tag:www.catholicdemocrats.org,2013:/news//3 2013-03-19T19:14:36Z Relevant news for Catholic Democrats Movable Type 3.31 tag:www.catholicdemocrats.org,2013:/news//3.611 2013-03-19T17:17:17Z 2013-03-19T19:14:36Z

Saint Peter's Square Tuesday, 19 March 2013 Solemnity of Saint Joseph Dear Brothers and Sisters, I thank the Lord that I can celebrate this Holy Mass for the inauguration of my Petrine ministry on the solemnity of Saint Joseph, the...

Catholic Democrats Staff I offer a warm greeting to my brother cardinals and bishops, the priests, deacons, men and women religious, and all the lay faithful. I thank the representatives of the other Churches and ecclesial Communities, as well as the representatives of the Jewish community and the other religious communities, for their presence. My cordial greetings go to the Heads of State and Government, the members of the official Delegations from many countries throughout the world, and the Diplomatic Corps. In the Gospel we heard that "Joseph did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took Mary as his wife" (Mt 1:24). These words already point to the mission which God entrusts to Joseph: he is to be the custos, the protector. The protector of whom? Of Mary and Jesus; but this protection is then extended to the Church, as Blessed John Paul II pointed out: "Just as Saint Joseph took loving care of Mary and gladly dedicated himself to Jesus Christ's upbringing, he likewise watches over and protects Christ's Mystical Body, the Church, of which the Virgin Mary is the exemplar and model" (Redemptoris Custos, 1). How does Joseph exercise his role as protector? Discreetly, humbly and silently, but with an unfailing presence and utter fidelity, even when he finds it hard to understand. From the time of his betrothal to Mary until the finding of the twelve-year-old Jesus in the Temple of Jerusalem, he is there at every moment with loving care. As the spouse of Mary, he is at her side in good times and bad, on the journey to Bethlehem for the census and in the anxious and joyful hours when she gave birth; amid the drama of the flight into Egypt and during the frantic search for their child in the Temple; and later in the day-to-day life of the home of Nazareth, in the workshop where he taught his trade to Jesus. How does Joseph respond to his calling to be the protector of Mary, Jesus and the Church? By being constantly attentive to God, open to the signs of God's presence and receptive to God's plans, and not simply to his own. This is what God asked of David, as we heard in the first reading. God does not want a house built by men, but faithfulness to his word, to his plan. It is God himself who builds the house, but from living stones sealed by his Spirit. Joseph is a "protector" because he is able to hear God's voice and be guided by his will; and for this reason he is all the more sensitive to the persons entrusted to his safekeeping. He can look at things realistically, he is in touch with his surroundings, he can make truly wise decisions. In him, dear friends, we learn how to respond to God's call, readily and willingly, but we also see the core of the Christian vocation, which is Christ! Let us protect Christ in our lives, so that we can protect others, so that we can protect creation! The vocation of being a "protector," however, is not just something involving us Christians alone; it also has a prior dimension which is simply human, involving everyone. It means protecting all creation, the beauty of the created world, as the Book of Genesis tells us and as Saint Francis of Assisi showed us. It means respecting each of God's creatures and respecting the environment in which we live. It means protecting people, showing loving concern for each and every person, especially children, the elderly, those in need, who are often the last we think about. It means caring for one another in our families: husbands and wives first protect one another, and then, as parents, they care for their children, and children themselves, in time, protect their parents. It means building sincere friendships in which we protect one another in trust, respect, and goodness. In the end, everything has been entrusted to our protection, and all of us are responsible for it. Be protectors of God's gifts! Whenever human beings fail to live up to this responsibility, whenever we fail to care for creation and for our brothers and sisters, the way is opened to destruction and hearts are hardened. Tragically, in every period of history there are "Herods" who plot death, wreak havoc, and mar the countenance of men and women. Please, I would like to ask all those who have positions of responsibility in economic, political and social life, and all men and women of goodwill: let us be "protectors" of creation, protectors of God's plan inscribed in nature, protectors of one another and of the environment. Let us not allow omens of destruction and death to accompany the advance of this world! But to be "protectors," we also have to keep watch over ourselves! Let us not forget that hatred, envy and pride defile our lives! Being protectors, then, also means keeping watch over our emotions, over our hearts, because they are the seat of good and evil intentions: intentions that build up and tear down! We must not be afraid of goodness or even tenderness! Here I would add one more thing: caring, protecting, demands goodness, it calls for a certain tenderness. In the Gospels, Saint Joseph appears as a strong and courageous man, a working man, yet in his heart we see great tenderness, which is not the virtue of the weak but rather a sign of strength of spirit and a capacity for concern, for compassion, for genuine openness to others, for love. We must not be afraid of goodness, of tenderness! Today, together with the feast of Saint Joseph, we are celebrating the beginning of the ministry of the new Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter, which also involves a certain power. Certainly, Jesus Christ conferred power upon Peter, but what sort of power was it? Jesus' three questions to Peter about love are followed by three commands: feed my lambs, feed my sheep. Let us never forget that authentic power is service, and that the Pope too, when exercising power, must enter ever more fully into that service which has its radiant culmination on the Cross. He must be inspired by the lowly, concrete and faithful service which marked Saint Joseph and, like him, he must open his arms to protect all of God's people and embrace with tender affection the whole of humanity, especially the poorest, the weakest, the least important, those whom Matthew lists in the final judgment on love: the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison (cf. Mt 25:31-46). Only those who serve with love are able to protect! In the second reading, Saint Paul speaks of Abraham, who, "hoping against hope, believed" (Rom 4:18). Hoping against hope! Today too, amid so much darkness, we need to see the light of hope and to be men and women who bring hope to others. To protect creation, to protect every man and every woman, to look upon them with tenderness and love, is to open up a horizon of hope; it is to let a shaft of light break through the heavy clouds; it is to bring the warmth of hope! For believers, for us Christians, like Abraham, like Saint Joseph, the hope that we bring is set against the horizon of God, which has opened up before us in Christ. It is a hope built on the rock which is God. To protect Jesus with Mary, to protect the whole of creation, to protect each person, especially the poorest, to protect ourselves: this is a service that the Bishop of Rome is called to carry out, yet one to which all of us are called, so that the star of hope will shine brightly. Let us protect with love all that God has given us! I implore the intercession of the Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph, Saints Peter and Paul, and Saint Francis, that the Holy Spirit may accompany my ministry, and I ask all of you to pray for me! Amen.]]> tag:www.catholicdemocrats.org,2013:/news//3.610 2013-03-13T22:19:20Z 2013-03-14T00:58:11Z

The White House released the following statement from President Obama on the new pope: On behalf of the American people, Michelle and I offer our warm wishes to His Holiness Pope Francis as he ascends to the Chair of Saint...

