Kerry Presidential and Competent in First Debate

"I've never wilted or wavered in my life." John Kerry



John Kerry did an excellent job of showing his strengths and assuring the American people that he has what it takes to be commander in Chief. Kerry was confident, in command of his facts, presidential and strong. President Bush was defensive, rambling, unable to complete coherent thoughts, and ran out of talking points. After four years in the Oval Office, one would hope that he could speak with more ease about his own record, but alas . . .It only goes to show that he doesn't run things and is simply unaware of what is actually going on.

John Kerry highlighted again that there is a choice, a fresh start or four years of more of the same.

George Bush's more of the same is:

• 1000s more troops dead in a quagmire that is Iraq with no political objective or exit strategy.
• More pre-emptive wars possibly with Iran and Syria
• Continuance of the current back-door draft in the Guard and military
• Reinstatement of the draft
• Deficits as far as the eye can see
• no help for health care
• Lower air and water quality standards
• negative job growth
• a stalled economy
• no energy policy
• lack of funding for public education
• a pushing away of our allies

I'll stop there.

John Kerry offers a new direction and a fresh start. I'll say it now and have always said that John Kerry will be, not just a good or great president, he'll be an exceptional president. As a generation, this is our moment, we can stick with Bush and continue on the wrong track and send us in the wrong direction for years to come, or we can vote for John Kerry and open up a new horizon, with blue skies, hope, a fresh start, a solid foundation and vision for the 21st century. The choice is ours. We need to vote for John Kerry, our world depends on it.

The first presidential debate is tonight. There is and has been a lot of discussion on what John Kerry needs to do to "win." Of course, many blog commentators have correctly pointed out that the post-debate spin and media replays are primarily where the perception of winning or losing the debates come from.

John Kerry simply has to do two things. First, he has to come off as sincere, so that people can get a sense of him and secondly, he needs to come off as competent. The debate is really about an impression and less about the substance.

I think John Kerry would be, not just a good or great president if elected, I think he'll be exceptional. It's been hard trying to cut through all the Republican noise, lies and hypocrisy, but Kerry is up to the task. I think people get a good feeling from him when he talks and presents his case. He talks common sense and not empty talking points. He is a leader and has lead men in the ultimate situation, life and death combat.

Kerry will do a good job and I think America will recognize it.

NCR's John Allen's Word from Rome

The Catholic Herald recently carried an interesting item about Julian Hunte, a pro-choice Catholic politician in the West Indies who was awarded a papal knighthood Sept. 19. Hunte was made a Knight of the Grand Cross Pian Order. Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano bestowed the honor in a New York ceremony.

As the Herald story notes, the award is especially interesting in light of the debate currently swirling in the United States over the eligibility of pro-choice Catholic politicians for the Eucharist.

Hunte, the Minister for External Affairs of Santa Lucia, recently concluded his term as president of the United Nations General Assembly. The Vatican recognized him for his role in a resolution regarding the work of the Holy See in the United Nations.

Hunte was also, however, the deciding vote last year on a bill in the upper chamber of the St. Lucian parliament that decriminalized abortion in that Caribbean nation. In December, that measure passed by five votes to four, with Hunte in favor.

"I think every woman must have a choice. I am a pro-choice man," Hunte said during a parliamentary debate before votes were cast.

"A woman must be the one who will decide what she wants to do in any given situation. I respect the views of those who feel it is wrong. This is their right. I will give them that right, as I will give the woman the right to determine how she wishes to treat her life," he said at the time.

Some Catholics in St. Lucia were, therefore, opposed to the Vatican honor.

Fr. Linus Clovis, for example, was appalled, according to the Herald.

"It makes a mockery of what we stand for and it compromises us because now the public perception on abortion will be: 'What are you complaining about? The Vatican does not see anything wrong with it.' "

Clovis has appealed to the pope to overturn the decision.

American Catholics will no doubt be struck by the contrast between the Vatican award to Hunte, and the refusal of some American bishops to allow pro-choice Catholic politicians to speak on diocesan property or at Catholic colleges, and most recently, to receive the Eucharist.

For anyone familiar with the patterns of Vatican diplomacy, however, Hunte's knighthood is hardly surprising. The Vatican's classic approach to political forces with which it disagrees might be dubbed "constructive engagement." The idea is that it's better to keep lines of communication open than to burn bridges. It's as important to encourage positive acts as to condemn negative ones; after all, Hunte was honored for supporting the Holy See in the U.N., not for his vote on abortion. Public excoriations may be momentarily satisfying, seasoned Vatican diplomats argue, but they rarely produce forward movement.

A senior Vatican official once expressed the idea to me this way: "Not every sentence of a heretic is heresy."

Outside the Eucharist debate, one clear example of the principle would be John Paul's 1987 visit to Chile, when the pope appeared on the balcony of the presidential palace alongside Augusto Pinochet. John Paul was criticized for doing so, but behind the scenes, Vatican sources say, he warned Pinochet that he had to go. The year after the visit, a national plebiscite rejected military rule.

The same psychology was implicit in John XXIII's and Paul VI's Ostpolitik, the policy of engagement with the Socialist world. Obviously the Catholic church did not approve of atheistic Communism, but these two popes calculated that their capacity to steer the Soviet bloc in a positive direction would be enhanced by dialogue.

Not all Catholics, of course, find this logic morally persuasive. During the Cold War, many felt that the Vatican, especially in the person of Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli, had sold out believers suffering behind the Iron Curtain, and had confused the broader public about the Church's anti-Communist stance. (Indeed, some within the Vatican itself held this view). Similarly today, some Catholics argue that "constructive engagement" with Catholic politicians who defy church teaching on a matter as fundamental as abortion amounts to fecklessness in the face of evil. Again, there are some officials in the Holy See who lean towards this position.

Yet the center of gravity in the Vatican is closer to constructive engagement than to public confrontation. That's one reason the American debate over pro-choice politicians and the Eucharist seems destined to remain just that -- an American debate.

I suppose it would be too much to ask for a similarly wisdom/prudence-filled approach by the U.S. Bishops and archconservatives to the pro-choice issue here in the US. The rabidness of the other side is enough to forestall even the semblance of a civil discussion. The Church has no inherent competence on political issues, but what she does have is a couple millennia of wisdom and that's what's at work in the Vatican's dealings in the above story: know your goals, know what's practical, and set about on a long term pragmatic solution.

The American Catholic arch-right lacks the same sophistication and understanding of strategy. It is a fast-food mentality, if you will. It is a mentality that does not understand strategic thinking needed to accomplish longterm goals in an effective way. It is a strategy that insists on instant gratification even if it hurts its cause irreparably down the line. One simply does not get the sense that coherent thought is going into this strategy, rather there is more of irrational "they-all-are-baby-killers" screed that is unaffected by any nuance or discourse.

On the issue of denying the Eucharist to pro-choice Democrats. If the point of denying Kerry and other Democrats the Eucharist is that it would be desecrated,then one must ask why the Bishops, whose deeds and violations in the past years have been exposed, receive the Eucharist? And the list goes on. Is there a threshold here? We have Bishops being accused of rapes, molestations, etc, and just as bad is the case that as a body and individually, the Bishops have enabled and cooperated, either formally or materially, in the abuses by priests. Yet they do not proclaim themselves unworthy of the sacrament.

Some serious logging needs to go on here. They need to heed the words of Christ and remove the log in their own eyes before trying to remove a speck in the eyes of Democrats.

The American electorate and especially Catholics will see through the hypocrsy and lies of the Bishops and archconservatives and make a common sense decision about whom to vote for. They may choose Bush over Kerry, but I think it would ultimately come down to different factors and not the fear and diversion driving the Bishops and the archconservatives.

The life of a two week old baby is no less important than that of a 8 month unborn fetus. It is cruel and unjustified to abandon the two week old and offer their well being to the whim of private charities or nothing at all. If the pro-lifers really cared about life at all, then let them prove it by fighting for the life of that two week old baby, whom they fought for two weeks earlier. Is she now less worthy of government intervention to provide healthcare, shelter, food, a future?

Catholics will cut through all the noise and make an informed decision. One thing we can be sure about is that Catholics will always vote on the side of life. And most Catholics know that if a life is worthy fighting for in its first 9 months, then it is worthy fighting for for a lifetime.

Rove Strategy Memo Leaked??

Top Secret

Memorandum


To: Ken Mehlman, Campaign Manager
Bush-Cheney 04

From: Karl Rove, Chief Political Strategist
Bush-Cheney 04

Date: September 21ST, 2004

Subject: Deception, Fear and Diversion Strategy


Per our discussion last Monday, I had our folks run a few focus groups and it seems Kerry voting against the $87 million is a winner, especially when we say “he voted against body armor.” Please feed this talking point through the echo chamber. It is interesting that in the focus group only one person asked why we sent the troops to war without body armor in the first place—we’ve taken care of her. I hope she has good healthcare because she’s going to be needing it.

