Photo Caption Call - 8/28/08

[For today's blog topics, click here.]

Look closely....

[Source: Flickr user "matildalaender"]

View the winning caption from the last Photo Caption Call here.

Reprogramming, not embryos, is the fast track to cures

An extremely significant medical breakthrough, reported many places, including the New York Times:

Biologists at Harvard have converted cells from a mouse’s pancreas into the insulin-producing cells that are destroyed in diabetes, suggesting that the natural barriers between the body’s cell types may not be as immutable as supposed.

"Money" second paragraph quote:

This and other recent experiments raise the possibility that a patient’s healthy cells might be transformed into the type lost to a disease far more simply and cheaply than in the cumbersome proposals involving stem cells.

Pause. When was the last time you can remember a mainstream article admitting that stem cell proposals are "cumbersome"? I thought they were the be-all & end-all of medical technology? And embryonic stem cell treatments are often even more cumbersome than adult stem cell therapies.

I'm not trying to make an argument against embryonic stem cell research because they are "cumbersome", sometimes cumbersome solutions are the only ones available. No, I'm saying that, pragmatically, it makes more sense to pursue reprogramming techniques like the one described above.

And no embryos have to die.

Noted: California Voters Oppose Ban on Gay 'Marriage'

Things aren't looking good for the upcoming November referendum:

A majority of California voters oppose a ballot initiative to ban gay "marriage," though they are evenly split on the practice itself, according to a poll released Wednesday.

The ballot question essentially will ask voters to prohibit the practice of same-sex "marriage," which was approved this year by the California Supreme Court.

... A majority of likely voters, 54 percent, oppose ending gay "marriage," compared with 40 percent who support it, the poll said. The result is similar to the findings of a Field Poll in July, which found that 51 percent of likely California voters opposed ending gay "marriage," while 42 percent said they supported it. (AP)

It's hard to give people reasons to vote for something they don't think directly effects their lives.

Catholic Nun invited to DNC doubts crucifixion story in talk

Quoted in full because Ryan Sayre Patrico doesn't waste words:

The Democrats didn’t invite Archbishop Charles Chaput to their convention in Denver this year, for understandable reasons. Instead, they invited Sr. Helen Prejean C.S.J. to speak at their interfaith gathering. If they were trying to avoid controversy and shore up support from religious party members, however, they were in for a disappointment:

COLORADO CONVENTION CENTER — Following the hot topic of abortion, Sister Helen Prejean tackled another: calling for abolition of the death penalty to raucous applause at the DNC’s interfaith gathering.

She received nothing but a stony silence, however, when she questioned the basis of the biblical crucifixion story as a “projection of our violent society.”

“Is this a God?” Prejeans asked about the belief that God allowed his son, Jesus, to be sacrificed for the sins of humanity. “Or is this an ogre?”

Just a little bit too left of left, I guess.

AP publishes amazingly objective Pelosi article

Again, an incredible development: the Associated Press has issued a surprisingly objective and balanced take on Pelosi-Gate, and the story has been picked up by the Drudge Report, so everyone will read it:

Pelosi gets unwanted lesson in Catholic theology

Politics can be treacherous. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi walked on even riskier ground in a recent TV interview when she attempted a theological defense of her support for abortion rights.

Roman Catholic bishops consider her arguments on St. Augustine and free will so far out of line with church teaching that they have issued a steady stream of statements to correct her.

Look how the AP author, Rachel Zoll, refuses to let Pelosi contradict the historical record (underlining mine):

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said in a statement defending her remarks that she "fully appreciates the sanctity of family" and based her views on conception on the "views of Saint Augustine, who said, 'The law does not provide that the act (abortion) pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation.'"

But whether or not parishioners choose to accept it, the theology on the procedure is clear. From its earliest days, Christianity has considered abortion evil.

"This teaching has remained unchanged and remains unchangeable," according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. "Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law."

Quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church to prove a point? How radically theologically-competent is that?

On Pelosi's prevaricating about free will, Zoll says:

Regarding individual decision-making, the church teaches that Catholics are obliged to use their conscience in considering moral issues. However, that doesn't mean parishioners can pick and choose what to believe and still be in line with the church.

Lisa Sowle Cahill, a theologian at Boston College, said conscience must be formed by Catholic teaching and philosophical insights. "It's not just a personal opinion that you came up with randomly," she said.

Catholic theologians today overwhelmingly consider debate over the morality of abortion settled. Thinkers and activists who attempt to challenge the theology are often considered on the fringes of church life.

