I did the surfing, so you don’t have to. Here are the fruits of today’s writer’s block: The good, the bad, the beautiful, and the weird from around the Web this week.

1. Have you been paying attention to how young Catholics in France are rallying against gay marriage? Because you should.

This week, the French magazine, Nouvel Observateur, goes all National Geographic, exploring  the strange ways of young French Catholics who actually believe what the Church teaches.

Everyone thought they had disappeared, and they had indeed become invisible to most of us. But for the past six months, they have been resurfacing and taking to the streets relentlessly to protest against gay marriage. They use their networks to organize events and rallies, as well as candlelit sit-ins and vigils. As defenders of the so-called traditional family, they represent a large proportion of those who march against same-sex marriage.

“It is a real groundswell,” says Christine Pedotti, editor-in-chief at Témoignage chrétien (“Christian Testimony”), the only Catholic magazine to favor gay marriage. “These young conservative activists obey the Church hierarchy and are addicted to family values and genuflecting. This is the new face of the Church.”

Family values and genuflecting. How quaint.

2.  In Baltimore, a “sex fetish” convention slated to be held in a local community center was cancelled, after a court agreed with local protests.

Strangely enough, parents didn’t like the idea of classes on “erotic whipping, polyamory and rope bondage” being offered in the same place where their kids play soccer.

Don’t get too excited about the triumph of common sense though. Here’s what the attorney who sought the injunction against the convention had to say about the event:

 “We do not pass judgment on what it is they are electing to do; they just can’t do it in close proximity to children,” said attorney Susan Green.

My question: Why? Why can’t they pass judgment? Has it really become beyond the pale to think that whips and polyamory are not subjects in which nice people should be interested?

3. It’s not a myth: Liberal men are girly men.

The Daily Mail reports on a new study out of Denmark which concludes that “Physically strong men are more likely to have right-wing political views.” 

The figures revealed that men with higher upper-body strength were less likely to support left-wing policies on the redistribution of wealth.  But men with low upper-body strength were more likely to put their own self-interest aside and support a welfare state.

So much to say. So much that shouldn’t be said.

4. Worried you’re posting too many stories about the Faith on your Facebook page? Worry no more. 

In yesterday’s homily, Pope Francis called upon Catholics to become holy pains in the you-know-what and implore the Holy Spirit for…wait for it…”the grace to be annoying.”

“There are backseat Christians, right? Those who are well mannered, who do everything well, but are unable to bring people to the Church through proclamation and Apostolic zeal. Today we can ask the Holy Spirit to give us all this Apostolic fervor and to give us the grace to be annoying when things are too quiet in the Church, the grace to go out to the outskirts of life. The Church has so much need of this!…So let us ask the Holy Spirit for this grace of Apostolic zeal, let’s be Christians with apostolic zeal. And if we annoy people, blessed be the Lord. Onwards, as the Lord says to Paul, ‘take courage!’ ”

Easiest papal advice I’ve heard in a long time.

5. Verily Magazine, the best thing to come along for the women’s fashion industry since Anthropologie, shipped this week.

Packed between its lovely, glossy covers, you’ll find relevant, intelligent writing; clothing which proves my often-made point that stylish and modest are not mutually exclusive realities; and beautiful women who don’t look like they need to be given a sandwhich (or 10) poste haste.  I’ve ordered my subscription. Have you ordered yours?

6. A book recommendation:

Mary Eberstadt’s “How the West Really Lost God: A New Theory of Secularization.”

My review of the book ran in OSV last week. Unfortunately, it’s for subscribers’ eyes only, so I can’t link to it. But here’s a snippet:

According to Eberstadt, the trends that signal a decline in the traditional family—rising rates of out-of-wedlock births, cohabitation, and divorce, paired with falling rates of marriage and an ever-shrinking family size—aren’t simply the consequence of secularization. They also are part of the cause.

To prove her point, Eberstadt weaves together a vast array of sociological and demographic data, demonstrating that in ages both past and present, wedding rings and babies tend to pull women and men towards religious practice. So, where there are more marriages and more babies, there’s also “more God.” And where there are fewer marriages and fewer babies? Then, there’s “less God.”

In sum, the book is good—really good. And if you want a deeper , more data-rich understanding of why the practice of organized religion in the West is now in a free fall, you should read it.

7. Video of the week: “Art and Liturgy in Two Minutes”

The whole thing is quotable, but in sum: “A faithful celebration of the liturgy makes for a faithful and holy people of God?”—Abbot Michael Zielinski, OSB, bureau chief of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Celebration of the Sacraments.

Watch it. Share it.

At the same time the IRS was ramping up its harassment of Tea Party groups in 2011, liberals were outraged and President Obama threatened to veto the debt ceiling legislation when Republicans tried to end public financing of Planned Parenthood’s abortion mills and incessant political advocacy. Even now, Planned Parenthood continues to receive public funding and also operates a 501(c)(4), presumably with private contributions, although accounting gimmicks make this separation highly dubious. Meanwhile, Tea Party groups whose stated mission is to educate citizens about the Bill of Rights and accept only private donations were held to a much higher level of scrutiny.

