CatholicVoteAction.org

Regular AmP readers know that I am no fan of President Obama.

But I am asking the question “Why would a Catholic like Obama?” in sincerity.

There are, I think, three reasons to like President Obama as a President:

• 1) You are inspired by his principles
• 2) You have trust in his abilities
• 3) He’s better than the alternative

I’ll take these in reverse order. #3 is not actually a reason to like Obama. It’s a reason to not not-like him. I “liked” John McCain not because I liked him, but I believed him to be a better alternative than Obama. But those who liked Obama because he wasn’t John McCain will face a different choice in November of 2012, which could prove interesting.

#2 is hard to believe, because Obama hasn’t really done anything effectively. Even liberals think he’s an ineffective President. We’re nearing the mid-point in his presidency, and what has he accomplished, except a disaster of a health care bill while the economy continues to flat-line? Remember, this was supposed to be “recovery summer.” Yeah, not so much.

In my talks with Catholic supporters of Obama, once they abandon the notion that he’s an effective President (i.e., someone with the ability to accomplish the responsibilities America has given to him), the last claim they make is that they are inspired by his principles (#3). “Hope”, “Change”, “overcoming the old politics and business as usual,” etc.

Vatican expert Sandro Magister has a fascinating column from Monday entitled “There’s a Strange Prophet in the White House.”

Magister makes the point that Obama’s rhetoric closely parallels that of a famous Christian heretic – Joachim of Fiore. So closely, in fact, that a hoax spread during his Presidential campaign claiming that the parallel with Fiore’s theology was intentional on Obama’s part. Even though this proved not to be the case, the similarity remains (I have underlined the most interesting passages):

In spite of the nonexistent citations, then, the resemblance remains between Obama’s rhetoric and the vision of Joachim of Fiore. The theologian and cardinal Henri De Lubac would have had no difficulty in adding Obama to the crowded ranks of the “Spiritual posterity of Joachim of Fiore,” the title of an extensive study he published thirty years ago on the influence that the utopia of that monk has had up until our time, inside and outside of Catholicism.

But once again, the contradiction reappears when one compares Obama’s speeches with his concrete decisions.

The troops in Afghanistan are still there, Guantanamo isn’t closing, federal money is on the verge of funding abortion . . . Day after day, the president’s actual decisions contrast with his statements. They always put off until an unspecified “tomorrow” the realization of the messianic utopia that his speeches continue to present.

The “new age” of Joachim of Fiore also failed to come about in 1260, the year indicated. But the dream survived. And Obama is promoting it again today in his role as the most powerful man in the world.

Cervi and Ferraresi write:

“The fact that Joachim’s words have been put in Obama’s mouth is a touch of irony that has every appearance of destiny. The millenarian, Joachimite, ultimately totalitarian impulse eliminates inexorable human finiteness to entrust the salvation of man to man, or at least to the one who shows himself capable of embodying the desire for change. It matters little whether he is a king, a philosopher, a half-saint, or the president of the United States.” 

In other words, Obama’s political vision is, at core, one of a human-engineered utopianism, which is deeply contrary to Christian hope in Christ and to the acknowledgement of mankind’s original fallenness. Obama believes that man can – of his own force – overcome the imperfection of his nature and create a perfect world … someday (but vote for him today).

So, if Obama’s abilities are seriously in question (#1), and his principles are contradictory to the Christian vision of the world (#3), what’s left, besides the fact that he may not be worse than someone else (#3)?

Why would a Catholic like Obama?

Parish closings are a painful experience.

In these turbulent economic times, with record unemployment and changing demographics, parish closings are a more and more frequent occurrence. The urban parishes around the rust belt region have been hit particularly hard. While I have not personally experienced my parish closing, I lived in Michigan for many years, two of which saw me regularly commuting to Detroit, and I still have many friends attempting to make a living in this despoiled city. So I’ve been to parishes which have been reformed as a “cluster”, with a lone priest serving multiple (typically three) parishes. I know other people who have had their parish shut down entirely.

It’s hard to over-emphasize how disorienting such an experience can be, especially to Catholics who identify their faith strongly with their experience of worshiping in their neighborhood parish. It’s one thing, after all, to lose your job, it’s another thing to see your entire neighborhood lose their job. And it’s yet another thing to see the parish where you pray at Mass for the return of stable employment every week … to shut its doors and shutter its windows as well. 

This local story, however, about a group of Catholics in Cleveland defying the local bishop and opening up their own church (so to speak) after their parish was closed, is yet more distressing still:

“Defying the authority of their bishop, parishioners and their priest from the closed St. Peter Catholic Church in downtown Cleveland celebrated Mass Sunday in leased commercial space they transformed into a church independent of the Cleveland Catholic Diocese.”