I almost can't beleive I'm reading lines and quotes like this in the AP. What a refreshing denial of relativism. Even Cahill comes through with a solid statement.

But that isn't even the greatest part:

However, there is a rigorous debate over how the teaching should guide voters and public officials. Are Catholics required to choose the candidate who opposes abortion? Or can they back a politician based on his or her policies on reducing, not outlawing, the procedure?

The U.S. bishops addressed this question in their election-year public policy guide, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship."

They said that voting for a candidate specifically because he or she supports "an intrinsic evil" such as abortion amounts to "formal cooperation in grave evil."

In some cases, Catholics may vote for a candidate with a position contrary to church teaching, but only for "truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences," according to the document.

... I can never remember reading anything so clear and objective in a mainstream reporting article. I'm going to try to do some research to figure out how something this good made it out underneath the editorial radar, but in the meantime, I post it now so that it might be widely read and distributed.

Suffice it to say, whoever was advising Zoll sure set her far along the straight and narrow.

Flashback: A democrat explains faith & abortion

In the past few days, AmP readers have been forced to suffer through reading, re-reading, and even trying to make sense of Pelosi's rambling, garbled explanation of the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion.

And although I hate to ask you to do something similar once again - this is very important, I think.

Give this statement a read and see what you think:

[Question: Why do you hold a pro-choice position on abortion?]

Answer: "... Even within our own [Catholic] church, there’s been debates about life, you know, from, from “Summa Theologica,” Aquinas, and 40 days to quickening and right to, you know, you know, Pious IX, animated fetus doctrine and so on. So this—the, the, the decision’s the closest thing politically to what has been the philosophic divisions existent among the major confessional faiths in our country. And that’s why, I think, that’s why I’ve come to the conclusion some long time ago, over 25 years ago, that is the—it is the [pro-choice] template which makes the most sense."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? It sounds very similar to Pelosi's recent comments. Only this isn't Pelosi...

It's Joe Biden, Barack Obama's Vice-President selection.

John-Henry Weston editorializes:

The August 24 Meet the Press interview with Nancy Pelosi which has received condemnation from Catholic leaders around the nation is little more than a repeat of Biden's own comments on Meet the Press last year. The massive reaction from the Catholic hierarchy against Pelosi's theologizing on abortion should also be applied to Biden.

I don't mean to get off-topic: Pelosi is currently in the hot seat. But let's not lose sight of the fact that her untenable position is, sadly, shared - in one form or another - by many currently-active politicians.

AmP Topics

Recent Topics:

• Flashback: A democrat explains faith & abortion
• AmP: Serves as hub for Pelosi-Gate
• Overview: A timeline for "Pelosi-gate"
• Humor: Photo Caption Call - 8/27/08
• Listed: American Bishops who have spoken against Pelosi
• Noted: Bishops of Colorado Springs & Pittsburgh respond to Pelosi
• Clarification: Abp. Wuerl responds to Pelosi's non-apology
• Commentary: Decision Day for Pelosi-Gate
• Politics: Joe Biden claims to be "totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine"
• Noted: Neideraurer in 2007 says he hasn't had a chance to talk to Pelosi yet
• Day 4: Reactions to Pelosi-Gate
• Commentary: Pelosi and the Flat Earth Society

[FAQ:]

• My email: thomas [at] americanpapist.com (I read every email)
• Advertise on AmP: Click here for BlogAds or contact me directly.
• Have a story or link to submit? Post it here or send me an email.
• Connect: Join the Facebook fanpage and subscribe to the YouTube channel.

AmP serves as hub for Pelosi-Gate

Thanks to the prominent blogs and news websites that have cited AmP's ongoing coverage of Pelosi-Gate:

• Newsbusters: CNN Punts on Pelosi’s Gaffe About Catholic Teaching on Abortion
• LifeSiteNews: Pelosi Spokeswoman About-face: Catholic Church "Clear" on Life Teaching After All - But Catholics Need Not Listen
• Alliance Defense Fund Alert: Pelosi Stands By Abortion Comments
• Conservative Grapevine: Website of the Day
• The Anchoress: Pelosi to Bishops: drill your brains?
• WDTPRS: BLOGGERS UNITE! Keep shaping the conversation on pro-abortion Catholic politicians
• Ace of Spades: Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants, Catholic Theologian: Edict Against Abortion Began "50 Years Ago or Something Like That"
• Hot Air: Pelosi lies about Catholicism and abortion
• ... and many, many more Catholic, pro-life blogs!