Catholic Democrats Staff The White House released the following statement from President Obama on the new pope: On behalf of the American people, Michelle and I offer our warm wishes to His Holiness Pope Francis as he ascends to the Chair of Saint Peter and begins his papacy. As a champion of the poor and the most vulnerable among us, he carries forth the message of love and compassion that has inspired the world for more than two thousand years--that in each other we see the face of God. As the first pope from the Americas, his selection also speaks to the strength and vitality of a region that is increasingly shaping our world, and alongside millions of Hispanic Americans, those of us in the United States share the joy of this historic day. Just as I appreciated our work with Pope Benedict XVI, I look forward to working with His Holiness to advance peace, security and dignity for our fellow human beings, regardless of their faith. We join with people around the world in offering our prayers for the Holy Father as he begins the sacred work of leading the Catholic Church in our modern world. tag:www.catholicdemocrats.org,2012:/news//3.608 2012-11-23T22:11:31Z 2012-11-23T22:17:03Z

John Allen published on his blog for the National Catholic Reporter an interview he did with US Vatican Ambassador Miguel Diaz, on Friday 23 Nov 2012: Over the years, I've had the pleasure of knowing seven U.S. ambassadors to the...

Catholic Democrats Staff his blog for the National Catholic Reporter an interview he did with US Vatican Ambassador Miguel Diaz, on Friday 23 Nov 2012: Over the years, I've had the pleasure of knowing seven U.S. ambassadors to the Holy See. They worked for different presidents and represent different political persuasions, but in my experience, all tried their best to navigate the cultural gap that separates Main Street USA from the highly idiosyncratic world of the Vatican. In mid-November, the most recent of these envoys, Miguel Diaz, announced he was stepping down in order to take up a position as professor of faith of culture at the University of Dayton. In addition to being the first Hispanic to serve as ambassador, the Cuban-born Diaz was also the first theologian -- so in a sense, he and his wife, Marian, are now returning to their natural habitat. (Marian, also a theologian, has likewise joined the faculty at Dayton.) While those who held the job faced their share of headaches, you can make a good case that Diaz, who never held any diplomatic post prior to this assignment, stepped into a "perfect storm" composed of three forces: * The Vatican's Secretariat of State has been hit by a series of crises and scandals, most recently the Vatileaks mess, leaving it somewhat distracted and slow to embrace new diplomatic initiatives. * Perhaps especially under Democratic administrations, some elements in the U.S. foreign policy establishment can be ambivalent, if not hostile, about engaging religious groups generally and the Vatican in particular. * The Obama White House and the U.S. bishops have been embroiled in conflict on a number of fronts, which means that anytime they do anything together, even on a completely uncontroversial matter such as fighting human trafficking, somebody's likely to make a federal case out of it. Despite all that, Diaz remains upbeat about the potential to build bridges, and he plans to continue to do so from his new position at Dayton. I spoke with him Tuesday. * * * Looking back, what will you take away from your years as ambassador? This was a great honor and privilege, and I take so much with me. It offered me a new perspective, a new angle of vision, on both my country and my church. It also multiplied my relationships at the national and international levels. Being a diplomat gave me an incredible platform to invite various communities and leaders to the table and to engage them in bridge-building. That's always been part of who I am. Growing up, I bridged the Cuban and American sides of what it means to be an American, to be part of this Hispanic-American reality, at the experiential level. Intellectually, I bridged the worlds of Karl Rahner and Latino theology in my dissertation work at Notre Dame and in various leadership positions I've held in the academy. As a diplomat, I worked on bridging divides in new ways. In Rome, we organized conferences that brought together Muslims, Christians and Jews to talk about issues such as the economy, conflict resolution, the environment, HIV/AIDS, and so on. The idea was to focus concretely on success stories and strategies, what these groups actually have done together to bring about cooperation and to benefit the human family. Did living in Italy have an impact on you? It's given me a new appreciation for beauty. In Italy, everything is either bello or brutto, beautiful or ugly, while in English we tend to judge things in terms of right or wrong. I think there's a lot of value to that aesthetic category of beauty. Even when we disagree with one other, we can still seek the beauty of the other and the beauty that's inside us. ... We face tremendous issues and challenges, but if we can prepare the table well and make our arguments more beautiful and attractive, we might be able to increase our success in terms of promoting the common good. What did you learn about the Vatican that surprised you? The basic thing is that it's a mistake to look at the Vatican as some monolithic organization. It's clear to me now, after this experience, that the Vatican is a big institution composed of all sorts of different offices, and you can't talk about it in sweeping generalizations. The way I approached my ambassadorship was to look at the tremendous possibilities this relationship offered to extend not only our ears, but also our reach, in terms of being able to cooperate with different offices inside the walls as well as all those institutions associated with the Vatican, either loosely or in a tighter way. We cast the net wide, engaging not only the Second Section [of the Secretariat of State] and the various councils, but also pontifical institutes, the universities, lay ecclesial communities such as Sant'Egidio, Communion and Liberation, and the Focolare, and groups such as Caritas Internationalis. They're all part of the richness and the diversity of the church. Like any human reality, the Vatican and the church have both challenges and opportunities. I'm not naive about the challenges, but what I wanted to do as ambassador, and what I'll continue to do as a professor, is to focus on the opportunities: How can we collaborate to have greater success on behalf of the common good? What's exciting about the position in Dayton? The university has offered me the possibility to continue to build bridges, especially on the intersection of faith and culture. There's the possibility of bridge-building across disciplines, both internationally and 'intranationally.' This is the only doctoral program in the country on the U.S. Catholic experience, so it gives me the chance to focus on what it means to be both an American and a Catholic. It's a bit like being a Cuban-American -- I can't, and don't want to, give up either side. On Thanksgiving, I want both my black beans and my turkey! One of my theological passions is the doctrine of the Trinity, the idea that God exists in a community of persons, that oneness is also diversity. Similarly, one of the foundational principles of our country is E pluribus unum. I like to think that our national and cultural identity can be bridged with our Catholic identity and faith principles. I'm also attracted to the Marian dimension of the university. Mary is an important religious symbol not only for Latinos but for all Catholics, and she's a bridge-builder. She invites us to say yes to God's call for right and just relationships with our neighbors and with all of God's creation. Here's this faithful Jewish woman who's also highly regarded in the Muslim tradition ... with that Marian dimension, I think my passion for bridge-building will come alive and be supported. Will you be back on the circuit of professional theological meetings, such as the Catholic Theological Society of America? Yes, of course, and also The Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologians of the United States. I intend to recommit myself fully to the life of service and scholarship. How else will you get involved in the States? All indications from the State Department are that I'll continue my involvement with its religion and foreign policy group. [Note: In 2011, Diaz helped launch the Religion and Foreign Policy Working Group of the Secretary of State's Strategic Dialogue with Civil Society.] The idea is to provide ongoing education for diplomats in religion and society, and to provide insight in terms of how the U.S. government can deepen its existing relationships with communities of faith, and to welcome new ones. I'll also be involved in other ways, such as giving lectures. I already have two commitments, one at Duquesne and another at USC. Speaking of religious freedom, that's been a flashpoint in the relationship between the U.S. bishops and the White House. Can you help build bridges on that front? I'll offer myself and any insights I have both to my church and to my government. I'm ready to stand as a bridge-builder if asked to do so by either of those institutions. I'll answer if the bishops call, and the same goes for the president. What's your next book? It's not set in stone, but I'm thinking about a book I'd call Building Bridges: God, Diplomacy and the Common Good. It would draw both on my expertise and interest in Trinitarian theology and my recent experience as an ambassador and diplomat. I'd do it in a more scholarly and systematic way, bringing together the theology piece and the diplomatic piece, on how we can do a better job of listening and creating relationships for the sake of the common good. For me, this isn't just a theory. I was already convinced of it before as a professor, but after this position, I'm much more persuaded that the key question of our time is how we can reconcile ourselves with the increasingly diverse world that surrounds us. To be honest, I think we have a long way to go, as a nation and as a world, in seeking out the better angels that exist within ourselves. ]]> tag:www.catholicdemocrats.org,2012:/news//3.607 2012-10-28T18:04:12Z 2012-10-28T20:29:09Z

by Ben Palumbo Washington DC, October 26, 2012 The now famous, or infamous, Ryan budget endorsed by Mitt Romney (though he now says he has his own), has been roundly, and rightly, criticized for its assault on the poor in...