I was in Cleveland earlier this year to attend a close friend’s wedding. Cleveland is a struggling city. Its Catholic parishes are therefore struggling even more. But our time together, in the beautiful Church, surrounded by friends and family that had come into town for the weekend, was blessed and joyful. I said a prayer for the Catholics of Cleveland, and for all the Catholics who are struggling to support their parishes in these tough times. Now I have to add to my intentions, praying that Catholics not give into the temptation to abandon the Church when they are forced to change parishes after their parish is closed.

The members of this new community of Catholics in Cleveland have named their church (ironically) St. Peter’s, after their old parish. The local account of their first assembly is glowing. I have read news stories about other splinter Catholic communities which often include similar praise.

I would like to see one of these reporters return to the same splinter Catholic community in several years. It’s my guess that several years down the road, things aren’t so rosy. After you split from the Universal Church, things go downhill pretty quickly. Once you believe that you can create your own faith, people tend to find that faith unsatisfying. Like any choice that “appears” right at the time but is actually wrong, the harm of the faulty choice can take a long time to become evident. I don’t think it’s unfair to compare abandoning the Church with abandoning a spouse. Catholics are called to be faithful to their Church, and the structure that Christ created for it when he gave St. Peter the keys, not only in good times, but also in bad ones. The early Christians dealt with persecution, martyrdom and catacombs-for-worship-places. I believe Catholics to be strong enough to survive their parish closing.

I’d like to see in the comments section a fruitful discussion about parish closings develop. Have you had your parish close, or do you know someone who has? How did you (or they) respond?

Most of all, I’d ask you to join me in praying for those who have had their parish close. I think we are called to reach out in a special way to friends we know who are losing their parish. Invite them to yours. If transportation is difficult, help them find a carpool or other means to get to Mass and the Sacraments. The same author who wrote the story above about the splinter Catholic community in Cleveland, has also profiled Catholics integrating happily into new parishes. So this transition is possible!

Together, as the early Christians did, we can build up each other in faith, and help our brothers in sisters in Christ who may feel abandoned by or excluded from their traditional place of worship.

Charity, like faith and hope, is universal.

AmP readers ask me questions from time to time and this time I thought it would be best to poll the audience:

Reader Chris asks: “Are there any Catholic apps out there or being developed for the Blackberry? I’m aware of a Bible app that is, alas, rather Protestant, but cannot find anything containing, say, the daily readings of the Catholic liturgy, or even a digital Rosary!

Reader Tim asks a related question: “Have you found a good Catholic Bible app for your Droid?  I have one too and haven’t had much luck…  there are a ton of Protestant editions, but I need my Maccabees!”

I used to own a Blackberry and do indeed now have a Droid, so I’m curious to see the papists’ answers to both. Maccabees is a must for my morning commute!

Maybe I’m giving myself too much credit by saying this will be an “in-depth” post. It’s one at least I hope to begin devoting extended attention to, aided by the contributions of you my readers. I began thinking about this topic after Easter, when many headlines came across my desk referring to Obama and his faith.

To lay my cards on the table, I fear that Obama’s public faith is a political convenience for him. And if it is, we should have little tolerance for the game he is playing with matters so serious. I will do my best to find evidence that he is sincerely a man of active faith outside of the photo-ops. A guest column by a friend will take a look at that question later today, but I want to run through some of the other pieces of evidence we have.

First of all, Obama surrounds himself with people – Catholics in particular – who notoriously use their faith for political expediency. This week Joe Biden joked about his staff sending him to a Byzantine Orthodox Church for Easter Mass. I’m shocked he recognized that a mistake had been made in the first place. I’m not shocked he thought the whole situation was a total gas.

Second – and I know this may seem trivial – this year the White House excluded Private and Catholic school children from its annual Easter Egg hunt. Why pick on the Catholic school kids? Is it because they want those pesky vouchers?

Third – and here we get back to some substance I hope – Obama and his family did attend services in Southeast DC this Easter. The WaPo article noted that Obama has “attended services in Washington five times since his election, usually to accept a blessing or make a speech.” Five times in over 65 Sundays? The White House has made the excuse that the President doesn’t want to upset a Church by being a regular attendee there. But previous presidents have somehow managed to attend services less obtrusively. Instead, Obama’s random visits to different churches increase the one-time disruption at these places of worship.

Okay, so maybe the President isn’t a church-going man. Maybe he doesn’t want to invite a pastor or preacher over to the White House for a private service. But what does he think about religion? Well, we can start by asking – what does he say publicly about religion?

In a word: Gobbledygook.

Take this, for instance, from his Saturday-before-Easter radio and Internet address:

“While we worship in different ways … we also remember the shared spirit of humanity that inhabits us all — Jews and Christians, Muslims and Hindus, believers and nonbelievers alike.”

