Joe Biden tells us that he is personally opposed to abortion -- that he accepts "on faith" that human life begins at conception -- and yet because we live in a "heterogenious society" the best compromise between everyone's views is to accept Roe v. Wade.
This appeals to many of our instincts as Americans and members of a democratic society. We all recognize that it is often necessary, in a diverse and democratic society, to compromise and allow other people to live as they believe is best. And so there is a surface-level reasonableness to someone saying, "I believe this, but because we need to respect everyone's beliefs, I understand that I can't hold everyone else to that belief."
However, there some some issues that we all recognize are not open to compromise, even if not everyone shares our beliefs. We abolished slavery, and a hundred years later abolished segregation, despite the fact that many people in the country wanted to keep these evils. We have made spousal abuse a crime, despite that fact that some cultures believe it is entirely permissable for a man to beat his wife.
What those issues have in common is that they cause grevious harm to innocent human beings whom it is the duty of the state to protect through the workings of civil law and justice. If one believes, as Senator Biden claims to, that an unborn child represents innocent human life then to insist that it's necessary to "compromise" on the protection of that life is completely without moral integrity.
If Biden and Obama were willing to assert that they definitely did not believe that embryos and fetuses are human beings, they would at least have a consistent moral position. But as it stands, their position is nonsensical, and morally repulsive.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The Fighting Poverty to End Abortion Meme
As Obama and Biden struggle to please their abortion-rights advocate base without offending the rest of the country, we can expect to hear a lot over the next two months about how electing a Democrat would reduce abortions far more than electing a Republican because Democrats reduce poverty and poverty causes abortion.
This approach first achieved major prominence in the 2004 election season, when Fuller Seminary ethicist Glen Stassen made the claim in an article published by the liberal Christian magazine Sojourners that abortions had gone done under Clinton but increased under Bush. His data proved to be incomplete and his claims false, but the timing was convenient, and religious liberals have seen citing it ever since. The problem is, there's very little correlation between the poverty rate and the abortion rate (though many of those who seek abortions are comparatively poor) and the percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion has decreased more rapidly under Bush than under Clinton.
This approach first achieved major prominence in the 2004 election season, when Fuller Seminary ethicist Glen Stassen made the claim in an article published by the liberal Christian magazine Sojourners that abortions had gone done under Clinton but increased under Bush. His data proved to be incomplete and his claims false, but the timing was convenient, and religious liberals have seen citing it ever since. The problem is, there's very little correlation between the poverty rate and the abortion rate (though many of those who seek abortions are comparatively poor) and the percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion has decreased more rapidly under Bush than under Clinton.
Durbin Rates Biden on Catholic Social Doctrine
During the 2004 election cycle, Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin put out a scorecard called "Evaluating the Votes and Actions of Public Officials from a Catholic Perspective" where each Catholic Senator was suppose to be evaluated against Catholic doctrine and USCCB "full range of issues."
Given that our soon-to-be Democratic Vice President nominee has boasted that his views are "totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine," Jeff Miller decided to look up his rating by his fellow Catholic Democrat.
No matter how much Democrats wish, abortion will not go away.
George Weigel in Newsweek, on the Democrats' bungled attempts to woo evangelical and Catholic pro-life voters:
.. Democrats who had hoped to persuade a good number of evangelicals and Catholics to return to their traditional 20th-century political home in November 2008 cannot be very encouraged by such intellectual disarray on the part of their party's senior federal official. For more than three decades, the abortion license created by the high court in Roe v. Wade has been an important factor in determining American voting behavior—in more than a few instances, the decisive factor. Yet, judging by her performance on "Meet The Press" (which seemed to surprise the usually unflappable Tom Brokaw), the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives is as ill-informed on the scientific and legal facts involved in the abortion debate as she is of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Speaker Pelosi is, like most "ardent, practicing" Catholics, a great admirer of the late Pope John Paul II. Was John Paul wrong, one wants to ask Speaker Pelosi, when he wrote in the 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae [The Gospel of Life] that "abortion ... always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being"? Was he wrong when he further stated that this moral truth could be known by reason, and was thus a matter of grave concern to public policy?However far they may be below the pay grade of a pope, pro-life advocates deserve the respect of having their arguments taken seriously. Given the opportunity to do just that at Saddleback, Barack Obama opted for rhetorical finesse over substantive engagement; that choice may have done fatal damage to his capacity to peel evangelical and Catholic swing voters away from the now-tattered Republican coalition. Given a nationally televised opportunity to repair some of that damage, Nancy Pelosi, seemingly bereft of coherent ideas, could only fall back on the mantra of "choice." Appeals to Joe Biden's being a Catholic kid from hardscrabble Scranton, Pa., will not likely persuade many committed pro-life voters that the water is once again safe in the Democratic Party; Biden's NARAL ratings may not be as glowing as Obama's, but no serious pro-lifer thinks of the senator from Delaware as a pro-life legislator.
The talking points developed for Democratic leaders appearing on the pre-convention talk shows stressed the economy, housing, jobs, and other "middle-class" issues. This suggests that Democratic strategists are discounting the life issues as major factors in 2008. Those strategists have been surprised before; they may be surprised again. In any case, the country deserves something more serious than what it has been given by the Democratic leadership on what has been, and remains, one of the defining issues of our time.
Comment of the Day
Courtesy of CAJB reader Katie Carr:
I am a former Catholic who no longer subscribes to church teaching on this and many other issues. I didn't try to equivocate like Joe and Nancy - I just left. I do not think either Biden or Pelosi can call themselves Catholic when they depart so completely from church orthodoxy on a bedrock matter like abortion. If you are a real Catholic, I don't see how you can vote for any Catholic who supports abortion or, for that matter, for Obama, who thinks it's ok to leave a baby who survives abortion to just die - I am pro-choice and even I think that is murder.
Today's Biden Rundown
- Carl Olson takes issue with Senator Biden's assertion that his "views are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine."
- Ed Morrissey @ Hotair: "Biden follows Pelosi in mangling Catholic doctrine on abortion."
- LifeSiteNews: "Pelosi's Theologizing on Abortion is a Repeat of Biden's Own Quotes on Meet the Press."
- Washington Times: "Pro-choice Catholic Biden."
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Above Their Pay Grade
If someone were to write a set of talking points entitled, "How to brag about being 'a devout Catholic' while supporting abortion rights," right at the top of the list would be: "Claim that you've studied the matter at length and that the Church has taught many contradictory things on the topic over the centuries."
Senator Biden made a valiant attempt at this in his primary season interview on with Tim Russert saying:
Throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, the best available understanding of human biology came from the Aristotelian school of science. According to this set of theories, in order for matter to take on a given form, it had have a "form". And in order for something to grow or change or move, it had to have a "soul". Plants were thought to have vegetative souls, which allowed them to grow but not to move. Animals had animal souls in addition to vegetable souls, which allowed them to move and have sensory perception, but not "think" in the sense that humans do. Humans had a "rational soul" as well as an animal and a vegetable soul.
As an early Christian, Augustine was very much concerned about explaining Christian moral teachings in terms of the most current science of the day -- Aristotelian science. (In Confessions V: 3-5, Augustine describes how he originally hesitated to accept Christianity because a prominent Christian apologist he encountered did not understand the modern Astronomy of the 4th Century A.D.) In this regard, he sought to explain the development and "ensoulment" of the human fetus according to the best science available to him in the 4th Century.
Late Roman embryology was very primitive by modern standards. Aristotelian natural scientists had very little understanding of where new organisms came from. Believing in spontaneous generation, they thought that maggots spontaneously generated from rotten meat, that worms spontaneously generated from mud, etc. According to this theory, certain propitious substances came together under the right conditions, and they formed an un-animated body or seed. A soul then entered into this inanimate body and thus allowed it to begin to grow and move. (According to Aristotelian science, an organism could not being to move until in was "animated" by a soul -- thus the term "quickening" and the phrase "the quick and the dead".)
