could otherwise find no way through.

Bransfield’s understanding of the “agony” of the voting booth is what I find missing from the other statements on the election that I have read.  He seems to understand how truly difficult and even soul-rending this decision-making process can be.  He is able to enter imaginatively into that situation and offer counsel that connects with the individual’s struggle to understand the truth.  That is what good teaching does.  We need more of it.

Over at Mirror of Justice, Rick Garnett links to an essay discussing the legal treatment of abortion before Roe, and says:

In my view, there is nothing hypocritical or otherwise suspect about saying (a) our Constitution permits legislatures to regulate abortion more closely than Roe permits; (b) abortion involves the killing of an innocent human person; and (c) women who have abortions should not be prosecuted and punished like those who commit homicides against born persons.

I agree that there is nothing inconsistent about adhering to all three propositions, but I want to add a thought to his perfectly reasonable post.  I think there is an inconsistency between these three propositions and the fourth proposition that abortion is “murder,” at least if we are using the term “murder” in anything but the most metaphorical sense.  Consider this passage from the essay Rick recommends:

To state the policy in legal terms, the states prosecuted the principal (the abortionist) and did not prosecute someone who might be considered an accomplice (the woman) in order to more effectively enforce the law against the principal. And that will most certainly be the state policy if the abortion issue is returned to the states.

Why did the states target abortionists and treat women as a victim of the abortionist?

It was based on three policy judgments: the point of abortion law is effective enforcement against abortionists, the woman is the second victim of the abortionist, and prosecuting women is counterproductive to the goal of effective enforcement of the law against abortionists.

I can think of no other category of intentional murder that is treated this way under the law.  If abortion is murder, a woman procuring abortion is not an accomplice, she is a principal.  She is the equivalent of someone who hires a hit-man to kill the victim.  Although I am not a scholar of criminal law (I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m mistaken about this), I believe that such people are typically prosecuted for conspiracy to commit murder or, simply, murder.

Again, I see no logical inconsistency in treating abortion differently from  intentional murder, but that differential treatment suggests two things to me.  First, why is abortion treated differently from murder, even by those who advocate its prohibition?  I can think of several possible justifications (I’m sure there are more).  One answer might be the one suggested above — that women are victims of the abortionist.  But why would that be the case, when they have freely sought out his services?  We do not consider the person who hires a hit man to be a victim of the hit man.  She’s only a victim of the abortionist if there is something very different about procuring an abortion and hiring a hit-man.  The response simply begs the question.  Another possibility would be that women (or, perhaps, pregnant women) are somehow not capable of full moral agency that would give rise to criminal liability for their actions.  I suspect that, historically speaking, this may have been part of the reason for the way abortion was treated (where illegal) prior to Roe.  But clearly that cannot be a reason to treat abortion differently from murder today.  The other possibility is that abortion a homicide of a very different sort than is addressed by the murder laws because it is, for some reason, less culpable and is, as such, properly treated more leniently by the law. I take it that this is not the position of most people on in the pro-life movement.

Standing in a different category from these justifications for differential treatment is the pragmatic position articulated in the essay to which Rick linked:  that going after women is not an effective means of preventing abortion.  Without the help of some notion that women are not responsible for their own actions or that abortion is a less grave form of murder, the proponent of this argument must be committed to the notion that women who procure abortions deserve to be punished for murder, but, for pragmatic reasons, society chooses not to go after them because doing so will not be (practically) effective.    I.e., it’s a question of policing strategy, not culpability.  I’m not sure where the data is to support the notion that going after women would not (as a practical matter) be an effective way to stop abortion, but if this is the argument, it is fully consistent with the contrary social choice (on strategic grounds) to prosecute for murder women who procure abortions.  (That is, its not an argument about desert and so it doesn’t have much power to rebut arguments by abortion-rights advocates that, if it had its way, the pro-life movement would seek to jail women who procure abortions.)  Of course, it’s hard to imagine such a “policing strategy” argument being made in the context of the murder of human beings after birth, which further suggests to  me that something more is at work here.