Okay, but I would expect a high-school freshman to be able to come up with this kind of sentiment.

Other examples of Obama’s outreach to people of faith is also discouraging.

At his Tuesday “Easter Prayer Breakfast,” Obama invited Joel Osteen. (Seriously?)

The White House faith-based director opined: “Attending the breakfast are leaders of some of the largest Christian organizations and churches in the country.” In other words, this outreach is more about power and numbers than anything else.

Only one Catholic bishop was invited out of 90 attendees – the Apostolic Nuncio Abp. Pietro Sambi (and he’s technically the representative of the pope as head of the Vatican political state). Maybe the Catholic-nuns-for-health-care-reform-now crowd used up all those tickets. (Actually, I was right: Sister Carol Keehan was invited, right next to gay-marriage-activist clergy). An observer of the guest list commented: “Overall, it’s an eclectic list, much more so than you would have seen with earlier presidents … Obama has made the most concerted effort to cross the dividing lines.”

Of course, those who tend to avoid drawing lines are those who cannot draw straight ones. To be less cryptic: when it comes to faith, Obama’s only lines are political – not theological, or personal. Thus he can interact with a wide range of religious leaders, as long as they match his ideological core convictions.

A recent Associated Press article claimed, “In personal terms, Obama honors Christ’s sacrifice”, but what it actually boils down to was statements like this: “[Obama] welcomed [Christian leaders] warmly as “my brothers and sisters in Christ” and honored Christ as “our risen savior.” The only thing I read here is that the President chose to greet a group of Christians with terms familiar and dear to them.

I bet he didn’t greet the first delegation of “American nontheists” in White House history with similar words. But I’m sure he’s betting on the votes of both groups in the future, and for their collaboration with him in his political goals in the future. And while we are it, Jews and Muslims as well.

Don’t get me wrong – there’s nothing wrong with a President of the United States reaching out to members of every faith (and non-faith) based community, but there is no necessary connection to make between any of these activities and Obama’s own personal belief system. This is, after all, someone who attended services for dozens of years with Jeremiah Wright. And how can such an affiliation be understood in any terms except political expediency?

Until I hear or read otherwise, none of the public comments about Obama’s faith inspire me to trust I understand it.

And so Obama’s faith – like much of his personal beliefs – remain somewhat of an enigma to me, which means I’ll have to keep thinking about it and trying to read the tea leaves. In the meantime, I have little patience for the many news stories that are published about Obama’s strong faith, and even less for the many liberal Catholics who have said in my hearing that Obama is a man of “serious faith”, etc (remember this being Doug Kmiec’s constant claim?).

If Obama is a man of serious faith – and I pray for him that he is – he does an amazing job of hiding it.

I’m getting a fair number of emails from papists wondering about the possibility of Catholic conscientious objection in the face of the new reality that the government-run health care exchanges will provide public funds to abortion providers. 

Without trying to be sensationalist, I’d be curious to read what my readers’ thoughts are on the subject, both in general and in particular (i.e., what you intend to do). This will help me craft my own response to the question in the coming days. Thanks!

Here it is:

What do you think about it?

Update – a thought came to me: it’s ironic that without the pro-abort outrage leading up to the airing of this ad, most Americans would have missed that the Tebow ad was in fact pro-life. Thanks for doing our PR for us, pro-aborts.

The only enjoyable thing about last night’s State of the Union address given by President Obama was the live blog I participated in which was hosted by Deal Hudson of Catholic Advocate. We were joined by Steven Ertelt of LifeNews, Kathleen Gilbert of LifeSiteNews, and several others. We had a good time and we were joined by hundreds of politically-interested papists! I hope to the Catholic online community do this sort of thing more often.

I have several observations from the evening, but I don’t want to push the discussion any particular way. I want to hear from you – your thoughts and reactions. So fire away!

I’m in Cleveland today, serving as the best man at my best friend’s wedding.

Please keep the happy couple-to-be in your prayers, and in the meantime, feel free to chat about whatever you want to on this thread (keep it nice, please).

AmP will be back in action on Monday!

This census poster is generating a lot of controversy – some are calling it blasphemous:

Someone against the poster (all quotes via USA Today):

The Rev. Miguel Rivera, chairman of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, says invoking the name of Jesus to promote the 2010 Census is “blasphemous” and “violates the concept of separation of church and state.” Using the name of Jesus for “a political and secular intention, it is definitely an assault against our Christian faith,” Rivera says.