Catholic Democrats Staff Washington DC, October 26, 2012 The now famous, or infamous, Ryan budget endorsed by Mitt Romney (though he now says he has his own), has been roundly, and rightly, criticized for its assault on the poor in favor of the richest Americans; and boy are they rich!! Young Mr. Ryan--he did not want to be called Congressman during his debate with Vice President Biden for fear of being tarred by the brush of the Republicans' miserable Congressional reputation--argues that he cares for the poor. He says his budget is in tune with the social teaching of the Catholic Church of which he is a member, although it would decimate help for those who otherwise would go hungry, suffer sickness, lose jobs, be evicted from their homes, or miss college opportunity. Unfortunately for him, his argument has been refuted by the USCCB, a large portion of the faculty of Georgetown University, and most recently in a splendid document prepared by 100 Catholic theologians and academics from around the country called, "On All Our Shoulders." No amount of phony photo ops of him washing pots at soup kitchens will change the reality of his hypocrisy. It is absolutely right to denounce this budget for turning its back on the Church's "preferential option for the poor"; and for its assault on "The least…" about whom Jesus was so concerned and whom he loved so much. What that budget(s) would do to the most vulnerable is a moral travesty. But what about the impact on the rest of us who are fortunate enough not to be among those in need of government assistance? Or do we in fact need government assistance? To answer that question it is useful to remember that our health and safety depends on a group of U.S. regulatory agencies; a shocking thought isn't it. But recall James Madison's words: "If men were angels, we wouldn't need laws." And the friends of Romney and Ryan to whom they are obligated are not angels. If anything like the Ryan-Romney budget(s) were to take effect, Americans can be sure that the risks from contaminated food and medicine will rise. Why? Because the budget of the Food and Drug Administration will be cut, meaning the people necessary to do the inspections to prevent corporate misfeasance or malfeasance will be reduced. Every year thousands are made ill and many die from this type of contamination; there will be more under Ryan-Romney. U.S. consumers, particularly children, are protected from defective products by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Thousands of lives have been spared from the scourge of lead poison and other product defects by this agency. But now thousands will be at risk as the Ryan-Romney budget(s) of that agency will be cut and the needed personnel reduced. Workers in the U.S. are afforded a measure of protection by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. But how will that safety be assured when the number of inspectors necessary to the mission of these agencies is reduced? Remember the deaths at the Upper Big Branch coal mine not so long ago? That mine had scores, if not hundreds, of safety violations. But MSHA had not the means for enforcement; it can barely keep up with its work load now. Look for more casualties caused by unsafe conditions in working places if the Ryan-Romney budget(s) prevail. Every year 30,000 Americans die from guns; 11,000 of whom are murdered. Tens of thousands more are wounded. The annual NRA assault on the budget of the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol, Firearms and Explosives, which already makes it difficult for the agency to do its job of trying to protect us, will be intensified by the Ryan-Romney budget(s). Look for the slaughter to continue. Want clear air and clean water? We can fully expect that funds available to carry out the duties of the EPA to protect us from air and water pollution will be savaged by Ryan-Romney budget(s). Our health depends on an effective EPA; Romney and Ryan depend on support from polluters. Just watch the video of Romney expressing joy over the closing of a coal-fired polluting power plant when he was governor of Massachusetts, and then contrast it with his present shilling on behalf of coal producers/polluters. These are some examples of the dangers to our lives that will grow if Romney Ryan ticket was to prevail and their budget(s) put into place; which no doubt would happen. But what about our financial safety? Because of the Romney-Ryan love affair with the uber-rich in the financial world, there is every reason to believe that a Romney-Ryan budget would reduce the resources of the Security and Exchange Commission at a time when the Commission is already struggling with a funding short-fall. The task of protecting us from the crooks and charlatans in the stock market will become almost impossible. And Romney already has made known his hostility to the financial reforms of the Dodd-Frank law. So can we be assured that the Romney-Ryan budget(s) will provide sufficient funds to those agencies designated to implement the reforms enacted to protect us? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. Which Republicans do Romney and Ryan resemble? They bear a striking resemblance to those who accepted a system in which the government would turn to financial titans like J.P. Morgan to bail out the government whenever it was in need; and make a handsome profit for doing it. They do not resemble Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt who understood the inordinate power wielded malignantly by the financial titans, and fought them as "The malefactors of great wealth." Those are the kinds of people to whom Romney and Ryan wish to turn our country over to. And while comparing the Romneys, Ryans, and their Tea Party fellow travelers to other Republicans, let's look at one last, but by no means least, contrast: Infrastructure. Ours is in dire need of massive investment; there is no denying that. To provide that investment we need something called taxes, the very things the late Supreme Court Justice and prominent Republican Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said he "..did not mind paying because they buy civilization." An interesting contrast indeed. Yet the taxes we need for that investment have not been forthcoming because of mindless opposition to all taxes by Congressional Republicans and their right wing constituencies. The last time the gas tax which funds the Highway Trust Fund was increased was 1993, and it was not indexed for inflation; it will run out of funds in the not too distant future. In the meantime our roads, bridges and other means of transportation have been starved, putting all of us at risk and costing our economy billions. Here is the Republican legacy on which Romney, Ryan and today's Republicans have turned their backs: (1) Alexander Hamilton, who was a major inspiration for the Republican Party, produced a "Report on American Manufacturers" while George Washington’s Treasury Secretary which called for subsidies for roads, canals and other internal improvements; (2) Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, whose initiative gave us The Transcontinental Railroad; (3) Republican President Teddy Roosevelt without whom The Panama Canal would not have been completed; (4) Republican President Calvin Coolidge from whom our national system of airports received its biggest boost; (5) Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower who gave us the interstate highway system; (6) and, Republican President Richard Nixon who continued our commitment to space exploration. Where would we be if these Republicans had not succeeded? The answer is obvious: the incalculable benefits of these enormous initiatives would have been lost, and our country would have been much the poorer as a result. It is so hard to believe that today's Republicans have turned their backs on this legacy. But they have. So what can we expect from Romney, Ryan, et al.? Just look at the recent Republican record: opposition to funding for infrastructure; cancellation of high speed rail projects by several Republican governors; cancellation of the much needed new rail tunnel between NY and NJ by Romney surrogate Republican Governor Christie of NJ; unwillingness of congressional Republicans to pass a comprehensive long term transportation bill. In short, they oppose anything that would require funding irrespective of how great the country and most of its citizens will suffer. A Romney-Ryan victory would be a prescription for accelerating the decline of America; it would be a huge danger to the health and safety of virtually all Americans; and it would further empower those of immense wealth and corporate muscle who would benefit mightily from that which would befall the rest of us. Ben Palumbo is a veteran of Democratic politics, as a Senatorial chief of staff, national campaign director of the Bentsen for President campaign, and staff director of the Democratic Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives under Rep. Phillip Burton. He is on the board of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, the Children of God Relief Fund, and the John Mott Foundation.]]> tag:www.catholicdemocrats.org,2012:/news//3.609 2012-10-28T16:15:10Z 2013-02-16T16:24:57Z

A nation that isn't strong at home cannot project strength in the world By Patrick Whelan and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend 8:00 AM EDT, October 28, 2012 On the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's dramatic announcement about the presence...

