2012 came early this year. With the collapse of the negotiations in the Not-So-Super Committee, the outline of the 2012 election is now set. The voter’s will focus on three, and possibly four, things next year. First, President Obama’s record. Second, the suitability of whomever ends up as the GOP nominee. Third, and most importantly, voters will face a choice about how to deal with the nation’s finances.
Mark Silk, at Spiritual Politics, asks why Bill Donohue is so intent on defending the indefensible behavior of Kansas City Bishop Robert Finn. I can't answer that question and, in the event and as is to be expected from Silk, he meticulously lays out the case why Donohue's confidence appears misplaced.
But, I wonder if even Donohue will be able to stomach this report from the Kansas City Star's court reporter, Mark Morris, that indicates the diocese has filed notice that it may present an affirmative defense in the case, namely, that the pornographic photos on Father Ratigan's computer were constitutionall protected. Huh? Bishop Finn, you may recall, issued his first pastoral letter on the subject of pornography. He is opposed to it. But, the lawyers for the diocese have now stated, in a formal court filing, that they may avail themselves of the argument that pronography is constitutionally protected? Yeesh.
Over at TNR, Timothy Noah continues his exquisite examination of some of the nonsense that Cong. Paul Ryan regularly spouts about income inequality.
Some of my conservative friends think that Ryan is the intellectual future of their party. Keep looking is my advice.
President Obama has returned from his trip to Asia and he faces a major decision, actually two of them. The first decision is the more easily grasped: He must decide whether or not to enlarge the conscience exemption for religiously based organizations regarding mandated coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortifacients under the Affordable Care Act.
An article in yesterday’s New York Times reported that a group of congressional Democrats had two conference calls last week with highly placed White House staffers. The congressional Democrats urged the White House not to enlarge the exemption. According to the Times,
The GOP contest continues to be characterized by flux, but over at Spiritual Politics, Mark Silk looks at the crosstabs of a recent poll that breaks down the Iowa GOP electorate by religion. The numbers that jumps out at me: Romney continues to struggle with born-agains, who make up a whopping 47% of the GOP electorate in Iowa, while doing slightly better among Catholics than the general population, Ron Paul has a lock on self-described secularists, and Michele Bachmann seems unable to garner any Catholic support. Has she not been going to eastern Iowa?
Paul Moses of Commonweal has replied to my post this morning about conscience.
He writes, "You neglect to mention here that my Commonweal post starts by saying that I support the point the bishops are making. But if you need a straw man to make your argument, go right ahead."
I did neglect to mention that fact. I also neglected to mention the fact that Mr. Moses teaches journalism at Brooklyn College and SUNY Graduate School of Journalism. This "neglect" occured because neither fact had anything to do with the point I was making, a point that Mr. Moses fails to engage. And, why would he? After all, it is not me with whom he would have to wrestle, but John Henry Newman.
Consequently, I deny making Mr. Moses into a strawman. Instead, I stick by my assertion that there is a type of liberal Catholic, of which he has made himself an example, that confuses conscience rights in the public sphere with the role of conscience within the Church.
Cardinal Sean O'Malley OFM Cap, the Archbishop of Boston, has issued a pastoral letter on attending Sunday Mass. Apart from his slur against Irish cooking, which is funny but no longer precise, at least not in this Irishman's kitchen as the cardinal has reason to remember, the letter should be read in its entirety. This is the passage that most jumped out at me:
The Eucharist is Jesus’ great gift to us, and the fulfillment of His promise to be with us always until the end of time. It is a central part of God’s saving plan of infinite love for us.
Many Catholics today seem to take the gift of the Sunday Mass for granted. It is a great sadness to me as spiritual leader of the Archdiocese of Boston to note that, on any given Sunday, so many Catholics choose to be absent from Mass. It was not that long ago that almost all Catholics went to Sunday Mass unless they were sick or incapacitated.
The Public Religion Research Institute has released results of its latest survey. You can read the full results here.
For me the most interesting finding was this:
•Strong majorities of every major religious group favor both of these proposals.
If there was any doubt that Democrats are well served by using religious language and values to defend their economic proposals, this finding cinches it.
If anyone has doubts that the Church has enemies, last night’s appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), chair of the pro-choice caucus on Capitol Hill, should have dispelled them. Congresswoman DeGette thinks it is outrageous that Catholic institutions should seek an exemption from an interim rule requiring all health insurance plans to cover contraception, sterilization and some drugs that are abortifacients. To make her case, she cited polling data that indicates many, if not most, Catholics do not agree with the hierarchy about such matters. Needless to say, Maddow piled on as well: She called such an exemption for Catholic organizations a “scaling back” of the mandated care, failing to recognize that it is the pro-choicers who are trying to change the rules of the game and coerce Catholics hospitals and universities to provide coverage for procedures those institutions find morally objectionable.
Remember last week when certain hard-breathing conservatives, more devoted to the economic Gospel according to von Mises, were thrilled to discover, via Vaticanista Sandro Magister, that Cardinal Bertone, the Holy See's Secretary of State, was so upset with the recent "note" from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace that he ordered a ban on the release of any documents unless they had been cleared by his office? The suggestion was that the Vatican was deeply ambivalent about the "note" drafted by Cardinal Peter Turkson's Council and that +Turkson had erred grievously. Here is the American Papist's rant.
Well, according to John Thavis, it turns out that Bertone's order was in response to an entirely different document, the Pope's annual message on the World Day for Migrants and Refugees, which had mistakenly been posted on the Vatican website without prior approval. Cardinal Turkson's document had gone through all the complicated channels by which Vatican documents are brought to birth.