From what I understand, the military’s honest assessment is that we will need a draft to execute our next term strategy of eradicating Iran and Syria. POTUS has agreed. However, this issue is a loser. Our focus groups reacted negatively, both Republicans and Democrats. Under no circumstance should we admit to a draft. I suggest an outright lie. If you see that it is not politically expedient to lie then let’s try the same line we used in the run up to the war, it even sounded good on Powell, we say, “There is no plan on the president’s desk or before the president concerning the draft.” Of course, the plan is on the floor next to his desk and not before him, so we are in the clear here.

The “vote for Kerry or die” strategy seems to be working wonders. We are expanding that to different constituencies. We now have Catholic Bishops onboard. Their message is “vote for Bush or go to Hell.” Do you think “a vote for Kerry is a vote for the Devil” sounds better? Our focus groups were divided on that—your call.

Keep me posted. I’ve got to go give a speech a certain law school to start a whisper smear campaign. This one’s going to be juicy. Take care and don’t forget bible study tonight.


------

This satirical piece has been brought to you by voters for truth.

New Kerry Film-coming to a theater near you!

Going Up River: The Long War of John Kerry

Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry is a feature length documentary about character and moral leadership during a time of national crisis. Loosely based on the best-selling book Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, Going Upriver examines the story of John Kerry and the key events that made him a national figure and the man he is today. The film places particular emphasis on his bravery during the Vietnam War and his courageous opposition to the war upon his return.

The film traces Kerry’s early life as a young man who chooses to enlist in the Navy and to go to Vietnam. The film reveals intimate, first person accounts of Kerry’s war service through his own private letters, his eloquent journal, and the vivid memories of the men who served at his side. When Kerry came home disillusioned by the war, he and his fellow Vietnam Veterans challenged Congress and the Nixon administration. As Kerry became a nationally known anti-war activist, the Nixon White House plotted to discredit his leadership, but significantly could find “nothing on him,” as Colson reveals via Watergate tapes. Despite Nixon’s attempt to undermine John Kerry’s political career during his 1972 unsuccessful run for US Congress, Kerry persevered, eventually winning election to the Senate and receiving the Democratic nomination for president in 2004.

Going Upriver director George Butler (best known for his highly acclaimed films Pumping Iron, featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger and The Endurance: Shackleton’s Legendary Antarctic Expedition) first realized Kerry’s importance to his generation and began documenting his journey in photographs in 1969, covering Kerry's leadership of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), his early political campaigns, as well as intimate moments of his personal life. The film weaves together Butler’s extraordinary photographs with archival film, interviews with Kerry’s closest associates, and more contemporary images of the Senator at home and abroad.

As a Vietnam War hero and anti-war activist, Kerry’s story is at the center of a defining era in American history. More than a biography of John Kerry, Going Upriver is the story of an American generation that came of age in the tumultuous sixties and that has now come to national leadership at the beginning of a new century -- when issues of war and morality once again hold center stage.

Via First Draft (including caption)

"I am John Kerry and I approve this snuggle."

Brought to you by Bush/Cheney 04 Compassionate Conservatives

Words, Actions at Odds on Children's Health Care U.S. Poised to Take Back $1.1 Billion Despite Bush's Vow

By Ceci ConnollyWashington Post Staff
WriterSaturday, September 25, 2004; Page A05

In his convention address in New York, President Bush announced a new $1 billion initiative to enroll "millions of poor children" in two popular government health programs. But next week, the Bush administration plans to return $1.1 billion in unspent children's health funds to the U.S. Treasury, making his convention promise a financial wash at best.

The loss of $1.1 billion in federal money means six states
participating in the State Children's Health Insurance Program face budget shortfalls in 2005; it is enough money to provide health coverage for 750,000 uninsured youngsters nationwide, according to two new analyses by advocacy organizations. "If the Bush administration really cared about covering uninsured children, one of the things it could do immediately is make sure this $1 billion is used for SCHIP," said Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families. "The irony is this president talks constantly about not leaving any child behind and how he is going to cover so many kids. In truth, that ended up being false. He's just moving money around."

Over the objections of the National Governors Association and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, Bush opposes giving states more time to spend the money. In previous years he supported an extension, but he struck it from this year's proposed budget. Even if Bush belatedly endorses a bill extending the SCHIP spending deadline, it will come at a price: Congress is required to trim $1.1 billion elsewhere in the budget if it lets states keep the money.

SCHIP, created in 1997, is a federal-state initiative widely popular among public officials and the private sector that provides $40 billion in health care matching funds to states over 10 years. Despite its popularity, the most recent Census Bureau data show that 8.4 million American children remain
uninsured, prompting Bush to declare his desire to enroll many more in SCHIP.

"America's children must have a healthy start in life," he said in his convention speech. "In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need."
The statement was one of the few new health ideas Bush has introduced in the 2004 campaign, and it sparked enthusiasm in social policy circles. Soon, however, state officials, budget analysts and children's advocates discovered there was no new money for SCHIP.

"When you do outreach, it doesn't help if there's no money to cover people," said Ron Pollack, whose liberal consumer
group Families USA calculated the impact of the $1.1 billion reduction. Based on current formulas, that translates into coverage for 2,500 children in the District, 13,900 in Maryland and 6,600 in Virginia.

Initially, states had difficulty enrolling many of the millions of children eligible for the program. In some instances, language barriers or a parent's reluctance to register with the government prevented broad participation; in other cases states had devised complicated multi-page applications or were unwilling to spend their portion of the funds.

But SCHIP enrollment has steadily risen from fewer than 1 million in 1998 to the current 5.8 million, and most experts say states are depleting previous years' surpluses."SCHIP spending is now exceeding annual allotments," said Edwin Park, a senior health policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. According to the center's analysis, six states
will drain those surpluses this year if the $1.1 billion is returned to the Treasury as planned at midnight Sept. 30. By 2007, 17 states are projected to run out of money.

Kevin Keane, spokesman for the Department of Health and
Human Services, said the vast majority of states estimate they cannot spend their entire 2005 federal allocation. If some states have shortfalls, he said, the HHS secretary can shift some funds. Keane said the administration views the president's new "Cover the Kids" campaign as an additional $1 billion for SCHIP.

The money will be distributed over two years in grants to some states, community groups and religious organizations, he said.
"The president believes we need to try a new, community-based approach to enrolling children in SCHIP," Keane said. "The Cover the Kids campaign is his vision for more effectively reaching eligible children and getting them enrolled." To Pollack, even the name of Bush's initiative is "extraordinarily disingenuous." For several years, he noted, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has run a 50-state outreach project called "Covering Kids and Families."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

We apologize for the distastedul news. Now, back to our regular programming. For your viewing pleasure, real compassion in word and deed, brought to you by Kerry/Edwards 04.

Via First Draft




The folks at First Draft note that he is not reading "My Pet Goat." Actually this was during the BCCI investigationwhen Kerry was busting up the terrorist bank back in the 80s.

Kerry & Democrats "make deal with the Devil"

Archbishop Chaput:

Via Welborn:

Archbishop Chaput speaks

Let’s make a deal: Catholic conscience and compromise

Two September anniversaries give us plenty to think about, this year and every year

“If you sup with the devil, you’d better bring a long
spoon.”— American folk saying

September is the month when election campaigns
get serious. So it’s also the traditional season for Catholic politicians to explain why their faith won’t “dictate” their public actions.

Forty-four years ago this month (Sept. 12, 1960), John F. Kennedy delivered remarks to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association wherein he effectively severed his Catholic identity from his public service. It’s OK to elect me president, he argued to a wary Protestant audience, because I won’t let the pope tell me what to do.

In pledging to put the “national interest” above “religious pressures or dictates,” Kennedy created a template for a generation of Catholic candidates: Be American first; be Catholic second. This was an easy calculus for Kennedy,
who wore his faith loosely anyway. And it was certainly what the American public square, with its historic anti-Catholic prejudice, wanted to hear.

The Kennedy compromise seemed to work pretty well as long as the “religious pressures” faced by Catholic elected officials involved issues like divorce, federal aid to Catholic schools or diplomatic relations with the Holy See. Each of these issues
was important, surely, but none involved life and death. None was jugular.

In 1973, by legalizing abortion on demand, the U.S. Supreme Court changed everything. The reason is simple: Abortion is different. Abortion kills. The great Lutheran pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer spoke for the whole Christian tradition when he wrote: “Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God
certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.”

Resistance to abortion cuts across all religions. It’s not a “Catholic” issue. In fact, it’s finally not a religious issue at all, but a matter of human rights, reinforced by the irrefutable scientific fact that life begins at conception.After 1973, because of Roe v. Wade, Catholic elected officials faced a choice. They could either work to change or at least mitigate permissive
abortion laws, while at the same time trying to repopulate the courts with pro-life judges. Or they could abandon the unborn and look for a way to morally sanitize their decision. For those who chose the latter course, the leading Catholic political figure of the day stepped in to help them out.