Catholic Democrats Staff A nation that isn't strong at home cannot project strength in the world By Patrick Whelan and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend 8:00 AM EDT, October 28, 2012 On the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's dramatic announcement about the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba, the two presidential candidates met for a debate last Monday only 250 miles away in Boca Raton, Fla. Moderator Bob Schieffer began the night by reminding the nearly 60 million viewers that those 13 days in late 1962 were "perhaps the closest we've ever come to nuclear war. And it is a sobering reminder that every president faces at some point an unexpected threat to our national security from abroad." Though billed as a clash of ideas over foreign policy, the debate saw the candidates returning again and again to domestic issues like the deficit, "which is a significant national security concern," said President Barack Obama, "because we've got to make sure that our economy is strong at home so that we can project military power overseas." Eight times the two men agreed that the country was in need of "nation building here at home," and yet the starkest differences between them continued to be over the fundamentally different direction the two candidates would take the country on health care and the economy. Indeed, Mr. Romney seized on health care as the principal item that would fuel his efforts to cut the deficit. "Number one I get rid of is Obamacare," he said. "There are a number of things that sound good but, frankly, we just can't afford them. And that one doesn't sound good, and it's not affordable, so I get rid of that one from day one, to the extent humanly possible." He went on to call for breaking up Medicaid and turning it into a block grant program administered by states. But there is something perverse about Mr. Romney, of all people, seeking to cut off health insurance for millions of people in order to fund his tax policies and a significant expansion of the U.S. Navy. In Massachusetts, the Romney health reform plan helped drive down the adult un-insurance rate to less than 2 percent, enabling hundreds of thousands of people to obtain regular medical care rather than having to wait until they were sick enough to require an emergency room visit. Money that was previously funneled to hospitals for uncompensated emergency care was redirected to provide free health insurance for residents earning less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level, resulting in much more efficient care at little additional cost to the taxpayers. But is health care truly a national security concern? How many people's lives have to be at risk before a problem becomes a matter of national security? With the full implementation of universal health care laws in Mexico (2011) and Turkey (2012), the United States became the last industrialized country (among all members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) without universal health insurance coverage. Despite spending 50 percent more per capita than the second highest-spending country (Norway), roughly 1 in 6 Americans had no health insurance prior to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. This has significant consequences. A 2004 report by the well-respected Institutes of Medicine estimated that about 18,300 deaths occur annually as a result of a lack of health insurance. A 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health estimated the number at nearly 45,000. The economic competitiveness of the United States, which undergirds our military strength, is critically dependent on solving the challenge of rising health care costs, as President Bill Clinton discovered when the new movement toward health care capitation (the HMO revolution) was a major factor in the remarkable economic expansion of the 1990s. On matters of foreign policy in their final debate -- whether in Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya -- Mr. Romney hewed closely to the positions that President Obama had charted in dealing with one challenge after another. But when it came to the one issue that most directly affects loss of American life, the provision of health care for people when they're sick, Mr. Romney went to great pains to declare that he intended to withhold from Americans the kind of personal health security he once fought for in his own state. One of the most striking things about the Cuban Missile Crisis is recalling the true fear that children and adults across America felt in October 1962 when confronted with the possibility that they could suffer and die as a result of decisions being made in Washington, D.C. In this election, it's worth asking whether the "every man for himself" attitude that has led to the 50 percent of all personal bankruptcies caused by a family health emergency, or the thousands of deaths that result from a lack of health insurance, or the loss of competitiveness in world markets created by U.S. health care costs, brings us the kind of security our country really needs. Dr. Patrick Whelan (jpatrickwhelan@gmail.com) is on the pediatrics faculty at Harvard Medical School and is the author (with Doug Kmiec and Ed Gaffney) of "America Undecided: Catholic, Independent and Social Justice Perspectives on Election 2012." Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the niece of President John F. Kennedy and the former lieutenant governor of Maryland.]]> tag:www.catholicdemocrats.org,2012:/news//3.606 2012-10-23T12:56:32Z 2012-10-23T13:04:42Z

President Obama and Governor Romney met for their third and final debate Monday night, dealing with foreign policy. Mr. Romney focused on reassuring viewers that he would not rush to use American troops in Syria or other conflict zones except...

Patrick Whelan President Obama and Governor Romney met for their third and final debate Monday night, dealing with foreign policy. Mr. Romney focused on reassuring viewers that he would not rush to use American troops in Syria or other conflict zones except "as a last resort." He largely applauded the administration for its handling of the civil war in Libya, the use of drones to deal with Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, and attempts to hold China accountable for its currency manipulation. Both leaders lamented the tragedy of the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans at the American Consulate in Benghazi Libya. They both agreed that the Iranian government was beginning to respond to comprehensive international sanctions intended to turn back the nuclear weapons program the, and they both spoke strongly in support of Israel. Mr. Romney argued that the US should help get weapons to anti-government fighters in Syria to address the incredible suffering brought by the government there, but he had no answer to the concern expressed by President Obama that those weapons could end up being used against Turkey or Israel or the United States. Overall, there were no discernible differences between them in their overall priorities for US foreign policy, as Governor Romney moderated many of his earlier positions on the use of force and the role of diplomacy in avoiding conflict. In particular, he backed away from his previous statements on keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as President Obama winds down those grinding conflicts. There were important problems that did not arise during the debate: how to deal with the Eurozone economic crisis and shield the US from the drag imposed on our economy; the continued grinding poverty in much of Africa, and the burden of infectious disease there; and the terrible drug war that continues to be waged in Mexico, largely because of the ongoing drug problem in the United States. There was no discussion about the 45 million abortions performed worldwide every year. But as the two candidates focused on the challenges of the Arab Spring, and touched on the difficulties posed by the world economic situation, there was little reflection on the very first subject raised in the debate. Moderator Bob Schieffer started the evening by mentioning that Monday was the 50th anniversary of President John Kennedy's announcement that nuclear missiles had been identified in Cuba. As much as the world suffers under the continued weight of religious and other conflict, little note was made of the fact that the number of wars is dramatically lower now than it was 30 to 50 years ago. Until twenty years ago, every child in America had to endure periodic drills addressing the possibility of nuclear attack from Soviet Russia. Thousands of nuclear warheads were aimed at US cities, and conversely at those across the Soviet empire. Twenty years ago there was no treatment for AIDS, as it marched across Sub-Saharan Africa. In many respects, the world is a significantly more interdependent and peaceful place than it has been in the last 500 years. After years of war in Iraq, largely opposed by Democrats and the rest of the world community, it appeared that the US had indeed turned a corner on attitudes about the use of force that had been the centerpiece of Bush foreign policy. Both candidates talked about respecting religious differences, and it was possible as a Catholic to come away with a sense that perhaps the divisions so evident in American domestic politics now may in fact be evaporating in our international relations. Perhaps the Nobel Peace Prize committee got it right, when they recognized President Obama for turning the corner on the unilateral use of force in international affairs. tag:www.catholicdemocrats.org,2012:/news//3.605 2012-10-19T05:53:11Z 2012-10-19T05:54:25Z

I couldn't be more honored to be here this evening. I'm honored to be here with leaders of both the private and public sectors, and particularly the extraordinary work that's done by the Catholic Church. You know it's written in...

