Indefinite-to-Permanent Hiatus

Believe me, it's not that I've run out of things to say. It's just that I have to attend to other responsibilities which are more pressing and more profitable (personally and economically) than just ranting and raving here.

I had intended to do a few more posts on the clone & kill amendment and the latest round of deceit in Alan Meitler's Wyandotte County church closing process, but it would all be for naught. The Stowers people will keep spending money on their lies all the same, and the chancery rats and their consultant will keep scheming to suppress their one embarrassing success story, and scheming to wipe out what's left of the Church in Wyandotte County, all the same, whether I'm posting or not. It doesn't really matter, so I'm not going to postpone the end of the blog and the resumption of my real life to see how those two issues will end.

I'll leave the blog up for now, because the closed church photos still generate some interest (and it's good for the people in Wyandotte County to have access to the KCMO tour so they can come to grips with the destruction and waste that lies ahead). But don't expect any more posts soon. Or for that matter, ever.

So long, and thanks for stopping by.

Uniformity of worship?

There is much going on in the Curmudgeon world right now, so I don't have time to write up what I've heard about the Kansas Church Closing process, nor to set down on paper some thoughts I've developed on the supposed liberation of the old rite and whether that will mean the dispersal of traditional Catholics from their own communities to the 5am Sunday traditional Mass in every run-of-the-mill suburban barn parish. But eventually....

In the meantime, you've got to visit Rorate Caeli for a photographic analysis of the unity of rite that the modern Bishops are so eager to preserve in the face of the supposed "liberation" of the old Rite.

Threats from the Cloning crowd

It appears that the cloning folks are a little upset that people are calling them what they are: damned liars. They had their lawyers threaten a television station that had the temerity to run an anti-cloning ad. Here's the article, with a hat tip (again) to Wolftracker:

Biotechs use legal threat to try to halt anti-cloning ad

The blood-money lawyers had the gall to say "The pointed and false content in the advertisements themselves amount to defamation against the Amendment's supporters." What bullshit! Pointed and false? Look in the mirror!

Are lawyers permitted to assist their clients in a fraud, or is that against the ethics rules? Are lawyers permitted to make false statements as they're representing someone? You lawyers are doing both, every time you say that what you want to do isn't cloning. Your clients are intentionally misleading voters. They are committing a fraud. What's the difference between redefining "cloning" to exclude cloning, and then putting a ballot in front of a voter that bans cloning (without telling them you've made up a new, counter-intuitive definition) and redefining "innocent" to mean "guilty" and then putting a plea agreement that (doesn't include the redefinition) in front of an accused man?

Why doesn't somebody go after these guys? Not just the Stowers people and the organizations that are lending their names to the puppet coalition, but their lawyers, too?

Ahem.

On a lighter note, there was a nice feature in the Catholic Key about one of the guys on the ground floor of the shoestring effort to stop the cloning amendment. Here it is:

Brain cancer doesn't slow artist in battle against Missouri cloning Amendment 2

Here's a snippet that has particular relevance given the nastiness with which the pro-cloning people are hiding their deceit and their cowardice:

With funding from an "anonymous" friend who put up the cash to make them, Wright came up with the "They're Lying. It's Cloning. Vote No." bumper sticker that has been seen in both St. Louis and Kansas City.

His friend wishes to avoid any legal entanglements with the well-financed proponents of Amendment 2. Wright doesn't care.

"What are they going to do? Sue a guy with brain cancer?" he
quipped.

And how! Although I'd guess that Mr. Wright might rethink that given the story above. It doesn't seem to be about compassion, despite the slick ads, does it?

Samples of Mr. Wright's work are featured in previous posts, HERE and HERE and HERE.

Another dissenter's lecture coming up: Need a correspondent!

Noted dissenter and Boston College professor Fr. Michael Himes is lecturing at Saint Mary College in Leavenworth on on Thursday evening, October 26. He isn't quite as prominent as, say, Fr. Richard McBrien or Bp. Tom Gumbleton or Frances Kissling, but he's just as "out there." I'd like to get coverage.However, I can't make it to Leavenworth for this. I ticked off my usual correspondent, who covered the day-long Kathleen Sebelius rally (the "Kansans for the Common Good" conference), and he's not willing to cover it for me, either. I need a new correspondent. Any takers?Email me at curmudgeonkc@yahoo.com

A Margaret Sanger Blog

One of my early posts in September 2005 discussed the organization of a Sanger Society. (Scroll down to September 28, 2005)

Well, as it happens, there is, apparently, someone thinking the same thing. Visit the following blog:

http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/

Hat tip to Wolftracker

A great explanation of the Missouri cloning money trail

A fellow who reads this blog emailed me a response he wrote to help a friend of his answer a very good question that I'm not sure I fully understood until tonight: It is really true that Amendment 2 will cause public money to be used for embryonic stem cell and cloning research? The answer is "yes," but of course, it's a convoluted "yes." Assuming that he forwarded this to me to share with the world, I'm posting it here with only minor edits:

The Question:
----- Original Message -----
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 6:51 PM
Subject: Stem Cell Question
Hey XXXXXXX, I was having a debate on the Stem Cell amendment at work, trying to convince a few people that there are both moral and political reasons to vote no. As they are both for scientific advancement, they don’t care so much about the moral implications, but they were intrigued by the public funds being used for private profit argument. But then they did their own research and found this.

YES on 2 also makes good economic sense for our state. Amendment 2 does not ask for or require state funding for any type of stem cell research. In fact, it will generate new state revenues and quality jobs by ensuring that Missouri medical institutions can keep and attract private funding for stem cell research. In addition, the development of stem cell cures for costly diseases like diabetes would significantly reduce health care costs for patients – and help reduce taxpayer-funded Medicaid costs.

This info came from the link below.http://www.missouricures.com/facts.php

Is there any good way to prove that this site is lying? Now they think the info I’ve been providing is false. I can do my own digging, but since you’ve been so involved in the effort I thought you were a good person to contact.

Thanks,

XXXXXXXXXX. . . . . . . .

The Answer:
----- Original Message -----
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:45 PM
Subject: RE: Stem Cell Question

An excellent question you ask about public funding for Embryonic Stem Cell and cloning research! The answer is a little lengthy and convoluted, and few people (outside of those who negotiate economic incentives for a living, and lawyers and professors who play sophistical games with language) really understand how the bad guys will exploit the system. I hope you don't mind that I'm going to answer your question anonymously and forward it to a blogger or two that I know for wider circulation.

Before you read all this, print out the actual amendment language which I've attached. [CLICK HERE TO GET IT] Note that this is NOT the ballot language you'll see in November; the general public is too stupid (think the bad guys), to read and vote on the actual amendment language. The ballot contains just a "plain language" gloss on this operative language--and a convenient one that allows the bad guys and their allies in the Secretary of State's office to add and the judiciary to maintain another layer of obfuscation. For our purposes, we need to look at the real amendment language.

The whole amendment is just a big dirty lawyer's trick, of course. Most obviously, they've redefined "cloning" from the generally accepted scientific definition to a new one that excludes Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), the method by which other mammals, including Dolly the sheep, are cloned, and the method of cloning human beings, who, if not killed for medical experiments within a few weeks of creation, would develop as babies that are genetically identical to the donors of the cell nuclei). In the real world, words mean what they mean. In politics, words have no meaning at all. But in legal documents (legislation and contracts), words can mean whatever the drafter wants them to mean, because it's a closed system in which the drafter controls the definitions.