Augustine used this Aristotelian science (the best available in his day) to provide commentary on a section in Exodus in which the Israelites establish a law that if a woman miscarried as a result of being physically assaulted, her attacker will be fined if the fetus was "unformed" but executed if the fetus was "formed". Augustine reasons that if the soul had not yet entered into the fetus, it was thus an unformed, unmoving, non-living "potential human" -- this must be the reason that the Old Testament lawmakers prescribed only a fine for causing the miscarriage of an "unformed" fetus. A "formed" fetus must be one that had been "ensouled", which to Augustine's mind explained why capital punishment was prescribed for someone causing the miscarriage of a formed fetus.
By doing this, Augustine was using the best science available to him at the time to explain an otherwise arcane passage in the Old Testament. However, we no longer live in the 4th Century A.D., and modern science shows us that unborn humans are unique and living organisms from the moment of their conception. While Augustine's 4th Century understanding that an early stage embryo was an "unformed" lump of inanimate tissue fits well with modern abortion rhetoric, it is clearly false.
Why, then, are modern politicians citing Late Roman and Medieval understandings of biology (which completely contradict our modern science) in order to position their dissent from their own Church's teaching on the sacredness of human life?
Only they can know. But perhaps it's time for them to come in out of the Dark Ages.
Senator Biden made a valiant attempt at this in his primary season interview on with Tim Russert saying:
Even within our own church, there’s been debates about life, you know, from, from “Summa Theologica,” Aquinas, and 40 days to quickening and right to, you know, you know, Pious [sic] IX, animated fetus doctrine and so on.Over the weekend Representative Pelosi tried the same tactic on Meet The Press with Tom Brokaw:
Meet The Press, 4-29-2007
I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know.... And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.Perhaps my native cynicism is taking over, but I find it unlikely that Pelosi has really spent that much time reading St. Augustine, or that Biden sits down with a copy of the Summa on a rainy afternoon. However, even if they do, they are suffering from some basic mis-apprehensions of the sort that often occur when people attempt to read works outside their field.
Meet The Press, 8-24-2008
Throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, the best available understanding of human biology came from the Aristotelian school of science. According to this set of theories, in order for matter to take on a given form, it had have a "form". And in order for something to grow or change or move, it had to have a "soul". Plants were thought to have vegetative souls, which allowed them to grow but not to move. Animals had animal souls in addition to vegetable souls, which allowed them to move and have sensory perception, but not "think" in the sense that humans do. Humans had a "rational soul" as well as an animal and a vegetable soul.
As an early Christian, Augustine was very much concerned about explaining Christian moral teachings in terms of the most current science of the day -- Aristotelian science. (In Confessions V: 3-5, Augustine describes how he originally hesitated to accept Christianity because a prominent Christian apologist he encountered did not understand the modern Astronomy of the 4th Century A.D.) In this regard, he sought to explain the development and "ensoulment" of the human fetus according to the best science available to him in the 4th Century.
Late Roman embryology was very primitive by modern standards. Aristotelian natural scientists had very little understanding of where new organisms came from. Believing in spontaneous generation, they thought that maggots spontaneously generated from rotten meat, that worms spontaneously generated from mud, etc. According to this theory, certain propitious substances came together under the right conditions, and they formed an un-animated body or seed. A soul then entered into this inanimate body and thus allowed it to begin to grow and move. (According to Aristotelian science, an organism could not being to move until in was "animated" by a soul -- thus the term "quickening" and the phrase "the quick and the dead".)
Augustine used this Aristotelian science (the best available in his day) to provide commentary on a section in Exodus in which the Israelites establish a law that if a woman miscarried as a result of being physically assaulted, her attacker will be fined if the fetus was "unformed" but executed if the fetus was "formed". Augustine reasons that if the soul had not yet entered into the fetus, it was thus an unformed, unmoving, non-living "potential human" -- this must be the reason that the Old Testament lawmakers prescribed only a fine for causing the miscarriage of an "unformed" fetus. A "formed" fetus must be one that had been "ensouled", which to Augustine's mind explained why capital punishment was prescribed for someone causing the miscarriage of a formed fetus.
By doing this, Augustine was using the best science available to him at the time to explain an otherwise arcane passage in the Old Testament. However, we no longer live in the 4th Century A.D., and modern science shows us that unborn humans are unique and living organisms from the moment of their conception. While Augustine's 4th Century understanding that an early stage embryo was an "unformed" lump of inanimate tissue fits well with modern abortion rhetoric, it is clearly false.
Why, then, are modern politicians citing Late Roman and Medieval understandings of biology (which completely contradict our modern science) in order to position their dissent from their own Church's teaching on the sacredness of human life?
Only they can know. But perhaps it's time for them to come in out of the Dark Ages.
NCR on Biden
The editors of the National Catholic Register lay into Senator Biden:
A great deal has been made of the fact that Biden once voted to ban partial-birth abortion. That’s the abortion procedure in which a full-term child is killed while exiting the birth canal. We’re glad he voted the right way, but forgive us if we don’t applaud.
. . . And don’t let the 2003 rating of NARAL . . . fool you. Yes, the year he voted to ban partial-birth abortion, he pleased NARAL only a third of the time. But here is Biden’s NARAL record for every year since: 2004, 100%; 2005, 100%; 2006, 100%; 2007, 75%. Asked if he believes life starts at conception, Obama refused to answer. But Biden said: “I am prepared to accept my Church’s view. ... I have to accept that on faith.” . . . .
Truth be told, while Biden has said consoling things about abortion, we can only go by what he has done. His votes serve the bottom line of killer industries, not the mothers and their children who pay the ultimate price for those profits . . . .
It would be better for Joe Biden if he weren’t Catholic and didn’t know better. But he is and he does . . . .
A majority of Americans have already turned against the slaughter of abortion. A century from now, the Church’s opponents will be making a new accusation: They will blame the Church for abortion. Unfortunately, they will have a point. They will name the prominent Catholics in our day — especially candidates on the last two presidential tickets — and judge the Church not by Church teaching, but by the actions of Catholics.
We have all seen ultrasound images. We all know women who were under severe pressure to abort children, then in severe pain once they did. Some Catholics have made a deal with the dark side — and have become agents of the destruction and despair that follow in abortion’s wake. But that’s not the story of our Church.
The rest of us need to do all we can to make certain the Church’s real story is told. In letters to their campaigns, in letters to editors, in town hall meetings and above all with our votes, we need to say: Enough is enough. We are a Church of life, not death. That is the legacy we want to leave.
Monday, August 25, 2008
What are Catholics saying about Joe Biden? (Roundup)
- Red Cardigan on the "Pro-Choice Catholic Problem" (And Sometimes Tea August 25, 2008):
When Joe Biden calls himself a Catholic, he is telling the truth. Any baptized Catholic is a Catholic. Even if the baptized person leaves the Church he is still a Catholic. It takes a formal renunciation of the faith before one's status as a Catholic comes under any doubt.
(I'd like to note that it isn't only Joe Biden who is making this claim; Barack Obama -- almost as if he's hoping to redefine the meaning, twice referred to Biden as "a committed Catholic" in his introductory speech).However, when Joe Biden calls himself a Catholic, he is also telling a lie (objectivly speaking). This is because he is clearly not using the word in its most simplified form; he doesn't mean merely that he was baptized a Catholic and no longer practices the faith. He goes out of his way to present himself as a practicing, Mass-going, rosary praying, son of the Irish sort of Catholic. And--this is the important part--he says that his years of unwavering support for Roe v. Wade do not in any way interfere with his identification of himself as a faithful Catholic.