Catholic Democrats Staff I couldn't be more honored to be here this evening. I'm honored to be here with leaders of both the private and public sectors, and particularly the extraordinary work that's done by the Catholic Church. You know it's written in scripture that tribulation produces perseverance, and perseverance character, and character hope. This country's fought through some very tough years together. And while we still have a lot of work ahead, we've come as far as we have mainly because of the perseverance and character of ordinary Americans. It says something about who we are as a people that in the middle of an election season, opposing candidates can share the same stage, and that people from both parties can come together to support a worthy cause. tag:www.catholicdemocrats.org,2012:/news//3.604 2012-10-17T07:35:41Z 2012-10-17T07:59:55Z

ROMNEY: In the nature of a campaign, it seems that some campaigns are focused on attacking a person rather than prescribing their own future and the things they'd like to do. And in the course of that, I think the...

Catholic Democrats Staff ROMNEY: In the nature of a campaign, it seems that some campaigns are focused on attacking a person rather than prescribing their own future and the things they'd like to do. And in the course of that, I think the president's campaign has tried to characterize me as -- as someone who -- who is very different than who I am. I care about a hundred percent of the American people. I want a hundred percent of the American people to have a bright and prosperous future. I care about our kids. I understand what it takes to -- to make a bright and prosperous future for America again. I -- I spent my life in the private sector, not in government. I'm a guy who wants to help, with the experience I have, the American people. My -- my -- my passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God, and I believe we're all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I -- I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years. I've sat across the table from people who were -- were out of work and worked with them to try and find new work or to help them through tough times. I went to the Olympics when they were in trouble to try and get them on track. And as governor of my state, I was able to get a hundred percent of my people insured -- all my kids; about 98 percent of the adults. Was able also to get our schools ranked number one in the nation so a hundred percent of our kids would have a bright opportunity for a future. I understand that I can get this country on track again. We don't have to settle for what we're going through. We don't have to settle for gasoline at four bucks. We don't have to settle for unemployment at a -- at a chronically high level. We don't have to settle for 47 million people on food stamps. We don't have to settle for 50 percent of kids coming out of college not able to get work. We don't have to settle for 23 million people struggling to find a good job. If I become president, I'll get America working again. I will get us on track to a balanced budget. The president hasn't. I will. I'll make sure we can reform Medicare and Social Security to preserve them for coming -- coming generations. The president said he would. He didn't. MS. CROWLEY: Governor -- MR. ROMNEY: I'll get our incomes up. And by the way, I've done these things. I served as governor and showed I could get them done. MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, last two minutes belong to you. PRESIDENT OBAMA: Barry, I think a lot of this campaign, maybe over the last four years, has been devoted to this notion that I think government creates jobs, that that somehow is the answer. That's not what I believe. I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world's ever known. I believe in self-reliance and individual initiative and risk-takers being rewarded. But I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody should play by the same rules, because that's how our economy is grown. That's how we built the world's greatest middle class. And -- and that is part of what's at stake in this election. There's a fundamentally different vision about how we move our country forward. I believe Governor Romney is a good man. He loves his family, cares about his faith. But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considers themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility -- think about who he was talking about: folks on Social Security who've worked all their lives, veterans who've sacrificed for this country, students who are out there trying to, hopefully, advance their own dreams, but also this country's dreams, soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now, people who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas taxes, but don't make enough income. And I want to fight for them. That's what I've been doing for the last four years, because if they succeed, I believe the country succeeds. And when my grandfather fought in World War II and he came back and he got a GI Bill and that allowed him to go to college, that wasn't a handout. That was something that advanced the entire country, and I want to make sure that the next generation has those same opportunities. That's why I'm asking for your vote and that's why I'm asking for another four years. tag:www.catholicdemocrats.org,2012:/news//3.603 2012-10-12T14:15:10Z 2012-10-12T14:39:25Z

Two Catholic vice-presidential candidates sparred on a debate stage for the first time in American history, on the 50th anniversary of the convening of Vatican II and the 20th anniversary of the issuance of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine...