Now, to your answer: you must start by saying that on its face, the Amendment does not call for the direct allocation of public funds for the research. But this is another dirty lawyer's trick.

First, see Section 38(d)2(7). This section seems like it's saying that embryonic stem cell (ESC) and cloning researchers must follow state and local laws of general applicability. But the requirement that anyone follow generally applicable law is always presumed, and it's not necessary to state that in a constitutional amendment, is it? The real purpose for this section is found in the phrase "...to the extent that any such laws do not (i) prevent, restrict, obstruct or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures . . . or (ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies and cures."

The real effect of this section is to exempt ESC and cloning researchers from laws of general applicability if (i.e., "to the extent that") such laws inhibit their research. How far does this go? If there is a state regulation that recognized parental ownership of frozen embryos stored at fertility clinics (a tragedy in itself), and dictates that the embryos cannot be intentionally destroyed or otherwise used without the parents' permission, then, well, that is a generally applicable law. But if that generally applicable restriction on use of other people's embryos is determined to "obstruct or discourage" ESC research, the ESC researchers are exempt from it. The amendment would let the researchers go in and simply commandeer the embryos without parental permission (but it would prohibit the researchers from compensating the parents for their loss, of course). If there are laws to protect patient safety or privacy, but those laws tend to "obstruct or discourage" ESC and cloning research, then the ESC and cloning researchers are exempt from them. Taken to an extreme, if there are state laws against using human tissues (e.g., a woman's ova) for research without the donor's informed consent, ESC and cloning researchers would be exempt from those laws if they could show it obstructs or discourages ESC and cloning research. Likewise, if there are state laws prohibiting public funds from being used in ESC and cloning research (and there are, under the Missouri Department of Economic Development and the Missouri Development Finance Board regulations, as we recently learned), those regulations are invalidated "to the extent that" they "prevent, restrict, obstruct or discourage" ESC and cloning research, which, of course, they do!

Now let's look at Section 38(b)5. This Section is even more straightforward in facilitating public funding of ESC and cloning research. It doesn't directly appropriate money, of course. But as you may know, there are a gazillion ways to divert public money to private purposes. At the local level, companies with policital clout (or who hire lawyers and consultants with political clout) can divert property taxes, sales taxes, and earnings taxes generated by their activities from the public coffers back into their own pockets. The programs to do this are myriad: Chapter 100 plans, Chapter 353 plans, Tax Increment Financing plans, Industrial Revenue Bonds, LCRA programs, etc., etc. At the state level, additional programs like the "Missouri Quality Jobs" program, state-level tax increment financing plans, state economic development grants, and other jobs training programs can result in diversion of tax revenues from the public coffers back into private hands. Some of these programs are "entitlements"; i.e., if you meet the qualifications, you get the money. Others of these programs, like TIF financing, are discretionary: city or state officials ultimately make a policy decision to approve or deny public funding under the program for any reason or no reason. Ordinarily, local and state governments are cautious in granting incentives like TIF financing, and they reserve that financing only for what they, as the policy-makers, deem to be the most worthwhile projects for their community.

Knowing that, now read Section 38(b)5, and you can see what they're getting at:

To ensure that no governmental body or official arbitrarily restricts funds designated for purposes other than stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures as a means of inhibiting lawful stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures, no state or local governmental body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny, or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that (i) lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures, allows for such research or therpies and cures to be conducted or provided on its premises, or is otherwise associated with such research or therpies and cures . . . on account of, or otherwise for the purpose of creating disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with, or preventing, restricting, obstructing, or discouraging, such stem cell-related activities.

What does this mean? This means that if a ESC and cloning research group applies for public money through one of these economic incentive packages, and they meet the bare objective qualifications for the program, they cannot be denied funding under a program (even if it's a discretionary program). If you're on the Booneville City Council and someone comes to you with a request for TIF assistance on their new hotel or Best Buy store or widget factory, you have some discretion. You get to decide whether the hotel or store or factory is so important to the City of Booneville that it's worth diverting tax dollars to construct it. But if Cloneandkill, Inc., applies for TIF financing on a new lab to be built in Booneville (yes, in Booneville), then so long as they meet the bare minimum requirements, it would seem that you, as a government official, would not have any discretion: you may not "eliminate, reduce, deny or withhold any public funds" from Cloneandkill. Cloneandkill and allied companies, foundations, and universities get better, rubber-stamp treatment of their scientifically dubious and morally heinous ESC projects than any other sort of commercial or scientific endeavor. If they don't get every cent of "corporate welfare" that they request, instead of negotiating with the city or the state as ordinary applicants would, they can simply go to court and argue that the denial is unconstitutional.

So you can see (I hope) that the door to funding is opened wide by Amendment 2, and thanks to Section 38(c)7, which I won't retype here, the door can't be closed, except by repeal of the amendment. The two sections I discussed above don't expressly appropriate money to the ESC crowd (unlike California, where the Clone-and-Kill referendum did expressly appropriate many millions of taxpayer dollars), but they do make it almost impossible to refuse the ESC crowd any opportunity to dip into the public trough.

What passes for journalism these days...

It's a shame what passes for serious reporting from major newspapers these days. All the reporters do is read blogs, I guess. For the last week or so, there's been buzz around the liberation of the old Mass. When the newspapers finally catch on to the rumors, they seem to do little more than read the blog buzz.

For example:

Pope Set to Bring Back Latin Mass that Divided the Church, from the Times of London. My friend, Orville told me to ignore the "divisive" headline. Of course I will. The Times is right. It was the old Mass that divided the Church, not the newfangled one, nor the modernists who sought to wipe out the old Mass. The Times tells us "An indult permitting the celebration of the Tridentine Mass could help to bring remaining Lefebvrists and many other traditional Catholics back to the fold." I just love the word "Lefebvrists," don't you? The Times uses it indiscriminately to refer to everyone who has a beef with Bugnini, apparently--even the priests of Campos who were never part of the SSPX. What's wrong with calling them "traditionalists"? Did they call Catholic Answers to get the "correct" terminology? Is the Times a neo-Catholic organ, too?

Pope Set to Ease Latin Mass Restrictions, from the Washington Post. We learn here that the leader of the Society of St. Pius X (you know, the "Lefebvrists") is headed by a "Bishop Bernard." Would that be Bishop Fellay? Here also, the Post trots out one of their own favorite adjectives from the stylebook, "ultraconservative.". What the hell is an "ultraconservative", anyways? I've run into all kinds of folks: counterrevolutionaries, reactionaries, paleo-conservatives,"crunchy-cons," neo-conservatives (unfortunately), "moderates," "liberals," "progressives," Maoists, Marxists, anarchists, and fascists. I've met orthodox, dissenters, heretics, infidels, and apostates. But I've never yet met an "ultraconservative," either in political or religious circles.

Anyways, I hope that the blog buzz that these people have turned into newspaper articles comes to fruition, and that whatever the Pope has supposedly signed is actually released, and that it is a meaningful step forward (i.e., that it doesn't give recalcitrant bishops any discretion to prohibit the public celebration of the old Mass).

