Notre Dame and President Obama

If you haven't already heard, President Obama has been invited by the president of Notre Dame (Fr. Jenkins of the Congregation of the Holy Cross) to give the Commencement Address at this year's graduation. President Obama will also be receiving an honorary degree.

Needless to say, this has caused a bit of an uproar in the Catholic sphere. Here's a lengthy blog roundup of posts on the issue (chronologically).

Friday, March 20th
The University of Notre Dame to Honor Obama (InsideCatholic)

Saturday, March 21st
POTUS at Notre Dame (Young Fogeys)
Archbishop Chaput encourages people to write to Notre Dame president over Obama commencement invitation (Te Deum laudamus!)

Monday, March 23rd
McInerny on Notre Dame’s “vulgar lust” (WDTPRS)
270 per hour (Ten Reasons)
Wha...? (Ignatius Insight Scoop)

Tuesday, March 24th
Fr. Jenkins Plans On Teaching Obama (InsideCatholic)
Obama at Notre Dame: What if? (Young Fogeys)
More from McInerny on UND and Pres. Obama (WDTPRS)
Bishop D'Arcy to boycott Notre Dame commencement (InsideCatholic)
Bp. D’Arcy (where U. Notre Dame is) speaks (WDTPRS)
Notre Dame Scandals: Reactions on March 24th (Te Deum laudamus!)

News flash: embryos are fertilized

Update: (3/16) I did a Google search this morning for clinton embryos fertilized (and various other permutations of terms), and did not find a single hit for Reuters, CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc. The Catholic News Agency has covered it, though.

Update: (3/12) Creative Minority Report has a fuller transcript. Clinton repeated the "embryos aren't fertilized yet" error over and over!

Perhaps this could have been mentioned in the conversation between Dr. Sanjay Gupta and former president Bill Clinton?

"If it's obvious that we're not taking embryos that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become a p... little babies. ... These committees need to make it clear that they're not going to fool with any embryos where there is any possibility, even if it's somewhat remote, that they could be fertilized and become human beings."

Yes, he almost said "a person".

What does he think an embryo is?

Perhaps he meant "implanted"? Let's see if the main-stream media calls attention to this, or if it allows the public to be slowly (?) tricked into thinking that human embryos are somehow unfertilized.

Resistance and Accommodation: The Catholic Church in Post-Mao China

I'm going to a presentation tonight at Princeton University (at the Aquinas Institute house on Stockton St at Library Pl) about the Catholic Church in China.

Nancy Pelosi on the Real Presence (updated)

Update: The article doesn't make it entirely sure whether Nancy Pelosi does or does not accept the doctrine of the Real Presence; her daughter (the grandchild's mother) is the one quoted as saying the elements of the Eucharist "represent the Body and Blood". I've included the next paragraph from the article which provides Nancy Pelosi's explanation.

---

I read a blog post from Diane (at Te Deum laudamus) that saddens me, but doesn't really surprise me. It's about Nancy Pelosi, her daughter, and her granddaughter, and the Real Presence:

Relaying an exchange with the girl, her mother and Grandma Nancy, the congresswoman writes that the girl announced that she wanted to explain that “‘it is the BODY and BLOOD of Christ. When we go to church, IT IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.’”

Her mother corrected the girl: “‘Yes, the host and the wine REPRESENT the body and blood of Christ.’”

But Nancy’s granddaughter protested, God bless her: “‘NOT represent. IS, it IS the body and blood of Christ.’”

Pelosi writes, “My granddaughter was buying into it.”

[Update: I've added this paragraph so as not to misrepresent Nancy Pelosi's position.]

Pelosi goes on to explain: “Okay. But it is hard. Every Sunday for me it’s hard. Christ has died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again. Now think of it; we say that every week. Do I really believe he’s coming again? Yes, I believe he’s coming again. Christ has died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again. This is my body; this is my blood. They’re asking a lot. In my era, we didn’t question any of it.”

Sigh. [Update: I've added the following commentary.]

I'm not sure what she's saying here. It sounds like the granddaughter believes what she has been taught (by her parish), that the elements of the Eucharist truly become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It sounds like the child's mother (Nancy's daughter) does not believe in the Real Presence (saying the elements represent the Body and Blood). Nancy Pelosi, though, seems to juxtapose belief in the Second Coming with belief in the Real Presence: she believes that Jesus is coming again, but then regarding the Eucharist, she says "they're asking a lot" and that when she was growing up, "we didn't question any of it".

Do we question it now? Well, sure, of course we do. It's part of our nature to question what we're told. But sincerity demands that what we question, we investigate. So, has she investigated the Church's belief in the Real Presence? What are her findings? What does she believe? (I hope it turned out better than her "investigation" of the Church's teaching on abortion.)