Twenty years ago this month (Sept. 13, 1984), then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo delivered a speech at the University of Notre Dame that sought to give intellectual muscle to the Kennedy compromise. Cuomo, unlike Kennedy, was more educated about his faith. Cuomo, unlike Kennedy, had the benefit of seeing where Kennedy’s Houston speech had finally led. But Cuomo, like Kennedy, was a man with presidential
prospects. To what degree those prospects shaped the talk he gave — “Religious belief and public morality: a Catholic governor’s perspective” — is unclear. But the results remain with us still.Cuomo argued that “in our attempt to find a
political answer to abortion — an answer beyond our private observance of Catholic morality” — he had concluded that “legal interdicting of abortion by either the federal government or the individual states is not a plausible possibility, and even if it could be obtained, it wouldn’t work.”

He might privately oppose abortion but, in his view, he had no right to “impose” that belief on others.In hindsight, Cuomo’s speech is a tour de force of articulate misdirection. It refuses to acknowledge the teaching and formative power of the
law. It implicitly equates unequal types of issues. It misuses the “seamless garment” metaphor. It effectively blames Catholics themselves for the abortion problem. It selectively misreads history. In the end, Cuomo argued that “approval or rejection of legal restrictions on abortion should not be the exclusive litmus test of Catholic loyalty.” With those words, he wrote the alibi
for every “pro-choice” Catholic who has held public office since.

In deference to his understanding of pluralistic democracy, Governor Cuomo — despite his personal opposition to abortion — went on to resist repeated attempts to restrict abortion in his own state of New York. He also supported public funding
of abortion for poor women.

His Catholic conscience apparently did kick in on selective issues though, whether “pluralism” liked it or not. Governor Cuomo vetoed legislative efforts to re-institute the death penalty — 12 times.

Next month, October, is Respect Life month. It’s a good time to reflect on the meaning of the Kennedy-Cuomo legacy. In brief, it’s OK to be Catholic in public service as long as you’re willing to jettison what’s inconveniently “Catholic.”

That’s not a compromise. That’s a deal with the devil, and it has a balloon payment no nation, no public servant and no voter can afford.

Democrats and Kerry making a deal with the devil? So much for moderate civil and less inflammatory dialog. It seems the good Bishop has joined the Bush/Cheney "vote for us or die by terrorists" crowd. Only in this case it is "vote for Bush or go to Hell!"

Via First Draft

Via First Draft

Catholics for Bush says:

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

The Other Catholic Issues
Kerry Catholics are not going to like this piece from
James K. Fitzpatrick. I do not see how Kerry Catholics can continue with their assertion that all issues are equal. Is it that thier ignorance is invinsible or is that they push this idea so as to convince others to support pro-abort candidates like Senator Kerry. I do not know the answer. I do know that I have
tried to inform my conscience and that it is telling me I cannot, cannot vote for Senator Kerry.

Well, I no longer have to defend my position on my own. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, has come to the rescue.

A letter that Ratzinger wrote in June to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has recently been made public. The letter makes clear the difference between the way a Catholic must respond to the pope’s pronouncements on abortion and the way we must respond to his positions on issues such as capital punishment and the war in Iraq. Here is the key: On the question of abortion, there is no possible way for a
Catholic politician to say that he is following the teachings of the Church, while at the same time
defending legal abortion. If you admit that you are
committed to keeping abortion legal, you are saying that you intend to do nothing to stop the killing of millions of unborn children.

How can Kerry Catholics respond to that?

Easy, actually! Most CforBsh (Cfbs) ignore the issue by raising the death penalty and war. While other liberals are prepared to argue, validly about both war and the death penalty, I generally keep away from those issues when talking about abortion.

On the equality of the issues, the issue is not abortion v some other "life-issue", but the sliding scale of human dignity in its temporal progression.

My question I ask to "pro-lifers," so called, is this: at what point did my little girl become less important? Five minutes after she was born, ten? A week? Three months? 17 months? Five years? Ten? When?

When "pro-lifers" so called can answer that question, then they'll be talking. The same argument that applies on the partial birth abortion issues, about what the different is between full and partial birth applies. It is nothing short of hypocrsy to fight for a life up until the second it is born and then abandon it for a lifetime. The point of a life is to live and live like a human. If you fight for a life to live, but do not fight for it to then live with the dignity of a human being, then are you actually fighting for life? No.
The fact that the pro-life crowd transfers "custody" of the birthed child to the liberals, I might add, is a testament to the fact the it is not life they are fighting for but something else (I'm not sure what). (I think most pro-lifers fight for an abstract cause or to ease conscience.)

The equality or weighting of isses is not an abortion v capital punishment issue, but a pre v post birth issue-who is more important. Cfbs land predominantly and perhaps, solely on the side of the pre-born and want little do with the post born. How do they justify that trade off? At least, we on the liberal side are struggling to weigh both, considering it unacceptable to abandon a human life, a baby, before she's born or afterwards.

So, that's how we answer. Not all issues are equal, but the same life, before and after birth is equal. I ask then the Cfbs, how soon after the baby is born, does it become less important?

CNS has the following story:

Vatican dismay: Memo on politicians touches nerve in U.S. campaign

By John Thavis

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0405112.htm

When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent out a brief memo in June about politicians and Communion, he probably never imagined it would ignite a heated discussion about Catholics and voting.

The document, leaked to an Italian reporter but never officially acknowledged by the Vatican, focused on the grounds for denying Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Almost as an afterthought, it added two sentences about Catholic voters: First, it said, a Catholic who deliberately voted for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's pro-abortion (or pro-euthanasia) stand would be guilty of "formal cooperation in evil" and should exclude himself from receiving Communion.

Second, when a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered "remote material cooperation," which is "permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."Reaction to those two sentences has been simmering all summer, fueled in part by election-year politics.

One self-styled "traditional" Catholic publication criticized Cardinal Ratzinger, who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, saying his words would be taken as a "license to vote for pro-abortion politicians."In a New York Daily News column headlined "Catholics can vote for Kerry," Father Andrew Greeley said Cardinal Ratzinger had correctly underlined that Catholics should not be single-issue voters, but
should weigh all the issues.

Other conservative Catholic Web sites have criticized Father Greeley's column and disputed the idea that Cardinal Ratzinger has given a green -- or at least yellow -- light to Catholic voters who intend to vote for pro-abortion candidates.At the Vatican, officials are dismayed for several reasons, starting with the fact that a private communication was leaked.

Moreover, they say, the ensuing discussion has mixed up two very different issues -- the public actions of Catholic politicians and the private moral decisions faced by Catholic voters. Vatican officials also are concerned that the discussion of "leeway" in voting for pro-abortion candidates may eclipse a more important point Pope John Paul II and others have been hammering home for years:

That Catholics are morally obligated to try to limit the evil of abortion and euthanasia, and that those life-and-death issues should have unique moral weight with Catholic voters.The one-page memo that started the discussion was sent with a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of
Washington, who heads the U.S. bishops' Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians.

Sources described the memo as an unsigned "staff document" aimed at summarizing basic principles. They said it did not egin to explore the complexity of the issue of voting and sin, which, in the words of one official, is pretty much "terra incognita" for moral theologians."The memo was certainly
not intended to clear the way for Catholics to vote for candidates who are in favor of laws permitting abortion or euthanasia, but rather to clarify that the simple act of voting for such candidates might not per se justify one's exclusion from Holy Communion," said U.S. Dominican Father Augustine DiNoia, undersecretary of the Vatican's doctrinal congregation.

The problem is that it's difficult to determine the purpose, or "moral object," of an act of voting, Father DiNoia said."The only thing we could say is, a person might come to be in the state of mortal sin and therefore unworthy to receive communion if they voted precisely with the moral object of extending abortion or the provision of abortion," he said. "But that would be the only case where that would happen," he
said.

For the church, there's no question about the sinfulness of abortion, but there are serious questions about how far culpability extends beyond those directly involved in abortion. That's where the concepts of "formal" and "material" cooperation come in. These are traditional terms in theology,
although their application to the act of voting is quite few.

Cooperation in evil concerns people who are drawn into the bad act of another person. In general,"formal" cooperation means culpability, whereas "material" cooperation -- being more remote -- does not, Father DiNoia said.

In the case of abortion, the church considers as the principal agents the person procuring it and the doctor performing it. In his 1995 encyclical, "Evangelium Vitae," Pope John Paul II
spoke at length about cooperation in acts against human life -- but did not mention voting."Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law," the pope said."Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it," he said.

The recent doctrinal memo's mention of "proportionate reasons" has led some people to suggest a set of reasons that could justify voting for pro-abortion politicians -- or to argue
that no "proportionate reason" can exist in such a case.Father DiNoia said one obvious proportionate reason would be when, as often occurs, Catholic voters must choose between two candidates who support legalized abortion but to widely
differing degrees. In that situation, not to vote at all would seem to go against a Christian's responsibility to participate politically.

But further defining what may or may not be "proportionate reasons" in these cases is extremely difficult, Father DiNoia said. The situation of individual Catholic voters is different, so it's impossible to have a standard list of acceptable reasons, he said.In the end, then, theology is not able to say categorically in every circumstance when a Catholic voter sins or does not sin.

What it can do -- and what the recent memo attempted to do -- is offer principles that are applied to the different situations. Vatican officials have been reluctant to comment at all on the voting issue, saying it is a complex question that is easily muddled. They say the best thing that could come out of the recent discussion is that Catholics in general think more seriously about their worthiness for Communion.