But I certainly have my doubts.

Flashback to 1968

The Remnant has reprinted an article from Time magazine in 1968 on the state of the church 38 years ago. As frustrating as the situation in the Church is in 2006, with the acceptance, even the institutionalization, of dissent and the appointment of bishops who have more in common with the angry, foolish young Catholic priests and laymen of 1968 than with the Bishops of that era, we should be thankful that the chaos and the rate of decline we saw in that era has not continued. The liberals have had their heyday, and they've risen to power, but at least now they're starting to die off, and those who remain seem as fearful of a counterrevolution as the hierarchy was then of a revolution.

And we'll give them a counterrevolution, now, won't we!

If anybody wants to buy me a ticket to Belize....

If anybody wants to buy me a ticket to Belize, I'll let them. But I'd prefer to wait another year: Jerry Jeff's two week-long shows in February 2007 are sold out.

We'll know what to make of it very soon....

A few weeks ago, the Holy Father established a new traditionalist society, the Institute of the Good Shepherd. It's a smallish institute for priests and seminarians who, for various reasons, became disassociated with the Society of St. Pius X. There was minor blog buzz on this development back then, and it basically fell into two currents:

• The first current of thought was that the Pope was taking another step towards restoring a place for traditional Catholicism, in the meantime accommodating priests who needed a "place to land," and setting things up for a broader, bigger arrangement that would do justice for the old Mass and for traditional Catholics. These former SSPX guys were just the advance party for the great restoration that was to come.
• The other current of thought was that the Pope, being dissatisfied with the lack of progress in SSPX negotiations, was going to try to drive a wedge into the SSPX--to lure and divide the irregular traddies into smaller groups, grind them to powder, and remold them as rather-more-staid-than-usual, altar-girls-optional newfangled Catholics.

Of course, the latter current of thought was floated by everyone from whacked-out sedevacantists, to wary traditionalists, to self-righteous neo-Caths of the "the-Pope-is-infallible-even-when-kissing-the-Koran-or-Roger-Mahony" stripe. I'm proud to say that I never took any position at all on the matter. I just didn't seem inclined to speculate at the time, was more focused on other things, and dismissed the event as merely a local accommodation for some clerics that needed a hand up, and not a portent of something more. If this were some great foreshadowing of the restoration to come, I didn't see evidence of it from this distance. If this were a devious plan, I didn't see evidence of that either.

But here we are, just a few weeks later, and it seems we'll soon know the answer. Unlike the Fraternity of St. Peter, who didn't fully appreciate the short length of the leash held by the modernists until 12 years after the fact (the 2000 General Chapter interventions and Protocol 1411), the Institute is likely to know the cost of their accommodations right away.

Just a few weeks ago, via the Cornell Catholic Circle, we heard from the suit-n-tie wearing Vicar General of Bordeaux, Pere Jean Rouet, that the whole report was a "disinformation" that was not consented to by the Archbishop of Bordeaux, Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard.

Now yesterday, we heard from the Cardinal himself, via a Catholic World News report:

By entering into full communion, the cardinal said, the traditionalist priests are accepting "the actual magisterium of the Pope and the bishops." More pointedly, he added that the Good Shepherd institute should show "a clear position regarding the magisterial act that was the Second Vatican Council, and the promulgation of its documents." The generous offer extended to the traditionalists, he insisted, must not "reopen questions about the path the Lord has chosen for the Church during the last 40 years."

...However, the group can only be active in a diocese with the permission of the local bishop. The traditionalist clerics, he added, would need "a very good reason to have pastoral care for the faithful."

In Bordeaux, Cardinal Ricard said, the Good Shepherd institute could only begin pastoral activites after signing an agreement with the archdiocese. With that agreement in place, he said, a parish church could be put at the disposal of the traditionalist clerics "for a fixed period of time."

Quite eager, Cardinal Ricard is, to put those embarrassing traditionalists under his yoke, eh? Let's see....a "very good reason to have pastoral care for the faithful"? What might that be? How about this: They will actually have people assisting at their Mass and going to their confessionals, unlike your own secularized, newfangled Froggie priests singing their french "Kumaya, mon Dieu" music in empty churches! And as for the fear they might "reopen questions about the path the Lord has chosen for the Church during the last 40 years," um, well, yer Eminence, I doubt you really want to consider that question closed, because at the moment, there's only one honest answer that can be given to it, Cardinal Froggie.

Of course, you know, Cardinal Ricard sits on the Ecclesia Dei commission, which gives one insight into the makeup and object of that commission. And of course, you know, Ricard personally has no reason to defer to the Holy Father, who has already designated a church in Bordeaux for them. Cardinal Ricard, I suppose, is going to send the gendarmes to the church to make sure no laymen get in to assist at Mass, against the intentions of Rome? Or perhaps he's going to forbid the new Institute the use of it notwithstanding papal decree? Then we'll know who's really "schismatic," to use Catholic World News' favorite adjective, won't we!

Frankly, I'm glad all this is happening so fast! Ricard and his minions' lashing out at the new institute will flesh out the situation much more quickly. If Rome puts the Frenchie bishops back in line, we'll see hope on the horizon for a restoration. If Rome stands aside and lets the frogs drive the new institute into the ground like they have their own dioceses, then we'll know the time for restoration has not yet come. Had Ricard and his VC shown a little more restraint in talking to the media, the institute might have been lulled into a more vulnerable position. But they didn't, and now everyone's watching. We should know what all this means very soon.

Monsignori !!!!

The Holy Father, on Bishop Finn's petition, has bestowed the highest presbyterial honor Protonotary Apostolic, upon the pastor of Our Lady of Good Counsel. Monsignor William J. Blacet has been a monsignor since 1968 and now in his 60th year of priestly service. In the dozen years since he was "demoted" from Cathedral Rector, has guided the little midtown church to which he was exiled from insolvency, deterioration, and certain closure to a thriving parish of young families and a refuge (novus ordo) from liturgical abuse and heterodox preaching. When he started, Good Counsel was a quiet place--partially shagged-out in the 1970s, and populated by just a few gray heads. Now, the church is mostly restored, the pews and vestibule are crammed full of children, and the baptismal font and cnfessionals are in regular service. People drive 50 miles or more to be a part of the Good Counsel family, and only leave when cross over to the traditional Mass, or they move far, far away. God bless Msgr. Blacet.

At the same time, His Holiness appointed ten other diocesan priests to his household clergy (only two of whom I know personally or by reputation):

• Reverend Monsignor A. Robert Murphy, Vicar General, Prelate of Honor
• Reverend Monsignor Bradley S. Offutt, Chancellor (and key player in the restoration of Old St. Patrick's Oratory), Prelate of Honor
• Reverend Monsignor Robert S. Gregory, Rector of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Prelate of Honor
• Reverend Monsignor Richard M. Dierkes, Pastor of St. Joseph Co-Cathedral, Prelate of Honor
• Reverend Monsignor Donald S. Miller, Chaplain to His Holiness
• Reverend Monsignor Ralph L. Kaiser, Pastor of the Church of the Santa Fe, Chaplain to His Holiness
• Reverend Monsignor John E. Leitner, Chaplain to His Holiness
• Reverend Monsignor Lawrence A. Speichinger, Chaplain to His Holiness
• Reverend Monsignor Joseph A. Mancuso, Pastor of St. Andrew Parish, Chaplain to His Holiness
• Reverend Monsignor R. William Caldwell, Pastor of St. Ann Parish, Excelsior Springs, Chaplain to His Holiness

According to the Old St. Patrick website (click on News and Events) These are the first Monsignori appointed from our diocese since 1968. Since then, of course, great care has been taken to appear egalitarian and maintain a good show to cover for the polyester-clad, modernist elite who've been officing on Gillham Road. How happy it is to see Bishop Finn returning to a fine tradition and honoring his priests in this manner!