Someone in favor of the poster:

Government did not pay or play a role in creating the posters, says Nick Kimball, spokesman at the Commerce Department, which oversees the Census Bureau. “We work with people from all walks of life to get an accurate count but do not provide funding,” he says … Tying the Census to the Christmas story strengthens the message, Cruz says, because “Mary and Joseph, who were both God-fearing, decided they needed to participate.”

What do you think of the poster? Are you in favor of it, or against it, and why?

{Ph/t: AmP reader Michael.}

I have to turn in and snatch some sleep soon, but I wanted to jump-start an open thread discussing tonight’s election results.

First and foremost, Thank you for all of your efforts in these important races. Here’s where they stand as of 12:30 AM EST:

• Pro-life, pro-family Catholic Republican candidate for governor Bob McDonnell won by almost 20 points. His excellent Catholic AG Ken Cuccinelli won by a similar margin. Awesome news.
• Pro-life, pro-family Catholic Republican Chris Christie won a hard, uphill race against incumbent governor Jon Corzine, despite Corzine’s advantage of having a personal fortune, and having President Obama campaigning for him a record number of times. More awesome news.
• Traditional Marriage appears to have won in Maine, by a margin of about 3/4%. This is wonderful, important news which I will reflect upon at a later point. It has a huge impact on the national narrative on this issue which has important social and religious freedom ramifications. I was blogging about this issue today on National Review Online: Here, and Here, and Here and Here.
• Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman has conceded a close, crazy race. But the fact that he made it so close is very revealing for several reasons, which I will also go into at some point. Suffice it to say: the pro-abortion, anti-marriage Scozzafava completely crashed and burned, and went on to endorse the Democrat candidate. I hope this serves as a lesson to the GOP that they ought not to abandon their social and economic conservative base in 2010.

Okay – a day full of meetings for me tomorrow. Time to get some rest!

I will be busy today attending to APP-related activities, but I want to allow the discussion�about yesterday’s news to continue. Here are the posts AmP published yesterday about the Vatican announcing special pastoral provisions for traditional Anglicans to be received back into the Catholic Church:

• Important: Vatican welcomes Anglicans into Catholic Church with Apostolic Constitution
• Commentary: Anglo-Vatican announcement has important American/African dimension
• Video: Vatican press conference on Anglican provision
• Raw video: Abp. Nichols of Westminster explains new Anglo-Catholic structures

Please be aware of these resources which provide ongoing quality coverage and commentary:

• Fr. Dwight Longenecker, a Catholic priest and convert himself from the Anglican Church
• Damian Thompson, a reporter for the UK Telegraph and an expert on UK Catholic issues
• Ed Peters (my father) – a canonical expert who is looking at how this will all work out
• The Anchoress, an amazing blogger who has been doing mega-coverage of this story

For those very interested in the internal politics of this news, do read the entirety of Robert Moynihan’s most recent report from Rome. He was in the room when the Vatican press conference took place, and provides a unique and thorough perspective on the many dynamics that were and are at play.

… and that should provide ample fodder for you eager Papists …. and those eager to be Papists!

And, as in all open threads, AmP readers are welcome to drop appropriate links into the comment box.

It’s time to look at the situation facing the Legionaries of Christ/Regnum Christi once again.

Austen Ivereigh of the America magazine blog writes about two different solutions preferred by members of the movement in Spain and in the U.S.:

The result of Rome’s investigation (known as an “apostolic visitation”) into the Legionaries of Christ will result in either the dissolution or the re-founding of the order, according to sources close to the Legionaries in Spain.

… Dissolution would mean the houses, universities and other properties of the Legionaries would pass into the hands of the dioceses where they are located. A new institute could then be founded.

… According to a former Legionary quoted by the Spanish religious journalist Jose Vidal, the ordinary priests and members of Regnum Christi, want a root-and-branch reform — if necessary, by means of a dissolution — in order to give a new institute a fighting chance. But the order’s leaders are fighting a defensive rearguard action, arguing that they knew nothing of the double life led by Maciel, and were therefore neither accomplices in his abuses nor did they attempt to cover them up.

… There seems to be a difference between the Americans and the Spaniards. The Americans want to get at the root of the problem quickly: they favor sacking the current leadership and making amends with Maciel’s victims. The Spaniards, on the other hand, are more inclined to defend their current leaders.

It would be helpful for me if former and current members of the Legion/RC could answer me these questions and give brief reasons for their answers:

1) Have you heard that the visitation is taking place in your area?

2) Do you have confidence that the visitation will fix the problems of the movement?

3) Is the ultimate solution, do you believe, a (minor) “reform” of the movement, a (major) dissolution-and-then-refounding of the movement, or a (complete) dissolution and subsequent disappearance of it?

After these three questions are answered you are welcome to take the discussion in other directions. If you choose to email me your answers (I will keep all correspondence anonymous), please write “LEGIONARIES” in the subject line.