Patrick Whelan Catholic Democrats had organized house parties across the country that brought together progressive Catholics to share the experience and discuss the issues. They were all linked by a national conference call before the debate that featured Sr. Simone Campbell, Executive Director of NETWORK, a tireless advocate for the poor in America; Professor Nick Cafardi, a canon lawyer and former law school dean who is a member of the Obama Campaign national Catholic outreach team; and Professor David O'Brien, emeritus professor of Catholic Church history at the College of the Holy Cross. Sr Simone offered a moving summary of her experience with the Nuns on the Bus tour last summer, highlighting conversations she had with people across the country who had experienced loss of their healthcare in dire circumstances, and others suffering from the economic meltdown that confronted President Obama when he took office. Professor Cafardi talked about the primacy of the Catholic conscience, and the importance of studying all the issues to ask whether one candidate or the other better embraced the full meaning of "pro-life" from conception to natural death. Professor O'Brien spoke about the historical role of the US Bishops' Conference in speaking out on issues of war & peace and on the economy (1982's Economic Justice for All), and about the richness of the Catholic social tradition in grappling with the full-range of issues. A number of callers told stories about their parishes being taken over at Sunday Mass by ideologues who attacked President Obama and made communicants feel unwelcome in their own churches. If the Catholic faith is mostly about seeking the truth, the debate itself was a dramatic illustration of two starkly different visions for Catholicism in America. Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) repeatedly criticized the administration on foreign and domestic policy, but offered virtually no specifics on what he and Governor Mitt Romney would do differently--with regard to Israel, the war in Syria, the nuclear problem in Iran, resolving the war in Afghanistan or the provision of healthcare to the uninsured. He complained about lack of security for American diplomats in Libya, but had no response when confronted with the fact that his budget had sought $300 million in cuts for State Department security. He said Republicans wouldn't lower overall taxes on wealthy people, but refused to say how he and Gov Romney could square their math after giving the wealthiest 120,000 families an average income tax cut above $200,000 per year. He criticized VP Biden for provisions in the ACA removing $700 billion in waste from the Medicare Advantage program, but failed to mention that he had also advocated for elimination of that money in his own budget. He said he wouldn't increase taxes on middle class Americans, but wouldn't say whether he planned to reduce or eliminate the mortgage interest deduction that keeps most Americans in their own homes. Rep. Ryan spoke repeatedly about bipartisanship, but failed to acknowledge his own role in refusing to compromise on bill after bill in the House, from the budget to the health care reform law to job creation legislation. He failed to acknowledge that he helped lead the most obstructionist Republican caucus in history, which sought to torpedo the American economy to serve its own political interests. Then with a straight face he criticized President Obama for not talking the Republicans out of doing so. Vice-President Biden could hardly contain his laughter at the ridiculousness of it all. At a human level, Rep. Ryan was honest in putting himself on the side of those who would use strategic nuclear weapons to resolve the conflict with Iran; on the side of eliminating programs that help the poor; and on the side of those who would fuel "job creation" with more tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals. Moderator Martha Raddatz did a superb job of guiding the discussion, and toward the end she said, "This debate is, indeed, historic. We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as this. And I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion. Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your religion played a part in that. And, please, this is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country, and please talk personally about this, if you could." After 75 minutes of emphasizing how much he would downsize the social safety net and on how much more money the Republican candidates intended to spend on the military, Rep. Ryan said somewhat incongruously, "I don't see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life." He then addressed his beliefs with regard to abortion. "Now I understand this is a difficult issue," he said, "and I respect people who don't agree with me on this, but the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother." He then launched into a repetition of the nebulous and flawed argument that providing health insurance to millions more people through the Affordable Care Act was "assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They're infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals." He intimated that he approved of President Clinton's formulation of working to make abortion "safe, legal and rare." But then he falsely stated that the current administration "support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding." No mention of President Obama's executive order maintaining the status quo with regard to federal funding of abortion; no acknowledgement of President Obama's repeated insistence that he supports current legal restrictions on late-term abortions; no acknowledgement of the new funding incorporated in the Affordable Care Act for abortion reduction. Vice-President Biden spoke similarly about his faith, saying, "My religion defines who I am, and I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And (my faith) has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves, people who need help." He indicated that he shares the Catholic belief that life begins at conception, "but I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others." He pointed out that the ACA regulations on contraception had been modified so that no religious institution would have to pay extra to provide their employees with contraception. After the debate, a number of commentators, including Republican Steve Schmidt, pointed out that wider use of contraception was likely to result in fewer abortions, and they worried that the apparent antipathy of many Republicans to the use of contraceptives could actually worsen efforts to decrease abortion. Rep. Ryan was clearly uncomfortable with Gov. Romney's acceptance of abortion for women who had been assaulted, who were victims of incest, or who's life was in jeopardy from their pregnancy. There was also some discussion among the commentariat about Gov. Romney's history of supporting Roe-vs-Wade when he ran against Senator Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994, then his conversion to abortion opponent when he ran for president in 2008, and then his statements the past week saying he didn't intend to pursue any legislation limiting abortion. Ms. Raddatz' final question was about personal character, and Rep. Ryan offered a curious response. After spending nearly 90 minutes refusing to offer any details about the specifics of their tax cuts or approach to foreign policy, he congratulated himself and Gov. Romney on being "people who, when they say they're going to do something, they go do it. What you need are, when people see problems, they offer solutions to fix those problems." He then talked about a return to the Bush economic agenda under Gov. Romney, and called them "proven, pro- growth policies that we know works to get people back to work." He then congratulated himself on being someone who would work in a bipartisan manner once he left the Congress he helped to divide so bitterly. Vice-president Biden closed the debate by saying, "The fact is that we're in a situation where we inherited a god-awful circumstance. People are in real trouble. We acted to move to bring relief to the people who need the most help now. And, in case you haven't noticed, we have strong disagreements, but you probably detected my frustration with their attitude about the American people. My friend says that 30% of the American people are takers. Romney points out 47% of the people won't take responsibility. He's talking about my mother and father. He's talking about the places I grew up in, my neighbors in Scranton and Claymont, and he's talking about the people that have built this country." He concluded, "The president and I are not going to rest until that playing field is leveled, that (most Americans) in fact have a clear shot, and they have peace of mind, until they can turn to their kid and say with a degree of confidence, "Honey, it's going to be OK. It's going to be OK." That's what this is all about." ]]> tag:www.catholicdemocrats.org,2012:/news//3.602 2012-10-04T06:06:12Z 2012-10-04T06:21:37Z

Much was made Wednesday night about Mitt Romney's "passion" in his debate performance with President Obama. He talked about deficits as a "moral issue," and not just a fiscal issue. But again and again he refused to offer any details...

Patrick Whelan Denver Post If the deficit is a moral issue, he failed to enumerate any reasons why his own tax rate is half what most working Americans pay--and why wealthier individuals shouldn't step up to the plate the way they did during the roaring 1990s. President Obama pointed out that President Clinton had implemented higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans to drop the deficit, and everyone did better economically. Mr. Romney completely sidestepped the lessons of history in this regard. Mr. Romney repeatedly cited the number of people on food stamps, but seemed to imply that cutting funding for food stamps would help solve the problem. He said he wants to make sure no one is denied medical insurance for a preexisting condition, but offers no willingness to embrace the cost (ie. the personal insurance mandate) that he himself imposed in Massachusetts residents to make it happen there. He wants to cut everyone's taxes, but says the cuts will be "revenue-neutral" without acknowledging he would have to end the mortgage and other deductions that are a saving grace for middle class families. Dick Cheney famously said that "deficits don't matter," but apparently many conservatives believe that this is only true when a Republican is in office. The message of the first debate was that, despite the fact that he cannot offer any details on his plans for the future, Mr. Romney should be trusted with the reins of government due to his possession of some abstract competence to lead. The debate made clear that the inevitable result of a Romney presidency would be further explosion of the deficits, further exacerbation of the disparity of wealth in the US, higher spending on weaponry, and less spending on education. Health spending will continue to escalate, but fewer people would be insured. There was no mention of abortion or end of life care. By every measure of Catholic social justice, "the Romney plan" would come up short. Without a credible intellectual effort to think through how he would address any of America's pressing problems, Mr. Romney appears to feel passionately at present solely about the importance of getting himself elected. ]]> tag:www.catholicdemocrats.org,2012:/news//3.601 2012-08-02T03:46:29Z 2012-08-02T17:42:42Z

The Romney Campaign announced the leadership of its "Catholics for Romney" effort with a statement that had a stentorian tone but little substance. The six Republican former Vatican ambassadors who were the signatories put out a statement that was embarrassing...

