Deal W. Hudson

A Single Stroke

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

This beautiful drawing - done with a single stroke of the pen in 1884 - crossed by desk this morning, right along with your post, Deal, relating Tony Bennett's moving witness to Bella.

It's a nice way to start my day:  reminded of the power that flows from a heart longing for God.

Tony Bennett Leaves His Heart With Bella

Deal Hudson

The singer Tony Bennett surprised everyone by standing up at a New York showing of "Bella," interrupting lead actor Eduardo Verastegui, and telling the audience that "it's one of the most amazing films I've ever seen, and it's a masterpiece. This is what America needs -- it's the right time for this movie!"

Bennett's comments -- he was in tears at the time -- were captured on film and will be posted later today.

This news comes from Corby Pons, Vice President Coalitions, Metanoia Films. 

This could be exactly the kind of break "Bella" needs to make it past the second weekend and into more than 164 theaters. 

Brownback, Giuliani, and Kansas

Deal Hudson

Rumor has it that Senator Sam Brownback is considering a run for governor in Kansas in 2010. The present governor, Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic pro-abort, cannot run past her present term which end in January 2011. 

Brownback caused a controversy by accepting an invitation from Rudy Giuliani to discuss life issues following the Senator's decision to drop out of the presidential race. 

Giuliani had called Brownback the day after his announcement to ask for his endorsement.  Brownback started to say "no" when Giuliani asked him if at least he would come by and talk about it.

Brownback accepted the invitation, had the chat, but, as expected, did not issue an endorsement. 

A rumor rushed around the Internet that Brownback had "compromised" his principles, etc.

Jim Bopp, Jr., general counsel of National Right to Life said some pretty ugly things about Brownback.  The management of NRTL had to dissavow Bopp's comments in a press statement issued later that same day.

Very messy.  And all because Brownback was willing to listen to what Giuliani had to say, like any civilized person ought to do. 

Brownback listened, concluded Giuliani was not willing to change his positions, stepped in front of the cameras with the Mayor and said, basically, that they agreed to disagree.

Nothing wrong with that from my vantage point!

Brownback's consideration of the Kansas governor's race is a good one -- if successful, he will be in a much better position to run for president down the road. 

When Catholic Politicians Should Vote for Abortion

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Even if you aren't an Anglophile, the Brits warrant watching as the battle over 200,000 abortions per year heats up. 

Today, in the Telegraph, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor weighed in - recognizing when a vote for abortion can be a vote for life. 

The context, of course, involves the Abortion Act of 1967, which largely regulates the abortion practices in England, Wales and Scotland.  The Act sets a 24 week limit (considered the age of viability) and requires the concurrence of 2 doctors.  Other conditions of the Act offer a proverbial barn door, as no requested abortion seems to have been denied.  To the contrary, the practice has become so wide-spread, public opinion has swung sharply in favor of imposing further restrictions in an effort to reduce the assault on fetal life.  Anti-abortion forces have coalesced around the reality that the "abortion option" has become the "only option" for many women.

But pro-life forces have formed two camps, one supporting the legislative effort to restrict abortions, the other rejecting any legislation that permits abortion.  Cardinal Murphy O'Connor invited Catholics, today, to support a legislative compromise that moves abortion practices the right direction:  saying "yes" to life.

I come to the 40th anniversary of the Abortion Act with a deep sense of anguish, but also with hope. My anguish is over the almost 200,000 abortions now annually performed in our country and for the women who felt they had no other realistic choice. Nor should we forget the need for men to accept their responsibilities for the unborn child. We allow abortion up to 24 weeks and sometimes later. We use medical and scientific language to shield us from the violence of the act and the distressful aftermath for all concerned.

One of the marks of a mature democracy is its capacity to learn from experience. Over the last 40 years we have been learning. Now we can vividly see the unique reality of life in the womb — and we also have a much better ability to sustain viability at an earlier stage of foetal development. This rightly means we have a spontaneous sense of the claims the young life makes on us. In the light of this, it becomes increasingly difficult to continue to permit abortion, especially up to as late as 24 weeks. We also have experience of 40 years of the Act itself, and of its damaging, if unintended, consequences.

