Deal W. Hudson

Selling Hillary as a Faith-Friendly "Moral Conservative"

Marjorie, your summary of Hillary's campaign propaganda on faith and abortion is precise and helpful. I wasn't aware of the other e-mails that Burns Strider, Hillary's faith guru, was sending out on issues like HIV-Aids.  Thus far, you may agree, they have run a smart campaign.  They are using their inside team (Strider) and outside team (Amy Sullivan, Time Magazine) to build a patina around Hillary that religiously-active Democrats can embrace.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, if Giuliani is the GOP nominee I think Hillary will win the self-identified Catholic vote and maybe the religiously-active Catholic vote. She will do so on the basis of this "social justice" patina that Strider and Sullivan are working to paint around her candidacy. 

Those who want an excuse to vote for her will fix their eyes on this patina and ignore the oodles of evidence to the contrary. 

I wonder when the GOP strategists will realize that the great weakness of a Giuliani nomination in the face of Hillary is the loss of contrast.  Those "Reagan Democrats" who have come over to the GOP on-and-off for thirty years will be given an excuse to go back where they came from and pay homage to the political loyalties of their parents and grandparents.

You agree?

Did the Bishops Punish Archbishop Burke?

Deal Hudson

The Window on November 20, 2007

Did the Bishops Punish Archbishop Burke?

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that Archbishop Raymond Burke (St. Louis) lost an election at the annual meeting of the U.S. bishops last week.

 

Over the past three years, Burke has assumed the mantle of the late Cardinal John O'Connor in pro-life matters, challenging fellow bishops to take stronger stances in the defense of innocent life.

 

Nominated as chairman for the Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance, 60 percent of his fellow bishops preferred his opponent. As bishops' conference expert Rev. Thomas Reese noted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, an auxiliary bishop defeating an archbishop for a conference chairmanship is "very unusual."

 

Archbishop Burke's credentials as a canonist are widely recognized. In fact, he missed the bishops' meeting because he was in Rome as a member of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature, the Vatican's highest judicial authority.

 

Burke has been a controversial figure since early 2004 when, as bishop of La Crosse, WI, he began to challenge pro-abortion Catholic politicians publicly on their reception of the Eucharist.

 

Shortly after moving to St. Louis as archbishop, Burke said he would deny Communion to Sen. John Kerry if he presented himself. Although his position has been backed up by 13 other bishops, Archbishop Burke was clearly straining the boundaries of "collegiality."

 

Father Reese, former editor of America magazine, says the bishops were sending a message: "Most of the bishops don't want communion and Catholic politicians to be a high-profile issue, and he [Burke] is seen as a man who's pushing that issue. . . . Had he been elected, it could have been interpreted as endorsing his position."

 

Archbishop Elden Curtiss (Omaha), Archbishop Sean O'Malley (Boston), and Cardinal Francis George (Chicago) went on the record denying that there was any message being sent by the bishops to Burke. And supporters of Archbishop Burke have no reason to regret the selection of Bishop Thomas Paprocki, the Chicago auxiliary, whose reputation and credentials are similar to that of Burke's.

 

The question still in the air after the bishops' meeting, however, is whether Burke is being punished for not backing down after the controversy surrounding him during the 2004 election.

 

In response to the Kerry and Communion controversy, the bishops formed a task force, headed by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, to study the issue and present a report. That report, "Catholics in Political Life," differed sharply with Burke, finding that each bishop could decide for himself in such cases.

 

Archbishop Burke did not back down. Early this year, he published an article on Canon 915 in Italian law journal Periodica de Re Canonica arguing that the McCarrick report was incorrect.

 

Burke said that a bishop's interpretation of what to do in the face of a pro-abortion Catholic politician "would hardly seem to change from place to place." For Burke, enforcing discipline must go hand-in-hand with teaching:

 

No matter how often a bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices, and at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow.

 

He gave the names of bishops with whom he disagreed: Cardinal McCarrick, Cardinal Roger Mahony (Los Angeles), and Archbishop Donald Wuerl Washington, DC. Just as it's very unusual for an archbishop to be defeated by an auxiliary bishop in an election, it's just as unheard of for a bishop to take issue with another bishop by name.