Your just have to love the prospect of 10 more cassocks with violet piping and birettas with violet tassles. Hopefully the 10 new Monsignori will take a cue from Msgr. Blacet, who returned to wearing his piped cassock and biretta just a few years ago.

Cass County Pro-Cloning Rally Report

As I mentioned last week in The Clone & Kill Coalition is having a seminar... , the Stowers train moved through Cass County last night. My stable of roving (and somewhat masochistic) correspondents has grown again, to include frequent commenter "Cranky," who gives us this report (and who, unlike my previous correspondent, didn't ask me for money):

Curmudgeon,

Phew! I just returned from Satan's workshop, where about 30 of the deceived, the ignorant, and the willfully malicious were hangin' with Stower's handsome, eloquent puppet. Sorry I didn't catch his name.

They marked me right at the door – guy wearing church clothing, carrying a sheaf of loose papers. NOBODY carries papers in deepest, darkest Cass Co. unless they're a lawyer (there are no attorneys in Cass Co, just lawyers) or a process server. Or otherwise out to make trouble, which I was. Once I got into the gym, where the presentation was already in progress, I was flanked by the three women who were working the front door. (I wasn't late.) I thought that was weird – why did all three of them search me out and surround me?

I let the Mouth of Stowers give his presentation, which was naught but slickly packaged lies, one tumbling out after the other. The presentation was extremely thin on scientific facts, extremely thick on emotional, huggy-bunny "how can we let those mean, mean lawmakers in Jeff City ruin our precious chances for a perfect life, free from all pain and suffering, followed by eternal torment in Hell?"

There was ONE slide on the science behind Clone-and-Kill, and a great, steaming pile of unscientific crap – but it was GOOD unscientific crap. Here are the main points:

• It's NOT cloning. No, no, NO! Just what it is remains undefined, but it's definitely NOT cloning. Even though the Mouth of Stowers said that the process produced an exact genetic copy of the donor. Naw, THAT'S not cloning. It's......something else.
• The eggs required will come from the patient's dear old Mom, and his sisters, and his aunts, and his daughters, and great-grand-daughters, and may Almighty God help those poor guys whose womenfolk aren't willing to have their ovum hormonically squeezed out of them. The Mouth of Stowers (MOS) made it seem that all it would take was ONE egg, and, Voila! there would be a cure, all shiny and new and just laying there on the table! Cool!
• Amendment 2 is all but required for the continued economic growth of Missouri, kinda like the Royals. Or the downtown stadium. Without it, Stowers might just take his ball and go home! And we all know what that would do to the economy! I mean, before Stowers built Mordor on the Plaza, the economy of the State was just, I don't know, not good!
• Just look at all these doctors, and patient advocacy groups, who are behind this wholesale slaughter of human life! There are LOTS of them. So Amendment 2 MUST be good, right?
• It's not about human life, or abortion, or anything like that! (Chuckle, chuckle.) If anybody tries to tell you it is, just ignore them. They're just silly, silly. Neanderthals, really, or Ostrogoths, Pay no attention to them! (Chuckle, chuckle.) We are sophisticated, and scientific, and so modern!
• Religious people are against us. But look! We have Jack Danforth! He's an Ordained Episcopal Minister, and if he thinks it's OK, it's OK!
• Are there cures now? No. But look-we've only been killing human embryos since 1998 or so! We haven't had the time to really get funky. We need that TIME, which the evil Matt Bartle tried to take from us. Bad Bartle! But if you vote yea, everything will be fine. So trust us - there will be cures SOMEDAY, we promise. Really.
• There are 400,000 frozen embryos out there (really, trust us, there are) that the evil George Bush won't let us have! If we could just have this frosty population of a medium-sized city, which we could then kill, my, wouldn't all our lives be rosy!

Then it was Q & A time, which I blew big time. MOS asked for questions, and I sat on my tongue, waiting to see if there were "friendlies" in the crowd. There weren't. It was devolving rapidly into a Stowers love fest, which I decided to break up the way I know best. Tactlessly.

I told the MOS that "you don't 'grow' stem cells, sir, as you have erroneously claimed over and over again in your presentation. You grow a human baby, which you then kill...."

The room erupted, predictably, in jeers and catcalls. "It's not a baby, it's a ball of cells!" And etcetera. The usual pro-abort "logic". The woman behind me began a hyperintellectual litany of "Do you eat eggs? Do you eat eggs? Is it a chicken, or an egg? It's an unfertilized ball of cells!" Over, and over, and over.

The guy next to her told me he had three genetic diseases, and he needed a new liver. "And I don't care how many stems cells die before I get it!" he said. Oh, you're gonna get it, alright, I thought to myself. A group of women behind those two ethicists asked me, "When this amendment passes, and your children get a disease, what are you gonna tell them?" I pointed to Mr Disease Trifecta sitting behind me, and I said, "I hope that, unlike this gentleman, that they will be unwilling to take human lives to heal themselves."

Then the room just exploded with inane pro-choice cliches. The three chicks who shadowed me got up, and one of them said, "If anyone would like a more productive line of questions, MOS is going to step over here." My cue to step over there, and out the door, being followed by one of my Democratic Escorts.

I bought a bottle of wine on the way home.

Until next time,

Cranky

I really didn't set out to make this a political blog...

But so it seems to have been over the last few weeks. I'll get back to my usual fare of poorly-thought-out observations on obscure religious stuff soon, I promise. But for now:

First, Wolftracker has a post up on Missouri's Claire McCaskill, who's running the same show in the Missouri senate race as Sebelius is running in her Kansas gubenatorial reelection bid.

Meanwhile, a correspondent forwarded me pictures of the electronic billboards that are running, thanks to Missouri Right to Life, at a few places around town. If you like them, and if you've got electronic billboards in your neck-of-the-woods, and you've got some money to spend (I have no idea how much it would take), you might contact Missouri Right to Life. I can't imagine they'd object to getting a wider reach on these:

Audio Recordings of Finn and Keyes at the Rally Against Human Cloning

Earlier this month, I published my roving correspondent's report from the Rally Against Human Cloning held at First Baptist Church of Raytown, at which Dr. Alan Keyes spoke.

In perusing the internet this morning (postponing my chore for the day--crawling under the house to get ready for winter), I ran across a page on the Bott Radio Network which includes photos of the event and and audio recordings of all the major speeches, including Bishop Finn's and Alan Keyes'.

CLICK HERE to go to the page.

--Krusty

PS, Catholics should be cautious about some of the other material on their site.

The Clone & Kill Coalition is having a seminar...

