The Hound Of Ulster

Fr. Rob Johansen has a fairly unique perspective on this whole “should priests preach on politics” issue. Because unlike the rest of us sheep, he’s a PRIEST.

Now sometimes people will say, “Why can’t the Church just stay out of politics?” Well, there’s a sense in which that kind of thinking is right: For example, clergy and religious brothers and sisters are not supposed to be involved in political activism or hold political office. And, certainly, the church doesn’t and won’t tell you “vote for this or that candidate”, or, “vote for this or that party.”

But there’s a sense in which the wish “Why doesn’t the Church stay out of politics?”, is wrong: As I have said before, to be a disciple is to give ourselves to Christ completely. There’s no holding back part of our lives if you want to be a disciple. So a Catholic politician or citizen can’t say “My life as a Catholic is over here, and my politics is over there.” That’s like saying “I’ll be a disciple in this, this, and this, but sorry Jesus, I’m not going to be a disciple in that.” That would be morally dishonest. That’s false discipleship.

So the Church, while not telling us who to vote for, does give us principles on which we are called to base our politics. These are principles like “Every human being is created in God’s image and likeness and has intrinsic dignity and value.” And these principles have an impact on how we may rightly make political decisions. Sometimes the impact isn’t immediately clear on some issue, and the Church doesn’t hold out a definitive teaching. In these areas Catholics may legitimately disagree: For example, right now a debate is going on about immigration reform. Catholics can, and do, take a range of positions on this issue and still be faithful. But there are some other issues which are clear, and on which the Church has given a definitive binding teaching. For example, the Church teaches us that abortion is always wrong, and there are never any circumstances which justify the intentional killing of an unborn child. On this issue, it is not possible to take a position or support a politician that opposes this teaching, and still be a faithful Catholic.

So we need to think about, weigh, and pray over these and other principles and issues in order to participate in our political life as faithful Catholics. In order to help you do that, Bishop Thomas Olmsted, the bishop of Phoenix, Arizona, has written a booklet called “Catholics In The Public Square” which outlines the principles we should use in deciding which candidates and legislation to support. It’s not about telling you “vote for candidate A or B”, it’s about helping us to think about politics as faithful Catholics and good citizens. Copies of this booklet will distributed by the ushers after Mass, free of charge. I encourage you to take a copy of it, to read it and pray over your voting decisions, so that we can be true disciples in every aspect of our lives, and so build up the Kingdom.

Fr. Martin Fox CHIMES in with a homily that is a perfectly example of what Fr. Johansen is talking about. It addresses stem-cell research, and also contains a particularly interesting point about IVF.

I would be remiss if I did not point out how we got into this mess.

These embryos come from “fertility clinics,” where human life is created, outside of human acts of love.

When this business of “test-tube babies” got started, the Church said, this is gravely sinful; a child is a gift, and every child has the right to be conceived in a human relationship, by parents—not in a dish, by a technician. That was not popular.

Not being able to conceive is extremely painful and it seemed the Church didn’t care.

But Pope John Paul predicted this would lead to the manipulation of human life. Here’s what he said, 20 years ago:

Before long, “the researcher will usurp the place of God…as the master of the destiny of others…” Reducing human life to it’s worth as a “pure and simple instrument for the advantage of others.”

That is precisely where we have come.

When we separate love of neighbor from love of God, it will always go sour.

Better to listen to Jesus: Do both.

Thank God for priests like Fr. Fox and Fr. Johansen - priests who can see that some matters are strictly political, and should be avoided. But priests who can also see that some issues are far more than “just political.”  And who recognize that this second group can - and must - be addressed from the pulpit.

I’m going to make one absurdly huge post about tomorrow’s election, and then shut up on the matter for the day. Maybe.

Ned Lamont has his LAST ad up. And Red State has a SUMMARY of the latest Lieberman vs. Lamont polls.

That Lieberman, one of the biggest supporters of the War, can defeat the Democrats’ anti-war poster boy in one of the bluest states where 68 percent disapprove of the President, and when pollster after pollster claims that the most important issue is the war, can only lead to the conclusion that the Defeatocrats anti-war message isn’t playing well.

And speaking of polls, Captain Ed has a BIT on that Pew study.

The theme of this poll is the attack on Democratic gains in this election cycle. The GOP has rolled back the Democratic intrusion onto Republican demographics, which leaves the field looking similar to 2004 and 2002. This race may hold some very unpleasant surprises for the Democrats in the House races if these numbers hold up or continue to erode over the next 40 hours.

Plus, a special Zogby BONUS.

Victor Davis Hanson MAKES an interesting point about perspective, I think.