In a post at the Catholics for Kerry Yahoo discussion group (see ), I make a similar point about formal and material cooperation.

Recently we have seen the Vatican make specific demands of Catholic legislators. Perhaps, what is most troubling is that they are now demanding certain actions of Catholic legislators. An example is the issue
of Gay Unions. In Bishop Gregory's comments (he is the President of the USCCB), he says that it is "formal cooperation" if a Catholic legislator "does not oppose"
legislation in favor of a gayunion. This is getting as
close to excommunnication as they would dare in our day and age. Note that the "formal cooperation" is not
if the Catholic legislator supports the measure, but if s/he "does notoppose" it. This is no less then than a tool of manipulation orcontrol. This is commensurate
with how the Holy See controlled politics in the middle ages, they had the ultimate threat, the threat of excommunication.

I thought it was simply shameful that the Bishops had been stretching the notion of formal cooperation beyond its theological boundaries (IMO). Fr. DiNoia has it right about the cooperation thing, Bishop Gregory had it wrong.

Going to the present issue of voting and the pro-choice candidate, think of this from two perspectives. 1) There is the issue from the point of view of the voter who has no control over the candidates or their positions. The Church is now ceding what has been painfully obvious to all people of goodwill--if you are only going to vote for the perfect platform or candidate, then you are not going to be voting at all, ever. So this proportionate reasons snafu is the wiggle room the Church has given itself or else risk appearing out of touch (too late).

2) Then there is the issue from the perspective of the candidate. Here is where the battleground still remains. While the proportionate reasons wiggle room may apply to the people, the Church grants no such leeway to candidates. Eventually, I predict the Church will grant what is so commonsensically and painfully obvious to all people of good will, i.e, insofar as this is not the Catholic Republic of America, but the United States of America, publically elected officials are bound to honor and uphold the constitution, their reason for being is not as agents of the Catholic Church. On the Kerry Catholics website, I address the abortion issue more from the perspective of the candidate because that was the original issue. I argue that yes, Kerry is right in his pro-choice stand and that it is not tantamount to a pro-abortion stand nor is it contrary to a pro-life stand.

It is a Kingdon of God and Kingdom of man issue. It is an issue of church and state. It is an issue legality and morality. The confusion, and it is an issue that Catholic theology has not sufficiently worked out, is the intersection between morality, human law, natural law and common good.

Generally the Catholic theological tradition would say that eternal law is the end all be all (I agree); natural law is based on eternal law; human law is based on natural law. i think the problem is the intersection of human and natural law. While natural law may have an intrinsically moral component, human law clearly does not because it's end or goal is different (at least in terms of temporal and metaphysical proximity); 60 mph as a speed limit on DC's I-495 has nothing to do with morality, but it has much to do with the common good; another way to look at it is that the purpose of the state is not to make us good Christians, or even good people! We can't bestow the work or ministry of the Church on the state.

I think the Church is struggling to maintain its reputation which is why it has always been a slow mover, even in the face of the obvious. It has to find a way to move forward and not appear to contradict past statements. Fair enough, but still given that, why then are Bishops making these absolute-style statements, knowing that they put the Church in a difficult position later?

The one thing the Bishops are going to have to learn is to make statements that bear on moral and social issues without entering into partisan squabbles. Unfortunately, the Bishops have failed in this regard. Nonetheless, Catholics of goodwill retain the services of their trusty old consciences, the voice of God that echoes in their spirits. You don't have to be able to articulate it, but we all know what we, deep down, believe is the right thing to do and I believe that Catholics, the nation over, will do the right thing this November.

Via First Draft

Such joy, brings tears to one's eyes.

John Kerry on David Letterman


Kerry's "top 10 Bush tax proposals" are:

10. No estate tax for families with at least two U.S. presidents.

9. W-2 Form is now Dubya-2 Form.

8. Under the simplified tax code, your refund check goes directly to Halliburton.

7. The reduced earned income tax credit is so unfair, it just makes me want to tear out my lustrous, finely groomed hair.

6. Attorney General (John) Ashcroft gets to write off the entire U.S. Constitution.

5. Texas Rangers can take a business loss for trading Sammy Sosa.

4. Eliminate all income taxes; just ask Teresa (Heinz Kerry) to cover the whole damn thing.

3. Cheney can claim Bush as a dependent.

2. Hundred-dollar penalty if you pronounce it "nuclear" instead of "nucular."

1. George W. Bush gets a deduction for mortgaging our entire future.

On an arch-conservative Catholic blog, Popcak makes the claim that the argument that socio-economic conditions directly impact abortion rates is false

WHY THERE AREN'T OTHER ISSUES BESIDES ABORTION... [Gregory
Popcak]

9/20/2004

Many Catholic Kerry supporters will argue that the best way to beat abortion is to address the issues that have historically been important to the Dems (but are of questionable importance now) such as aid to the poor, health care, increased minimum wage, etc.

The idea is, with more aid to the poor abortion rates will go down. This is not the case. Most of the people who have abortions are white middle class women who do not abort for economic reasons.
~38% are women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999. (This income bracket represents the largest segment of women having abortions)
14.1% say their partner doesn't want the baby
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion simply want to postpone childbearing.
10.8% say it will disrupt their career.
47% of abortions are repeat procedures.
41% are married.
63% are white.
13.8% are women with family incomes over $60,000.
ONLY 21.3% of women state they must abort because cannot afford a baby.

Therefore almost 80% of abortions have little to do with serious economic problems.

As you can see, the majority of women receiving abortions are not eligible for poverty programs and will never be. I didn't include the 19.5% of women with incomes between 15,999 and 29,999, most of whom would also be ineligible for poverty interventions. As income INCREASES so do abortion rates.

[snip]

http://abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

The problem is that he is wrong (but why would that surprise fair minded truth seekers?)

I checked again at The Alan Gutmacher Institute's website, where you get the best abortion statistics. I would suggest checking just about everyone of his facts and you'll see that they are wrong or at best, misleading.

Here are a couple of facts:

% of Federal Poverty Level (who has abortions)
26.6% of women <100% Federal poverty table:

Notice how disingenuous these archcons are, the try to turn the focus from the needy to those who they deem have no excuse. In an article I wrote for the National Catholics Reporter I make an argument for the demand side approach to the abortion issue. An approach that says that human life is precious in or out of the womb.

The difference between Kerry Catholics and the archcon Bush Catholics is that they claim they care about the unborn, but that's where the "care" ends. We care about human beings, the unborn, the two week old baby, toddlers, teenagers, women, men, the elderly, the infirm, etc. So the slash and burn mentality is unacceptable. They say, "make sure every conceived child is born" but could care less about that life when it is born. We say, "We will not rest until ALL humans received their full dignity, both unborn and born." This is much harder; it entails juggling many interests, but it's the path to true dignity for human beings. How like Prez Bush! "Let's legislate this problem away!" (Remember the marriage-as-a-legislative-priority fiasco?) Human problems cannot be legislated away, they have to solved structurally.

Back to the abortion issue. The stats I show earlier point to 26% of abortion cases in which the woman was under 100% poverty. That's three hundred and twenty five thousand women/families! 50% of abortion cases is over six hundred and fifty thousand women/families.

Under 100% poverty is for single woman and income of approx $9,000; for a single mother with two kids, it's $15,000. Again, notice he did not mention this class of people, because they are the ones that we target when we say that socio-economic conditions would make a difference. he dismisses them as those that receive poverty assistance. I ask, what assistance, food stamps? . . .what?

When we go up to 200% of poverty, where 30.8% of abortions occur, for a single woman, that's an income level of $18,000/yr

For a single mother with two kids, it's $30,000/year. (Let's do the math)
$12,000 for rent
$3,000 for utilities
$4,200 for groceries
$3,000 for car payment
$8,000 for car insurance
$1,000 for gas
$500 for car repairs
$2,000 Payroll taxes and deductions
$1,500 for clothes and shoes ($125/month for clothes for 3 including shoes)
Total so far $35,200 (Wrong answer: she only makes $30,000/yr, unless Popcak wants to gladly offer her $5,000+ in government poverty assistance and I'm not talking healthcare here at all). And of course the compassionate archconservative screams at her: "You lazy bum, get off your butt and work a second job! You vermin!"

Dutifully she goes off and gets another job, but then she has to pay for child care, and care expenses increase; she is not present for her kids leaving them to fend for themselves foodwise-they then eat unhealthily, but of course, the archcon says that she and they should be lucky to be alive; . . . her horrible life goes on and on and on. She has no time for love, for family, for life, for recreation, in other words, to be human. Can she ever have more kids? "No!" the archcon screams at her, she swears he wants her sterilized but he can't say it because he is "pro-life."

"What shoud I do?" She asks, "I have no hope. I can't get ahead enough to take time to upgrade my skills and try for a better job; besides my $30,000 a year job pays $15/hr. Where can I find a job like that in this economy?"

Listening to this presentation is why many well-meaning Catholics think arch-conservatives are not human. They go with an inhumanely narrow definition and forget that human beings are actually involved on the other end.