In other words, he, as well as Nancy Pelosi and other "pro-choice" Catholic legislators, are making a claim that isn't true: they are claiming that it is possible to be a practicing Catholic in good standing with the Church and still work to promote and preserve the principle of legalized abortion on demand for any woman who wants one.
- Robert Royal, president of the Faith & Reason Institute, on "The Biden Choice: Politically Neutral, Religiously Dangerous" (The Catholic Thing August 25, 2008):
Biden's choice has the feel of calculation by a group of Democrats who do not understand Catholics and live in a political bubble. They looked at the way Democrats fled Obama in Pennsylvania and West Virginia for Hillary Clinton, and began putting together a composite photograph of a person they needed to get working-class and especially Catholic votes. I myself come from the same general background as Biden - Northeast Catholic ethnic. But Biden does not, in Chris Matthews' weird phrase, "give me a tingle down my leg." In fact, he doesn't sound like any working-class Catholic I've ever met. He may, as reported, take the train back to Delaware every night, but he sounds like a focus group's idea of a Catholic. ...The news is full of stories about his tough talk and courage in telling you exactly what he thinks. This is truly news to me. I remember listening very carefully to him during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for John Roberts. Biden was dancing around like a boxer who knew he had no punch to deliver and would get his clock cleaned if he moved in close. ...
More courageous for an alleged Catholic would be some tough talk about Democrats and abortion. Instead, after ritual concessions that the Church may be right on abortion as such, he quickly moves, in a sequence of premeditated lawyerly steps, to say that he would only appoint justices to the Supreme Court who believe that the Fourteenth Amendment contains a right to privacy that protects a woman's right to choose. This is a now all too familiar position: the public Catholics who nominally agree with the Church on abortion, but really follow pro-abortion principles in practice. They are like people who claim to oppose slavery, but cannot see any way, "in a religiously pluralistic society like ours," to follow principle and seek to change the law.
- March Stricherz (New Catholic Politics), on "Joe Biden’s Abortion Flip Flop":
I mentioned Saturday that Joe Biden had flip flopped on the issue of abortion, noting that he had announced his support three decades ago for a pro-life constitutional amendment. Well, here is my capsule summary of the Congressional Record (pp. 11577-80) ...
- And on a humorous note, here's St. Blog's Parish' Curt Jester, on "The Uvula Mysteries" of the Holy Rosary, referring to Biden's desire to commit physical abuse to Catholics who question his fidelity to Church teaching.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "Teachable Moment"
Yesterday, Catholidoxy and Amy Welborn responded with excellent posts to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's abysmal display of ignorance of Catholic teaching on Meet The Press, the former with a basic history lesson as to what the Church has actually taught, the latter with a plea that Pelosi's botched presentation constituted a "teaching moment" for the Catholic bishops:Here you have a very prominent American Catholic, going on the record with her purported studiousness on this issue, authoritatively declaring something false about the teaching of the Catholic Church.Today, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver delivered -- in a statement eloquently titled “On the Separation of Sense and State".This is what we call a teachable moment. Monday morning, the USCCB should have a press release, accompanied by a real human being - preferably a bishop - maybe even a Colorado bishop, given the location and the proximity of the press - giving a short, succinct correction of Pelosi’s statement. It wouldn’t take long. Do it right in front of where the convention is meeting.
Likewise, Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine issued a statement posted to the main page of the website of the U.S. Catholic Bishops:
n the course of a “Meet the Press” interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.The Church has always taught that human life deserves respect from its very beginning and that procured abortion is a grave moral evil. In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church’s moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.
These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church has long taught that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life.
More information on the Church's teaching on this issue can be found in our brochure "The Catholic Church is a Pro-Life Church". PDF | Text
- Statement on Responsibilities of Catholics in Public Life
- “Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper”: On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist
We'd like to thank Archbishop Chaput for his outstanding letter, and to Cardinal Justin F. Rigali and Bishop William E. Lori for stepping up so quickly. It's our fervent hope that this will establish something of a trend in Bishops' responses to "pro-choice" Catholics who publicly misrepresent and repudiate Catholic teaching.
Update! Not to be outdone, Archbishop Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington issues a statement.
Now, perhaps a little something from Pelosi's home diocese?
Update! - Cardinal Egan of New York City piles on:
Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.Update! Nancy Pelosi releases a statement via her spokesman, Breandan Daily -- escalating the dispute and publicly repudiating the Church's teaching authority.We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.
Edward Cardinal Egan
Archbishop of New York
Dr. Edward Peters: "About Biden, let's ask the right questions well"
Dr. Edward Peters of Sacred Heart Seminary weighs in on the matter of Senator Biden and reception of the Eucharist, contending that "Biden-qua-politician should not be the object of special attention by ecclesiastical leadership. Rather, Biden-qua-Catholic should be":
Canon 916 directs Catholics who are conscious of being in grave sin, regardless of whether that grave sin is known publicly, to refrain from taking holy Communion. Biden, like any other Catholic, is expected to examine his conscience in light of Church teaching prior to approaching the Eucharist and, if he finds himself wanting, to reform his behavior accordingly. He can be sure that the grace of Christ would be offered abundantly to him in that effort.As to the implementation of Canon 915, this is -- as Dr. Peters notes -- the proper responsibility of Senator Biden's soon-to-be bishop, at a time of his choosing.But Canon 915 looks at a different issue. Unlike Canon 916 which impacts individual Catholics, Canon 915 directs ministers of holy Communion to withhold the Eucharist from Catholics "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin".
Any Catholic whose public behavior, in one or more respects, is so at odds with Catholic moral teaching(s) as to constitute his or her "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin", is subject to consequences under Canon 915. There's no fine-print exception for Catholic politicians. Biden-qua-Catholic is subject to the same rules as is every other Catholic.
To be sure, the public profile of Catholics in political office is considerably higher than that of ordinary Catholics; consequently their actions will receive closer attention than that accorded to pew Catholics. But so what? Citizens aspiring to major public office are subject to markedly higher scrutiny under civil law, and few have a problem with that. Should Catholics seeking a major role in the service of the common good suddenly be allowed to claim immunity from their responsibility as Catholics "to imbue and perfect the temporal order of things with the spirit of the Gospel"? I think not.
In regard to the Catholic Joseph Biden's eligibility to receive holy Communion, then, the right questions will seek to answer whether certain of his public actions (chiefly legislative actions and public advocacy efforts) constitute obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin. Answering those questions well will require (1) accurate assemblage of the facts (an area for which expert lay Catholic observers of American politics should be consulted), and (2) accurate inquiry into the requirements of Church law and moral teaching (an area for which bishops are chiefly responsible).
The purpose of this blog, as clarified in our opening post, is chiefly concerned with making a case: demonstrating whether the public legislative actions and advocacy efforts of Senator Biden fall short of -- or in explicit disobedience to -- Catholic moral teaching.
Domenico Bettinelli clarifies perfectly the purpose of this blog:
Now that Biden is the vice-presidential nominee for the Democratic Party, it is time for faithful Catholics to stand up and say that we will not be pandered to, that the act of choosing someone who may sit in a pew in a Catholic church on Sunday, regardless of his public beliefs and actions, should convince us to vote for him. Likewise, I would fully expect that if John McCain chose a dissenting Catholic for his VP spot, they would get the same treatment. Neither does it mean that a non-Catholic with the same beliefs would be more palatable.But when it’s a fellow Catholic and we’re being told that this makes it okay, then we need to stand up and say it is not.
Biden's Position of Convenience
Though some have been quick to label Senator Biden a "centrist" on abortion, one of the elements of his history which is most offensive to serious Catholics is that he was earlier in his career a pro-life politician, and became pro-choice during the 80s out of political convenience.
Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972 (when Barack Obama was 11), a year before Roe vs. Wade made abortion a truly national political issue. During his early years in the Senate, he opposed abortion as did many of his Catholic colleagues in the Democratic Party. (This was the era during which Ted Kennedy said, "Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grown old." source) However, during the late seventies and early eighties, as it became clear that the abortion issue was not going to go away, most Catholic Democrats with national political ambitions came to the realization that abortion supporters were more dedicated in their views on the issue than were most other Catholic Democrats. And so one by one they made the cynical flip, becoming "pro-choice" in their voting while remaining "personally opposed" to abortion.
Sen. Biden attempted to explain his change of heart of fellow-Catholic Tim Russert in a Meet The Press interview last year:
His new position is incoherent to say the least. He claims to seriously believe that an unborn child is, from the moment of conception, a real human life. And yet he insists that because we live in a heterogeneous society, it is best to reach a "compromise" in which that human life is treated as if it had no rights and does not exist. Even those who firmly believe that human life does not exist until after birth should be worried by this: If Biden is willing to uphold the destruction of what he truly believes to be an innocent human life, is there any person or principle he would not happily sell up the river in the name of "compromise"?
Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972 (when Barack Obama was 11), a year before Roe vs. Wade made abortion a truly national political issue. During his early years in the Senate, he opposed abortion as did many of his Catholic colleagues in the Democratic Party. (This was the era during which Ted Kennedy said, "Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grown old." source) However, during the late seventies and early eighties, as it became clear that the abortion issue was not going to go away, most Catholic Democrats with national political ambitions came to the realization that abortion supporters were more dedicated in their views on the issue than were most other Catholic Democrats. And so one by one they made the cynical flip, becoming "pro-choice" in their voting while remaining "personally opposed" to abortion.
Sen. Biden attempted to explain his change of heart of fellow-Catholic Tim Russert in a Meet The Press interview last year:
MR. RUSSERT: You have changed your position on abortion. When you came to the Senate, you believed that Roe v. Wade was not correctly decided and that you also believed a the right of abortion was not secured by the Constitution. Why did you change your mind?Perhaps a more accurate phrase than "political responsibility" would be "political survival". As a senator who had made a name for himself as a partisan Democrat in a "blue" state, Biden was faced with two choices: stick with his avowed principles in regard to abortion and become an increasingly marginalized figure in his party, or jettison those principles and try for the big leagues. Senator Biden chose the latter course.
SEN. BIDEN: Well, I was 29 years old when I came to the United States Senate, and I have learned a lot. Look, Tim, I’m a practicing Catholic, and it is the biggest dilemma for me in terms of comporting my, my religious and cultural views with my political responsibility. And the decision that I have come to is Roe v. Wade is as close to we’re going to be able to get as a society that incorporates the general lines of debate within Christendom, Judaism and other faiths, where it basically says there is a sliding scale relating to viability of a fetus. We can argue about whether or not it’s precisely set, whether it’s right or wrong in terms of its three months as opposed to two months, but it does encompass, I’ve come to conclude, the only means by which, in this heterogeneous society of ours, we can read some general accommodation on what is a religiously charged and a publicly-charged debate. That’s the, that’s the decision I’ve come to.
Meet The Press, 4-29-2007
His new position is incoherent to say the least. He claims to seriously believe that an unborn child is, from the moment of conception, a real human life. And yet he insists that because we live in a heterogeneous society, it is best to reach a "compromise" in which that human life is treated as if it had no rights and does not exist. Even those who firmly believe that human life does not exist until after birth should be worried by this: If Biden is willing to uphold the destruction of what he truly believes to be an innocent human life, is there any person or principle he would not happily sell up the river in the name of "compromise"?
Patrick Archbold on Joe Biden's "Cultural Catholicism"
As with just about everything with Joe Biden, his religion is all about, you guessed it, Joe Biden" (Patrick Archbold @ Creative Minority Report):
Take this classic line from the Senator, "I get comfort from carrying my rosary, going to mass every Sunday. It's my time alone."So in a nutshell, the rosary is about his comfort and mass is his alone time. For alone time, I lock myself in the bathroom, Joe Biden goes to mass. One might be tempted to think that this is just verbal slip from the notoriously overweening and wordy pol. There is a whole lot more where that came from. Take this humdinger.
"My idea of self, of family, of community, of the wider world comes straight from my religion. It's not so much the Bible, the beatitudes, the Ten Commandments, the sacraments, or the prayers I learned. It's the culture."Get it? His whole worldview comes straight from Catholicism, except for well ... all the Catholic stuff. Reread that paragraph again. Not the Bible, the beatitudes, the Ten commandments, or the sacraments. In short, everything that God has taught or given us in order to make us holy does not inform Biden's worldview. No not that stuff, the culture.What does Biden mean by Culture? Well, unfortunately it means whatever Biden wants it to mean. ...
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Denver Archbishop Chaput: Biden should refrain from communion; "looks forward to speaking with him privately"
Denver Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput, said in statement to The Associated Press that Biden should refrain from taking Communion because of his stance:Four years ago, Chaput and a few other U.S. bishops drew notice for suggesting Democrat John Kerry should either be denied the Catholic sacrament or not present himself for Communion because of his abortion-rights stance, triggering what came to be known as the "wafer watch."On August 20th, 2008, Catholic News Agency reported that Archbishop of Denver Charles J. Chaput was not invited to pray or speak at the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado.Chaput, one of the nation's most outspoken bishops on Catholic political responsibility, said Catholics who disagree with the church on "serious, sanctity of life issues" separate themselves from communion with the church and should not present themselves for the Eucharist.
Biden "has admirable qualities to his public service," Chaput said in his statement. "But his record of support for so-called abortion 'rights,' while mixed at times, is seriously wrong. I certainly presume his good will and integrity — and I presume that his integrity will lead him to refrain from presenting himself for Communion, if he supports a false 'right' to abortion."
Chaput added that he looks forward to speaking with Biden privately.
Chaput will, however, be attending a Prayer Vigil & Rally at Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic on August 25th, 2008.
Kmiec now making excuses for Biden
It was only a matter of time:
Ah yes, Obama and Biden are quite the dynamic duo. Obama's "reflective Christianity" leads him to oppose legislation that would provide basic medical care to children who survive botched abortions, and Biden is vocal champion of Roe v. Wade. It's easy to see why a "conservative" Catholic like Kmiec would sing the praises of this "dream ticket."Douglas Kmiec, a former Reagan administration official and a Catholic who is supporting Obama, portrayed Biden as a Catholic not just by belief but by
culture, someone who can connect with people at a gut level."You can't find a more regular guy than Joe Biden," said Kmiec, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University. "He would be the kind of guy you would expect to find in the parish hall, in the neighborhood. That kind of personality, when combined with the kind of reflective Christianity Barack Obama has demonstrated, is a winning combination."
Kmiec argues the Obama campaign is "ultimately premised upon Catholic social teaching" like care for working families and the poor and foreign policy premised on peace over war. Democratic efforts to tackle social and economic factors that contribute to abortion hold more promise, Kmiec said, than Republican efforts to criminalize it.
Why Professor Kmiec, it profits a man nothing to lose his soul for the whole world . . . but for Obama/Biden?
A Word of Thanks ...
- To People for the American Way's "Right Wing Watch" -- who allege that Catholics Against Rudy "gained attention because the organizers were traditionally Republican supporters proclaiming a GOP candidate unacceptable whereas this new effort is standard partisan criticism cloaked in religious terms." (Actually, we're opposed to Biden on the same grounds that we're opposed to Giuliani. But we thank you nonetheless for the traffic).
- To Powerline, who observes: "Democrats seem a bit naive when it comes to assessing the impact of a candidate's status or "life story" on voters with the same status or life story ... [particularly when] the candidate in question disagrees with essential teachings of the Church and casts Senate votes accordingly."