 

In his article, however, Burke spread the net even wider. He argued that any Catholic who administers Communion -- even a lay person -- is required to withhold it from Catholic politicians who know they hold positions contrary to Church teaching.

 

Burke has said publicly that he will not stop addressing this issue. In an interview with Catholic News Service shortly after the 2004 election, he said:

 

It's funny because some people now characterize me as a fundamentalist, or an extremist . . . . But these are questions that are at the very foundation of the life of our country. We just simply have to continue to address them.

 

The archbishop of St. Louis has been true to his word. His article on Canon law formalized his objection to McCarrick's report.

 

If Father Reese is right, the bishops are distancing themselves from a fellow bishop who kept controversy in the air, a controversy most of them would rather see go away.

 

The bishops' own document from last week, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," was a powerful indictment of Catholics who participate politically without demanding an end to abortion. Archbishop Burke, though he was not at the meeting, and though he will not chair the canonical affairs committee, must be given some credit for the strength of the bishops' corporate voice in this statement.

Seeing Mrs. Clinton's Selective Compassion

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Seeing what we want to see can be a willful trick of the human eye.  Mrs. Clinton's handlers, particularly Burns  Strider, her faith outreach "guru", know this.   From her 2005 assertion that abortion is a "sad, even tragic choice", to her "faith saved my marriage" comments in June, to her recent, personalized email outreach to "people of faith", Mrs. Clinton has mounted an impressive campaign to convince religious, values-voters that she is the "moral conservative" noted in your post, Deal. 

No illusion, however, can conceal the raw fact that Mrs. Clinton's moral concerns extend no concern, no relief, no dignity and no protection to unborn children, regardless their age, health or viability.  Mrs. Clinton recognizes the beating heart of an unborn only as a "reproductive" issue for women, with claim to "reproductive health services" which include killing the unborn life, without restriction and without even the basic human concerns (extended even in administration of the death penalty) for alleviating the pain suffered by the unborn child.   

In an effort to keep the religious eye turned from this glaring gap in compassion, Mr. Strider has launched an email campaign filled with religiously-appealing portrayals of Mrs. Clinton's faith in action.  One recent email, for example, trumped Mrs. Clinton's tenderness for AIDS-HIV victims and the role of the faith community.  She wrote:  "Our churches have a powerful role to play in raising the consciousness of the nation and the world to this pandemic and urge compassion for the sick and the suffering. When we come together, seeking the common good, we can find solutions to our biggest challenges and reinforce our faith that a call to action can change lives."

But even as Mr. Strider builds for her an Internet profile of faith, compassion and religious participation, Mrs. Clinton stumps her liberal, pro-abortion profile for consumption by the secular press anxious not to hear such religious chatter.  On the recent Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart upholding a partial-birth abortion ban, Mrs. Clinton dropped all pretense of compassion, all concern for the common good, all enthusiasm for the role of churches and religion and all interest in the suffering, remarking, "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health….  It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."  

Will voters compare the competing profiles of Mrs. Clinton as they weigh the candidate?  Will the email readers see a face of uncompromised compassion or hear a voice of fraud?  Will the seculars ignore the Burns Strider compassionately religious Mrs. Clinton and cling to NARAL's darling child?  Can we see Mrs. Clinton's selective compassion - her religious profile being cleverly overlaid upon her liberal, secular agenda, confusing . . . like the two images in this picture I have posted.  Can you see both images? - a face and a word . . . that begins with "l"? 

Boston Archbishop Slams Democrats on Abortion

Deal Hudson

The Window for November 18, 2007

Boston Archbishops Slams Democrats on Abortion

The Archdiocese of Boston has produced some of the most influential pro-abortion politicians in history -- among them, the late Rev. Robert Drinan, S. J. (D-MA), formerly a four-term Congressman, and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Yesterday, Boston's Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley said that support of pro-abortion candidates from Catholic voters "borders on scandal as far as I'm concerned."

 

In a remarkable interview with Michael Paulson of the Boston Globe, Cardinal O'Malley sounded like a man who had simply had enough.

 

O'Malley, who has been in Boston four years, said, "I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the Church's position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues."