Religion and the United States

I found this through NewAdvent's blog roundup. Bishop John Carroll (the first Catholic Bishop of the United States) said this about George Washington (the first president of the United States):

The last act of his supreme magistracy was to inculcate in most impressive language on his countrymen… his deliberate and solemn advice; to bear incessantly in their minds that nations and individuals are under the moral government of an infinitely wise and just Providence; that the foundations of their happiness are morality and religion; and their union among themselves their rock of safety… May these United States flourish in pure and undefiled religion, in morality, peace, union, liberty, and the enjoyment of their excellent Constitution, as long as respect, honor, and veneration shall gather around the name of Washington; that is, whilst there still shall be any surviving record of human events!

[H/T: McNamara's Blog]

January 18 - National Sanctity of Life Day

One of the last things President Bush did in office was proclaim January 18th to be National Sanctity of Life Day. The use of the word "sanctity" (rather than merely "protection") speaks volumes. Here is an excerpt from his proclamation:

All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.

...

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

It falls only a few days before the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (January 22). For National Sanctity of Life Day to be moved or suspended would speak volumes as well... but not loud enough to drown out the outcry, I think.

Repost: God and Country

This comes by way of Brian Michael Page of Christus Vincit. He points out that all the constitutions of the fifty states of these United States of America mention God at some point.

Here is the excerpt from New Jersey's preamble (from 1844): "We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors."

Read them all.

Politics: Anti-abortion policy is OPPOSED to job-discrimination laws?

So President Bush has taken some last-minute measures to protect the rights of medical professionals who are opposed to abortion. Here's a several-paragraph excerpt from the article:

A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job-discrimination laws.

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their "religious beliefs or moral convictions."

It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to "assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity" financed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

But three officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its legal counsel, whom President George W. Bush appointed, said the proposal would overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion.

That confuses me. How does this policy overturn policies meant to prohibit religion-based job discrimination?

Some promises are not worth keeping

Obama: "There will always be people, many of good will, who do not share my view on the issue of 'choice'. On this fundamental issue I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield."

Audience Member: "[T]he recent Bush-Supreme Court's decision really took away critically important decisions from women and put them in the hands of politicians, and as a result of this we're expecting, and have already seen, so much anti-choice legislation at the State level. What would you do at the Federal level, not only to ensure access to abortion, but to make sure that the Judicial nominees that you will inevitably be able to pick are true to the core tenets of Roe v. Wade?"

Obama: "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

Now, from a grammatical and rhetorical point of view, Obama has not promised (in this speech) to sign the FOCA as his first presidential act. He does appear, though, to promise that signing the FOCA will be his first presidential act toward a) ensuring access to abortion, and b) selecting pro-choice nominees for the Supreme Court.

Mr. President(-elect), don't keep this promise.

Vote for Freedom

I'm not going to be silent on my blog about this matter any longer.

What is true freedom?

It is not freedom from restraint, to do whatever you choose. That is the freedom Satan offered Adam and Eve -- and through them, all humanity -- in the Garden of Eden: "God said? No, God is wrong. You will know right from wrong. Don't listen to God, listen to me. And then you'll be like God, and you can listen to yourself." (cf. Gen. 3:1-5)

It is freedom to do what is right. That is the freedom a human has in Jesus Christ. Satan abhors what is right, which is why he hates God, Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, Catholics, and all Christians. True freedom comes from the truth: if we are disciples of Jesus Christ, we shall know the truth, and the truth shall make us free. (cf. John 8:31-32) And what has the Church known since the beginning? "Thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born." (Didache 2:2)

Don't listen to the misinformation which Pelosi and Biden spread: the issue is not ensoulment, the issue is biological. Biology was not St. Thomas Aquinas's strong suit. When a sperm and an ovum combine, there is a new human life, full of potential to be honest, but it is already human. It won't become something other than a human. No matter what you call it -- a fetus, a zygote, a proto-human, etc. -- it is a human being. Even honest atheists will agree to that.

Barack Obama voted against legislation to protect infants born alive after attempted abortions. That's right: if you attempt to abort your child, and the abortion fails, and the child is born alive, Obama would rather let that person die. People like Gianna Jessen, who was born alive after a failed saline-injection abortion.

The so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) touts itself as supporting freedom. But it does just the opposite, and if Barack Obama has his way, millions of Americans will have their freedom stripped away: 1) Those states which have passed legislation limiting abortion, where the people have spoken, will lose that legislation. 2) Obama supports public funding of abortion via our tax dollars, whether or not we support abortion. 3) And, of course, there is no freedom for the unborn.