The reductionist would conclude that all these current convoluted debates, retractions, and rethinking of conventional wisdom are simply predicated on the pulse, or more likely the perceived pulse, of the battlefield. They are almost identical to the conundrum between June 1863 and December 1864, when the nation went from optimism to utter dejection to near hysterical optimism, as Lincoln himself went from being respected to despised to canonized. The best in the American military are now in or going to Iraq, they are well advised of prior lapses, and the Iraqi government understands that it either governs or see millions of its own fleeing and killed, reminiscent of 1975.

Santorum gets ENDORSEMENTS from somewhat unexpected places.

The thing of it is, people know where they stand with Santorum. Perhaps more importantly, he’s consistent in his beliefs, no matter how unpopular they might be.

At least I’m appreciative of the fact that some THINGS are still predictable.

“On this day of justice for the Iraqi people, President Bush must explain to the American people how he intends to change course, so that our troops will finally have a strategy to complete the mission, Iraqis will finally have a plan to restore order to their country, and the mission can finally be accomplished.” - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

“An Iraqi court has rightly handed down this verdict, and it is just. But this development must not distract Americans from the more pressing issue: the need for a change in the direction of our country’s policy toward Iraq, both the conduct of the war effort and our pathetic, corruption-stained attempt at reconstruction.” - California Rep. Tom Lantos, top Democrat on the House International Relations Committee.

Course, then there’s Dean.

“It’s commendable and important that he was brought to justice in the country where he committed these atrocities against humanity. … Our troops should be commended for providing the security needed to conduct this trial in Iraq and for their ongoing efforts to put an end to the violence and protect the Iraqi people.” - Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

The complete lack of “change course” or “change direction” language in that statement is very confusing to me. But nice, I must say.

The downside to a “much better than expected GOP showing?” Stanley Kurtz has a LOOK.

In short, a Republican win means the classic notion that “politics stops at the water’s edge” could someday become a thing of the past. In a worst-case scenario, the anger of the Democratic left could escalate to the point where we see aggressive efforts to purge national Democratic leaders who publicly express support for America’s war effort.

No doubt, there are those who will dismiss all this as implausible scare-mongering. Profanity at liberal political websites, Democrats rooting for America to lose a war, the end of open and fair exchange on America’s college campuses, efforts to stop military recruitment, suicidal infighting over foreign policy in the party of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman: I admit that it all sounds implausible. It certainly bears little resemblance to the America that once was. Nonetheless, I greatly fear that a last-minute Republican victory could usher in some or all of these consequences. So before you push that lever, think long and hard about the dangers of a Republican win.

And there’s always THIS:

President Bush isn’t looking very far for his next conservative pick to the U.S. Supreme Court: His top two candidates work just 12 blocks away in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Insiders say Judge Janice Rogers Brown, appointed in June 2005, tops the list, followed by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, appointed in May. Also up: Peter Keisler, whose nomination to the D.C. court is pending. So there’s no vacancy, you say? With apologies to Justice John Paul Stevens, 86, it’s his seat they hope to fill.

Enjoy, if at all possible. Tomorrow should be most instructive.

Seems to be FADING, according to Robert Novak.

The stem cell research amendment to the Missouri Constitution, which would protect government funding for a procedure used for human cloning, is slipping in private Republican polls and may fail.

The surveys show that Amendment Two, backed by such establishment Republicans as Gov. Matt Blunt and former Sen. John Danforth, is now supported by 49 percent to 43 percent opposed. Generally, ballot propositions must poll above 50 percent to be approved Election Day. Polls taken in September reflected support for the amendment at 59 percent.

The fate of Amendment Two in Missouri, traditionally a pro-life state, will exert major impact on the cloning issue around the country. It also may affect the Senate race between Republican Sen. Jim Talent, who opposes the amendment, and Democratic State Auditor Claire McCaskill, who supports it.

50% is a magic number. Keep the prayers coming. Unless you live there, in which case pray. And vote. (HT: KANSAS CITY CATHOLIC, who also COLLECTS a bunch of area blogger links on the matter.)

Bishop Finn won’t be there for the actual election, because he’s in Rome. But THIS is from his weekly column.

In their most recent editorial endorsement of Amendment 2, the Kansas City Star newspaper characterized the opposition of church leaders to the proposal using words such as “misleading,” and “lying,” and said we have attempted to “frighten” or “confuse” voters.

The heart of the Universal Church’s opposition to this research is well-founded in her teaching. It is a teaching based on strong science about the beginnings and the dignity of human life. It presents basic moral principles, such as: Human life is meant to be brought into the world as the product of the married love and intimacy of a husband and wife. It is gravely immoral to directly take an innocent human life. The end does not justify the means, therefore we cannot willingly do something that is seriously evil, even if it results in a good end, for example, a cure.