 

Other Catholic bishops have admonished Democrats, but O'Malley's words are the most direct challenge to Catholic Democrats yet. O'Malley said they were fooling themselves by saying they are not supporting abortion: "I think there's a need for people to very actively dissociate themselves from those unacceptable positions, and I think if they did that, then the party would have to change."

 

He deplored the lack of pro-life candidates in the Democratic Party and urged them to "make space for prolife politicians." O'Malley also acknowledged that support for pro-abortion Catholic Democrats is a "very serious problem" in his own state, Massachusetts.

 

A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee told Paulson that Democrats are "a big tent party." The spokesman explained that out of the 104 Catholic Democrats currently serving in Congress, two oppose abortion rights -- Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-PA) and Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH). Of course, it hardly needs mentioning that 2 out of 104 doesn't constitute a big tent.

 

Mark Stricherz, a leading pro-life Democrat and author of Why the Democrats Are Blue: Secular Liberalism and the Decline of the People's Party, applauds O'Malley. He comments:

If Church leaders speak out forcefully and frequently about this issue, more Catholics will vote for pro-life candidates. For many years Catholics in western Pennsylvania had voted for Democratic presidential nominees, but switched to the Republicans largely because of the area's bishops' and priests' outspoken opposition to abortion.

O'Malley may have been emboldened by the document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," passed by the U.S. bishops at their biannual meeting in Baltimore this week.

 

The common trick of pro-abortion Catholics to avoid Church censure on abortion is to invoke a twisted interpretation of "conscience"; Father Drinan was part of a group of Catholic theologians who created this conscience loophole in the late 1960s. (More about Father Drinan and his role here will be covered in my new book, Onward Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States, to be released by Simon and Schuster in March 2008.)

 

Catholic News Agency reports that "Faithful Citizenship" is intended to address this problem directly. Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, who led the presentation of the document, said, "This document is not about bishops and politicians, it's about helping Catholics form their consciences."

 

The language of the document makes it clear: "The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many."

 

This is the message Cardinal O'Malley is delivering to Catholic Democrats. He applauds the new document, saying, "In the past, there was always the fear that we were considering sort of the smorgasbord of issues, but without any prioritizing, or giving the impression that all issues are of equal value . . . ."

 

The assertion of moral equivalence between abortion and, say, global warming or children's health insurance (SCHIP) is precisely what some liberal Catholic groups, like "Catholics United," are arguing at the present moment. Catholic members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, are being accused of not being pro-life because of their vote on SCHIP.

 

"Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" should put an end to this type of political abuse of Catholic moral and social teaching.

 

Of course, no document, especially one created by a committee, can be perfect, and this one retains vestiges of the old "conscience" language that enables the Catholic pro-aborts in Congress to justify their votes:

 

In the end this is a decision to be made by each individual Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

 

Those Catholic politicians and voters who want to continue with business as usual will take comfort in this single line from the bishops' document -- for example, Rudy Giuliani, who resorts to talking about conscience when asked about the protection of human life.

 

Taken as a whole, the bishops' new document calls abortion an "intrinsic evil," which a "properly formed conscience" will avoid:

 

Conscience is not something that allows us to do whatever we want, nor is it a mere "feeling" about what we should do or not do. Rather, conscience is the voice of God resounding in the human heart, revealing the truth to us and calling us to do what is good while shunning what is evil.

 

Cardinal O'Malley may have given the Democrats something to think about, but "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" should also give Catholic Republicans pause as the primary season approaches.

Time Magazine Editor Calls Hillary a "Moral Conservative"

Deal Hudson

The Window for November 17, 2008

Time Magazine Editor Calls Hillary a "Moral Conservative"

Amy Sullivan, the "nation editor" for Time magazine, describes Hillary Clinton as a "moral conservative" on "value issues." This remarkable feat of partisan editorializing was seen November 8th on MSNBC. The interviewer, Tucker Carlson, responded with disbelief.

 

Carlson asked Sullivan, "Has she [Clinton] ever suggested placing any restriction of any kind on abortion, limiting for instance, abortion for sex selection? Or any restriction, of any kind, ever? I must have missed it. Has she?"

 

Sullivan responded by touting Clinton's position: "I think she's focused more on preventing unwanted pregnancies and providing support for women who are pregnant and want to have their babies but aren't sure that they can afford it."