And my thanks to the army of papist tipsters who have helped me keep up with this fast-moving story!

A timeline for "Pelosi-gate"

When a story gets big, it tends to get confusing fast, especially to people who have not followed it from the start.

Here's a timeline to get you up to speed:

• 8/24 - Morning: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes numerous uninformed and false claims about the Catholic Church's ancient teaching on abortion in her Meet the Press interview
• 8/24 - Evening: numerous Catholic and conservative blogs criticize Pelosi
• 8/25 - Afternoon: Abp. Chaput is the first U.S. Bishop to publicly correct Pelosi
• 8/25 - Late Afternoon: Ten Catholic members of Congress respond to Pelosi
• 8/25 - Early Evening: The US Bishops respond to Pelosi in a special press release
• 8/25 - Late Evening: Abp. Wuerl of Washington DC also corrects Pelosi
• 8/26 - Early Morning: Associated Press and political blogs note the bishops' statements
• 8/26 - Early Afternoon: Cardinal Egan issues the strongest condemnation yet of Pelosi
• 8/26 - Mid Afternoon: Pelosi's diocese of San Francisco opts to issue a USCCB reprint
• 8/26 - Late Afternoon: Pelosi's spokesman issues a non-apology response
• 8/26 - Evening: Mainstream media sources try to digest the recent developments
• 8/27 - Morning: Reactions continue in the wake of Pelosi's response - Day 4
• 8/27 - Afternoon: The Hill quotes Abp. Wuerl responding to Pelosi's non-apology of 8/26
• 8/27 - Evening: AmP compiles a list of bishops who have issued statement to this point

... and that's where things currently stand. Still no personal response from Pelosi.

Stay tuned here for the latest...

update: Please see Fr. Z's commentary for a definitive debunking of Pelosi's spurious Augustine argument.

Photo Caption Call - 8/27/08

[For today's blog topics, click here.]

Winning Caption: "No longer allowed a ruler for discipline, Sister relies on timely frisbee 'accidents' to keep her students in line." - Brian Walden

[Source: Flickr user "jennsnyc333"]

View the winning caption from the last Photo Caption Call here.

Listed: American Bishops who have spoken against Pelosi

As the list (hopefully) grows, this summary will be updated:

• Archbishop Charles Chaput was the first American bishop to respond to Pelosi
• ... he was joined by his auxiliary bishop James Conley
• Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington DC responded twice, first in a press release and second in a statement to The Hill. He has also appeared on Fox News, I am told.
• Justin Cardinal Regali of Philadelphia, acting as chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, issued this statement through the USCCB website.
• ... he was joined by Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, actin as the chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine
• Edward Cardinal Egan issued a very strongly worded statement of his own the next day
• update: Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo issued a letter correcting Pelosi's claims
• Today, Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh ...
• ... and Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs chimed-in.
• update: CNA reports that Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio and his auxiliary Bishop Oscar Cantu have added their voices to those criticizing Pelosi

That brings the current number of statement-signing bishops, by my count, to eleven (updated).

Archbishop George Niederauer (who has not issued a press release of any kind yet) according to informed sources, wants to write a "a larger, more thoughtful look on the issue," in the San Francisco diocesan newspaper, which won't be publishing again until September 5th.

September 5th?! That's like telling someone with a burst appendicitis to take an aspirin and come back next week.

Bishops of Colorado Springs & Pittsburgh respond to Pelosi

First, Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh:

"On Sunday, August 24, on “Meet the Press,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stepped out of her political role and completely misrepresented the teaching of the Catholic Church in regard to abortion. She said that Church teaching condemning procured abortion is somehow new and therefore unsettled. She could not have been more wrong." [More.]

Second, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs:

In light of recent confusing statements by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi suggesting that Catholic teaching allows for procured abortion in certain circumstances, it is important for all Catholics to understand the teaching of the Church regarding abortion. [More as PDF file.]

Add them to the honor roll...

Background: Abp. Wuerl responds to Pelosi's non-apology

After a bit of background clarification, it appears that Washington DC Archbishop Donald Wuerl, when asked by Bob Cusack of The Hill, has responded to Pelosi's non-apology which she issued yesterday through her spokesman.

The initial version of the report from The Hill left it unclear whether Abp. Wuerl was responding to Pelosi's first comments aired on Meet the Press (8/24), or her follow-up statement issued through the spokesman (8/26). The current version of the story claims Abp. Wuerl has in fact responded to both Pelosi's 8/24 and 8/26 statements.