He closes with some wonderful quotes, mostly from Donum Vitae.  A reminder that this is far from a new position for us Catholics.  Consistency.  (HT: BISHOP FINN FAN CLUB)

And here’s a bit of CROSSOVER - an article on the Sowers. (HT: MICHELLE)

A billionaire couple, Jim and Virginia Stowers, has pumped $29 million “The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures” – 97% of its financial support—in an effort to get the amendment passed. The Stowers’ millions are funding television, radio, print and billboard ads all over the state. But the couple, who is paying the most In an effort to pass Amendment 2, may stand to gain the most if it does.

Ah, America.

Bishop Robert C. Morlino has been the head of the Diocese of Madison for a little over 3 years now. He has a significant background in moral theology and bioethics, including a number of years teaching at Loyola College in Baltimore, St. Joseph University in Philadelphia, Boston College, the University of Notre Dame and St. Mary’s College. And he’s not afraid of controversy.

Recently, he sent a letter to every priest in his diocese - a letter that was marked “Personal and Confidential.” The content of the letter was seen as a bit contentious by some, so they chose the MSM-recommended response in matters such as this one.

They leaked it.

So, how did Bishop Morlino respond to this? Did he hide behind the “personal and confidential” tag? Did he try to diminish the sting of the letter by saying it was meant for a very small group of folks, and others might be misunderstanding it? Did he back-track one inch?

Nope. That’s not what he did. Instead, he made it public. Put it up on the Diocese of Madison’s website for all the world to see. HERE it is, in all it’s PDF glory. And it is a bit feisty, I must say. (Though the feistiness is mostly implied, as one would expect from a prudent shepherd.)

Dear Brother Priests,

Enclosed with this letter, you will find a recorded message from myself both on CD and Ordinary cassette tape format, for your convenience. It is mandatory that this recorded message be played for our faithful people at all Masses of obligation on the weekend of November 4th and 5th. Very honestly, I would prefer never to have to resort to this particular format, and you can be assured that my use of it will be extremely rare. In the slightly more than three years that I have been with you, this is the first time when it has even occurred to me that this format would be appropriate. The message is approximately 14 minutes in length, so its use at the time of the homily (when it must be used) will not prolong the duration of Mass.

I apologize in advance for this second paragraph that I must write, and I would very much prefer otherwise. My office has received reports that in isolated cases, priests have refused to cooperate with my requests in terms of preaching in defense of marriage and have even expressed disagreement with my clear wishes in this matter. Please listen to the enclosed message: it deals with the marriage referendum, the death penalty referendum, and the issue of embryonic stem cell research. The message is educational in its purpose, and is certainly nonpartisan. What I expect of each of you is a simple introductory statement that the bishop has required this message to be played during the homily time at all Masses of obligation on November the 4th or the 5th. If you can express some support for the message that I offer that would be appreciated but not expected. I must make it very clear that any verbal or nonverbal expression of disagreement with this teaching on the part of the priest will have to be considered by myself as an act of disobedience, which could have serious consequences. I am sorry that a few isolated reports cause me to write to all of you in this vein. Up to this point I have not investigated the accuracy of those reports and at the moment I am giving the priests involved the benefit of the doubt, as is my custom. But it would be less than fair for me to leave any lingering ambiguity in anyone’s mind about my seriousness in this particular matter. As always you are welcome to discuss the matter with me, through the use of my private phone number.

The episcopal consecration of Bishop Paul Swain provides us an opportunity to celebrate all that is holy, and good, and inspiring in our presbyterate. Make no mistake that I am far more impressed by that holiness, goodness and inspiration, than I am troubled by the difficulties that we may encounter with each other along the way.

With deep gratitude for all that you are and for all that you do in the Lord’s service, I am

Fraternally yours in Christ

Most Reverend Robert C. Morlino

Bishop of Madison

Excellent letter. Makes perfectly clear that this is non-negotiable. Also makes perfectly clear that he will take steps against those that choose to disobey him once again. But most importantly, it makes it clear to anyone reading the letter that he thinks this matter is vitally important. No shying away from big moral and political issues here.

But no matter how excellent the letter, it pales in comparison to his actual SPEECH, which he has also made available on the diocesan website. The Annunciation section of his discussion on embryonic stem-cell research is spectacular. (The entire discussion on ESCR is, in fact. One hard-hitting point after another. And I love the explanation of scandal.)

Yet another stellar candidate for the “Brave Bishops” tag.

(HT: CAFETERIA)