While upholding the principle of the sacredness of human life, I believe it is both licit and important for those in public life who oppose abortion to work and vote for achievable and incremental improvements to an unjust law. That is why I would support in any way I can MPs who take this stance and are pushing for a reduction in the upper time limit and opposing the removal of existing safeguards.

No decision is taken in a vacuum. Freedoms cannot be claimed or achieved independently of their impact on others. If they are, they become a tyranny. There is a tension between the principle of personal autonomy and the public good that we urgently need to negotiate for all concerned. I believe we can do this by recovering some of our most fundamental convictions about the value of human life at every stage of its growth and development.

If abortion is to become a thing of the past, it will not be because the Catholic Church has succeeded in imposing its views on anyone. It will be because people, of their own volition, have come to see that there is a better way. This gives me reason for hope. We can say "yes" to life. (read whole article)

The Abortion Thread: Ellen Burstyn

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Bella's indisputably "simple" - a tender story of tragedy, conflict and survival, touched with tears and humor.  The plot neither confuses nor obfuscates; it has, as Roger Ebert says, "charm," as the "not profound" story of an unborn child unfolds.  Mr. Ebert calls the characters "lovable people having important conversations"; the movie, "the best-liked film at the 2006 festival, and I can understand that." 

So how can such a guileless, award-winning, popular movie provoke passionately negative reviews?  Take, for example, Stephen Holden NYT review today.  He calls it "a mediocre cup of mush and a saccharine trifle" whose success with audiences "suggests how desperate some people are for an urban fairy tale with a happy ending, no matter how ludicrous."  New York magazine calls the characters so "relentlessly thoughtful and attractive that it’s hard to worry about their problems."

The dichotomy, of course, swings on the "abortion thread", a term offered by 74-year-old Ellen Burstyn (of The Exorcist and Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore fame), during a radio interview when she described her own "wrong, young and dumb" choice to abort.  That "choice" - made at 18 years old - was "the lowest moment in her life."  Understandably curious how a decision made over 56 years ago could still deeply trouble Ms. Burstyn, the antsy male interviewer then asked, "Do you ever get over that?"

No, cautioned the accomplished Ms. Burstyn, gracefully, elegantly explaining that the choice to abort has "ramifications for the rest of our lives" - it becomes a "dark thread" in our tapestry.  Such stories of pain and regret abound these days.  Listen to the voices at www.abortionchangesyou.com.   

With current abortion statistics reporting an estimated "43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old", a veritable web of dark threads capture and filter how we view movies like Bella.  Detractors like Mr. Holden, no doubt, have their own "dark thread" that hurts, perhaps even haunts, their thinking. 

Such reviewers betray their pain, expressing hope to "forget you’ve seen [Bella] before it’s even over".  We should include all these people in our prayers for the born and unborn harmed by abortion.

From Eduardo Verastegui

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

The movie Bella opens on October 26 throughout the country.  The breath-takingly handsome star of this movie, Eduardo Verastegui, has sent the following email to his many supporters.  My daughter Carol - featured here with Eduardo - heard him speak recently in Washington DC, about living his faith, dedicating his career to Christ and witnessing God's love to the world.  While many of us present were moved to tears, my 17 year old daughter mumbled, "Where do I find a guy like this, Mom?" 

I am so overwhelmed with joy by the support we have received all year, and
most of all this week. Finding investors to finance "Bella" was the first
miracle, the film completed was the second. The third and biggest miracle was
when "Bella" Won the Toronto Film Festival, but the most touching of all has
been traveling the country and meeting all of you, and your support this week
has been inspirational.

We have hundreds of theatres pre sold and many supporters are buying a 100
tickets for family, and others 10,000 to bless a whole city, anything to
adopt these theatres, all in support of our film and it's message.

I want you to know how grateful I am, and I hope when it comes out in
theatres this Friday, you can sit in that chair, watch it on the big screen and
know you were part of a miracle in action. It is a beautiful film that to me
was created by something bigger then us all, and I will never forget all of the
passion, support and life this film has inspired.

If you can walk with me just a few more weeks and help us get the word out
so this film can get it's place in time and into the hearts and minds of as
many people possible.

I have pasted below ways in which you can help, most of all by adopting a
theatre or asking others to co-adopt a theatre.

Every email you send, blog you post, call you make, has a tremendous impact.
As we all work together amazing things are happening.