ONLY 21.3% of women state they must abort because cannot afford a baby. Therefore almost 80% of abortions have little to do with serious economic problems.

This is a statement that shot through with any lack of common sense, much less human/catholic comapssion, that it bears ignoring. Furthermore, it shows that these archcons have no clue what we are talking about. The issue is not about who can afford a "baby," the issue is the socio-economic pressures of a baby who grows into a toddler, who then grows into a young child, who then grows into an adolescent, who then grows into a teenager, who then grows into a young adult, etc.

Why would any well-meaning compassionate Catholic dismiss the hundreds of thousands of these women so flippantly? In fact why would they dismiss the plight of millions of working class families so easily?

A family of four living on an annual salary of $55,000 is extremely tough and we can do the math. With health care costs, prescriptions, and premiums rising, what are families to do? With workplaces scaling back on benefits such as healthcare, what are families to do? At what income level are people safe? I note that at a certain income level, you can kiss educational state and financial aid goodbye.

The disingenuousness of the archcons is manifest in their desire to ignore the burdens of the middle class, the burdens of regular people, by the millions, who find themselves in tough financial straits, and throw up irrelevant statistics (Who on earth is talking about the 13.8% of women earning over $60,000? Our focus has been on the 50% we talked about earlier-we say let's solve this problem and get the trend going in the right direction. It's clear meantioning that figure is only meant to divert attention from those who need help).

Any positive restructuring of socio-economic conditions helps the middle class and so our argument about socio-economic conditions and abortions still stands.

Archcons seem to suggest that only if you make less than $15,000 yr (or some insane amount) can you be considered to be going through financial hardship. I've got news for the archcons, there are families with a combined income of $80,000 who are going through financial hell, not to mention the problems of those making less.

Jesus was about people, not laws. Christians need to be about people and not laws.

Post by Tristero

Kerry's Lesser Known Work on Behalf of all Vietnam Vets

Even if John Kerry had never decided to run for President, he would be remembered by history as one of the outstanding Americans of his generation. So, I'm planning to focus some time on blogging about his exemplary career, as a welcome contrast to cataloguing his opponent's numerous, and now exponentially increasing, failures.

To start, I'm going to skip ahead a little in Kerry's story, and not blog about his bravery during the war, nor about his equally brave efforts to bring the truth about the war to the attention of his country. I'll go back to them soon enough, however.Tonight, I'll briefly remind all of us that, after Yale, after Vietnam, after protesting the war with VVAW.

Kerry co-founded a different group whose purpose was to move beyond the differences that divided the Vietnam generation. Dedicated to aiding all those who fought in Southeast Asia, it's called Vietnam Veterans of America, "the only national Vietnam veterans organization congressionally chartered and exclusively dedicated to Vietnam-era veterans and their families," currently with over 50,000 individual members. VVA receives no government funds of any kind whatsoever. But it provides philanthropic assistance to Vietnam Vets that need it, works with homeless vets. and has worked for twenty years in the effort for a full accounting of POW/MIAs.

In addition, the VVA site says they are "single-handedly leading the fight for judicial review of disabled veterans' claims for benefits. The result: In 1988, Congress passed a law creating the U.S. Court of Veterans appeals. This allowed veterans to appeal VA benefits denials to a court and required VA to obey the rule of law." Furthemore, they've pressed the Agent Orange issue, helping to press the Agent Orange Act which has resulted in the Veterans Administration paying compensation for nine Agent Orange-related diseases. They also publish and/or distribute material of interest to veterans of all wars, including a white paper on health care funding for all veterans ( Here's a pdf of the paper.)VVA isn't doing anything terribly glamorous, as far as I can tell; it's simply doing the hard, difficult work of daily advocacy for Vietnam Vets' rights and has been doing so long before most such groups. It is exactly the kind of group that smart, socially active Americans have formed since the days of Franklin.

Given both the heroic nature of his Vietnam service and his efforts to oppose the war, Kerry's co-founding of VVA seems a minor accomplishment. But there are only a handful of people capable and willing to make the effort to start something like this. Kerry has the character to do so, and the skills to do it extremely well. Kerry's co-founding of VVA, which would proudly cap the entire public service accomplishments of a lesser person, is often overlooked because Kerry's well-known achievements are so numerous and yes, truly great ones. posted by tristero

Via Busted Halo

John Kerry’s Pastor-Part 2 A communion controversy, disruptive protesters outside his church and convention jitters are all part of the job for Paulist Father John Ardis.by Mike Hayes

CLICK HERE TO VIEW PART 1.

Busted Halo: Has all this attention changed the parish?John
Ardis: There’s never a dull day at the Paulist Center. After the
convention we went right into preparing for a mass…we have one of the largest chapters of Voice of the Faithful here at the Paulist Center…and we had a mass with them on Boston Common. So our music minister who just started here—actually it was his first day on the job when they asked if he would do the music for the mass and he graciously agreed to do it. So we launched right into that for VOTF, who I think are really calling for the church that I know and believe in—one that’s evangelized by the laity in the spirit of the 2nd
Vatican Council.

It’s funny though, you know being here because what’s viewed as very progressive here—in terms of liturgy anyway isn’t viewed that way throughout most of the rest of the country outside of the North East. Lay Ministry was normal in the Mid West but here it’s progressive. As far as the communion issue goes, the parish certainly was energized on that level. Nobody here has challenged the fact that it’s [Kerry’s] choice to receive communion. All the challenge has come from outside of the
community. I got a lot of nasty e-mails from people and lots of nasty phone calls. I had to take my staff’s email addresses off of our website. One woman called me up at 3AM on Easter morning to complain. I asked here where she was calling from and she said somewhere on the West Coast to which I replied. “Well it’s Midnight there and that’s not even an appropriate time to be calling someone, so let me just wish you a Happy Easter and Blessings.”

BH: Ay-yi-yi.

JA: Yeah. It’s also been uncomfortable to have the protesters here although I don’t begrudge their right to be here. Their permit is really for across the street from us but we’ve allowed them to be in front of our building as long as they don’t block the doors.

One Sunday was particularly sad for me. It was our First
Communion Sunday for our children and I went out to say to the protesters that they are certainly always welcome to be here but if they wouldn’t mind leaving us alone for just this one particular Sunday so our children wouldn’t have to remember their first communion as a day where people were chanting and holding up pictures of aborted fetuses at them. It simply fell on deaf ears. I mean it was just sad for our kids.

My perspective on the protesters is that we love them. We welcome them and they are welcome in our community as is
anyone who’d like to be here. For me the Catholic Church by its very nature is a church of compassion and understanding and that’s what we try to be at our best. There’s an opportunity for forgiveness in our church and that opportunity is not taken, unfortunately by many in the church. The kind of God who is unforgiving is not the kind of God I know. God recognizes that
we all have free will and that we all are sinners; I know very few people who aren’t. Reconciliation for me personally is something that I value and it’s always a time to start over; you can start fresh. That’s what I think some of the protesters don’t understand.

I mean if the Catholic Church could support one candidate it would be the person who has a consistent ethic of life. If President Bush were Catholic I wouldn’t deny him the eucharist
even though he’s not consistent on life issues like the death penalty and the war. But I just don’t think any Catholic should be denied communion. They should rather deny themselves communion if they feel unworthy. It’s been my experience though that there’s a great deal of people in our church who think that their sins are unforgivable and they stay away from the church because of that shame. Instead I hope that those
people would simply find a priest who could offer them some compassion and forgiveness. I mean the story of the prodigal son states it best that we only need to seek forgiveness. Yet when people most need grace they feel there’s no opportunity for reconciliation. There’s nothing that they could have done that can’t be forgiven. That’s the gift of the church. I know that when I go to confession I come out restored. It’s really one of
the greatest sacraments of the church and yet so few people use it. I mean there are so many people who seek out therapy and social workers and many of them call me saying that I think what this person needs is simply to be able to forgive themselves.

BH: How many drafts of the closing benediction at the Democratic National Convention did you go through?

JA: Now that’s a bit of a story. I was first asked to do the invocation –which is at the beginning and the benediction is at the end. So we spent all day Monday on an invocation. I asked my brother Paulists through our listserv if they had any thoughts as to what I should include or not include as well as other people I know from here and our staff here at the Center. We were going to merely tweak the invocation on Tuesday but then on Tuesday at 11AM the DNC called to confirm that I would be doing the benediction on Thursday night. I asked
them for a clarification because I was told I was doing the invocation and they said they would get back to me. So we waited for the next 4 hours and they finally called and confirmed that I was doing the benediction at the conclusion
not the invocation at the beginning.

So instead of starting from scratch because it really is such a different prayer and a different mood., we sat around and asked what pieces of the invocation could be carried over into
the benediction and we decided that we definitely wanted to keep (a full reading of the benediction can be found at http://www.paulist.org/media/news2_ardis.html)
the pieces on inclusion for all Americans and the pieces on respecting and cherishing life. Patty Simpson one of our many staff members was particularly moved by the “send me” phrase that President Clinton used and suggested we use some of his same style in our prayer. Susan Rutkowski, who is our RCIA director, was very valuable to me as someone who really helped me pull a lot of this together. Finally, Jim Carroll who’s a former Paulist and an author made the suggestion of weaving in a short piece about peace earlier in the prayer which definitely worked well. I’m so grateful for all their labors along with the suggestions of many of my brother Paulists.