This sort of instrumental, prudential reasoning about the proper legal response to the problem of abortion seems perfectly appropriate to me, but it also seems to me to open the door to the notion that it might, under the right circumstances and on similarly prudential grounds, be appropriate not to attempt to prohibit abortion through the law at all.  That is, I do not see how one can draw a line that prohibits this sort of prudential compromise without prohibiting others.  At a minimum, this sort of reasoning about the penalties associated with abortion strikes me as in some significant tension with the sorts of conceptual arguments used to make the case that the failure of law to prohibit abortion is an intrinsic evil.

In any event, and this is really my principal point in writing this post, given the differential treatment of abortion, I think it is highly inappropriate for advocates of prohibition (and, to be clear, I’m not accusing Rick of this) of using the rhetoric of “murder” in trying to rule out certain ways of balancing abortion against other issues about which voters might appropriately be concerned.  That is, if abortion is “murder” only in some attenuated sense that justifies treating it differently from all other sorts of intentional murder under the criminal law, then I think the same differences from murder that justify that differential treatment also undermine the argument that abortion is the only issue (or by far the most important issue) that ought to matter in deciding how to cast one’s vote, arguments that almost always rely on the language and imagery of murder (e.g., Cardinal George’s blood-drenched language, frequent references to the killing of millions of defenseless “children,” comparisons to the holocaust, etc.).  I don’t think that proponents of this particular mode of argument can have their rhetorical cake and eat it too.

New York City’s voters approved referenda by substantial margins in 1993 and 1996 that limited their elected officials to two terms in office. Today, members of the City Council voted to undo the voters’ will, giving Mayor Michael Bloomberg and, for that matter, themselves, the right to seek a third term.

Never have so few elected officials done so much for themselves over the expressed will of so many. A poll released earlier this week by Quinnipiac University said that 89 percent of New Yorkers wanted the issue of term limits to be dealt with in a referendum, not in an act of the City Council. And a majority opposed changing the law.

Bloomberg and the Council members who went along for the ride (29 of the 51) are banking on one thing to get them through the public’s outrage: Bloomberg’s billions. Bloomberg has made it clear that he’ll go all out to get his way. Word was leaked through The Times that he’ll spend $100 million on his re-election campaign, and that $20 million of that would go toward advertising aimed at blackening the reputation of  the opponent who has been most outspoken against his attempt to thwart the term-limits referenda.

Ironically, Bloomberg is in the process of soiling his own reputation.  As The Times reported, even close aides who once admired him are now shocked at how self-serving he is. He has already tarnished his philanthropy by leaning on non-profits he supports through his “charitable” giving to push their local council members to overlook the voters’ will. These non-profits have historically been very important in local New York politics, making them an effective avenue to influence the City Council.

The stated reason for giving Bloomberg a shot at a third term is that he is needed to get New York through the collapse on Wall Street.  But the city won’t be saved if its elected officials emulate the arrogance, manipulation and contempt for process that dragged Wall Street down.

“Blue state, Red Bishops.” This time it is the other side of the Keystone state from Scranton’s Bishop Martino. In the Diocese of Greensburg, Bishop Lawrence E. Brandt has issued a statement decrying the invitation extended by Seton Hill University to Douglas Kmiec, to speak on campus about faith and politics. Kmiec is a prominent pro-life supporter of Barack Obama, and his reasoning for that support appears to be at the heart of the bishop’s complaint:

“As the teacher of authentic Catholic doctrine in the Diocese of Greensburg, I feel compelled to state in view of this situation that Mr. Kmiec distorts Catholic teaching by making it synonymous with his own personal views. There is no “other” Catholic position except the one which appears in authentic Church documents. His misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine do a grave disservice to the Catholic community and far beyond.

I seriously question the good judgment of the University administration in allowing him a platform on campus. [snip]

Is it any wonder then that not only the demonstrators at the event, but many others as well, consider his presentation an offensive trivialization of the institution’s declared Catholic identity!”

The bishops says he has tried “in vain” to reach the university’s president, so I don’t know the disposition of the case, or what influence/authority he has here. In any case, these episodes seem to represent a broadening of the definition of who is to be barred from Catholic property. Here is the diocesan website. The hyperlink to the statement is on the right-hand side under the “What’s New” banner.