- To Kathryn Jean Lopez of "The Corner" (National Review)
- To Inside Blogitics at The Washington Times
- To Conservative Grapevine
- To Tim Graham of NewsBusters (for drawing attention to Obama's repeated promotion of Biden as a "committed Catholic" and requesting a fact check).
- To our Catholic blogging community -- thank you for linking to us. Spread the word and feel free to make use of the banner. Click here for instructions if you need bigger sizes) Don't forget to request to be added to the blogroll, if not already.
"We are complicit in this" -- Bishop Michael Saltarelli on "pro-choice" Catholic politicians
In 2005, Ignatius Insight interviewed Bishop Michael Saltarelli of Wilmington, DE. One of the topics discussed was the matter of Catholic politicians who publicly take pro-abortion legislative positions, and the efforts he was making to engage them:
IgnatiusInsight.com: Last year, you wrote a statement on Catholics in public life. [http://www.cdow.org/political.html] You said: "No one today would accept this statement from any public servant: ‘I am personally opposed to human slavery and racism but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.’ Likewise, none of us should accept this statement from any public servant: ‘I am personally opposed to abortion but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.’"Bishop Saltarelli: We hear that so often. It’s such an excuse; to me it’s a cop out: "I’m personally opposed, but…" If someone would say I’m personally opposed to slavery but its okay, people would laugh at the ridiculousness of that statement. And yet we tolerate, don’t we–"I’m personally opposed to abortion, but…"? That "but" is translated into the destruction, the massacre, the holocaust of millions of innocent lives in our time.
IgnatiusInsight.com: You have lot of politicians in your neck of the woods. [Among the pro-choice politicians who say they are Catholic in Delaware are Sen. Joseph Biden (D) and U.S. Rep. Michael Castle (R)–the bishop did not want to discuss any politicians by name. Rep. Castle is the main sponsor of a bill that passed the House and is now before the U.S. Senate to expand the use of frozen in-vitro embryos for embryonic stem cell research.]
Bishop Saltarelli: Tell me about it, you’ve seen them on television, I’m sure. That’s what we’re dealing with.
IgnatiusInsight.com: How do you engage them?
Bishop Saltarelli: We do, again, without mentioning names. I have been in conversation with them. I have invited them to dialogue and it’s painful for them. It really is, they’re caught betwixt and between. They somehow have bought the package: "You can be personally opposed." And tragically, maybe some people who should not have been advising, have advised, that it is alright to hold that opinion, even as a Catholic.
And I think some of these people are products of some of our–what should I say?–our theologians of the past who got away with proclaiming this kind of stuff and they were their teachers. Tragically. And so, when you get so caught up in that and convinced of the righteousness and the rightness of your position, it is hard to dissuade–you know–"Who are you, bishop, against this teacher of mine who said it was okay?"
Respectfully, as I said. And I will continue to engage. I won’t give up on that. We pray.
We’re issuing once again on October 1st for Right to Life month the Litany of St. Thomas More that we composed ourselves. It is a litany for politicians, statesmen, and lawyers. And we hope by getting this prayer into the hands of all of the people of our diocese that they will pray that litany. More is wrought by prayer than by armies and battleships.
[The Litany to St. Thomas More that Bishop Saltarelli composed for the conversion of pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians was first distributed to parishes last October 2004. The litany asks St. Thomas More for his intercession to make politicians "courageous and effective in their defense and promotion of the sanctity of human life."
IgnatiusInsight.com: If you send the Litany to your parishes, do the parishes automatically distribute it and talk about it?
Bishop Saltarelli: Oh yes, it is distributed. There is no doubt about that. Now, some will cast it aside, some will see (this is what we’re dealing with) it as a violation of Church and state, the fact we even dare pray for politicians. Because they get what they say is a hidden message. But, that’s okay; that doesn’t stop us. We’re still going to do it. We’re still going to ask our people to pray the Litany.
I think for too long we have been silent and our people have taken that silence as part of an acquiescence of the status quo. We are complicit in this. So we have to step forward and say, "No, this is not right–it is wrong, it is sinful"–and somebody at least has to say it. Not that I’m being the brave man. I have a magnificent team here with me and wonderful people committed to the cause of life and the Gospel of Life and we push forward together.
Msgr. Joseph Rebman and Bishop Michael A. Saltarelli
DelawareOnline.com covers the Senator Biden's first Sunday at Mass as the VP pick:
About 100 members of the small parish attended services with Biden this morning.The Rev. Joseph Rebman pointed out Biden's family in the back of the congregation, congratulating him on his selection and asking the parish to pray for him.
Members of the church said they weren't surprised to see him at Mass since he’s a regular. But some said they were momentarily shocked by the row of cameras outside, and a few objected to the presence of the media.
Rebman said he doesn't know what impact Biden's religion will have on Catholic voters.
"There are Republican Catholics," Rebman joked.
He said one barrier between Biden and Catholic voters is the Senator's pro-choice stance.
"We're in dialogue about that," Rebman said.
He also said he joked with Biden about his status as an alumnus of Archmere Academy.
"I would have preferred a Salesianum graduate be first," said Rebman, a Salesianum graduate.
MSNBC also carries an interview iwth Biden's pastor, Monsignor Joseph Rebman:
Monsignor Joseph Rebman said he was pleased to see a member of his flock on the ticket, but said that Biden “can't guarantee the Catholic vote” for the Democrats.I understand the impulse of some readers will be to criticize Msgr. Rebman for not taking a more firm and disciplinary approach with his wayward parishioner. For the record, here is [former] Bishop Michael Saltarelli's directive on the matter of politicians who take pro-abortion legislative positions:“They don't vote as a block anymore,” he said, speaking to NBC News at St. Joseph of the Brandywine church, where Biden attended mass. “And as you know, the senator has some positions that don't go along with the Catholic Church.”
Rebman said he understood Biden to be personally opposed to abortion, but that he “doesn't want to impose” his views on others and often has voted with abortion rights supporters. He added that some of the other parish priests and the bishop of the diocese have spoken with him about his pro-choice votes, but that they have never refused him Communion, as some other dioceses have done.
“The bishop's conference has left it to the individual bishops to decide how they want to handle it,” he said.
The promotion of abortion by any Catholic is a grave and serious matter. Objectively, according to the constant teaching of the Scriptures and the Church, it would be more spiritually beneficial for such a person to refrain from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. I ask Catholics in this position to have the integrity to respect the Eucharist, Catholic teaching and the Catholic faithful.To Saltarelli's credit, he has also stated that:In a spirit of pastoral charity, I strongly remind all Catholics - both highly visible public officials and the everyday parishioner -- that they must examine their consciences about their worthiness to receive communion, including with regard to "fidelity to the moral teaching of the Church in personal and public life."
It is not my expectation that individual priests, deacons and extraordinary ministers of communion will make judgments on their own as to the worthiness of individual Catholic public servants to receive communion. That is ultimately my responsibility in light of Catholic moral theology and the Code of Canon Law. At this stage, I much prefer the active engagement and dialogue called for by Catholics in Public Life.
Our Catholic institutions will not honor Catholic politicians who take pro-abortion legislative positions or invite them to speak at our functions or schools. While they are to be treated civilly, respectfully and with gospel charity, they should never be put forward as a model of a Catholic in public life.According to the Catholic News Service, Biden's alma mater, Archmere, sought to name a new student center building for him in 2006. The plan was scrapped after Saltarelli opposed it, citing Biden’s votes on abortion.
Deal Hudson: "Why Biden Will Not Help Obama Attract Catholic Voters"
Deal Hudson, on why Biden will not help Obama attract Catholic voters (InsideCatholic.com August 24, 2008):
Well, some of us anyway.