Patrick Whelan "Catholics for Romney" effort with a statement that had a stentorian tone but little substance. The six Republican former Vatican ambassadors who were the signatories put out a statement that was embarrassing as an expression of Catholic faith in both its narrowness and its dishonesty. The statement was addressed to "Fellow Catholics," and it opened by saying "we have a duty to act that is greater and more urgent than allegiance to any political party." But then the statement proceeded to rehash vague traditional Republican language about abortion and gay marriage, with an indirect reference to the US Bishops' campaign against contraceptives. No reference was made to the most critical issues: the Faithful Citizenship call for abortion reduction measures; the increase in the number of poor people and the broad economic suffering brought on by the Great Recession that began under the last Republican president; international peace and nuclear disarmament; the threat, mostly to the developing world, of global warming; and the efforts of Governor Romney and his party to undermine the provision of health insurance for all Americans. There was no acknowledgement of recent Vatican efforts to make the world economy serve better the needs of the poor; or the Vatican's recent insistence again that healthcare is a "human right"; or the Vatican's clarion calls over the past ten years to decrease carbon emissions. There was no acknowledgement of Governor Romney's dangerous calls for war with Iran, or his avoidance of the issue of nuclear disarmament, or his destabilizing comments about politics in the Middle East. There was no mention at all of healthcare, or the fact the Governor Romney was a prime early architect of the healthcare reform that he is now denouncing. There was no mention of the fact that Governor Romney's views on abortion were indistinguishable from President Obama', when Governor Romney was running for office in Massachusetts. The statement repeats the same "pro-abortion"insult that demeans the search for common ground in pursuit of solutions to the ongoing problem of unintended pregnancy in America. It repeats Baltimore Bishop William Lori's embarrassing and intellectually weak claims that religious liberty is "under direct assault" in the United States because most employers are now required to let women and their doctors (rather than the employers themselves) decide when patients should be prescribed contraceptive medications. Worst of all, the statement is a straight partisan attack on the Democratic candidate that proclaims at the outset that it "transcends allegiance to any political party." The Catholic faith is at its heart a pursuit of ultimate truths, and this early representation of Romney's appeal to Catholics is deeply disappointing in its dishonesty, its un-Christian language, and its avoidance of virtually all the moral issues that most concern Catholics in the pews. ]]> tag:www.catholicdemocrats.org,2012:/news//3.600 2012-06-24T20:00:12Z 2012-06-24T20:12:11Z

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops launched a national campaign this week against President Obama, pushing the Church into politics to an extent the bishops have never done before. At their November 2011 meeting, they voted unanimously to initiate a...

Patrick Whelan Shlemon Warduni, Bishop of Baghdad At their meeting last week in Atlanta, the bishops listened as Chaldean Bishop Shlemon Warduni of Baghdad told a heart-rending story about the dwindling Catholic population of Iraq, describing the efforts of Muslim extremists who have targeted Christian churches and clergy. Indeed the population of one million Christians living in Iraq under Saddam Hussein has now fallen by more than two-thirds, with refugees streaming to Jordan and other surrounding countries. Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, a principal architect of the bishops' "Fortnight 4 Freedom" campaign, sought to link his efforts with the violence overseas in an op-ed piece this week in the Washington Post: "Concern for religious freedom both here and abroad has been growing for years, and now there are calls for immediate action. Stories of people literally dying for the faith in Iraq and Nigeria can be found in daily newspapers. There, churches are bombed and the blood of martyrs runs freely." The problem with this exercise in hyperbole is that it implies that electing Mitt Romney would somehow help restore Christianity in Iraq. But the bishop from Baghdad made it clear in his remarks that President Bush's invasion of Iraq was the precipitating factor for the bloodshed and massive displacement of the Christians there. By attempting to use every Catholic pulpit in America to condemn President Obama, the bishops are essentially throwing their support to the Republican nominee--one who supported the invasion of Iraq and has complained about the Obama Administration's caution with regard to Iran, with repeated vague spurts of bravado about potentially using the US Military against Iran. In other words, getting in line with the bishops' efforts to elect Governor Romney is a decisive move toward the kind of foreign policy that caused the destruction of Christianity in Iraq in the first place. No one can deny that the Bush invasion of Iraq precipitated the vast assault on religious liberty that has occurred there, or that the Republican approach to situations like those in Iraq and Iran is more contingent on a willingness to use force to achieve its aims. Bishop Warduni told the US bishops, "As leaders of the church in the United States, you bear a special responsibility toward the people and Christians of Iraq. In 2003 your government led the war that brought some terrible consequences. The U.S. government can and must do all it can to encourage tolerance and respect in Iraq, to help Iraq strengthen the rule of law and to provide assistance that helps create jobs for Iraqis, especially those on the margins." If the bishops succeed in helping elect Governor Romney, it would be sad to see what the law of unintended consequences has in store for the plight of Christians across the Middle East.]]> tag:www.catholicdemocrats.org,2012:/news//3.599 2012-06-02T01:46:22Z 2012-06-02T02:07:17Z

The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) has rejected the findings of a Vatican report last month that criticized the mission and spiritual fidelity of the organization that represents 80% of US Catholic sisters. The LCWR took issue on Friday...

Patrick Whelan The LCWR took issue on Friday with the secretive process by which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith assembled its facts, the broad and "unsubstantiated accusations" contained in the report, and the divisive language that has outraged many Catholics around the world. There's no doubt that the efforts to silence women religious at the beginning of a presidential election campaign by putting them under the control of a trio of bishops has been hurtful to the Church. The LCWR rightly called out the bishops for their lack of transparency and for taking a paternalistic approach that devalues the role that women religious play in carrying the torch for Catholic Social Justice in this time of economic injustice and duress across the country. Perhaps most preposterous was the idea that the nuns ought to be echoing the political priorities of the most Republican-leaning of the bishops, and to deemphasize their traditional focus on the needs of the most vulnerable in society. The Vatican report April 18 ordered the largest leadership organization for U.S. women religious to reform its statutes, programs and affiliations to conform more closely to "the teachings and discipline of the Church." It placed the LCWR under the authority of Seattle Archbishop Peter Sartain and two other bishops for up to five years, and gave them the power to review and revise the LCWR's policies. The fact that the Vatican's report was made public in a press statement by the US bishops seemed to indicate that the Vatican was responding to anger on the part of the USCCB's conservative leadership that the nuns had muddied the waters of public perception about who speaks for Catholics--particularly during the public split over President Obama's healthcare reform law. As the bishops launched their questionable national anti-Obama campaign, termed, "Fortnight 4 Freedom," they seemed determined to prevent a replay of the 2010 public spat with the nuns. Among the themes of the Vatican report that have drawn particular attention in public commentary was its stipulation that there was "a prevalence of certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith" present in some of LCWR's programs and presentations. The report cited in particular one talk given by a Dominican sister, about how women view their vocations, at the 2007 LCWR national meeting. Another was the report's criticism that Catholic sisters had "serious doctrinal problems," and in particular that they are too focused on social justice and not enough on echoing the bishops' views on homosexuality and abortion. It's fun to imagine the US Bishops' Conference being held accountable for some of the crazier partisan utterances of people like Cardinal Raymond Burke or Bishop Daniel Jenky, and placed under the supervision of a few wise nuns. Then we really might see a return to the core Catholic values of concern for the poor and non-violent resolution of world conflict. ]]> tag:www.catholicdemocrats.org,2012:/news//3.598 2012-03-04T00:03:19Z 2012-03-04T00:13:57Z

By Kathleen Kennedy Townsend March 2, 2012 Washington Post America's only Catholic president referred to God three times in his inaugural address. He invoked the Bible's command to care for the poor and the sick. Later in his presidency, he...