 

In other words, there is no anti-abortion policy, only entitlement programs dressed up to appear like a pro-life initiative.

 

Of course, everybody knows that Hillary Clinton, if elected, would be the most aggressively pro-abortion president ever. Paul Kengor, author of God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life (HarperCollins 2007), puts it this way: "She is to the left of everyone on the abortion issue. There is no greater political passion for her."

 

Indeed, Senator Clinton has a 100% pro-abortion voting record in Congress. Yet Sullivan describes her as a "moral conservative" on issues like abortion. Her comment is journalistically irresponsible, blatantly partisan, andworthy of Tucker Carlson's astonishment. This is the kind of misrepresentation of the facts supported by the flagship news weekly of our country, Time magazine.

 

A few weeks ago, I published an interview with Catholic vote expert Steve Wagner titled "Hillary Clinton Will Win the Catholic Vote in 2008." Wagner predicted that Clinton would be able to woo Catholic voters with a "social justice" message, especially in a face-off with a pro-abortion candidate like Rudy Giuliani. Sullivan's appearance on MSNBC is clear evidence of Clinton's effort to spin her pro-abortion views as the opposite of what they are. As a matter of fact, Sullivan's remarks demonstrate that it won't be just Clinton spreading her "social justice" message of "moral conservatism"; she will have plenty of help from journalists in the major media.

 

Sullivan's relationship to the Democratic Party is well-known. A former aide to Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) and graduate of Harvard Divinity School, she's a leading figure in promoting the role of faith among Democrats. She doesn't think much of religious faith among Republicans, however. Her blog posts at the Faithful Democrats Web site contain one attack after another on the faith-based initiative of President Bush.

At one point, Sullivan gushes over a "tell-all book exposing the hypocrisy, manipulation, and possibly even corruption of the White House's faith-based initiative." Sullivan goes on to call Jim Towey, then director of the faith-based office, a "good man" but adds, "I was surprised by the partisan and defensive tone that Towey adopted once he was in the White House."

 

It's one thing for a member of a presidential administration to sound partisan and quite another for the editor of a major "news" magazine.

 

Sullivan offered another piece of evidence on MSNBC for Clinton's "moral conservatism." According to Sullivan, "she [Clinton] also stood up to the 'choice' community a few years ago and declared that abortion was a tragedy." She's referring to a January 24, 2005, speech Senator Clinton made to the 28th Conference of Family Planning Advocates of New York State in Albany, NY. Coming months after Bush's defeat of John Kerry, largely through the help of religious conservative voters, Clinton told the pro-abortion group:

 

I, for one, respect those who believe with all their heart and conscience that there are no circumstances under which abortion should be available.

 

After hearing of the speech, the editorial writer of the New York Sun hit the nail on the head: "No one who listened to Senator Clinton's speech to abortion rights supporters at Albany yesterday can have any doubt that she's running for president."

 

Gender Evidence

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

On October 23 2007, in my post "What Gender Are You?", I detailed developments in the California movement to deconstruct gender from a currently-popular objective test to a subjective inquiry which includes "gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth."  Happily, a reader has brought to my attention a new test that could readily differentiate "Gender:  Male" from the "Gender:  Female" population.  While this may shrink the number and life span of "males", I think undertaking (and surviving) the activity detailed in this YouTube would be irrefutable Gender Evidence establishing Gender: Male. 

">

Karl Rove with Newsweek

Marc Nadeau

With the arrival of Karl Rove in their pages as a contributor, people at Newsweek just made a savvy move.  Love him or hate him, this master strategist will bring a lot in the debate.  Anyone doubting my assumptions just need to go read the piece he's written about Theodore Roosevelt in Time magazine some time ago.  The man is erudite, more than very well-read, articulate and he takes no prisoner.  And I am sure I'll be pretty good on my money to predict that I may learn more from him than from many history and political science teachers I've had in my academic path.  My mother recently asked me what I would like for Christmas.  I'll strongly consider asking  her for a subscription to Newsweek... 

The Meaning of the Huckabee Surge

Deal Hudson

The news that Huckabee was challenging Romney's lead in Iowa does not come as a surprise.  Those who have worked on the ground in Iowa for the past six months have told me that much of Romney's support, especially among Evangelicals, is soft. 