Obama, the candidate of change, has ignored the real changes in the U. S. Catholic Church brought about by the election of John Paul II in 1978.
Kerry thought his altar boy story, his Catholic background and ethnicity, would overshadow his dissent on social issues.Our Church is no longer a place where telling a few “Pat and Mike” jokes and stories about Notre Dame football or Georgetown basketball can take the place of basic Catholic beliefs.
That kind of Catholic identity was born out of the age of assimilation when many Catholics, immigrants, or descendants from immigrants achieved the American dream of college and a home in the suburbs.
John Paul II, and now Benedict XVI, led American Catholics away from their infatuation with secularism and the culture of death it espouses. True Catholic identity, they reminded us, is established by embracing the Church's view of life, marriage, and the family, positions particularly despised by secularists and leftists.
Politicians who won’t take the risk of being ostracized for their Catholic beliefs won’t attract the Catholics who revered John Paul II and who cheered Benedict XVI on his recent visit. They look at politicians like Joe Biden and John Kerry and ask simply, “Why doesn’t he believe what our Holy Father believes?”
Well, some of us anyway.
Deacon Keith Fournier: Obama Chooses Senator Biden for VP and the Battle for Life is Engaged
Deacon Keith Fournier writes at Catholic Online:
(emphasis added)... So, enter Joe Biden the Catholic. Joe Biden is a native of Scranton, Pennsylvania has Irish, blue collar, working-class roots which he will certainly attempt to bring to the campaign. He is a practicing Roman Catholic Christian. Along with his wife Jill, he attends St. Patrick Church, which is a part of the Diocese of Wilmington in Delaware. His careful discussion concerning all of the issues related to the deprivation of rights from children in the womb have been careful and strategic. He is a talented debater, a solid interviewee, a careful speaker on this issue. I believe that the Obama campaign is counting on this to stem the loss and attempt to reengage the efforts to attract Catholics and other orthodox Christians who simply will not accept any candidate who argues that an entire class of persons, children in the first home of the whole human race, can be summarily killed and that such an action should be called a “right”.
Joe Biden is also a member of that group of Catholics, from both major parties, who have come under unrelenting scrutiny from a growing and vocal part of the Catholic lay faithful. These Republicans and Democrats try to expound a “public/private” dichotomy on the fundamental human rights issue of our age, the Right to life from conception to natural death. Senator Biden the Catholic purports to be personally opposed to abortion and to “accept” the clear Catholic teaching that all human life is sacred and must be protected and respected from the moment of conception, throughout all of life’s spectrum and to a natural death. Yet, in his own words, he also "strongly supports Roe v Wade”, which was the Supreme Court decision that entrenched unrestricted abortion as the positive law in America.
While still a candidate for the Presidency himself, he participated in the NBC sponsored Presidential debate of April 27, 2008 in South Carolina. The venue gave him the opportunity to summarize his position as he responded to a question concerning the nomination of potential Supreme Court Justices and the decision of that Court in affirming the federal ban on partial birth abortions:
MODERATOR: “Senator Biden, as president would you have a specific litmus test question on Roe v. Wade that you would ask of your nominees for the high court?”
BIDEN: “I strongly support Roe v. Wade. I wouldn't have a specific question but I would make sure that the people I sent to be nominated for the Supreme Court shared my values; and understood that there is a right to privacy in the United States Constitution. That's why I lead the fight to defeat Bork. Thank God he is not in the court or Roe v. Wade would be gone by now.
“Number two, that's why I was so outspoken and have been criticized for being outspoken and leading the effort to try to defeat Roberts and Alito. That's why I opposed, the other, Thomas on the court. The truth of the matter is that this decision (Ed: referring to Partial Birth Abortion) was intellectually dishonest. I think it is a rare procedure that should only be available when the woman's life and health is at stake.
“But, what this court did is it took that decision, and it said -- put a Trojan horse in -- through dishonest reasoning, laid the groundwork for undoing Roe v. Wade. That's the danger of this decision. Not the specific procedure, but the rationale offered to justify, I think, the next step they're going to try to take.”
So, Senator Biden has tried to have it both ways. To say that he supports the ban on “Partial Birth” abortion but also opposed the Supreme Courts decision to uphold it? In an April 29th interview with the late Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” the now Vice Presidential candidate was asked to elaborate further on this position:
MR. RUSSERT: “Let me talk—turn to abortion. The ban on partial-birth abortions or late-term abortions, you supported that ban.”
SEN. BIDEN: “I did and I do.”
MR. RUSSERT: “And the Supreme Court came and basically upheld that ban...”
SEN. BIDEN: “That’s right.”
MR. RUSSERT: “...and you criticized the Supreme Court.”
SEN. BIDEN: “I’ll tell you why I criticized the Supreme Court. They upheld the ban, and then they engaged in what we lawyers call dicta that is frightening. You had an intellectually dishonest rationale for an honest justification for upholding the ban, and that was this: They went further, and then they, in the language associated with the decision said, by the way, they blurred whether there is the first trimester and third trimester in how much—I know this is going to sound arcane to the listeners—but whether or not they blurred the distinction between the government’s role in being involved in the first day and the ninth month.
“They blurred the role in terms of whether or not there is—they became paternalistic, talking about the court could consider the impact on the mother and keeping her from making a mistake. This is all code for saying, “Here we come to undo Roe v. Wade.” And it went on to say, by the way, that the life of the mother was, in fact, permissible exception, and it went on to say that even—that any woman could challenge, even if her health is at risk, could come back to the court to challenge that. So the bottom line here is, what they did is not so much the decision, the actual outcome of the decision, it’s what attended the decision that portends for a real hard move on the court to undo the right of privacy. That’s what I’m criticizing about the court’s decision...”
***
In choosing Senator Joe Biden, the Obama campaign has guaranteed that the Right to Life will continue to be a preeminent issue in the Presidential campaign of 2008...
[More]
Let me get this straight: When the partial-birth abortion ban appeared unlikely to withstand a Supreme Court challenge, Sen. Biden voted for it. When, to the shock of Sen. Biden and the rest of his Democrat cohorts, the Supreme Court actually upheld the ban, Sen. Biden then criticized the Court for not striking down the very ban for which he had voted. In fact, he has stated for the record that he will only support the types of Supreme Court nominees who would be likely to strike down such measures as the ban.
So, to put this in the nuanced terms of a previous pro-abortion Catholic running on the Democrat ticket for the highest office in the land, Joe Biden was FOR the ban on partial-birth abortion before he was AGAINST it.
Does life begin at conception? -- Biden: "I'll take it on faith"
From the April 2007 interview with Meet The Press's Tim Russert comes this outstanding display of intellectual brilliance:RUSSERT: Were you yourself–do you believe that life begins at conception?Does somebody have to explain the basics of human biology to Obama's Vice Presidential pick?
BIDEN: I am prepared to accept my church's view. I think it's a tough one. I have to accept that on faith. That is a tough, tough decision to me.
Biden continues:
But there is a point relatively soon where viability–it's clear to me when there's viability, meaning the ability to survive outside the womb, that I don't have any doubt. That's why the late-term abortion, and that's why I continue, like your old boss Pat Moynihan, shared the same view, he was very pro-choice is–to use the jargon. But he, like me, believed that you have this notion of abortion in the last month, where there's clearly viability. And if you make that judgment based upon the nature of the child's health, that is not a good basis for a societal decision. Only the mother's health should be–dictate the outcome then. Otherwise, you, you yield to the side of the–of, of, of the fetus, which is almost full term.Careful there, Senator -- you almost referred to the unborn as a (gasp!) baby.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Obama-Biden: Dream Ticket for "Catholics for Choice"?