Catholic Democrats Staff By Kathleen Kennedy Townsend March 2, 2012 Washington Post America's only Catholic president referred to God three times in his inaugural address. He invoked the Bible's command to care for the poor and the sick. Later in his presidency, he said, unequivocally, about civil rights: "We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution." Yet, last Sunday, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who is also Catholic, told ABC News that John F. Kennedy's classic 1960 campaign speech in Houston about religious liberty was so offensive to people of faith that it made him want to vomit. "To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up," Santorum said. "What kind of country do we live [in] that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?" Either Santorum doesn't know his American history or he is purposefully rewriting it. How can he seriously imagine that Kennedy, a person who got down on his knees each night to pray, who gave his time and money to win tough primaries in states with strong anti-Catholic traditions, who challenged us to live our Christianity by ending racial hatred, somehow lacked the courage of faith or tried to exclude people of faith from government and politics? In his presidential campaign, Kennedy faced fierce anti-Catholic prejudice. He appeared before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association because he feared that his faith was being used unfairly against him. Norman Vincent Peale, along with 150 other ministers, had issued a letter urging citizens to vote against Kennedy because, should he win, he would be controlled by the Vatican. Peale's group called itself the National Conference of Citizens for Religious Freedom. How ironic that the term "religious freedom" would be used as double-speak for religious hypocrisy -- but it certainly was not the first or last time. Anti-Catholic prejudice has a long history in America. Construction of the Washington Monument was halted partly because an anti-Catholic controversy erupted in 1854, when the pope gave us a stone from Rome for the project. (You can see a change in color partway up the monument between the initial structure and the rest, finished nearly 30 years later.) Catholic students at public schools who didn't want to recite the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer were sometimes expelled. As late as 1928, voters rejected Catholic presidential candidate Al Smith, calling the Democratsthe party of "rum, Romanism and rebellion." Kennedy, my uncle, hoped to make it clear that the pope would not control him. The government would not regulate church doctrine, and no minister would determine government policy. As he put it: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the president -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him." He specifically referred to birth control, too, saying he would follow his conscience in accordance with what he believed to be in the national interest and not cave in to "religious pressures or dictates." Santorum is more like Kennedy than he may realize -- he follows his conscience. It's true that on some issues, such as contraception, where the bishops are at odds with many other Catholics, he sides with the bishops. (I'm tempted to recall my father Robert Kennedy's observation that priests are Republican and nuns Democratic.) But Santorum has also taken positions at odds with the Catholic hierarchy. He has opposed the church's pro-immigrant policies. He has attacked President Obama's "phony theology," which he says involves caring for the Earth -- no matter Pope Benedict's pronouncements on protecting the environment. Nor in his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed did Santorum cite papal views on the financial crisis. On Feb. 15, in an address at Rome's Major Seminary, the pope said that "the world of finance, while necessary, no longer represents an instrument that favors our well-being or the life of mankind; instead it has become an oppressive power that almost demands our adoration." Somehow Santorum missed that. Can he be so ignorant of what Kennedy actually said and what the pope has actually preached? Or is he using his faith for political purposes? Santorum has since expressed regret for his choice of words about Kennedy, but his words cannot be forgotten. The challenge is not Santorum -- it is the 28 percent of Americans who think the separation of church and state should be abolished. Santorum is encouraging division and intolerance. The subtext of his remarks is that America should be a conservative religious nation -- and that Kennedy was denying it. Well, he was. Here are his words to the ministers in Houston: "I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and the pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood." Perhaps Santorum should recall the Gospel's teachings, which might direct us to positions different from those he advocates. Jesus told his followers that they would be judged on how they clothed the naked, fed the hungry and welcomed the stranger. His directive to love God and our neighbor leads many faithful Americans to support same-sex marriage and to see that marriage itself can be strengthened when couples make love without fear of an unplanned pregnancy. Each of these positions can be made in a secular setting, but they also have a moral argument, grounded in faith. In 2012, people of many faiths are running for office -- Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, my own godson, Joseph Kennedy -- and one can disagree with their policies while respecting their religious views. Bishops, priests, nuns, ministers, rabbis and imams lobby Congress and state legislatures on various issues. They have a voice. They just don't always win every election or argument. Welcome to democracy.]]> tag:www.catholicdemocrats.org,2012:/news//3.597 2012-02-12T15:34:00Z 2012-02-12T22:25:39Z

On Saturday, February 11, longtime advisor Richard Doerflinger apparently decided on behalf of the US Bishops' Conference that the Obama Administration's accommodation regarding the availability of contraceptive coverage in health plans was not acceptable. In an editorial earlier Saturday, the...

Patrick Whelan In an editorial earlier Saturday, the New York Times had referred to conservatives' protests against the rules as a "phony crisis," because there was no intellectually plausible way to link objections to the rules to any infringement on personal religious liberty. Nonetheless, Mr Doerflinger insisted once again that the compromise was "unacceptable and must be corrected" because it still infringed on the religious liberty of Catholics. Flickr/kjgrabosky There is no mention on the bishops' website of the fact that Church institutions have long paid for contraceptive coverage in at least 28 states, that every church worker in the country has withholding taxes contributed by the Church to support Title X and Medicaid funding for contraceptives, or that there is substantial evidence that contraceptive use both decreases the incidence of abortion and addresses many non-contraceptive medical needs. The selective furor over the contraceptive mandate has simultaneously drowned out any concern that the bishops may have expressed over the ongoing poverty and unemployment crisis in America. Despite the bishops' opposition, new polling suggested over the weekend that Catholics, and particularly Catholic women, supported the administration's new plan to relieve the bishops of direct responsibility for the availability of contraceptives. The selective outrage over the birth control mandate appears to be just the latest manifestation of a very calculated opening salvo in the presidential election campaign. An article in Friday's New York Times, by Laurie Goodstein, documented the long preparations that the USCCB had given to their campaign for "religious liberty," long pre-dating the release of the new rules by the Department of Health and Human Services. It had been widely appreciated that the leaders of the Bishops' Conference were planning on picking up on the language of the Republican political manifesto called "The Manhattan Declaration" claiming that the religious liberty of bishops was being infringed because of the movement nationally to legalize same-gender marriage. The birth control controversy appeared to serve as an appropriate excuse to pull the trigger on the campaign, resulting in letters being read on the subject in more than 90% of the dioceses in the United States in recent weeks. In retrospect, insiders have begun to appreciate that the phony "religious liberty" campaign is an outgrowth of an array of other problems that have face the Church over the past decade. Bishop William Lori, chairman of the bishops' Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, and several other bishops had long argued publicly that the bishops were "under attack" because of a campaign in Connecticut for greater financial transparency in dioceses that were being sued by abuse survivors. Proposed Statute of Limitations legislation that would extend the length of time available to victims to file grievances against the Church also raised Bishop Lori's ire. "We think there needs to be a legislative fix to protect our religious liberties," Bishop Lori said, sticking to his talking points in a Fox News interview over the weekend. "I think that our First Amendment religious rights are far too precious to be entrusted to regulatory rules." The "phony crisis" over religious liberty is an insult to the Catholic intellectual tradition--particularly with all the accompanying misinformation stating that the HHS regulations cover "abortifacient drugs." These emergency contraceptives have never been shown to have that affect when taken as prescribed. There was a time when the Catholic bishops would have been embarrassed to have their good name associated with such inflammatory words, particularly when they're coupled with such sloppiness with the facts. ]]>