God Bless,

Eduardo Verastegui

p.s. I am amazed by the unending genorocity of the people we have met
through Bella. A young girl who can not afford her own rent, took all of her
savings to adopt a theatre.

p.s. Our group sales Director says she has never seen anything like this.
This is a testament to you.
www.BellaTheMovie.com

What Gender Are You?

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Deal, you write "The other protected groups -- including gender . . . -- are objective and do not require an invasion of privacy to determine."  But gender is not objective in California, don't you know?

On October 12 2007, Governor Schwartzenegger signed Senate Bill 777 - the California Student Civil Rights Act - over the fervent opposition and to the shock of pro-family groups like Catholics for the Common Good.  Among other purposes , SB 777 prohibits discrimination in all schools based on gender, a category commonly included among protected classes and traditionally referencing the sex - that is male or female - of a person.  But California has given a new, subjective definition to the word "gender," distinguishing one's selected gender from the mundane gender assigned by onlookers at a birth.  “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth. 

Under this definition of gender, the mostly-assigned-sex-male San Francisco Sisters of Perpetual Adoration - "a leading-edge order of queer nuns" - would be protected against discrimination as students using restroom facilities at a post-secondary school, for example, based upon the gender to which each associates, subject, presumably, to revision.  While each "Sister" may well have a stable, associated gender, many persons do not.  They suffer from conditions such as gender confusion, one of a growing list of transgender problems and challenges.  The emotional, biological and social causes driving this burgeoning field are little understood.  As one source states, "Usually, the only way to find out how exactly people identify themselves is to ask them, and sometimes, transgender people either cannot or will not define themselves any more specifically than transgender, queer or genderqueer." 

But lack of understanding has not stopped this tidal wave of confusion from sweeping into California's schools, regardless the location or age of student.  Here, the state's children will be exposed to disturbing, frightening and inappropriate displays of adult sexual uncertainty and confusion - an exposure no child requested and no child deserves.    Only harm to the environment requires "impact studies" - deleterious effects of adult social experimentation on our children don't factor to those pushing their political social agenda into school corridors. 

And you thought, Deal, that gender was objective.

Will Homosexuality Soon Be Promoted by Law?

Deal Hudson

The Window for October 22, 2007

Will Homosexuality Soon Be Promoted by Law?

This week the U.S. House of Representatives will very likely vote to add "sexual orientation" as a category of persons legally protected from discrimination. If passed, H.R. 3685, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), will mean that homosexuals can bring lawsuits against employers they feel have discriminated against them because of their sexual orientation.

 

Although religious organizations are declared exempt, the bill, sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), still poses a threat to religious liberty because of differing state definitions of what organizations are religious.

 

Sexual orientation, by its very nature, is a private matter. But unlike other protected categories -- race, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, age, disability -- it's a subjective term.

 

ENDA will practically require employers to ask about the sexual orientation of their employees. As a senior member of the Bush administration told me, "Your sexual orientation is whatever you say it is. If this bill passes, employers would be encouraged to discuss sexual orientation with employees, something that most people think is inappropriate."

 

Jim Kelly, a religious liberty attorney in Atlanta, pointed out the further impact this bill could have on corporate culture: "Inevitably, a corporation will find itself in the position of having to fire an ineffective gay or lesbian employee. To avoid lawsuits for doing so, corporations will act preemptively to prove they are gay-friendly. Their lawyers and human-resource directors will insist that they meet self-imposed hiring quotas and promote gay and lesbian activities and foundations."

 

And ENDA doesn't apply solely to hiring, promotion, or firing decisions. It includes discrimination "against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation" (emphasis added).

 

In other words, corporations will be in the business of promoting homosexual culture and lifestyles. As Kelly puts it, "To avoid lawsuits, corporations will be working overtime to create a positive environment for gays and lesbians. Everything from company benefit offerings to corporate publications and employee parties will have to be choreographed to portray sensitivity to sexual orientation."

 

Kelly went on to explain that, once these lawsuits are brought against employers for discrimination in hiring, the plaintiff's attorney will ask questions like, "What did you do to promote the gay and lesbian lifestyle in your organization?" "Where is gay pride day?" "Why don't you extend health benefits to partners?" "Why don't you support your local gay and lesbian advocacy group?" "How many of your executives and board members are gay or lesbian?"