...and the public is invited. I just got the following message from a correspondent:

The Bad Guys are having a disinfo seminar, complete with PowerPoint, at:

Cass-Midway R1 Gymnasium
5801 E. State Rt. 2
Cleveland, MO
Oct 3 @ 7:00 (Vigil of St Francis, My Man!)

I won't repeat the rest of his incendiary comments, because we don't provoke people here in the Cave or say unkind things about anyone for any reason. But perhaps a few folks from down around that way might consider a road trip to Cleveland. Just remember, if it comes to be question and answer time, to be polite when you ask them about killing and mutilating people for medical experiments.

Thank you for your application Mr. de Zutter, but Ms. Nolan better fits our vision for the Anchorage Catholic Anchor

Hilary makes us in the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph relieved that the leftist, modernist editor of our diocesan paper, the Catholic Key (awful as he and it might be) is not this woman:

John Paul II an “Unbelievable Misogynist” ~ New Editor of Anchorage Catholic Paper

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06092710.html

A snippet or two from Hilary:

At the time of John Paul’s death in April 2005, Nolan wrote, “This pope, this benevolent, everyone’s-best-friend, Karol-from-Poland pope, was an unbelievable misogynist. News flash, kids: JP2 did not like women.”

Writing under the pseudonym, “Myster,” and apparently referring to the late Pope’s reiteration of the Catholic teaching that women cannot be ordained as priests, Nolan wrote that the late Pope “spent the last 26 years working overtime to keep us in our place.”

* * *

Other selections from Nolan’s 'blog demonstrate a young woman with little grasp of the fundamentals of her religion. Describing herself as a “cafeteria Catholic,” on November 13, 2005, she wrote on the sacrament of confession that she had done “a number of things that the Catholic church (sic) would technically consider confessable sins, although I don't necessarily think they're bad.”

and the Bishop's reaction once the laymen discovered stuff that would have disqualified Nolan if she had been minimally vetted before being hired (or worse, perhaps she had been vetted?):

[Archdiocesan Spokesman Mary] Gore told LifeSiteNews.com that the Archdiocese had received complaints about Nolan’s comments from parishioners. “Bottom line is that it's an internal policy decision. Right now Archbishop Schwietz is sticking by his editor.”

It's easy to forget, when we're actually on the upswing here in Kansas City, Missouri, that there the general trend in most dioceses saddled with Bernardin-style bishops is still unmistakeably downward.

In the meantime, all you letter-writers out there, follow Hilary's lead and let the Archbishop of Anchorage have a piece of your mind. It's not the worst thing that's going on in North America, perhaps, but it's worth a little hounding, I'd say. His address is at the bottom of the article.

The Conference: Part 3.....The Sebelius speech

I was forwarded the last bit of our correspondent's report on the Kansans for Faithful Citizenship conference, with Kathleen Sebelius's speech. Here it is:

Part 3

Finally, I'm getting to the finale; Kathleen Sebelius's speech. After a short introduction by one of the organizers, we were instructed to stand for the governor, and Sebelius marched in. After thanking those who put on the conference, she set forth her vision for moral leadership. She invoked the free-staters who founded Kansas (leaving out any specific mention of John Brown's rampages or the Pottawatomie Creek Massacre) and those Kansans who followed the abolitionists and advocated "women's rights and a free and open society." Sebelius said that those people who settled Kansas understood the idea of the "common good" and talked about their cooperative efforts.

Then she went onto a biographical reverie which began with a dig on the traditional Latin Mass. She said she was raised in the Catholic Church where, as a child, she watched Mass with the priest saying his prayers in Latin, with his back to the congregation. She said that way of doing things made religion an individual thing; it "wasn't very inclusive." She also accused her mother of using daily Mass simply as quiet time--of not really praying. She then made a praising passing reference to John XXIII for setting changes in motion. She said then that for her generation, it was standard for politicians to keep their individual religious beliefs quiet, but it was important these days to share them and try to apply them in public life.

After going on for a time about what constituted virtue and saying that "actions do speak louder than words" (which seemed to be the only remotely Catholic thing she said--contra the protestant notion of sola fide), she said that ignoring schools and children's needs and voting against health care access was not virtuous. She called for moral leadership in the distribution of resources and repeated the "common good" mantra. Then she jumped in and quoted the more convenient parts of USCCB statements, including something that went like "How can we, all of us, especially the weak and vulnerable, be better off in years ahead?" (That doesn't really sound like a Catholic statement, but it does sound like a USCCB statement, doesn't it?) Sebelius then went back into her biography, and talked about how she had to do volunteer work in the summers, rather than get a paying job. She also talked about being educated by the Sisters of Notre Dame, who (instead of teaching her the Fifth Commandment, I guess) taught her and her classmates that girls could do anything, and that in so doing they created a group of "accidental feminists."

And then she got into her abortion stance. She said that there was no question she couldn't focus on the abortion issue, and that "My Catholic faith teaches me life is sacred," but that she simply disagreed on tactics: "criminalizing women and their doctors" wasn't the way to fight abortion--it should be fought be reducing and eliminating the causes that lead to abortion. She then had the audacity to take credit for the reduced number of abortions in the last few years, and she argued that a lower abortion rate can only come about by supporting her litany of liberal (er, "progressive") causes. It was more productive to "talk about a culture of life," she said, and she looked forward to a day when abortion was rare or non-existent. Then without taking on Archbishop Naumann directly (and...this is a shocker...without personally thanking George Tiller for his financial support), she moved on to talk about protecting natural resources and other things, with the old liberal Catholic line.

Naturally, she received a rousing standing ovation, and one of the guys that spotted me as a mole chided me for not joining in. She left, the conference ended, and I had a few minutes of private conversation with the two guys who figured me out. One of them wanted to know what I thought of the conference, and I said the common good rhetoric was pretty good, and it might work to some degree, and it's true that it will. If the neo-cons--particularly those at the national level--continue on the present course, the liberals could win over more of the masses, and then the "real conservatives" will be truly on the outs, with nothing to show for their last 25 years of activity. Meanwhile, the cultural destruction that California and Massachusetts are taking to the next level will come to Middle America. Part of me wonders if that needs to happen, in order to purge the neo-cons from the "conservative" movement, but another part looks at Great Britain and sees what might happen: in the years the Tories have been out of power, the true conservatives of the Edmund Burke line have failed, utterly, to pull themselves together and make any progress, and Tony Blair (and his neo-con Labour party) have worked to tear down the last bits of the institutions which sustained England even through the protestant revolt and replace it all with "Cool Britannia."

And that's it. Like I said, you shouldn't have waited with baited breath for the Sebelius report. It was entirely predictable--wrapping herself in a cloak of cozy feel-good Catholicism without confronting any of the hard issues. The lawyer and the priest in Lawrence that you wrote about last week must be proud. There were no fireworks, and of course, no challenges to her positions, or her outrageous attempt to take credit for reducing abortions while she was vetoing pro-life legislation. I suppose, ultimately, though, that she and her "progressive" friends got the last laugh on me, having sacrificed most of a Saturday for such humdrum. I'll give her credit for that, for sure.

