Michael Spencer's comment, with the above title, appeared today on the Christian Science Monitor website. Here is the opening:
We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.
Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.
This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.
Archbishop Chaput on the anti-Catholic Connecticut legislation:
To fellow Catholics of the Church in northern Colorado:
One of the ironies of Catholic life is that, while outsiders often see the Church as a monolith, the opposite is true. Her real structure is much closer to a confederation of families. Each diocese or "local Church" is accountable to the Holy See and in relation to one another within the Catholic faith.
But - both under Canon Law and in practice - each diocese is also largely autonomous. The good news is that this ensures a healthy degree of diversity and freedom in local Catholic life. The bad news is that those who resent the Church can more easily attack the believing community in a piecemeal way.
Bigoted legislators, including some who claim to be nominally or formerly "Catholic," are thankfully uncommon. Most lawmakers, whatever their convictions, sincerely seek to serve the common good. But prejudice against the Catholic Church has a long pedigree in the United States. And rarely has belligerence toward the Church been so perfectly and nakedly captured as in Connecticut's pending Senate Bill 1098, which, in the words of Hartford's Archbishop Henry Mansell, "directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith."
In effect, SB 1098 would give the state of Connecticut the power to forcibly reorganize the internal civil life of the Catholic community. This is bad public policy in every sense: imprudent; unjust; dismissive of First Amendment concerns, and contemptuous of the right of the Catholic Church to be who she is as a public entity. If Catholics want Caesar telling them how they're allowed to live their civil life as a community, this is exactly the kind of legislation to make it happen.
The legislative coercion directed against the Catholic community in one state has implications for Catholics in every other state. If bigots in one state succeed in coercive laws like SB 1098, bigots in other states will try the same.
I strongly encourage Catholics across the archdiocese to show their support for the bishops and faithful Catholic people of Connecticut by writing the Connecticut lawmakers behind SB 1098 and letting them know - respectfully and firmly - that this kind of prejudicial lawmaking violates common sense, damages the common good and offends Catholics around the country. One lesson we should learn from American history is this: If Catholics don't defend their Church, nobody else will.
+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. Archbishop of Denver
The mysterious Professor P. says that I mischaracterized the Greater Kansas City Women's Politcal Caucus. I'll let the facts speak for themselves and the good judgment of our readers to determine whether I have mischaracterized this organization. The Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus' "Positions and Mission Statement" webpage says: "We support the right of women to control their own reproduction without governmental intrusion." Their "endorsements" webpage says that they support pro-choice candidates.
Finally, as my colleagues Rick Garnett (here), Greg Sisk (here), and John Breen (here) have so ably argued, Sebelius' participation in the "auction" and subsequent reception/party for the abortionist Tiller at the Governor's Mansion is largely a side show given Sebelius' longstanding ties to the abortionist community and her allergic reaction to even the most modest of abortion regulation.
I have received several emails since posting Sebelius, the Group of 26, and Orwell’s America yesterday.About half were extremely positive and appreciative.The other half, including one from an MOJ blogger and another from one member of the Group of 26, were, shall we say, distinctively less positive.And, I must say that I am extremely frustrated in the level of discourse (and lack of argument) by those who disliked my post.One responder simply said that my post “disgusted” him.Another suggested that I must have been motivated by anger/outrage “to cross the line by accusing [the Group of 26] of wanting to turn the pro-life movement into a pro-abortion-rights movement – and as much as saying that they are lying (about Sebelius) in their effort to do so.”Another said, “I am not likely to be swayed by the evaluation of one of the most unenlightened and thoroughly unpastoral bishops I have ever encountered.”That person also said that I was full of “judgmental crap offered from the Olympus of moral certitude.”
What is missing from all of these emails is even the attempt at refuting my (and Archbishop Naumann’s) accusations.In short, name calling substitutes for reasoned argument in these emails.