BH: Describe your feelings on being on the floor of the
convention.

JA:The energy in that place was amazing. I was particularly
glad I went in early to practice a bit because they asked me if I wanted to use a teleprompter and I said sure but then when I got there they…well…I had highlighted certain words to give them more punch but when I saw my text on the prompter, the highlights were gone. So I decided to dump the prompter and
just use a binder with my copy of the prayer printed on both sides of the binder so I wouldn’t have to flip any pages. I practiced inside in a meeting room but went outside on stage to see where I was going to speak. Later on when I was out there to deliver the prayer it was like a completely different place
than the hall I was in just a few hours before. Just amazing, wild, energy. When I was practicing they told me that no matter what happens I should just keep going. I was glad they told me that because it might have sounded quiet to you at home watching on TV but let me tell you it was not quiet in that convention hall. People do not quiet down at all. So even
though this was prayer there were a few times that the crowd broke out in thunderous applause. TV filters most of that sound out so the only cheering you heard was the time that the crowd really burst into cheers when I mentioned an unjust war. But there was a problem with the balloons falling that night and a few times they started to fall right by my binder on the podium
so while I had my hands stretched upwards I had to bat a few of them away.

My nephew said that he was surprised the DNC didn’t have them turn into doves when I batted them skyward. [Laughs ] I didn’t realize it at the time but the secret service was right on my right shoulder the whole prayer. I had received a threat earlier in the week. Someone emailed me saying that if I
prayed at the convention I wouldn’t be able to speak again for a year. But I decided that I can’t let crazy people dictate my ministry and the secret service took everything very seriously and made sure I was well protected.

BH: What have your Paulist brothers said to you about your prayer?

JA: Well, look, I just happen to be here and this opportunity came up on my watch. But this was a first time thing not just for me but also for the Paulists. Somebody pointed out that since we are a community of priests whose mission it is to
serve in North America, this was a particularly important moment for us as a community. I mean serving those in America is what we’re all about as priests. So when one of my brothers brought that fact up it put even more pressure on my shoulders. [Laughs ]One of the things I noticed on the tape
later, because I certainly couldn’t look behind me during the prayer at the Senators, was how Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards were really deeply in prayer during that moment. I mean this was probably one of the most exciting moments of their lives, presumably and yet they were both firmly and devoutly in
prayer.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW PART 1.

Mike Hayes is the Associate
Director of Paulist Young Adult Ministries.
Comments to:
editor@bustedhalo.com

Via Welborn

Abortion Play Inspired by John Kerry Banned by Catholic Bishop Revived - Lutherans and Other Denominations Offer Their Sanctuaries for Play and Discussion

A month into rehearsals, twenty-five Catholics at a
Chicago parish received word that the play they were mounting had been banned by their bishop. On September 14, Bishop Francis J. Kane overruled the parishioners' pastor, Reverend William Kenneally, and asserted that "THE ANSWER" – a play about abortion, politics, and a public family’s travail in the grips of both – could not be performed anywhere in the Archdiocese of Chicago . . . But
then pastors from other denominations learned of the banning and responded by offering their sanctuaries as host locations for the play and the common ground-building discussion slated to follow each performance.

Now this "ripped from the headlines" drama will be performed as scheduled October 1 – 3, and offer its theatrical story as a creative way to analyze the painfully complex issue of abortion and its role in the selection of an American leader.

Chicago, IL (PRWEB) September 17, 2004 -- "THE ANSWER" – a play about abortion, politics, and a family’s public travail in the grips of both – was scheduled to be produced at St. Gertrude's Catholic Church on October 1st. On Tuesday, September 14 – after a month of rehearsal – St. Gertrude’s pastor, Reverend William Kenneally, received word from Bishop Francis J. Kane that the play could not be performed or discussed in any Catholic church anywhere within the Archdiocese of Chicago.After newspaper and television coverage broke news of the censure – Father Kenneally's phone began to ring.

Ministers from other Christian denominations in far-flung boroughs of the city offered their churches as host for the play and the discussion slated to follow it. Pastor Bob Goldstein of Immanuel Lutheran Church nearby in Edgewater said, "Father Bill and the St. Gertrude’s community have meant a great deal to us for many years. We’ll do anything we can to help." Undaunted by the controversy stirred up by the Catholic bishop’s ban, Goldstein said, "I’ve spoken with our Council President, and our bishop. We’re all happy to have this play done here."

"THE ANSWER" will be performed October 1-3, Friday and Saturday 8PM, Sunday at 5PM at Immanuel Lutheran Church, 1500 West Elmdale Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60660 – just two
blocks from St. Gertrude. Written and directed by Delle Chatman screenwriter, author and theology student – "THE ANSWER" leans on a score of gospel, jazz, and sacred music performed by "Choral Thunder."The play's controversial, two-tiered story-line is inspired by today's headlines: A Catholic Democrat watches his re-election campaign lead ooze away after a bishop denies him Communion for supporting pro-Choice legislation. Then, a month before the election, a reporter unearths an abortion the senator's daughter had while she was in college. The revelation costs him core voters and reveals a heart-rending crack in his family.

Amid numerous credits as a writer of film and television, Chatman wrote the story and co-wrote the screenplay for "FREE OF EDEN," a film for Showtime starring Sidney Poitier. She's written two books, "The Death of a Parent" and
"The Unteachable Ten." Chatman is currently a regular contributor to the WTTW series on Channel 11 entitled "30 Good Minutes" where she has presented reflections and sermons on many faith-centered issues.Tickets to "THE ANSWER"
are $10 for teenagers and adults. The play is not appropriate for small children. Voter registration will be offered at each performance. Reservations may be made by visiting the production’s website or by calling (773) 338-3718, where publicist Regina Sawyer may also be reached.Contact: Regina
SawyerPublicist/Faithstruck Incorporated(773) 338-3718 phone and fax regina@theanswerin2004.com

http://www.theanswerin2004.com

Curtailing free speech is never a good sign. The Archdiocese of Chicago is under no obligation to allow this play to go on, however, it is not a good sign when free speech, especially through creative outlets, is surpressed. It shows that the Catholic church is no longer a place for open and reasonable discussion. No one is saying that the Church has to accept the premise of the play, but I would think that just the opportunity to engage people would be promising, especially since a play may either bring people who normally wouldn't come to a church, or it could make politically active, people who may not have seen much of a link between their faith and political activity.

The archdiocese could easily have tilted things in their favor by ensuring that certain things were said both before and after the play, or that propaganda was distributed, etc.

Curtailing free speech in what should be an open organization is ominous at best IMHO.

Via Busted Halo

John Kerry's Pastor

John Kerry’s PastorPaulist Father John Ardis counts the Democratic Presidential nominee as a member of his flock.

by Mike Hayes

John Kerry's nomination in 2004 marks the first time a major party has nominated a Roman Catholic for president since another senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy, secured the nod in 1960. Back then, Kennedy had to deal with suspicions that a Catholic president might be unduly influenced by the pope.

Today, Kerry is running in a far different political and religious climate in which some US bishops have stated that they would refuse to allow the senator to receive the eucharist in their diocese because of his stand on "life" issues. When not campaigning, Kerry and his wife, Theresa's home parish is the Paulist Center in Boston, a small, unassuming chapel adjacent to Boston Common. Recently, the Center's pastor, John Ardis, sat down with BustedHalo to talk about how the presence of
their high-profile parishioner affects parish life. It turns out that Kerry's affect has been significant. Ardis, who was asked by the Kerry campaign to give the closing blessing at this year's democratic convention, talks candidly about topics ranging from the secret service and bomb-sniffing dogs to disruptive protesters outside mass and crank calls in the middle of the night.

BustedHalo: What do you have to prepare for when Senator Kerry comes here for worship?

John Ardis: It’s important for me to say that the Kerrys come here to pray. They really don’t come here to be seen or to cause a distraction and that’s true of both Theresa and John. It’s prayer time for them and they usually try to slip out at some point during the last hymn before most of our parishioners, who usually wait until the final hymn is over. We’ve really tried to protect their privacy and we’ve even blocked off some rows when we know their coming so they can have that time to themselves. The regulars get it and respect their personal piety. Now that’s not to say that they don’t participate in mass –they do. They sing and respond and offer all the parishioners around them the sign of peace, just like everyone else does.

BH: In terms of logistics though…is this tough on the parish?

JA: The secret service is very good about telling us in advance when they’re coming. So they come in with a couple of sniffing dogs and sweep the building. That’s about it. They’ve made it a point to tell us that this is nothing in comparison to what would happen if he gets elected. If that happens then everybody is going to have to go through a metal detector in the front door and probably have to get individually “wanded” too.

BH: So you’re rooting for President Bush then?