One of the questions surfacing in the storm of chatter over Biden's selection is whether he was chosen specifically because of his Catholic credentials. - GetReligion muses on "Biden's old abortion equation":
While pro-life conservatives are sure to note Biden’s strong support for abortion rights — his most recent National Right to Life rating was 0 percent — his past is a bit more complex. Like many Democrats who once ran as moderates — think Sen. Al Gore — Biden has moved left as he tried to “go national.”
However, the God-o-Meter over at Beliefnet.com offers information about Biden’s Catholic identity that suggests that this was almost certainly a key factor in his selection by Obama. The key question: Was Biden’s mixed record on abortion in the past — viewed from the perspective of the strictly pro-abortion-rights camp — complex enough that many Catholic bishops will say that he has never completely supported the nation’s current abortion-on-demand regime. Biden voted, for example, for legislation against Partial-Birth Abortion.
- Beliefnet.com editor and co-founder Steven Waldman agrees that Biden was "probably the best pick in terms of religious politics", given his Catholic identity and views on abortion:
Obama desperately needs to retain his lead among Catholics and improve upon John Kerry's showing. But choosing a pro-choice Catholic could backfire because the Bishops and others will attack him or her for being a bad Catholic. Choosing a full-blown pro-life Catholic would alienate pro-choice, independent women and Hillary voters. Biden is pro-choice but got a low rating from abortion rights groups (60% in 2007, 39% in 2003). In other words, he's Catholic enough to appeal to Catholics, pro-life enough to avoid some Church attacks, and pro-choice enough to satisfy Hillary voters.
- Scott Swenson @ The Huffington Post croons that "Pro-Choice Catholic Biden Fits with New Poll of Catholic Voters":
Biden understands the American value of separating personal faith from public duty in our democracy, and his positions on sexual and reproductive health issues demonstrate that clearly. ...
Biden's moderate views on reproductive health and his Catholic faith could appeal to many Catholic voters, according to a new poll from Catholics for Choice. According to the report:
Seven in ten (70%) of those polled say that the views of Catholic bishops are unimportant to them in deciding for whom to vote and a similarly large proportion (73%) says they believe Catholic politicians are under no religious obligation to vote on issues the way the bishops recommend. Catholic voters show little interest in so-called values issues to help them decide who should be the next president. Instead, they want the next president to focus on improving the economy, ending the war in Iraq and keeping the country safe from terrorism.
- Not everybody agrees, however. Over at the Jesuit periodical America, Michael Sean Winters opines:
It is doubtful Biden was chosen because of his Catholicism. And it is also doubtful that his Catholicism lends his surrogacy greater weight. But, insofar as his Catholicism has endowed him with a belief in the necessity of solidarity, compassion, and human dignity in our politics, Biden embodies a more nuanced, complicated view of how religion and politics can mix within one candidate. And recognizing such complicatedness is a good thing for both Church and State.
"Nuanced"? "Complicated"? . . . more like "muddled", to me. What do our readers think?
Catholics United - enough with the feigned "nonpartisanship"
Chris Korzen, founder of the advocacy group Catholics United -- not to be confused with Catholics United for the Faith, the latter legitimately so -- has welcomed Obama's pick of Joe Biden. Note the bald-faced lie:
“Senator Biden’s well-known commitment to his Catholic faith has inspired his advocacy on issues such as genocide, universal health care, education, workers’ rights, and violence against women. His faith has helped him to find solace during times of tragedy and crisis. We are optimistic that Senator Biden’s history of seeking practical means of addressing abortion will help move our nation beyond the divisive, acrimonious, and unproductive debate that has come to surround the issue. Senator Biden accepts his church’s teachings on human life and can work to advance these teachings in ways that Americans of all political persuasions can support. Catholics United is especially hopeful that operatives on the far right will refrain from using Senator Biden’s faith and the teachings of the Catholic Church as political weapons in the coming campaign. Faith and values should be used to unite Americans behind solutions to the key challenges of this age – war, poverty, lack of health care, and a looming climate crisis – and not as partisan wedges to divide voters.”Catholics United describes itself as a "non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting the message of justice and the common good." Judging by Korzen's journalistic history, together with their wilful disregard for Biden's clear disobedience to Catholic teaching, it's pretty clear who they're rooting for in the election.
Related
- "Let us not be divisive", by DarwinCatholic. August 23, 2008.
- " I refuse to join Catholics United" - Thomas Peters (American Papist) does a little extra research and finds out Chris Korzen
- recently took part in a Democratic conference call (along side promininant pro-Obama Catholic Douglas Kmiec) to prepare for the upcoming national convention. [source]
- is the guy behind the defunct "Catholic Voting Project", which Karl Keating accurately pointed out claimed to be run by "nonpartisan," [indeed - 'committed' Catholics] but their web site has a clear bias in favor of John Kerry." Karl Keating systematically destroys Korzen's claims to be non-partisan and "Catholic".
- frequently tries to marginalize conservative Catholics, claiming them to be GOP shills.
- and, of course, writes for the ultra-liberal Huffington Post
- recently took part in a Democratic conference call (along side promininant pro-Obama Catholic Douglas Kmiec) to prepare for the upcoming national convention. [source]
The Directors
Stephen Dillard: Steve Dillard is a convert to Catholicism, having joined the Church in the Fall of 2003. He has been married to his college sweetheart for almost fifteen years, and they have three children (one boy and two girls). Steve practices law in Macon, Georgia, specializing in appellate practice and complex litigation. He has been actively involved in Republican politics for over fourteen years, and will attend the 2008 Republican National Convention as a delegate from Georgia's Eighth Congressional District. Steve served as a legal-policy advisor to Governor Mike Huckabee during this year's GOP presidential primary season, as well as his chairman for Georgia's Eighth Congressional District. He is now actively involved with the McCain campaign, serving on the senator's Catholics for McCain National Steering Committee and as his chairman for Georgia's Eighth Congressional District. Steve is perhaps best known for founding "Catholics Against Rudy," a web-based movement that gained national prominence for strongly opposing Mayor Giuliani's bid for the GOP presidential nomination (due to his willful disregard for the Catholic Church's non-negotiable teachings on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, torture, and marriage). He also blogs at Southern Appeal, RedState, and Fidelis, and has appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews (see here and here), Catholic Answers Live, and NPR's "All Things Considered."
Christopher Blosser, a convert to the Catholic faith, was received into the Church in 1997. Fresh out of college, he started a little website in 2000, cheekily called the Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club -- little realizing that his favorite theologian would ultimately be elected to the See of Peter. He blogs regularly at Against The Grain as well as participating in the blogging collective known as Catholics in the Public Square. In 2008 he was pleased to participate with Stephen on Catholics Against Rudy opposing the Republican candidate's nomination on the same grounds as he currently opposes Senator Biden. He currently resides in Kew Gardens, NY and is employed in web design. With McCain's commendable selection of Sarah Palin, he anticipates that he will voting for the Republican ticket in November.
James T. "Jay" Anderson: Jay Anderson is a convert to Catholicism, and was received into the Church, along with his wife, Sarah, on Corpus Christi Sunday in 2004. Jay has been married to Sarah for 7 years, and they have 4 children - Jamie (age 6), Aidan (age 4), Mary Virginia (age 2), and Grace Assumpta (age 1). Jay graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law, practiced law for a few years, and now works as a Senior Legal Analyst for a worldwide legal publisher. From September 1998 until September 2005, he served as Mayor of the Town of Columbia, Virginia. Jay now lives in Norwalk, OH, where he attends St. Mary, Mother of the Redeemer parish, serves as Vice-President of the Norwalk Catholic School Early Childhood and Elementary Advisory Board, and is active with Knights of Columbus Council 626. In addition to Catholics Against Joe Biden, Jay blogs at Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate, Catholics in the Public Square, and Catholic Dads. Jay doesn't anticipate supporting either of the 2 major-party nominees in the 2008 Presidential Campaign, although he believes an Obama victory would set back the pro-life movement a generation.