…Out of 197 active diocesan bishops. That’s Rocco Palmo’s count in the latest edition of The Tablet. He gathers his numbers from a review of interviews as well as their writings.

Perhaps those pushing the inane theory that the Community Reinvestment Act (and other efforts to provide affordable credit to credit-worthy residents of low-income neighborhoods)  is responsible for the financial meltdown can take a crack at explaining the connection between the CRA and this sort of behavior by credit rating agencies.

Here’s an interesting chart, which strongly suggests that the election of a Democratic president reliably leads to greater income gains for those at the bottom, while the election of a Republican has the opposite effect.  To be more specific:

When a Republican president is in power, people at the top of the income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom–a difference of 1.5 percent per year going from the bottom to the top quintile in the income distribution. The situation is reversed when a Democrat is in power: those who benefit the most are the lower income groups. If you are in the bottom quintile, the difference between having a Democratic or a Republican president in office is an income gain (or loss) of more than 2 percent per year! Strikingly, compared to Republicans, Democratic presidents generate higher income gains for all income groups (although the difference is statistically significant only for lower income groups).

Can any of the bishops who are insisting that we are morally obligated to vote for John McCain point to a similar chart relating to the number of abortions performed in the United States to the party (or views on abortion) of the president in power?  Just wondering.  (The chart is from a recent book by Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels.)  (HT Matt Yglesias)

UPDATE:  While not a response to my question, this thorough post over at Public Discourse makes the argument for the difference pro-life politicians have made.   While I think the argument the post makes is basically sound, I wonder whether it can support the notion that the election of any particular politician (or even president) makes, by itself, such a dramatic difference on abortion that any particular politician’s views on abortion should trump all other issues (and the likelihood that the politician might make even more progress on THAT issue) in deciding how to cast one’s vote.   Just to be clear, my point is not that a candidate’s views on abortion will not have any impact on progress on that issue, but simply to question whether they will have such an obvious, immediate, or predictable impact that it is possible, as some are (again) attempting to do this year, to use the gravity of abortion to attempt to compel Catholics to vote for one particular candidate or party.

Morning’s Minion has an interesting and thoughtful post on Faithful Citizenship and the bishops up at Vox Nova.  Go take a look.

For Iraq’s Christians, “the Surge” has been more like “the Purge” as ethnic and religious fighting continues to decimate this ancient and once-thriving Christian population. Before the U.S. invasion, Iraqi Christians numbered about 1.5 million. Now the figure is less than half that, due to expulsion, exodus, and murder. In March, the leader of the Chaldean Catholic Church, Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho, died while being held by kidnappers.

Now the situation in Mosul is growing especially dire. Reuter’s Vatican correspondent, Phil Pullella, reports today that the Vatican is calling on the Iraqi government and human rights groups to do more to protect Christians in Mosul, where half of the minority community has fled after attacks and threats.

In an interview with Reuters, Pope Benedict’s spokesman, the Reverend Federico Lombardi, said the Vatican was asking itself if there was “insufficient willingness” on the part of Iraqi authorities to protect Christians.

“We are extremely worried about what we are hearing from Iraq,” Lombardi said

Last Friday in Geneva, the U.N. refugee agency (UNHCR) said about half of the Christians in Iraq’s northern town of Mosul, nearly 10,000 people, had fled in the period of about a week.

“The situation in Mosul is dramatic. The victims are Christians and many thousands of people are fleeing precisely because they are subjected not only to the fear of periodic attacks but a systematic campaign of threats,” Lombardi said.

“This is extremely worrying and we ask ourselves if these people are sufficiently protected by the authorities or if the authorities are not able to protect them or if there is scarce willingness to protect them,” he said.

UPDATE: Via Catholic World News, the Chaldean Bishop of Kirkuk charges that Christians are being driven out of Mosul “for political reasons.” In this Asia News story, he sets out the political threats he sees in provisions being adopted now in Baghdad. I do not know what the U.S. stance is on minority protections, and if Washington will have any say, or wants to, given the stakes of this delicate political process.