JA: [Laughs] The Paulist Center makes no endorsements for political candidates. You know, the Paulists have actually been pretty good at serving the needs of both candidates, which hasn’t been reported much. Fr. Pat Johnson, the pastor at St. Austin’s in Texas recently did Jeb Bush’s son’s wedding. Jeb’s son, George, (not the president), went to UT-law and he and his now-wife became close with Pat.

BustedHalo should go an interview him about that too. So we serve the spiritual needs of everyone, regardless of political affiliation.
[Laughs]

BH: What has your relationship and the Paulist Center’s relationship been with Senator Kerry?

JA: [Senator Kerry and his wife Theresa] have been coming here for around 8-10 years--when they’re in town, which isn’t all that frequently now because of the campaigning. I would say that my relationship with him and Theresa is pretty much the relationship most pastors have with most of the parishioners in their parish. I know them by name. I
see them when they come to mass on Sunday and there’s a little exchange of pleasantries but not much more than that. You know the pastor only really gets to know the really active and involved people in the parish well which is only about 10%. I actually have a hard time recognizing Theresa, who sometimes comes alone, when she’s without the Senator.

Here’s a good example of how our relationship is: one Sunday I wasn’t presiding but was standing outside waiting for mass to finish. It was after one of the Primary victories for Senator Kerry and it was becoming clear that he was the democratic
candidate. Theresa’s driver was out there sort of nervously pacing and he asked me how much longer mass was going to be. Now I know that the Kerry’s try to slip out quickly just as the last hymn is ending because they really don’t want their prayer time to slip into business mode, so I told him she
should be out in a few minutes. As Theresa came out I acknowledged her and told her congratulations on the recent success and basically offered her some general support and good wishes. She smiled said thanks exchanged in some
little small talk and then simply went into her car.

BH: Why do you think John Kerry chose the Paulist Center as his place of worship?Well I think we do good liturgy. There’s good music and good preaching, that’s an obvious reason. But certainly he aligns himself with the social justice aspects of
our ministry which we’ve become well known for. He’s been supportive of our homeless supper program where we invite 200 people each Wednesday for a sit-down dinner where they are truly our guests, as opposed to the traditional soup kitchen style where people line up for food, etc. We serve them a sit
down dinner and they are truly treated as guests here.

In the late 60’s the center was known for being against the war in Vietnam and the priests that served here were particularly vocal about that. Here today, we clearly state our opposition to the war in Iraq but we are also sensitive to the fact that some of our parishioners are military families, who have sons and daughters in Iraq and who truly are doing their duty in serving our country; doing what they made a commitment to do. But in terms of the war itself, we have stated that we think this is an unjust war, just as the Holy Father has stated as well.

In short, I think Sen. Kerry comes here because of what he has stood for all his life in reaching out to the underdog.

Check Back for Part 2:
Mike Hayes is the Associate Director of Paulist Young Adult Ministries.Comments to: editor@bustedhalo.com

From Dallas Morning News

Former secretary says she didn't type memos
10:51 PM CDT on Tuesday,
September 14, 2004
By PETE SLOVER / The Dallas Morning News
HOUSTON –

The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who supposedly authored memos critical of President Bush’s Guard service said Tuesday that the documents are fake, but that they reflect real documents that once existed.

Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1957 to 1979 at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, said she prided herself on meticulous typing, and the memos first disclosed by CBS News last week were not her work.

“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”

Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events, said she is not a supporter of Mr. Bush, who she deemed “unfit for office” and “selected, not elected.”

“I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it,” she said. But, she said, telltale signs of forgery abounded in the four memos, which contained the supposed writings of her ex-boss, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.

She said the typeface on the documents did not match either of the two typewriters that she used during her time at the Guard. She identified those machines as a mechanical Olympia, which was replaced by an IBM Selectric in the early 1970s.

She spoke fondly of the Olympia machine, which she said had a key with the “th” superscript character that was the focus of much debate in the CBS memos. Experts have said that the electric, and mechanical typewriters such as the Olympia, could not produce proportional spacing, found in the disputed documents.

CBS officials have defended their report. They have declined to say who provided 60 Minutes with the documents, other than that it was an “unimpeachable source” – or exactly where they came from, other than Lt. Col. Killian’s “personal file.”

The memos, if real, would show that as a pilot, Mr. Bush defied a direct order to obtain a flight physical, enjoyed the benefit of pressure from high officials to “sugar coat” his record, and was
grounded for failing to meet military performance standards.
Mrs. Knox said she did all of Lt. Col. Killian’s typing, including memos for a personal “cover his back” file he kept in a locked drawer of his desk.

She said she did not recall typing the memos reported by CBS News, though she said they accurately reflect the viewpoints of Lt. Col. Killian and documents that would have been in the personal file. Also, she could not say whether the CBS documents corresponded memo for memo with that file.

“The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones,” she said. She said that the culture of the time was that men didn’t type office-related documents, and she expressed doubt that Lt. Col. Killian would have typed the memos. She said she would typically type his memos from his handwritten notes, which she would then destroy.

Mrs. Knox, who left the Guard before Lt. Col. Killian died,
said she was not sure of the disposition of his personal files when he died while still serving at Ellington. But, she said, it would have been logical that a master sergeant who worked in the squadron headquarters would have destroyed any such nonofficial documents after Lt. Col. Killian’s death.

That man, reached Tuesday, declined to comment. “I don’t know anything about the matter,” he said. She also said the memos may have been constructed from memory by someone who had seen Lt. Col. Killian’s private file but were not transcriptions because the language and terminology did not match what he would have used.

For instance, she said, the use of the words “billets” and a reference to the “administrative officer” of Mr. Bush’s squadron reflect Army terminology rather than the Air National Guard. Some news reports attribute the CBS reports to a former Army National Guard officer who has a longstanding dispute with the Guard and has previously maintained that the president’s record was sanitized.

Mrs. Knox also cited stylistic differences in the form of the notes, such as the signature on the right side of the document, rather than the left, where she would have put it.
E-mail pslover@dallasnews.com

By Greg Palast via Pandagon

Still Unreported: The Pay-off in Bush Air Guard Fix
Saturday, August 28,
2004

by Greg Palast

In 1968, former Congressman George Herbert Walker Bush of Texas, fresh from voting to send other men’s sons to Vietnam, enlisted his own son in a very special affirmative action program, the ‘champagne’ unit of the Texas Air National Guard. There, Top Gun fighter pilot George Dubya was assigned the dangerous job of protecting Houston from Vietcong air attack.

This week, former Lt. Governor Ben Barnes of Texas 'fessed up to pulling the strings to keep Little George out of the jungle. "I got a young man named George W. Bush into the Texas Air Guard - and I'm ashamed."

THE PAY-OFF

That’s far from the end of the story. In 1994, George W. Bush was elected governor of Texas by a whisker. By that time, Barnes had left office to become a big time corporate lobbyist. To an influence peddler like Barnes, having damning formation on a sitting governor is worth its weight in gold – or, more precisely, there’s a value in keeping the info secret. Barnes appears to have made lucrative use of his knowledge of our President’s slithering out of the draft as a lever to protect a multi-billion dollar contract for a client. That's the information in a confidential letter buried deep in the files of the US Justice
Department that fell into my hands at BBC television.

Here's what happened. Just after Bush's election, Barnes' client GTech Corp., due to allegations of corruption, was about to lose its license to print money: its contract to run the Texas state lottery. Barnes, says the Justice Department document, made a call to the newly elected governor's office and saved GTech's state contract.

The letter said, "Governor Bush ... made a deal with Ben Barnes not to rebid [the GTech lottery contract] because Barnes could confirm that Bush had lied during the '94 campaign."In that close race, Bush denied the fix was in to keep him out of 'Nam, and the US media stopped asking questions. What did the victorious Governor Bush's office do for Barnes? According to the tipster, "Barnes agreed never to confirm the story [of the draft dodging] and the governor talked to the chair of the lottery two days later and she then agreed to support letting GTech keep the contract without a bid."

And so it came to pass that the governor's commission reversed itself and gave GTech the billion dollar deal without a bid. The happy client paid Barnes, the keeper of Governor Bush’s secret, a fee of over $23 million. Barnes, not surprisingly, denies that Bush took care of his client in return for Barnes’ silence. However, confronted with the evidence, the former Lt. Governor now admits to helping the young George stay out of Vietnam.

Take a look at the letter yourself - with information we confirmed with other sources - at http://www.gregpalast.com/ulf/documents/draftdodgeblanked.jpg).

Frankly, I don’t care if President Bush cowered and ran from Vietnam. I sure as hell didn’t volunteer … but then, my daddy didn’t send someone else in my place. And I don’t march around aircraft carriers with parachute clips around my gonads talking about war and sacrifice.

More important, I haven't made any pay-offs to silence those who could change my image from war hero to war zero.

The point? You ask. My reply, character. When the time came and John Kerry was in a position, he said, "send me!" He volunteered to serve his country. He did so valiantly and was considered on the better or even best Swift Boat skippers, there was a maneuver named after him, his men have said if they had to go with him on one last mission, even it it was to Hell, they wouldn't hesitate.

