Janet Smith, a Catholic professor at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, had some thoughts on the decision of Notre Dame to invite President Barack Obama:

I know that if someone like George Wallace had been elected president of the United States, no matter how much good he had done – no matter how many causes “near to Notre Dame’s heart” he had elevated, Notre Dame would not have invited him to be the commencement speaker nor given him an honorary degree. The world would not have believed that Notre Dame remained “firm and unwavering” in its opposition to racism. It would not have thought that Notre Dame was hoping to spark a national dialogue on racism. It would have thought Notre Dame had lost its mind and faith.

It truly is a scandal that Notre Dame has decided to honor President Obama. There is no reason that Catholics should believe that we can look to Notre Dame for leadership on the most controversial issues of the day, issues that involve the yearly killing of millions of the innocent. It is such a shame.

Well said. (HT: American Papist)

If you haven’t signed the petition to Notre Dame yet, please do so.

Many commentators have lamented the sad state of the sexual mores of American campus life. But to their credit, two Princeton professors, Robert George and John Londregan, have not only diagnosed the problem well, they have put forward some constructive ideas.

They note the problem:

“[U]niversity health centers and residential advising programs typically provide assistance on body-image and eating disorders, binge drinking and alcohol abuse, and sexual health and sexual harassment.

“Conspicuously absent, however, are centers or programs offering meaningful support for students who desire to live chastely. ‘Sexual health’ offices do not supply the need because staff members see their roles, not as promoting self-discipline and high moral standards, but as providing ‘non-judgmental’ advice about how to have sex while avoiding pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and infections.”

Their proposal:

“To help to come to terms with these problems, some thoughtful and concerned students at Princeton and other universities have proposed the establishment of centers on campus to support students who seek to lead lives of moral integrity and decency. We are sure that alumni and friends would step forward with financial support to make such ‘Love and Fidelity Centers’ possible. 

It’s an intriguing idea, definitely worth a closer look. Read the rest of the article for more insights.

Cardinal George Urges Catholics to Tell Administration: Keep Conscience Protections for Health Care Workers

“Respect for personal conscience and freedom of religion as such ensures our basic freedom from government oppression. No government should come between an individual person and God–that’s what America is supposed to be about,” Cardinal Francis George said. “This is the true common ground for us as Americans. We therefore need legal protection for freedom of conscience and of religion–including freedom for religious health care institutions to be true to themselves.”

“I ask you please to lLet the government know that you want conscience protections to remain strongly in place. In particular, let the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington know that you stand for the protection of conscience, especially now for those who provide the health care services so necessary for a good society,” he said.

Via Washington Times – Archbishop Burke: No Communion for Sebelius in D.C.

Last week, yours truly predicted the debate on pro-choice Catholic politicians receiving Communion is going to heat up big time if Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius gets nominated as Obama’s new HHS secretary. That is, it’s one thing if the governor’s own archbishop, Joseph Naumann, has told her not to partake within the borders of the Kansas archdiocese. But what happens when she comes here?

Well, I got a very unhappy e-mail from the archdiocesan spokeswoman about that column. But, folks, this issue is not going away. I just saw a column written by Archbishop Raymond Burke, prefect of the Apostolic Signatura the Vatican’s highest court, posted Thursday, that states the governor should not be taking Communion anywhere in the country. His exact wording: “Whether Governor Sebelius is in the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, or in any other diocese, she should not present herself for Holy Communion because, after pastoral admonition, she obstinately persists in serious sin.”

This was after Thomas McKenna, the interviewer, specifically asked him about whether she should take Communion in Washington, D.C. Burke also backs Archbishop Naumann for showing Sebelius the door, so to speak. The whole interview appears here on the Catholic Action for Faith and Family’s Web site.

A new survey on religious affiliations is out and there are three major findings.