The quoted second response from Abp. Wuerl, in its immediate context:

The public feud over abortion between the Speaker of the House and the archbishop of Washington intensified Tuesday as Rep. Nancy Pelosi responded to his recent criticism and the archbishop fired another salvo at the California Democrat.

The latest development came Tuesday evening, when Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl issued a statement to The Hill that brushed aside Pelosi’s explanation of her comments about conception on Sunday’s edition of “Meet the Press.”

... Wuerl swiftly denounced Pelosi’s statement, saying, “As the Catechism and early Church documents make clear, abortion is always an evil. That is an unchanging teaching. The question on when the soul enters the body was a philosophical question that grew out of a lack of scientific data at the time of St. Augustine. We have the data today which shows the embryo is human. There no longer is any discussion of whether the unborn is human and so the philosophical discussion of St. Augustine’s time is not relevant today.” (The Hill)

Pelosi-Gate: Decision Day

Today is a critical juncture in the struggle between Nancy Pelosi et al. and the American bishops over what it means to be a Catholic in America today.

Pelosi-Gate has been covered in the last 24 hours by the Associated Press, Reuters, Drudge, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh & Bill O'Reilly. People already know where the debate stands, and are waiting to see what happens next.

This is a unique situation for two reasons: a) Pelosi's comments are absurd enough that they bring several long-simmering issues to a boiling-point and b) so far, Pelosi has received public correction from the American bishops. In other words, the bishops have every reason to continue taking advantage of this unprecedented teaching opportunity. They have the stage, an attentive audience, and a winning position.

Furthermore, in authorizing her spokesman to release a statement defending her position, Pelosi has tossed the ball back into the American bishops' court. She has said, in essence: "No, I was right, and you were therefore wrong to correct me."

The next few days (and honestly, given today's news cycle, the next 24 hours) will determine whether her bluff is called, or if she and her ilk are permitted to continue deceiving Americans about what their Catholic faith actually means in the American public forum.

The bishops have already made the most difficult step: they have started a public conversation with Pelosi on a critically-important topic. They now benefit from a different type of inertia than the one they are perhaps used to - namely, the positive inertia of already being in the debate as opposed to the negative inertia of not having said anything at all.

Their actions, of course, have already drawn fierce criticism from exactly the sort of people who we counted on raising the alarm. But the bold words of the bishops have also drawn vocal, immediate support and praise from sincere ardent, practicing Catholics. Backing down now would be a greater victory for Pelosi's deceits than allowing her comments to go unopposed in the first place.

So please, don't stop while you're ahead. After all, we are so rarely ahead.

update: Phil Lawler brilliantly outlines the ways in which Pelosi has (unintentionally) performed a huge favor for the cause of respecting unborn life in America. There is also at least one possible sign that the American bishops do not intend to let this conversation end with this unsatisfactory conclusion.

Joe Biden claims to be "totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine"

Not to be skipped! Carl Olson at Insight Scoop has an excellent post on Joe Biden and his Catholic Faith.

Since I've got my hands full with Pelosi-Gate right now, I'm very happy to turn this coverage over to Carl.

update: Curt Jester points out that even biased scorecards put Joe Biden at only ~50%!

Neideraurer in 2007: I haven't had a chance to talk to Pelosi yet

Diogenes notes a February 2007 interview where Abp. Niederauer explains why, a year into his new assignment, he still had not spoken with Pelosi about her ardent pro-abortion advocacy:

Archbishop Niederauer: "Well, I have met on one occasion, with Speaker Pelosi, before she was Speaker Pelosi. It was last year. And I -- we've -- exchanged viewpoints on a number of things. At that time, it was last spring, and it was principally about immigration, because that was very much the hot-button topic of the time. We haven't had an opportunity to talk about the life issues. I would very much welcome that opportunity, but I don't believe that I am in a position to say what I understand her stand to be, if I haven't had a chance to talk to her about it."

I sure hope Pelosi's recent comments were made without the help of the Archbishop.

Day 4 of Pelosi-Gate: Reactions

Here is the short n' sweet of what people are saying today about Pelosi-Gate...

Obama's camp is more than annoyed with Pelosi, as The American Spectator has found out:

"It's like 'Thanks, madam speaker, you've done quite enough. Please move along,'" says one Obama adviser. "She got us stuck on three different issues that we wanted no part of. She's no master strategist, no matter what she may believe. You may see more of her, but if her mouth is open, what comes out won't be anything that our campaign wants anything to do with."