I accuse the Group of 26 of engaging in making a material misrepresentation (the less polite word is, as one reader pointed out, “lying”).The material misrepresentation is partly by omission – the Group of 26 tells us how Sebelius is good at reducing abortion but they fail to tell us about her opposition to even modest abortion regulations.The Archbishop goes further, suggesting, I think accurately, that the Group of 26 is engaged in an affirmative misrepresentation when they claim that "She’s made clear she agrees with Church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief."If I am wrong in my judgment – if I am wrong in my accusation, please let me know.If you disagree with my assessment, please resist the temptation to resort to name calling and resort to good old fashioned argument instead.
I also accuse the Group of 26 of engaging in preemptive name calling by accusing her opponents of demagoguery.They say “we also reject the tactics of those who would use Gov. Sebelius’ faith to attack her. As Catholics, we find such partisan use of our religion regrettable and divisive.”This is a very convenient rhetorical strategy, which dismisses an opponents arguments before they can even be presented.If I am wrong in my judgment – if I am wrong in my accusation, please let me know.If you disagree with my assessment, please resist the temptation to resort to name calling and resort to good old fashioned argument instead.
"I would like to thank you for your forthright discussion about the Sebelius Catholics at MOJ. I know it must not be easy having to be so blunt with your colleagues, but I agree with you and Archbishop Naumann that the actions of the Catholic United 26 have gone to an unprecedented level. Where they once made an argument for basically reluctant, proportionate voting strategy, they now are literally attempting to redefine what it means to live and act as a Catholic pro-lifer, so that it means living and acting like as a pro-abortion rights activist within the highest levels of the abortion industry. They are exceeding the Mario Cuomos of the past, who at least claimed that they were justified in parting with their faith beliefs. They are even different than the Maguires and Drinans, who admitted they were promoting a change in Church teaching. These academics wish to change what it means to be a Catholic pro-life citizen into the opposite of what the Church and all the bishops say it means, even to the point of vigorously protecting abortion practitioners themselves. And they seek the change while publicly claiming that it is not a change but that they actually represent the authentically Catholic pro-life view, so that their message will be more effective as cognitive interference to regular Catholics and propaganda of the worst kind. The stakes could not be higher, and your comparisons with Orwell are highly appropriate. When a Catholic Archbishop goes so far as to say these people are “very, very dishonest,” that is, they are lying, then criticism such as yours cannot be dismissed as mere blog incivility (as Kmiec and even some at MOJ will continue to do). Sebelius represents the polar opposite of “living and acting” the Catholic Church’s pro-life beliefs—any contrary claim is a lie. Your initial post inspired me to write on this topic, which I've published here."
The level of deceit by Catholics for Sebelius is breathtaking!
Michael P. has posted a response from a reader attempting to exonerate Gov. Sebelius from guilt by association with the abortionist Tiller. The reader says "Tiller won the reception after bidding the most for it at a silent auction sponsored by the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus. Sebelius donated her time to help the caucus raise money, something she said she had done before. The silent auction was part of the group's annual Torch Dinner. Sebelius had no control over who won the auction or who attended. She didn't even pay for the reception that was paid for by the Women's Political Caucus."
Similarly, the Group of 26's colleagues at Catholics for Sebelius claim that "fringe" groups are engaged in a "smear campaign" against Governor Sebelius. Part of this supposed smear campaign is tying Sebelius to the abortionist Tiller. They say: "George Tiller purchased the right to attend a reception at the governor's mansion with Gov. Sebelius by buying a table for the reception in a fundraising auction. Gov. Sebelius did not invite him to attend. Gov. Sebelius has not taken financial contributions from Tiller as a gubernatorial candidate or as governor and she appointed the state Attorney General who is prosecuting the case against him."