Pro-Cloning hat trick for the Kit Wagar of the Kansas City Star

As you know, the Kansas City Star is a reliable organ for the clone-and-kill coalition, and unlike all those billboard and TV commercials, the Star's promotion of embryonic stem cell research isn't costing Jim Stowers a cent (at least that we know, eh?). The Star's stylebook must warn reporters to be really careful to avoid anything that might make any concern for human life sound reasonable, or anything that might make Jim Stowers and his mad scientists sound . . . well . . . mad. One of the Star's star misinformers, Mike Hendricks, ran a dishonest column following the anti-cloning rally on September 13, which I didn't report on in a timely manner, and now it's in the Star's pay-per-view archive--too late. But my perusal of the last few days of Kansas City Star articles has led me to at least three of their latest efforts, by another of the Star's cheerleaders for the clone-and-kill team, Jefferson City correspondent Kit Wagar.

The first, Saturday's article headlined "Blunt's plan gets new limits" (emphasis added) on applying existing state restrictions on experimenting on human embryos in buildings constructed with Missouri Development Finance Board money, serves to show how our backwards troglodyte thinking about human life is standing in the way of Science and obstructing the betterment of the master, er, human race. We have these highlights:

• "Spence Jackson, a spokesman for [scoundrel neo-con traitor Matt] Blunt, said the governor opposed the limits on scientists’ work."
• "Joe Moore, spokesman for the University of Missouri system, expressed concern about how the academic community would view such restrictions. We wouldn’t want to be at a competitive disadvantage with our peer institutions that may be seeking the same cutting-edge researchers,” Moore said." [Which researchers are we seeking? These guys?]
• "But Sen. Charles Wheeler, a Kansas City Democrat [who is Kansas City's elder statesman and "Mister Civility," at least to those constituents who make it out of a petri dish alive], warned that the restrictions could undermine the purpose of Blunt’s life-sciences initiative and would lead to more litigation. 'Science only advances in states where scientists are given a lot of discretion about the types of research they can do,' Wheeler said."
• "The prohibitions reflect the beliefs of opponents of some stem-cell research who say that a microscopic person is killed when stem cells are harvested from the ball of cells that develops five days after conception." [Ever read Horton Hears a Who?, Mr. Wagar, Mr. Editor? Naturally, we dare not say which types of stem cell research, do we? Naturally, we dare not give a fair airing of their position, do we?]

And then we another article about Episcopal priests cheering on the clone-and-kill team, like their confrere John Danforth. Wouldn't ya know? They are hoping to prompt a frank discussion. Again, some highlights:

• "The resolution, drafted by the Rev. Stan Runnels of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, calls for the diocese to affirm the value of research on both adult and early stem cells and to recognize that such research 'is consistent with the theological teachings and moral practices of the Episcopal Church.'"
• "A statement supporting the resolution notes that the Episcopal Church’s policymaking council, known as the General Convention, determined in 2003 that 'wider availability of embryonic stem cells for medical research holds the potential for discovery of effective treatment of a wide variety of diseases and other medical conditions.'"

Um, yeah, what have I said in the past about the consistency of such positions with the theology of a sect founded solely on political expediency? Ditto that.

Then we have today's article on the pro-cloning, pro-killing kiosks set up in Union Station and other places around the state:

• "The kiosk sticks to the scientific view of such research and its potential for curing a wide range of diseases." [yet, of course, it fails to point out the truth: dozens of cures from adult stem cells, but nothing just lots of tumors from embryonic cells]
• "Some people oppose such research, the video tells viewers, because they consider the ball of cells from which stem cells are taken to be a human life. Others say that ball of cells is not a human life until it is implanted in a woman’s uterus. That is an issue 'science can’t resolve,' according to the video. 'Each person must make up his or her mind.'" [Which worries me. We all get to make up our own minds? What if someone makes up his or her mind that I'm s suitable matter for destructive medical experiments? Or that Kit Wagar is?]
• "'We had the feeling that there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about stem-cell research,' [Science City director Ray] Shubinski said. “We hope to get information to people so they can be better informed about what the issues are." [Naturally, though, we won't tell you all the information, will we, Ray?].
• "Shubinski acknowledged that the exhibit looks at stem-cell research and its potential in a positive light. It’s simply the scientific point of view, he said. 'We’re saying, "This is what stem cells are all about,"' Shubinski said. "We’re not looking at the political, religious or cultural issues. All we’re saying is, ‘If this is available, what are the benefits?'"" [Poor me, I was misinformed. Back in the 1980s, my textbooks said science was a method of reasoned inquiry, not just a positive point of view].

Um, yeah. Recommendation: don't stand next to Kit, or that Ray Shuby-Doo guy, on a stormy day.

Kansans for Faithful Citizenship Conference, Part 2

Here's a continuation of my correspondent's report. He still doesn't get to Kathleen Sebelius, but he promises to do so soon:

Curmudgeon, Wolftracker, in rereading Part 1, I realized I skipped over an important preliminary fact; i.e., how many people were there? I'd never make it as a journalist, obviously (not that journalists ever estimate a crowd well). The organizers had a very large room reserved, with about 28 large round banquet tables (the kind that would seat 10 people at a larger function) with six chairs arranged around them so nobody would have his back to the podium. The were set up for about 170 people, but the morning started with only 80-90 folks in attendance. Several tables were empty, and there were empty seats at a lot of the tables towards the back of the room. Over the course of the conference, another 10 or 15 people came in, and at Gov. Sebelius's speech, they let in another fifty people or so. I'm guessing that the majority of those in attendance were liberal Catholics, but I have no way of knowing for sure. I saw two men wearing clerical attire (one was with a woman I judged to be his wife—hopefully a protestant minister; the other I couldn't tell), and I recognized the retired pastor Our Lady of Sorrows in KCMO in lay dress. I was really surprised at the attendance; I honestly expected more folks to be there.
Sister Jeanne Christiansen RSM

Anyways, back to the panel discussion. Next came Sister Jeanne Christiansen, whom I didn't recognize on the dais in her short hair and pantsuit, and who started off quickly by pointing out the typo on the screen: she was an "RSM," or a "Religious Sister of Mercy," instead of an "RSN" or "Religious Sister of Nonsense." She made an allusion to her leaving the Kansas City, Missouri chancery office with the change of Bishops, and talked about how Catholics in the Missouri diocese were forming a new organization to "fill the gap" created by the new Bishop's apparent lack of interest in liberal lawmaking. She talked about her work on past elections in the Kansas City, Missouri, chancery, and said how wonderful the USCCB-produced voter information materials had been in the past (at the same time expressing concern about how they might change in the future do to changes at the USCCB). She also held up a "little blue book produced by some group in California" which I couldn't see, but which I assume was Karl Keating's and Catholic Answers' "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics." She said the California group's book "drove us crazy" and popped up all over the place. She said that the people in the room should read "the little blue book" so they'd know how Keating's group (which she never named) was distorting Catholic teaching, but she emphasized that when talking to Catholics about which guide to rely upon, point out that one of the guides came from "the bishops," and the other came from "some group in California."

My thoughts on this so far: Once again, we saw a speaker talking up the USCCB functionaries as "the Bishops," as if the rank-and-file Bishops of the United States really have much input into such publications, and as if the USCCB's political orientation has some magisterial significance. And like most trads, I'm not a big Catholic Answers fan, but if Keating's little blue book is driving people like Sr. Jeanne crazy, it's doing some good, for sure.