Kathleen Parker, writing an editorial for the Chicago Tribune, re-notes the obvious:

In other words, human life begins at conception.That is not a religious posture, but a scientific fact that the lowest paid laborer on the planet can assert without qualm. What we do with that understanding is another matter, but no one should pretend not to know when human life begins. On this matter at least, the church and science are in agreement.

In local DC reporting, surprise that the Church heirarchy has been so vocal:

... the bishops' emphatic response to Pelosi's statements this week shows that they are willing to speak out when the church's teachings are challenged publicly by high-profile Catholics, according to the very Rev. David M. O'Connell, president of Catholic University of America.

For conservative Catholic groups, the fact that Wuerl weighed in on the controversy was welcome news. (WaPo)

Over at American Thinker, C. Edmund Wright applauds Cardinal Egan for changing the abortion debate:

... not a single word of scripture in the statement. No threats about God's retribution. No mention of anything religious really. It was simply a man of God using reason wisely. Much like the Apostle Paul, who used logic and reason to debate the Athenians (Acts 17) about Biblical truth, Cardinal Egan was aware of his audience and his stage and he was indeed "all things to all people, so that by all means (he) might win some" (1 Corinthians 9).

If much of the evangelical pro-life movement would take His Emminence's lead, some real traction can be made on this issue.

Wright raises an interesting point that deserves comment: Cardinal Egan was not necessarily teaching Church Doctrine, rather, he was witnessing to common sense. Pelosi's comments in fact violated both.

Of course, over at the Los Angeles Times, Tim Rutten brings out the old claim that the reaction of the bishops is simply politics. In his words: "All this conservative crosier waving is about a simple set of numbers." He means registered Catholic voter statistics.

But even Rutten has to admit that Pelosi was out to lunch:

"Pelosi, who described herself as an "ardent practicing Catholic," gave a response that was not only incoherent but managed to get wrong virtually every fact that might have buttressed her pro-choice position."

On other points, Rutten clearly hasn't gotten the memo:

If Pelosi had half a wit about her, she might have done what most U.S. Catholics instinctively do, which is to rely on a tradition of moral reasoning that stands athwart Chaput's novel reductionism.

Remember when I predicted that some would try to marginalize Chaput's statement as his personal opinion, and that was why it was so welcome to see so many American bishops issue statements of their own?

Here's why exactly: Rutten now has to claim that "Chaput's novel reductionism" is a fault shared by the majority of the prominent American bishops, not just one lone prelate with a political program to push.

Plus Tim Rutten is just plain wrong: all traditions of moral reasoning are not equal, and certainly the 20th century Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray (whom Rutten cites) is not a magisterium unto himself.

Geez Tim ... way to "pull a Pelosi."

update: Please see Fr. Z's coverage for a definitive debunking of Pelosi's spurious Augustine argument.

"American Papists" are "The Nation's Pulse" right now

... at least, according to Lisa Fabrizio, writing for the American Spectator today.

Of course, around here, we've never stopped being American Papists!

But it's always nice to read that one is part of the national pulse. Let's keep it that way.

Tip: Catholic to the Max T-Shirt Contest

Hey you aspiring Papist designers, here's your chance to land a t-shirt design deal and win some cool prizes!

Pelosi and the Flat Earth Society

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today tried to base her dissent from authoritative Church teaching on an isolated ancient century text of St. Augustine.

On a whim, I decided to look through the various times Pelosi has mentioned her Catholic faith when debating moral issues. I quickly found this instance, where she is arguing for the legalization of RU-486, commonly known as the "abortion pill."

Look how she criticizes Mr. Coburn of Oklahoma who wishes to defend the unborn:

"I certainly respect the gentleman's religious beliefs and understand them, as a Catholic, myself, and mother of five, grandmother of four, and that we do not think abortion is a good thing...

... [but] the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is starting to have this body, this room, this Chamber, look like the Flat Earth Society again, Mr. Chairman.

We have our Flat Earth Society days around here, and this appears to be one of them." (source: house.gov)

The Flat Earth Society, broadly-speaking, is a Christian-related ideological group that refuses to admit the findings of modern science.

... much like Pelosi's position on abortion is a Christian-related ideological position that refuses to admit the findings of modern science, let alone the authority and constant tradition of the Catholic Church.

I guess Pelosi is having one of her Flat Earth Society days.