Not surprisingly, because of increased immigration (legal and illegal), there is large growth in the Catholic Church in America’s Southwest. Another trend that doesn’t surprise, but is nonetheless, disheartening is the erosion of religion in New England, which was for so long a bastion of religious piety. The final trend is the increasing number of non-religious persons which the surveyors quipped ‘Nones.’ They have been the largest growing segment of the American population.

From the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS):

“America’s religious geography has been transformed since 1990. Religious switching along with Hispanic immigration has significantly changed the religious profile of some states and regions. Between 1990 and 2008, the Catholic population proportion of the New England states fell from 50% to 36% and in New York it fell from 44% to 37%, while it rose in California from 29% to 37% and in Texas from 23% to 32%.” 

…

“The percentage of Americans claiming no religion, which jumped from 8.2 in 1990 to 14.2 in 2001, has now increased to 15 percent. Given the estimated growth of the American adult population since the last census from 207 million to 228 million, that reflects an additional 4.7 million “Nones.” Northern New England has now taken over from the Pacific Northwest as the least religious section of the country, with Vermont, at 34 percent “Nones,” leading all other states by a full 9 points.” 

Hat tip: NCRegister

Tom McFeely at the National Catholic Register notes that the liberal media has a narrow prism in which they see the political issue of abortion: liberals are pro-choice and conservatives are anti-abortion. Therefore, if you believe that you shouldn’t abort a child, then, you’re obviously a political conservative.

McFeely says this is ‘Nonsense.’

The Independent article concerns Pope Benedict XVI’s pending appointment of a new primate of England and Wales to replace retiring Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor as Archbishop of Westminster.

The article handicaps the bishops the Independent views as the leading contenders, and provides a capsule description that explains where each man allegedly sits on the liberal-to-conservative political spectrum and discusses why this helps or hinders his chances of being appointed.

The fact is, the Pope will be appointing a shepherd of the Church to provide spiritual leadership to the Catholic flock of the Archdiocese of Westminster and to England and Wales as a whole, not a political leader who can be reduced to a “liberal” or “conservative” ideological caricature….

Another foolish aspect of the characterization of Church leaders and Church actions as being “liberal” or “conservative” is the sloppy way the label often is applied by the media. These days it usually refers merely to whether people concur with basic Church teachings on life issues and on sexual conduct.

If they conform with Church teachings, they’re “conservative”; if they don’t, they’re “liberal” — no matter what their respective positions might be on a host of other political, economic or social questions. If that criterion is the standard, even a Catholic social justice icon like Dorothy Day would have to be characterized as “conservative” because of her vehement opposition to abortion.

McFeely is right to point out that some people’s political ideas don’t fit perfectly into the media’s boxes. As McFeely notes, Dorothy Day is a great example.

And it’s true that Dorothy Day is no Wall Street Journal “greed is good” style “conservative.” Though, I wouldn’t call that a conservative, just a materialist.

But just because Dorothy Day is no Gordon Gekko, that doesn’t mean she’s an LBJ-style Democrat. In fact, Bill Kauffman makes a case that she’s a Jeffersonian-style localist against big government and big corporations.

Do you live in or near Illinois?  Have plans for Friday morning March 27th?

Check out the upcoming Illinois Catholic Prayer Breakfast.  The event, still young in it’s second year, is an excellent opportunity to gather with fellow Catholics and friends to pray for our state, leaders, and nation.  Especially during these uncertain days.

I am privledged to be a part of the organizing Board and cannot emphasize enough how inspirational this event has been, and will be.  Attendees last year left with genuine enthusiasm and enrichment of their faith.

And you don’t have to be Catholic to attend!

Cardinal George will celebrate Mass, and the keynote speaker is Bishop Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison, WI.

Check it out, and register today.

Lord make me fiscally responsible, but not yet…

An estimated 7991 earmarks will be signed into law as early as today.

My Way News – Obama to sign spending bill, push for new rules

Thankfully.  But don’t think this isn’t coming back somewhere, sometime soon.  The people behind these measures are merely testing the waters.  Thank you to all those who responded to the CT Bishops request and helped defeat this bill.