 

Once corporations are required to create gay and lesbian-friendly environments, religious liberty will be compromised. People of faith who believe that homosexual acts are sinful will be discouraged from saying it out loud. Catholics, who are taught to view homosexuality as an "objective disorder," will have to keep that opinion to themselves.

 

Christians may, in fact, be viewed as possessing an animus toward gays and lesbians by virtue of their orthodox beliefs.

 

The senior member of the Bush administration put it this way: "ENDA would inhibit religious speech. Discrimination law works like this: If persons in a soup kitchen start talking critically about the gay lifestyle, homosexuals will feel unwelcome and could sue the employer. The net effect is to attack the core of religious liberty: right of self determination and association."

 

ENDA is another example of the political left using the law as a tool for social change. There is no doubt that it puts orthodox Catholics at risk of being accused of creating a hostile working environment for gays and lesbians.

 

Even though ENDA exempts religious organizations from compliance, the very definition of "religious" remains ambiguous and tricky to apply uniformly across all 50 states. It's almost a certainty that these exempted organizations would be caught up in a web of expensive lawsuits, initiated and coordinated by gay activists, simply to prove their religious identity.

 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to create much-needed protection for African-Americans after more than a century of discrimination. The other protected groups -- including gender, nationality, and disability -- are objective and do not require an invasion of privacy to determine.

 

President Bush has stated that he is opposed to employer discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; it is rumored that the White House assisted in hammering out the final version of H.R. 3685. ENDA will probably be put on the president's desk in the next month.

 

Let's hope the Congress and president look at the religious and cultural ramifications of making ENDA into law. This Act will give gay and lesbian groups a very sharp sword to wage in the culture wars.

Mrs. Clinton Wants My Vote

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Mrs. Clinton wants my vote.  And, she has Burns Strider working to get it for her.  I caught glimpse of this outreach to Catholic independent voters, like me, at a blog post at Ad Majorem Dei Gloriem.  It's a bold move, part of a larger strategy to win back Catholic voters like me.  Will it work?

The effort, reportedly, consists of a circulating email, reprinted in full below.  Note:  at the link, you can sign up to be part of  "The Faith and Values Steering Committee: Building a Community of Supporters United in Faith, Family, and Values" but I can't, as yet, find the referenced document discussing Mrs. Clinton's faith record.  Given her 100% NARAL rating,  I know I'll find her as wanting as Mr. Giuliani on pro-life issues. 

But I have to admit, I'm interested.  I'm interested in this woman's faith, which, she says, "saved her marriage," a feat the star Republican candidate can't claim.      

Dear Friend,

We are starting a conversation with Catholics across America and hope you will join us. Hillary shares your vision for the common good -- quality, affordable health care for all Americans, better educational opportunities for our children, and a plan for peace and stability from Baghdad to Darfur. Together we can make this vision a reality.

Join Hillary's National Catholic Steering Committee to be a part of this campaign to make history.

To sign up, visit our Faith Steering Committee website:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/faith

Thank you for your support!

Sincerely,
Burns Strider
Senior Advisor
Director of Faith Outreach

P.S. I have attached a document that discusses Hillary's record on issues of faith. Please read it and pass it along to your family, friends, and neighbors.

The Catholic Problem with SCHIP

Deal Hudson

Fr. Roger Landry, diocesan priest from the Boston Archdiocese, has written an important analysis of the SCHIP legislation vetoed by President Bush (State Children's Health Insurance Program).

This is what he writes:

"But the reason why President Bush vetoed the reauthorization bill go beyond concerns about money, taxes and the role of government. The reauthorization bill adds and deletes items that Bush says change and exceed the original SCHIP mandate.

Among other things, the rewritten SCHIP pays for contraceptives to be distributed to teenagers without parental permission or even knowledge. It authorizes the diversion of previously allocated abstinence education funds to condom pushing campaigns. It permits tax dollars to be used for sterilizations according to individual state policies. And worst of all, it promotes and funds abortions." (Emphasis added)

It's remarkable that throughout the debate on this legislation I never heard a word about these items tucked away inside the bill. Sadly, both the Catholic Health Association and Catholic Charities USA endorsed the bill and encourage a Congressional override of the presidential veto.

The pro-abortion Democrats who accuse Catholic legislators who voted against SCHIP of not being pro-life should take a closer look at what they are supporting.