Not so fast! First, she may not have taken contributions as a "gubernatorial candidate" directly from Tiller, but Archbishop Naumann has said that she took money from his PAC and that earlier in her career she took money from him. Second, the organization Sebelius was fundraising for, the Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus, "support[s] the right of women to control their own reproduction without governmental intrusion." From a pro-life perspective, Sebelius' hands are dirty whether or not she knew explicitly that Tiller would win the auction. The Group of 26 says that “She’s made clear she agrees with Church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief.” If they are correct in this, then what was she doing fundraising for a pro abortion rights group in the first place?
UPDATE: I have been informed that the Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus only endorses pro-abortion rights candidates.
What I have dubbed the Group of 26 (Kmiec, Hollanback, Gaillardetz, et al) said of Sebelius, "She’s made clear she agrees with Church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief."
Her Archbishop responded saying: "I think that’s very, very dishonest and not at all accurate. ... At one time, she struck from the budget a pregnancy maintenance initiative that gave state funding to crisis pregnancy centers. Only when the legislature passed it by such an overwhelming margin that it was highly probable she would have been overridden, she allowed it to stay in the budget. She’s on Emily’s List. During her last campaign she identified herself as one whose always been a leader in protecting a woman’s right [to abortion] and one who has tried to keep abortion safe legal and rare. ... What she did in the state of Kansas in terms of vetoing efforts to try to better regulate abortion clinics, certainly didn’t show a real concern for the safety of women either. ... She accepted money early in her political career from Dr. [George] Tiller who is a notorious abortionist in Wichita, and after that became politically not very convenient for her to do, Dr. Tiller formed a [political action committee] in which she was the principal beneficiary along with other equally staunch abortion-supporting politicians, and he put in hundreds of thousands of dollars to get her elected and re-elected. So I really think they may support Gov. Sebelius for this appointment, but they certainly can’t support her because she’s faithful in living the teaching of the Church on the life issues." (emphasis added)
David Hollenbach, S.J. and the other signatories offering support for Sebelius, including my friend Richard Gaillardetz, are astute, as Michael P. suggests.That makes them all the more culpable for their complicity in the moral evil of furthering the pro-abortion rights mentality.It is one thing to find proportionate (non-abortion related) reasons to vote for a pro-abortion rights presidential candidate.It is quite another to attempt to sell a pro-abortion rights Catholic to the public as an excellent choice for HHS.And, it is even worse to do so by attempting to paint Sebelius as a pro-life governor.
Is this Orwell's America where doublethink rules the day?Sebelius calls herself pro-life but says she “disagree[s] with the suggestion that criminalizing women and their doctors is an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of abortions in our nation.”But, her actions betray her.The Americans United For Life Blog lists Sebelius’ many accomplishments as state legislator and governor in protecting abortionists from even modest regulation, accountability, and oversight.Not only is she against criminalizing abortion, she seems to be against any law that would regulate the abortion industry. Signing a bill to fund support services for pregnant women can’t turn an extreme pro-abortion rights advocate into a pro-lifer, and the 26 astute Catholics who have put their credentials behind her nomination know this.
Being astute, the Group of 26, along with Sebelius herself, appears to be engaged deliberately in an Orwellian exercise of doublethink or doublespeak.In 1984, the word “peace” meant “war,” the word “love” meant “hate,” and the word “freedom” meant “slavery.”And, now this Group of 26 astute and respected Catholics is trying to turn an extreme pro abortion rights proponent into a pro-lifer so that when we hear the word “pro-life” it means “pro-abortion rights.”
During the campaign season, I withheld - and still withhold - judgment on those who chose a different path from mine in the voting booth.But now, with respect to these 26, the cards have been laid clearly on the table.By their actions, this Group of 26 appears (at least to this astute observer) to want to transform the pro-life movement into a pro-abortion rights movement, and they seem willing to go to great lengths to achieve this goal, including misrepresenting (by material omission) Sebelius’s record and by accusing her opponents of demagoguery.
Can Catholics - whether we voted for Obama or not - come together and agree that President Obama's nomination of Kathleen Sebelius is an extremely poor choice; one that is likely to further divide the nation rather than bring us together?