Christiansen quoted extensively from the documents on Catholics in Political Life, of course skipping over the inconvenient parts that Archbishop Kelleher incorporated into his recent Leaven column. She then said that it was important for people of faith to be political, but not partisan, and gave some examples of how they could walk that line, including avoiding "slanted" activities inviting a spectrum of candidates to speak at events (notice, though, that the only candidate to speak today is Sebelius). She then talked about recruiting candidates, and seemed to lament the fact that she could not, as a religious woman, run for office.

At this point she started using the buzzword "common good," and made a couple of references to (and apparent quotes from) "Catholic Teaching" about social justice-type stuff. I'm not sure what Christiansen meant by "Catholic Teaching." She didn't cite any documents, so I don't know if she was quoting magisterial authority or USCCB political stuff or just some unofficial, private theologian or moralist, or just some author who happened to write a book or an article entitled "Catholic Teaching." But Christiansen was very careful to remind us, over and over, that she was reading "Catholic Teaching." One of the things that came from "Catholic Teaching" was a statement on the formation of conscience, in which she stated that official Church teaching was a FACTOR in forming one's conscience, as was the consultation with "wise people." Here, I couldn't help but think she was quoting Bp. Tom Gumbleton's talk in Kansas City a while back, or that he was quoting Christiansen back then. I assume that her notion of "wise people" would be different than mine. Her point seemed to be that we shouldn't get hung up so much upon what the magisterium says, and that if "wise people" disagree, we can form our conscience around that disagreement. Christiansen made a reference to the new document put out by the Kansas Bishops (the KCC, I guess?), and said if fell between the USCCB "Faithful Citizenship" statement and the "little blue book."

Christiansen said that Catholics were to work for Charity AND Justice, and she gave her own gloss on "the bishops'" moral priorities for legislation:

1. Defend Human Life from conception to natural death (which, unsurprisingly, to Christiansen, means improving the QUALITY of life in all its
aspects).

2. Supporting Family Life (by which she focused on education, health care, and parental something-or-other, instead of stuff like divorce, contraception, and other unfashionable stuff).

3. Social Justice (she said we "can't duck that one," but I may have some reflections on that if you don't).

4. "Practicing Global Solidarity" (by which I guess she means debt relief and more support to corrupt third world regimes and less military action, but I don't recall that she elaborated on this because she was running out of time).

Finally, she encouraged everyone to get involved, and spend some time reading about and researching other progressive Christian organizations. She urged everyone to visit sojourners.net and the ncr blog, and also, she promoted the kcolivebranch.org website. This was the group mentioned above that intends to "fill the gap" left by Bishop Finn, but when I checked it out after I got home, I found it to be far from the electronic behive of "social justice" activity Christiansen seemed to suggest it was. The site averages four hits per day.

Bert Braud

The next talk was by Bert Braud. He's an employment lawyer, and his talk was apparently all about employment discrimination and the injustice of "at will" employment in Kansas. It just didn't seem to fit the program; it was too detailed, too specialized and to lawyerly, so I thought this was a good time to step out for a restroom break and for more coffee. During his talk, I spoke at some length to one of the two fellows who had tagged me as a right-wing mole. Most of it was private conversation, so no report on that is forthcoming, except to report that he said he wanted me to "feel welcome" at the conference.

Luncheon Speaker

As a late registrant, I didn't have a box lunch, and I had some errands to run, so I left the hotel for about 45 minutes while everyone else ate, but I got back in time to hear John Halpin of the "Center for American Progress," who spoke for about 30 minutes on the political polling data derived from a 1,000-sample poll and follow up focus groups. That was a fairly interesting talk, in which the folks in attendance got to see how they could best frame their agenda so as to play the public reflexes that have been conditioned by neo-con and evangelical rhetoric. He used the buzzword, "common good," a gazillion times. He flew through a bunch of slides, which he indicated were available on his organization's website for further study, and talked about how they could get people to break with the "radical individualism of the right" and the "national interests equated with the needs of the few" and the notion of an "ownership society." He emphasized the idea a public craving for "national service" (about which I have some passionate thoughts) and the need to emphasize a call for "ethical personal behavior" and a "just, peaceful, cooperative" military policy. He emphasized strongly that the people in the room needed to describe themselves as "progressives" and "moderates" because the term "liberal" was such a turnoff in polling. I haven't been to his organization's website, but it might be useful for people to visit it and see how the liberals seek to recast themselves.

Breakout Sessions

There were two breakout sessions; one on the environment, run by the Sierra Club, and another on Health Care, Poverty & Social Justice, run by Robert Harder. I attended the latter. The session mostly discussed advocacy for home health services instead of more-expensive nursing home care, and other government programs to indoctrinate children. My notes from this segment are sketchy.

Kathleen Sebelius

Of course, everybody wants to know what Kathleen Sebelius would have to say in a venue like this, especially given the Archbishop's recent challenge to her on her recent pro-abort veto and the rhetoric that surrounded it. However, I don't have time right now to wrap this up and get a full report to you on her speech. You'll have to wait another day or so. But don't wait with baited breath: I was disappointed that she dodged the Archbishop's direct challenge and stuck to her typical hollow "I'm personally opposed" rhetoric. I'll finish this in the next day or two. Sorry for the delay, Curmudgeon, but remember, you get what you pay for.

It turns out that my correspondent wasn't entirely alone at this conference. There was another person who drove by the Doubletree just to see what the attendance was like. He was kind enough to email me a gem of a photo from the parking lot and give me permission to use it above.

Report on the Kansans for Faithful Citizenship, part 1

Here's the first part of the report from the Kansans for Faithful Citizenship conference. More is promised.

Cur, I saw your post alluding to this report. Don't think I'm kidding; I want my $10 reimbursement, here. You should be lucky I'm not billing you for mileage, lunch, and six hours of my life that will never be recovered. You'd better have cash at Mass tomorrow, and don't give me any garbage about protecting your anonymity. And no funny stuff! If you pay me with rolls of pennies, you'll have to find yourself a new correspondent. And don't try to pay me in bumperstickers, either. I'm sending this to Wolftracker, too, just to make sure I get something for my trouble.

Anyways, as planned, I attended the conference of the Kansas Coalition for Faithful Citizenship today. I took a big risk and registered in my own name, and was quickly spotted as a right-wing "mole." It's not like our events where we tend to leave the left-wing moles alone in the back of the room. I did have to explain to a guy that I'm not a neo-con. I'll say more about that later.

Introductions.

The conference started a little after 10am. One of the local organizers, Janet Schlake, read the mission statement, which is to be "a group of people of faith pledged to support candidates and policies which have the common good as their focus." I didn't see or hear anything about Janet Schlake's biography, but do note the buzzword, the "common good," which was repeated throughout the day like a mantra of sorts. A woman named Mara Vanderslice came next. She's has a company called "Common Good Strategies, LLC," which is "a new political consulting firm that helps build bridges and understanding between Democratic elected officials, candidates and state parties and America's diverse religious communities." She was the Kerry-Edwards campaign's Director of Religious Outreach. She appears to be a non-denominational type, and has a resume with lots of liberal political experience (although it became apparent that they much prefer the label "progressive." Although I would guess that the room was mostly older liberal Catholics and mainline protestants (very few young folk), she mentioned Rosh Hashana and the start of Ramadan. She said something about two events that really showed the US to the world: Katrina, which exposed the poverty of New Orleans, and 9/11, which was a squandered opportunity to build bridges (because our political leaders took a "for us or against us" attitude in the aftermath). She also said something about how she saw reasons for hope, as more "progressive" Christian groups like the "Red Letter Christians" and Catholics for the Common Good were forming, and guys like John Danforth were waivering from the "conservative" line. Following Vanderslice, another local organizer, Janelle Lazzo, introduced National Catholic Reporter editor Tom Roberts.