George W. Bush fled combat by pulling strings to get in to the Texas Air National Guard, into what was called the "Champagne Unit." It was not enough that he pulled strings, 1972 and 1973, he went AWOL. Even by the White House's very loose standards, he did not fulfill his requirements.

However, GWB's friends have launched vile and, like McCain said, "Dishonorable and dishonest" attacks on John Kerry, his character and his service, while George W Bush has sat idly by refusing to condemn these lies. All this while George W. Bush tries to play the "good, solid, character" thing. But when we look at his actions now and his history, we can't but conclude that his character is not what he makes it out to be. On the other hand, when we look at John Kerry's character, now and his history, this is a nothing less than a good, solid man.

George Bush has done nothing to show that he is a man of solid character and worthy of the presidency of the United States. In John Kerry we have the opportunity to elect someone who would make an exceptional presiedent of the United States.

Months ago I spoke with a Kerry organizer about organizing a prayer day for Kerry. We talked about what the prayer requests would be and it was stuff like, for Kerry's health and strength, for wisdom for Kerry and his team, for a decent election debate, you get the gist. We never once considered it appropriate that we pray God that Kerry win, but rather that God's will be done.

Not so on the other side. It is with no small measure of amusement that I see CatholicsforBush invoking Our Lady of Victory for a George Bush win.

Another illustration of the difference in thought processes between left and right. On the left, we think too much and try to be as considerate of everyone and fuss over the big picture. For us, wanting Kerry to win is not the same as demanding of God that Kerry wins. On the right, it's simple. George Bush good, Kerry and Democrats evil, Oh God, George Bush must win or else .. .

Jesus gives us a good model of prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. The moment had come to face death. It was time for him to embrace his fate. (quick pet peve/soapbox) Jesus did not ask for the cup of death and suffering to pass from him because he was afraid or doubting, rather Jesus was God incarnate and his reaction is God's reaction to the evil of death in sin. Just as God hates death through sin, Jesus recoiled from it showing how God felt about death. Jesus, God incarnate, was about to experience evil, and his righteous nature was revolted by it. Nonetheless, in that moment in which he was right to recoil from death, he overcame that moment by saying, "not my will but thine."

In prayer, our most innate stand is always the acceptance of God's will.
In this election, our primary concern should be not if God is on our side , but if we are on God's. It is simply unChristian to demand that God check the ballot box of our choice, rather we should ask humbly for wisdom, that we check the box of God's choice. (Of course liberals would echo the Psalmists and St Paul that we are not privy to the deep counsels of God, while GWB Catholics know exactly what God is thinking.)

Our GWB arch-conservative Catholic friends remind me of Jonah. Jonah was a self righteous type who felt the he was fine with God and couldn't be much bothered about others. But one thing about Jonah that people fail to realize [this is not one of his characteristics that I attribute to GWB conservative Catholics:)] is that Jonah knew God very well. When God told him to up and go to Nineveh and preach fire and brimstone and destruction, something our GWB arch conservative opponents would probably not bristle at because, after all, these people were bad, Jonah knew it was a shallow threat. He knew that God fundamentally does not condemn, rather God is love. And basically, all this God talk about fire and brimstone was useless, because all God had to see from the Babylonians was a hint of repentance and the floodgates of mercy would burst open.

Jonah fled God because he'd rather deliver a message of fiery justice and condemnation than one of mercy and hope. These people were evil and deserved nothing but the worst. But at the end of all his experiences, he learned that God is the Father of all, of both the righteous and the sinner and it is not God's will that any should perish, but all should come to repentance.

If you listened to the George Bush arch-conservatives, you would think God hates or at best tolerates everyone but the Republican Bush supporters. But we are all God's children and God's desire is to create a better world for all of us (thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven). Such a change can only come structurally, i.e., through political means. So God does have an interest, so to speak, in the affairs of the world. It is his desire that we have a world that is more just, more peaceful, and more like heaven. God will lead us there, to that world, if we trust him.

This election, like non before, will result in a fundamental shift in the way the world does business. In my opinion and that of other Kerry supporters, four more years of Bush will lead to nothing but more wars, more poverty, more injustice, more destruction of the international world order, and more violence. On the other hand, a vote for Kerry is a vote to offer a hopeful and positive vision to the world. It is a vote for justice, for healthcare, for rising out of poverty, for respect, strength and diplomacy in the world, it is a vote for a forward looking future and not a future of fear.

God said to his children in Jeremiah 29, "I know the thoughts that I think towards you, thoughts of hope not of fear, to give you a future full of hope." In 1 Tim 2:1-4, Paul says to pray for leaders and for peace. Hope and peace are the message of the Kerry and Edwards team, fear and war is that of the Bush Cheney team. At least on this front, we know that Kerry and Edwards are more reflective of the hope of structural change that needs to occur for a more peaceful and hopeful world that we pray about every sunday in the Lord's prayer.

I don't pray that John Kerry wins, although I want him to win and can't imagine otherwise. However, I simply pray that as a nation, God gives us wisdom to make the right choice. Not our will but thine, O Lord.

News Alert! Bush Goes Negative on Jesus!



Via dkos

John Kerry/John Edwards: "America's best days are yet to come!"


Dick Cheney/George Bush: "Vote for me or die!"

Kerry's new line of attack on Bush has to do with the $200 billion for the Iraq war, saying that that was money that could have been used on other priorities.

Pandagon.net, a liberal blog, has expressed dismay at this line of attack because wars cost money and how would Kerry have paid for a war anyway. Well, we did not have to go to war against Iraq.

The issue is that President Bush made his choices.
--He chose to dole out $1.3 trillion in tax cuts,
--He planned for an unnecessary war that he knew would cost 100s of billions
--He arm twisted for a sham Medicare bill that increases the size of government and does little for seniors.

These were all bad choices.

Kerry on the other hand would have done what Jesus suggested in the Luke reading on Sunday:

Or what king marching into battle would not first sit downand decide whether with ten thousand troopshe can successfully oppose another kingadvancing upon him with twenty thousand troops? But if not, while he is still far away,he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms. Lk 14:25-33

A wise leader counts the costs.

Here's what I think Kerry would have done:

-Kerry would have gone to war against the Taliban who harbored Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda attacked us not Iraq. The 9-11 terrorsist had demonstrable ties with Saudi Arabia and Iran and none with Iraq.
-Kerry would have made capturing Osama Bin Laden soon after the attack, a priority.
-Kerry would have adopted a tough line against terrorism and terror sponsoring states such as Pakistant, Iran and Syria
-Kerry would have contained Iraq through the fly overs because Iraq was so low down the threat immediacy chain. Iran, Syria, North Korea and Pakistan were far more immediate threats.
-Kerry understood that Saddam Hussein was a problem that needed to be dealt with. But unlike Bush, Kerry would not have lied by claiming that Saddam was an immediate threat to the US
-Kerry would have committed to rebuilding Afghanistan and establishing our credibilty in the region, thus giving us real allies in the war against Al Qaeda.
-Kerry would lead the world in a unified war against terror, unlike Bush who does not know how to lead. He thinks he is leading, but as Senator Biden asked, "If you are leading, then where are the followers?"
-Kerry would commit to addressing the Palestinian problem, which provides oxygen for dissatisfied Islamic extremists and frustrated hopeless youths.

In moving in a smart strategic manner, Kerry's leadership would move the momentum of world action towards making the world inhospital for terrorist. To overcome terrorism, one must remove conditions for recruitment, capture or kill existing terrorist, and stop state sponsorship of terrorism (Syria, Pakistan, Iran, N. Korea [Iraq is not and has not been on this list] also addressing failed states like Somalia, etc). This requires unprecedent cooperation and leadership and not a bungling misadventure.

All this could be achieved with out deploying the 130,000 + soldiers, dishing out billions to halliburton, and being stuck in a quagmire. If Kerry felt that action in Iraq at some point was necessary then he would plan and take the time to develop the right conditions. he would bring in allies and the UN; he would let the inspectors do their job which would have taken at least a year; he would listen to his military chiefs and if necessary expandend the size of the military in preparation; he would get realistic commitments from allies, especially muslim allies who would put muslim troops on the ground. When all is said and done, Kerry would not need to spend any where near what Bush has, which is all money spent to little avail.

Further, because a stronger America starts at home:

- Kerry would not have doled out a trillion dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy
-He would close loop holes that reward outsourcers with tax rewards
-Kerry has a real health care plan that will reduce the cost to employers by a $1000/ employee spuring economic growth
-Kerry will increase the minimum wage to $7+/hr and give real tax relief to the middle class. Minimum wagers and middle class folks will spend and create growth in the economy is given more money. The wealthy may buy an extra yacht and then park the rest of the millions in the stock market.
-Kerry will invest in homeland security, borders, ports, technology, etc creating economic activity

Kerry is smart enough to know that fighting tough is only half the battle, fighting smart is what counts. Kerry understands that everything is interrelated, and that fighting the war against Al Qaeda can also work positively for the economy.

If I were a betting man, I would bet that the Pope would love to see John Kerry in the White House. But I'm not a betting man and the Pope would never play his hand. Although, with his reported statement agains military action as a response to terror, I don't see how that is not a very strong statement against this administration's misguided policies.