Once Huckabee started to gain momentum, it was inevitable that the race would tighten. 

The biggest factors in his ascent are the endorsement of Don Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, and big time exposure on cable news shows.  This exposure can convince the fence-sitters that Huckabee could be a winner, could overcome the well-financed Romney machine in Iowa. 

The Romney strategy has always been to win early primaries, particularly Iowa and New Hampshire and count on momentum to take over in later primaries.  Romney still looks good in New Hampshire, though Giuliani and McCain show strength there (are they splitting votes?) 

For the time being Huckabee is playing the role that Fred Thompson could have played but, thus far, has failed to do: A credible social conservative without a significant downside.   (Some might say that Huckabee's record on taxes is his significant downside, and they may be right.)

True Civility is Laudable, Tactical Civility is Not

Marjorie, I find nothing "laudable" about the civility statement you mention, except the title.  The main instigator of the statement was former Vatican ambassador Tom Melady, who says he was "inspired" by comments made by Cardinal McCarrick at Red Mass in Washington, DC. 

Nearly all of the other signers were Knights of Malta from Washington, DC. Ambassador Melady has long been very active in DC as a Knight.  I count three or four friends among the signers, including Melady and former Gov. Frank Keating.

Alexia Kelley, Executive Director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was one of the signers of the statement. This organization was brought into existence to support the candidacy of John Kerry, a pro-abortion Catholic, and remains in existence only to promote more of the same among the Democratic Party.

That is why I find it "tactical civility."

The brunt of the statement is aimed at those, bishop and laity alike, who have publicly addressed the issue of communion for pro-abortion politicians. 

As you show, Marjorie, that discussion is a proper one for the bishops, since, according to Canon law,  it is their decision, not the decision of the individual, that governs participation in the Eucharist.

As I said in my Window, "Muzzling the Bishop with Civility," I was initially pleased at the thought of a call to end the personal attacks that have poisoned our political discourse, but the statement only mentioned this in passing and focused on the communion issue instead.

Abortion, Communion, Canon Law & Bent Arrows

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

What is missing, Deal, from the laudable statement issued by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good ("Statement") is the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  Many Catholics don't realize the Church has a legal code, much less think to consult it before pronouncing rights and obligations of members of the Church.  But on one point that deeply concerned the signatories to this undoubtedly well-intentioned Statement, well, they missed a major point - and their target of promoting civility.

The signatories, concerned by "public embarrassment of politicians whose public positions differ with Church teachings through the public refusal of the sacrament of Holy Communion or public admonition by the Bishops" (a preoccupation with forum-over-substance?), suggest that proper politeness among Catholics would respect that "An individual’s fitness to receive communion is his or her personal responsibility." 

As an exclusive, canonical proposition, this is simply wrong as canonist Archbishop Burke of St. Louis recently detailed in a wonderful article only canon lawyers can love.  (A prominent canon lawyer calls the article "cool".)  Cutting to the bone:  a plain reading of Canon 915 imposes upon clerics administering Communion a responsibility - bounded by what they know to be fact - to determine entrance to the sacrament.

Can. 915   Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion. 

Our ministers are legally obligated to enforce this law, like the civil authorities restrict threatening, inflammatory speech to incite lawless action.   Public statements by a public politician who publicly identifies him/herself as a member of the Roman Catholic Church dissenting from core Catholic teaching - as protecting unborn life is - bring factual information to the attention of news-reading ministers of the Eucharistic sacrament.  This information is surely worthy of note and further inquiry. 

I agree fully with the Statement's suggestion that such reports do not provide (in most circumstances) sufficient reliable evidence to exercise the directive of Canon 915.  More, I agree that the Church's response to such information (or call to consider such information) should not be used as a political hockey puck by non-Catholics, lay Catholics or any minister of the Church.  But there is minimal any of us Catholics can do to muzzle media anxious to mix our religious affairs with print-worthy news concerning politicians, celebrities, sports figures or other prominent people whose names sell copy.

So, I conclude, like the far worthier canonist Dr. Peters, "that the CACG [Statement] is firmly supporting one side in a crucial "partisan" debate (the wrong side, at that)."  It's a shame that a good effort, like the Statement, misses the target of civility by, sadly, aiming bent arrows.