The “Battle of the Bishops” get raucous…A remarkable story, via Whispers, about Scranton Bishop Joseph F. Martino, who has become one of the most vocal proponents of the “single-issue” theory of voting and a fierce opponent of voting Democratic. Martino’s recent letter on voting was the centerpiece of this NYTimes story, and according to this story in The Wayne Independent yesterday, Martino “walked the talk” as he crashed a parish forum on the election and rebuked the panelists (who seem to represent diverse political views) for a one-sided discussion that included the U.S. hierarchy’s voter guide, “Faithful Citizenship,” but not his letter. The money quotes:

“No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese,” said Martino.  “The USCCB doesn’t speak for me.” “The only relevant document … is my letter,” he said.  “There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.”

Martino apparently wanted the forum canceled. Many broke into applause at his “intervention,” while about a quarter of the audience walked out. Martino soon followed.  Ugly for the parish, for the diocese, for civil discourse, and for the hierarchy, which seems increasingly divided. They are to meet after the election to discuss their collective response. This sort of witness is clearly not working. As Rocco notes, Martino wasn’t present at last November’s USCCB meeting in Baltimore which passed the Faithful Citizenship statement with 98% approval rate.

This is an interesting video.  Watch these Muslim McCain supporters slap down an anti-Muslim bigot at a McCain rally.

That is one of the divides emerging during the current Synod on the Bible being held at the Vatican. (The formal title of the meeting of some 250 bishops and sundry experts is the Synod on the Word, and it ends this Sunday after three weeks.) The issue of Catholics and Scripture is an excellent one, I think, as biblical illiteracy remains widespread (and that goes for sola Scriptura Protestants as much, if not more, than Catholics.) Catholic News Service has a nice backgrounder on Catholicism and bible study here. Yet in spite of the development from Pius XII and Divino Afflante Spiritu and then the Council’s Dei Verbum, and liturgical reform that greatly broadened the cycle of readings, Catholics still want and need to become more educated about the bible.

Will the synod foster this process? There have been many interesting interventions by each of the bishops (yes, the editing job is tedious, and that’s the current stage in the process), including Benedict XVI, who signaled one of the main themes, that of “healing” the rift between theology and exegesis–the latter having scrubbed scripture of the Divine. John Allen is in Rome and has daily coverage.

The argument that biblical exegesis has undermined belief seems to me to have more merit for some exegetes than it does for the faithful. I think Catholics want (and need) to learn more about the Bible as a text and as a source of faith–and that they are not mutually exclusive. But I think that will require a lot of work “on the ground” and outside the liturgical setting. So far, the synod’s emerging recommendations seem to focus on improving homilies (again, putting the responsibility and work solely on priests) and helping lectors deliver their “lines.” And focusing on Catholicism (Christianity) as a “Religion of the Word” rather than of “the Book,” not only serves to distinguish the church from Judaism or Islam, but seems to put such a strong emphasis on spirituality over the intellect as avenues to holiness.

There is also concern that, contra Dei Verbum, the bible is being put at the service of tradition, rather than playing in concert. (DV, 10) Lectio divina is a popular proposal, and who could argue? But I am a fan of small groups bible studies (the Little Rock program remains the best, and most popular) and I’d like to see the bishops get more practical, loosen the reins a bit.

There are many other themes, and counterarguments to my impressions. (Apropos, just noticed Robert Royal’s column at “The Catholic Thing” advocating a practice of biblical virtues rather than study of the bible.) But this is an important–very important–topic for the church, so I just wanted to open a thread for further thoughts.

The gates of heaven won’t be barred to Pius XII if the Vatican decides to put his cause for sainthood on hold. But Pope Benedict XVI and others in the Vatican keep putting it forward even though it divides Catholics and Jews. Most recently, the postulator for Pius’ cause was quoted in Italian media over the weekend as saying that Benedict would not visit Israel until a caption was removed from a photo of Pius at Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem.The exhibit’s criticism of Pius is debatable – but that’s just the point. The debate over Pius’ wartime role has not been resolved. A group of scholars said as much in a letter today in The Times of London.The Vatican responded with damage control over the weekend, saying that Benedict would not delay a possible trip to Israel because of the caption conflict. But it should never have been necessary to say that.Pope John Paul II’s visit to Yad Vashem and the Western Wall was a powerful reminder of the ties that bind Jews and Catholics. The good will it created should not be squandered.