This is what FOCA says:

(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

It's the powerful destroying the powerless who have no voice. That is an unjust war.

Do yourself a favor: read this letter from Bishop Serratelli (of the diocese of Paterson, NJ). You can also read it with Fr. Z's commentary.

I'm not voting for Obama. I'm voting for McCain. I'm voting against Obortion. I'm voting for the candidate who promises to give life a chance.

Life: The hypocrisy of embryonic stem cell research

From Fr. Z's blog, WDTPRS, I share with you this gem. The text is from Bishop Edward J. Slattery (Tulsa), in a statement regarding the recent public comments made by Pelosi and Biden regarding abortion and the beginning of human life, as it pertains to the teachings of the Catholic Church:

Modern science clearly proves that human life begins at conception. At the moment when DNA from the mother and the father combine, a new, unique human being, who will develop continuously until death, is created. From then on, the early zygote functions as a human being. It has specifically human enzymes and proteins, and, over time, it develops complex human tissues and organs. After this genetic transfer, it can never develop into any other kind of being. Even as it develops through the process of pregnancy, the human nature of the zygote, embryo, fetus, or baby never changes. It is this nature that directs and causes the miraculous physical transformation that takes place during the pregnancy. [Good paragraph. He shows the continuity of the human person, at different stages, from conception to natural death.]

In fact, the desire of some persons to destroy embryos in order to harvest stem cells is dependent upon the reality that they are already biologically human. [Excellent point!]

Excellent point indeed!

Politics: Poll

My friend Boniface at Unam Sanctam Catholicam has a poll on his blog about Catholics in politics: "What course of action can faithful Catholics take to address their increasing marginalization in American political life?" Check it out.

Politics: Pope Leo XIII intercedes during Republican debate

First, watch this clip from the Republican debate in which Rudy Giuliani was asked "how does that make you feel?" (such a hard-hitting political question, I might add) regarding a Catholic Bishop equating Giuliani's laissez-faire attitude towards abortion with Pontius Pilate's allowing Jesus Christ to be crucified. (I love the still image from the video here: it looks like Rudy's declaring some truths to be self-evident or something.)

Yes, that was lightning strikes causing the microphone system to cut out occasionally. Giuliani cracked jokes about it, but since the question he was asked was one about how he felt (subjective) and not morality and right-and-wrong (objective), everyone had a laugh and moved on.

I'm reading an encyclical from Pope Leo XIII, Mirae caritatis ("Wondrous love", On the Holy Eucharist), from 1902. Paragraph 17 is rather timely, given the number of politicians (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise) who prefer to give their moral consciences the back seat in matters of public policy:

Most abundant, assuredly, are the salutary benefits which are stored up in this most venerable mystery, regarded as a Sacrifice; a Sacrifice which the Church is accordingly wont to offer daily "for the salvation of the whole world." And it is fitting, indeed in this age it is specially important, that by means of the united efforts of the devout, the outward honour and the inward reverence paid to this Sacrifice should be alike increased. Accordingly it is our wish that its manifold excellence may be both more widely known and more attentively considered. There are certain general principles the truth of which can be plainly perceived by the light of reason; for instance, that the dominion of God our Creator and Preserver over all men, whether in their private or in their public life, is supreme and absolute; that our whole being and all that we possess, whether individually or as members of society, comes from the divine bounty; that we on our part are bound to show to God, as our Lord, the highest reverence, and, as He is our greatest benefactor, the deepest gratitude.

But how many are there who at the present day acknowledge and discharge these duties with full and exact observance? In no age has the spirit of contumacy and an attitude of defiance towards God been more prevalent than in our own; an age in which that unholy cry of the enemies of Christ: "We will not have this man to rule over us" (Luke 19:14), makes itself more and more loudly heard, together with the utterance of that wicked purpose: "let us make away with Him" (Luke 20:14); nor is there any motive by which many are hurried on with more passionate fury, than the desire utterly to banish God not only from the civil government, but from every form of human society. And although men do not everywhere proceed to this extremity of criminal madness, it is a lamentable thing that so many are sunk in oblivion of the divine Majesty and of His favours, and in particular of the salvation wrought for us by Christ. Now a remedy must be found for this wickedness on the one hand, and this sloth on the other, in a general increase among the faithful of fervent devotion towards the Eucharistic Sacrifice, than which nothing can give greater honour, nothing be more pleasing, to God. For it is a divine Victim which is here immolated; and accordingly through this Victim we offer to the most blessed Trinity all that honour which the infinite dignity of the Godhead demands; infinite in value and infinitely acceptable is the gift which we present to the Father in His only-begotten son; so that for His benefits to us we not only signify our gratitude, but actually make an adequate return.