Tom Roberts.

Roberts had an hour-long speech. He read it in less than 30 minutes. It was hard to follow because he talked so quickly, and thus my notes are poor, but here's what I did get:

He started with a discussion of St. Thomas More, quoting heavily on the play A Man for All Seasons, rather than authoritative biographies, and noting that the Vatican's Doctrinal Note on Certain Questions on the Participation of Catholics in Political Life drew on More as well. Roberts suggested that we substitute, for suspicion of More's king, a suspicion of our own religious and political leaders, such as a Bishop who says stem cell research is like genocide, evangelicals preachers who say they intend to retake a state or the nation for Jesus Christ, politicians who speak as if God has given the US a special mandate in the world, and [something else; he was moving too fast].

He made allusion to the moral certainty of the old says, and said that we should all be grateful, in light of the current interest in homosexual marriage, that "one age's moral absolutes become malleable in the next." He complained that religion should not be at the beck and call of politics (which left me wondering why we were all at a hotel conference room on a Saturday morning), and referenced some absurd quotations of the current Holy Father by Congressman Nancy Pelosi (acknowledging their absurdity). He complained that Catholics are too willing compromise their broad agenda for a few narrow issues, and said we must "unchain God from our smallness" and avoid letting the Church get co-opted by politics. He rattled through a substantial list of religious figures that inspired him, of which I only jotted down Mother Teresa, Thomas Merton and Sister Joan Chittister, but because he was moving so fast, I didn't have any notes on why they were relevant to him or how they worked into the speech at this point.

Roberts spoke a little bit next about how pro-lifers were ill-used in the Reagan-Bush era, and moved back to the present to criticize bishops who set forth conditions for voting and try to regulate who comes to the "communion rail." He talked about the pass given to Rick Santorum when he sold out and supported Arlen Specter. He tried to draw a distinction between "church teaching" and "church politics," and complained of those who do nothing other than oppose abortion and not try to fix the social structures that cause it. He said there was more than one way to be a good Catholic, and praised the compromising spirit of Cardinals George and McCarrick and the official USCCB statement which left lots of wiggle room for "progressives." He pointed out that Pope John Paul gave communion directly to pro-aborts, and even non-Catholic Tony Blair.

I'm sorry, at this point, I was hopelessly behind on my note-taking and things got sketchy. Roberts was reading a mile a minute:

He went on to talk about the formation of conscience, and said that while Church teaching was a major factor in forming ones' conscience, there was "no infallible statement on how to vote." He said that the war in Iraq was the one moral issue that we were forced to support with our taxes. He said something about the economic gap. Something about tribal wars. He said the US was 36th in infant mortality (did that count abortions?). He invoked Cardinal McCarrick again. And then he stopped.

My impressions: Roberts' invocation of the USCCB, as "the Bishops," was to become another frequent technique among the speakers in the day. The progressive church bureaucrats and the old-school Bishops running the conference apparatus and presuming to speak in the name of all the Bishops gave them much ammunition, and will certainly give their candidates a good deal more in the coming weeks. It seems to be that the "progressive" strategy will be, today and in the run-up to the election, that instead of running from any religious identity, they'll embrace it, or at least the quotable, non-magisterial politically useful part of it, which the USCCB functionaries have offered up for their exploitation. His comment above, expressing approval and hope for the fact that old moral absolutes become malleable over time today (or I would say, appear to be) doesn't surprise me much—I wouldn't have expected him to make a distinction between the phenomenon of sins becoming fashionable and his dream of a moral world where sins ceasing to be sins.

He did have a point about how pro-lifers were ill-used by the Reaganites; it can be proven in three words: Sandra Day O'Connor. As for the Rick Santorum sellout, I imagine that he will be punished by those he abandoned for Specter. I also expected to hear something about the Bishops who were attempting to do something about the public scandal caused by pro-abortion politicians who were exploiting their Catholic identity, but I laughed out loud at the reference to the "Communion Rail" coming from one of the leaders of the movement which did away with the rail and replaced it with the modern breadlines and lay "Eucharistic Ministers." Of course, no mention was made of the Vatican's (Cardinal Ratzinger's) letter to the USCCB's discussion of the McCarrick report, nor of McCarrick's cover-up of the full text and import of it. There's little to say about his allusion to JP-II's carelessness with regards to communicants, other than to note that such a lack of discretion in governing the Church and his own household, manifested here and elsewhere, shows that whatever his other virtues, JP-II does not merit the rare appellation "the Great." Finally, I took issue with Roberts' suggestion that the War was the one immoral thing we were all required to support with our tax dollars. We all know that's false. Just off the top of my head, involuntarily support obscene and sacrilegious art. We support sex education in schools, too. And in many states, through mandatory coverage laws and insurance policies and prisoner's rights claims, we support contraception and abortions. Anyways, due to the speed with which Roberts spoke, I didn't get enough written down to draw any great insights now, at the distance of several hours' time.

Dr. Robert Harder

The next segment was a panel discussion with Dr. Robert Harder, Sister Jeanne Christiansen, and Bert Braud. It was more like three short, unrelated speeches than any sort of panel discussion, but the first two were interesting, at least. Robert Harder, who worked in several bureaucratic and advisory positions in Topeka and now runs the "Big Tent Coalition" doing "progressive" advocacy on welfare and healthcare issues, and who was to give a "breakout session" on that topic later in the day, gave the one talk that I could agree with 100%. It was fully on target. The talk was titled "A Godless Constitution?" In the 15 minutes he spoke, he answered the (typically evangelical protestant) patriotic assertion that the United States was founded on Christian principles. He went through a host of facts that showed the anti-religious political foundations of the Mayflower Compact (yes, from the Puritains), Thomas Jefferson's efforts to discourage religious belief and practice in Virginia, George Washington's religious non-observance, and the rampant Deism among the other founding fathers. He pointed out that only 10-15% of the colonial settlers were observant. Harder even went so far as to quote someone and insist himself that the country was founded on "reason and enlightenment" rather than on religious principles. That reminds me of Curmudgeon's criticism of the video shown at the beginning of the stem cell rally a couple of weeks ago.

To Harder, I can only say "Amen," and I'll wait until we start talking about what we should do and say in light of our anti-religious foundations before I voice disagreement with you.

Well, it's late, and I'm tired. I think I'll sent this to you in parts, and you can either wait until you get all the parts, or you can post it (if you choose to) as it comes in. Tomorrow I'll write up what Sister Jeanne Christiansen had to say (which was really the most interesting part of the day, in a morbid way), as well as a report on the polling data gathered by the national organization promoting the "common good" rhetoric, the "breakout sessions" and the headliner speech by Gov. Sebelius, as well as some more commentary, such as you may want.

We'll see if my correspondent follows through with part 2. Maybe I'll only give him $5 this week, and hold the rest until he's done.