Catholic Governance Bill Dies In Connecticut — Courant.com

Bishop Lori of the Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut is calling on all Catholics to assist in defeating new legislation introduced last week that would fundamentally alter the way in which Catholic Church’s are organized and governed in the state.  In sum, the new legislation would require that parish “corporations” be governed by a ‘Board of Trustees,’ elected by the parish.  The new structure would eliminate the authority of the diocesan bishop, and prevent him from participating as a voting member of each parish corporation.

Here is a portion of the statement issued by the Diocese of Bridgeport

“This past Thursday, March 5, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced a bill that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith.

This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and the Bishop would be effectively excluded.

This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.

The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion…”

The statement continues:

We reject this irrational, unlawful, and bigoted bill that jeopardizes the religious liberty of our Church.

We urge you to call and e-mail Sen. McDonald and Rep. Lawlor:

Senator Andrew McDonald:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-1420; Home phone: (203) 348-7439
E-mail: McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov

Representative Michael Lawlor:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-8267; Home phone: (203) 469-9725
E-mail: MLawlor99@juno.com

We also ask you to come to Hartford this Wednesday, March 11, to be present at the public hearing. Details on bus transportation will be available on Monday. If you would like to attend, contact your Pastor.

It is up to us to stop this unbridled abuse of governmental power.

It is time for us to defend our First Amendment rights.

It is time for us to defend our Church!

Just kidding.  But I wouldn’t be suprised…

Especially after his latest reversal, this time on marriage.

Maggie Gallagher reports:

Marriage for all or marriage for no one? Doug Kmiec, who signed onto more than one amicus brief urging courts around the country to uphold marriage as the union of one man and one woman, co-authored an op-ed recently with a new, evolved position: Ken Starr is wrong to try to uphold Prop. 8; instead, we should get government out of the marriage business. (Admittedly, it’s a little legally incoherent for the same man to say the court should NOT have struck down Prop. 8 in the first place and then say Starr is WRONG to defend the constitutional rights of Californians to amend their own constitution but, hey, let’s not get distracted.)

Read the rest of her post at NRO

Obama to Lift Ban on Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research – washingtonpost.com

“President Obama is planning to sign an executive order on Monday rolling back restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, according to sources close to the issue.

Although the exact wording of the order has not been revealed, the White House plans an 11 a.m. ceremony to sign the order repealing one of the most controversial steps taken by his predecessor, fulfilling one of Obama’s eagerly anticipated campaign promises.

The move, long sought by scientists and patient advocates and opposed by religious groups, would enable the National Institutes of Health to consider requests from scientists to study hundreds of lines of cells that have been developed since the limitations were put in place…”

The Proposed Rule to rescind the Conscience Regulations has been published in the Federal Register.

Operative excerpts of the regulation state:

“The Department is proposing to rescind in its entirety the final rule entitled “Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law,” published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2008 (73 FR 78072, 45 CFR Part 88). Commenters asserted that the rule would limit access to patient care and raised concerns that individuals could be denied access to services, with effects felt disproportionately by those in rural areas or otherwise underserved. The Department believes that the comments on the August 2008 proposed rule raised a number of questions that warrant further careful consideration. It is important that the Department have the opportunity to review this regulation to ensure its consistency with current Administration policy. Accordingly, we believe it would benefit the Department to review this rule, accept further comments, and reevaluate the necessity for regulations implementing the statutory requirements. Thus, the Department is proposing to rescind the December 19, 2008 final rule, and we are soliciting public comment to aid our consideration of the many complex questions surrounding the issue and the need for regulation in this area.”

Public comments may be submitted via email at proposedrescission@hhs.gov

Also, see the proposed rule for detailed information about other submission options.