Brendan Hodge: Brendan is a cradle Catholic and a graduate of the Franciscan University of Steubenville, where he majored in Classics. He now works in marketing at a Fortune 50 company. Married for seven years, he is the proud father of three daughters, and a son due in early September. Active in his local parish, he has taught RCIA and served on the parish council. Brendan’s non-fiction writing has appeared in New Oxford Review and the Catholic Homeschool Companion. He is also the author of a number of homeschooling resources at The Humanities Program. For the last three years, Brendan has blogged at DarwinCatholic under the nom de cyber “Darwin” on topics ranging from demographics and science to Catholicism, politics and philosophy.
Are you a Catholic against Joe Biden?
Are you a Catholic Against Biden? -- Would you like to see this "Pro Choice" Catholic senator develop a greater obedience and affinity for the teaching of his Church on the sanctity of life?
If so, leave a comment and we'll add you to the blogroll. (Republicans, Democrats, independents, "undecided's" -- welcome all, regardless of political affiliation).
Why should Catholics oppose Senator Joe Biden?
Catholic Teaching on Abortion and the Obligation of Catholics in Public Life
In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae ("The Gospel of Life"), Pope John Paul II stated that
Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an "unspeakable crime."Regarding laws which seek to legitimize abortion, the Pope asserted that Catholics have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection."
Speaking on the topic of Catholics in Political Life, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops affirm an "unequivocal commitment to the legal protection of human life from the moment of conception until natural death," stated that "the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified," and emphasize the duty of Catholic legislators:
To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong. This is the point most recently highlighted in official Catholic teaching. The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law. In the United States of America, abortion on demand has been made a constitutional right by a decision of the Supreme Court. Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.
Senator Joe Biden: At Odds with the Church
On August 23, 2008, it was announced that Illinois Senator Barack Obama -- a Christian politician with his own lamentable record on the "life issues" -- had selected DE Senator Joe Biden to be his running mate in the 2008 U.S. Presidential elections.
As with Senator John Kerry in 2004, Biden's prominent role as a Catholic in public service, together with his deplorable record on abortion and embryonic stem cell research (in addition to other issues), has placed the matter of the responsibilities of Catholic legislators and the reception of the Eucharist by those unworthy before the public eye.
According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Biden "strongly support[s] Roe v. Wade":
He said he is "prepared to accept" the Catholic Church's teaching that life begins at conception but said Roe v. Wade "is as close to we're going to be able to get as a society" to incorporating diverging religious views on the issue. Although he voted in favor of the bill to ban late-term abortions, Biden said the Supreme Court's April 2007 decision to uphold the ban was "intellectually dishonest," saying its language undermined Roe v. Wade.A summary of Joe Biden's recognizably mixed record on abortion and Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) can be obtained from OnTheIssues.org; a list has also been provided by the Family Research Council.Biden voted in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which was vetoed by President Bush. The bill would have allowed federal funding for research on stem cell lines obtained from discarded human embryos originally created for fertility treatments.
On a positive note, Biden opposes public funding of abortion, stating on Meet The Press in 2007 that "It goes to the question of whether or not you're going to impose a view to support something that is not a guaranteed right but an affirmative action to promote."
That said, Biden's general support of Roe v. Wade and a number of his specific votes on abortion and life-related issues merit the concern of Catholics:
- He voted against a ban on transporting minors across state lines for an abortion (S.403, Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, Roll Call 06-216, July 25, 2006.
- He voted against parental notification of minors who get out-of-state abortions: S.403, Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, Roll Call 06-216, July 25, 2006.
- He voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which made it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. S.1019/H.R. 1997, Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Roll Call 04-63, March 25, 2004.
- He voted for increasing taxpayer funding for destructive embryonic stem cell experimentation: S.5/H.R. 3, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, Roll Call 07-127, April 11, 2007.
- He voted for increasing funding to Planned Parenthood and similar clinics by $100 million: S.Amdt. 244 to S.Con.Res 18, Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services, Roll Call 05-75, March 17, 2005.
- Voted against a ban on abortions on military bases: S. 2549, Roll Call 00-134, June 20, 2000.
- Voted against a ban on human cloning: Motion to proceed for S. 1601, Roll Call 98-10, February 11, 1998.
In an interview with the Christian Science Monitor, Senator Biden disputed the notion that disobedience to Catholic moral teaching placed one at odds with the Church:
"My views are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine ... There are elements within the church who say that if you are at odds with any of the teachings of the church, you are at odds with the church. I think the church is bigger than that."In 2007, he boasted on MSNBC: "I strongly support Roe v. Wade... That's why I led the fight to defeat Bork, Roberts Alito, and Thomas."
On the Profanation of the Eucharist by "Pro-Choice" Catholic Politicians
On the matter of dispensing communion to admittedly "pro-choice" Catholics, one can appeal to no greater an authority than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. In a 2004 memorandum -- Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles -- sent to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and Bishop Wilton Gregory:
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
The issue was explored at greater length by Archbishop Raymond Burke, who in 2007 published an article in the prestigious canon law journal Periodica de re Canonica, entitled: The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin.In June 2008, Archbishop Burke was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to the office of Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (the highest tribunal of the Vatican). In a recent interview, Archbishop Burke reiterated his position that Catholics, especially politicians who publicly defend abortion, should not receive Communion:
“Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is a sacrilege,” he warned. “If it is done deliberately in mortal sin it is a sacrilege.”(Source: Catholics who support abortion should not receive Communion, says Archbishop Burke Catholic News Agency. August 19, 2008).To illustrate his point, he referred to “public officials who, with knowledge and consent, uphold actions that are against the Divine and Eternal moral law. For example, if they support abortion, which entails the taking of innocent and defenseless human lives. A person who commits sin in this way should be publicly admonished in such a way as to not receive Communion until he or she has reformed his life,” the archbishop said.
“If a person who has been admonished persists in public mortal sin and attempts to receive Communion, the minister of the Eucharist has the obligation to deny it to him. Why? Above all, for the salvation of that person, preventing him from committing a sacrilege,” he added.
The Catholic advocacy group Fidelis points out, Biden's former bishop, Michael Saltarelli of Wilmington has said that the issues pertaining to the sanctity of human life are the "great civil rights issues of this generation" and warned against the profanation of the Eucharist by unworthy reception:
Bishop Saltarelli denounced the notion that politicians can 'personally oppose' abortion, but refuse to pass laws protecting the unborn.Bishop Saltarelli reached the age of retirement on January 17, 2008. The Diocese of Wilmington’s new bishop, W. Francis Malooly, will be installed September 8th."No one today would accept this statement from any public servant: 'I am personally opposed to human slavery and racism but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.' Likewise, none of us should accept this statement from any public servant: "I am personally opposed to abortion but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena,” said Bishop Saltarelli.
In fact, Bishop Saltarelli made clear that pro-abortion Catholic politicians should refrain from receiving the Eucharist.
"The promotion of abortion by any Catholic is a grave and serious matter. Objectively, according to the constant teaching of the Scriptures and the Church, it would be more spiritually beneficial for such a person to refrain from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. I ask Catholics in this position to have the integrity to respect the Eucharist, Catholic teaching and the Catholic faithful.”
The purpose of this blog is to provide ongoing analysis and commentary on the positions of Senator Biden at variance with clear and authoritative Catholic moral teaching. It is our hope that together we will move Senator Biden and other "pro-choice Catholics" of both parties to self-examination and greater obedience to the teachings of Christ and His Church.
Further Reading
- Vote for Real Hope and Change, by Charles J. Chaput. First Things' "On The Square" August 19, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