According to the Proposed Rule comments should address the following:

1. Information, including specific examples where feasible, addressing the scope and nature of the problems giving rise to the need for federal rulemaking and how the current rule would resolve those problems;

2. Information, including specific examples where feasible, supporting or refuting allegations that the December 19, 2008 final rule reduces access to information and health care services, particularly by low-income women;

3. Comment on whether the December 19, 2008 final rule provides sufficient clarity to minimize the potential for harm resulting from any ambiguity and confusion that may exist because of the rule; and

4. Comment on whether the objectives of the December 19, 2008 final rule might also be accomplished through non-regulatory means, such as outreach and education.”

A mythical United States Congressman from New York, Jerry “Loch Ness” Nadler, is going to reintroduce Barack Obama’s “mythical” Freedom of Choice Act “sooner rather than later,”  according to his mythical spokesman Ilan “Sasquatch” Kayatsky.  Senator “Bigfoot” Boxer is expected to follow suit–it’s a mythical “priority” for them, and for their new President.

Urban Legend expert Michael “Stokes Prometheus’ Fire” Paulsen explained how this mythical FOCA would be disastrous for the Land of Nod.

Several alleged critics were skeptical, however.  Their existence could not be verified to obtain a comment, but it is rumored that Time Magazine’s ficticious “reporter” Amy “Narcissus” Sullivan has already begun Calliap-orating on an article, working with storybook “Catholics”  from Commonweal “Magazine,” David “Phantom” Gibson, Eduardo “Bogeyman” Peñalver and Cathleen “Specter” Kaveny.  

Their inspired tome is expected to muse upon how the Catholic Bishops should relocate to Roswell, New Mexico and stop wasting their time fighting imaginary ghouls like abortion.  That way, “real-world” pro-life Catholics like themselves and Kathleen Sebelius can get down to the important business of defining their own concept of the universe and resolving the “mystery” of which human beings have a right to life.

The rumors were swirling for some time, but now the New York Times has confirmed. Newt Gingrich is becoming a Catholic this Easter.

OSV Daily Take: Archbishop Naumann on Sebelius’ appointment

According to Dan Gilgoff, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, has called herself a “pro-choice pro-lifer.” 

The woman picked by Obama to become his Health Secretary states:

“My Catholic faith teaches me that all life is sacred, and personally I believe abortion is wrong. However…”

Guess what comes after the word “However”? I’ll give you a hint. It involves having the government look the other way when small children are torn limb from limb inside the womb of their mothers. She continues:

“… I disagree with the suggestion that criminalizing women and their doctors is an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of abortions in our nation.”

Well, if we pro-lifers finally did win, we wouldn’t criminalize “women” or “doctors,” but criminalize, you know, “homicide.”

“There is another way. By working in support of the common good we can better protect human life and the dignity of all people.”

Without any irony, the Kansas governor and friend of abortionist Tiller says:

“If we work hard and match our rhetoric with our actions, we can create a culture that is more welcoming of mothers and treasuring of our children.”

Right. And who’s starting all those crisis pregnancy centers and maternity homes? Well, it ain’t George Tiller or his friends in Planned Parenthood. Nor is it politicians like Kathleen Sebelius.

Bradford Wilcox writing for the Witherspoon Institute raises some very important questions about the real impact of the stimulus programs and government growth now underway under President Obama.

“I do not doubt the sincerity of Obama’s religious intentions. But while many social conservatives have pointed a spotlight on Obama’s socially liberal policies repealing the Mexico City Policy, for example few have paid attention to the likely impact his stimulus, bailout, and economic welfare programs will have. One unremarked and unintended consequence of Barack Obama’s audacious plans for the expansion of government—especially in health care, education, and the environment—is that the nanny state he is seeking to build will likely crowd out religious institutions in America. In other words, if he succeeds in passing his ambitious agenda, the Obama revolution is likely to lead the United States down the secular path already trod by Europe.”

Read the who article here -  RealClearPolitics – Articles – What the Obama Revolution Means for Religion in America