The contrast is spectacular and revealing: for modern liberalism, abortion is a public good but freedom of speech is not. Obama made this explicit when he told Planned Parenthood, “God bless you” and then went on to tell the graduates of Ohio State to reject the voices that warn that tyranny is just around the corner. If the revelations of the past few days have taught us anything, it is that the phrase “unaccountable bureaucrat” is not just a political cliché, and pace Obama’s assurances, there really is a petty tyrant that is always lurking around the corner of every page of ambiguous and ill-conceived legislation—and ObamaCare is by far the most heinous example.

President Obama claimed in a press conference yesterday that he had no knowledge of the IRS program, but this does not absolve him of responsibility. During his State of the Union address in 2010, President Obama made it clear that he was vehemently opposed to 501(c)(4) organizations engaging in political activity and urged Congress to defy the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Perhaps, like the knights who killed Saint Thomas á Beckett after hearing Henry II wish for his death in a fit of rage, the IRS employees were just trying to please their boss.

“Paying the Tax,” by Pieter Brueghel the Younger, c.1620

This should give us pause when we consider the wide-ranging powers granted to the IRS under ObamaCare. Indeed, the landmark ruling of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius only upheld ObamaCare by interpreting its most onerous provisions as an exercise of the taxing power. Liberal pundits echo Obama’s claim that we have nothing to fear, but they said the same thing about the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups. In this light, the words of the Declaration of Independence reverberate through the centuries as a warning that is just as relevant today, “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.” The HHS contraceptive and abortifacient mandate is only a foretaste of what is to come.

In the age of Obama, we can no longer hope that the executive branch will exercise prudence and sound judgement in the enforcement of the law. Whenever the law allows for discretion, it also allows for abuse. As far as we know, this scandal is not the product of some Nixonian conspiracy, although the scope and longevity of the IRS program do not reflect well on Obama’s leadership if nobody ever thought to bring it to his attention. As the saying goes, “A fish rots from the head down.”

Most likely, these abuses are simply the result of an incompetent and ineffectual President who despises the citizens that elected him and takes no interest in the task of governing when it does not suit his latest initiative to remake American society. If we can take Obama at his word, the IRS employees were simply left to their own devices without proper oversight. It is only natural that they would follow the example of a President who never misses an opportunity to chastise his conservative opponents and to politicize every function of the government under his control. Sadly, in his peevish aloofness, Obama is the pettiest tyrant of them all.

—

Correction Note: the original version of this article referred to the debt ceiling debate as taking place in May 2012 when it was in fact the summer of 2011.

These are just a few of the tragedies that have taken place over the past several years.

To his credit, President Obama responded to these horrific incidents with great aplomb. For the most part, he put politics aside and did the best he could to assure us everything would be okay and that the resolve of the American people would never be broken.

On April 25th, President Obama visited West, Texas to comfort those who lost loved ones in an explosion at a local fertilizer plant.

During his speech to the family members of those who died, the president cited Scripture and praised those who rushed to the scene to offer assistance.

Per usual, the president ended his speech by saying “God bless West.”

As reassuring as his speech was, the facade didn’t last long. Just one day later, on April 26th – mere days after Americans were made aware of the actions of Dr. Kermit Gosnell – Barack Obama opted to become the first sitting president to speak at Planned Parenthood’s National Conference in Washington.

Unlike his speech 24 hours earlier, the president’s address did not reference Scripture. Instead, the president accused those who oppose abortion as living in the past and being indifferent towards women’s health. “When politicians try to turn Planned Parenthood into a punching bag,” he began, “they’re not just talking about you; they’re talking about the millions of women who you serve.” What they’re really doing, he continued, “is telling many of those women, you’re on your own. They’re talking about shutting those women out at a time when they may need it most – shutting off communities that need more health care options for women, not less.”

He concluded the evening by saying “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

This two-facedness is truly astounding. What the president should have done was not attend Planned Parenthood’s event at all. The presidential thing to do, as Dr. Robert George and Ramesh Ponnuru have argued, would have been to put forth legislation that supports the civil rights of infants so they have protections against people like Dr. Gosnell, who was just found guilty of first-degree murder of three babies and involuntary manslaughter in the death of one of his patients.

I hope the Obama White House issues a statement about the case, and that they pursue legislation that will stop these atrocities from happening, but I’m not holding my breath. As an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama voted against legislation that would have protect children born alive after botched abortions on a number of occasions.

When asked about the Gosnell case a couple weeks ago, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the president “does not and cannot take a position on an ongoing trial.” That’s a pretty weak dodge, as it begs the question: Wasn’t the Trayvon Martin case an ongoing trial? Wasn’t the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates an ongoing trial? Why did the president feel compelled to weigh in on those cases and not the Gosnell case? Will he weigh in on it now that the case is over?

The president had the chance to act as a statesman by refusing to go to Planned Parenthood, but he didn’t. He had the chance to back up his tough talk about family values and love for our neighbors, but he didn’t. He had the chance to act presidential, like he has in the past following national tragedies, but he didn’t. Instead, he ignored the atrocities of the Gosnell case and berated those who think unborn children have rights. In other words, he put politics first and people second.

In two separate reports on NBC, Mitchell reported that “Republicans are taking direct aim at Hillary Clinton” in their quest to find out what led to the death of Stevens and four other Americans in Libya this past September 11.

Stevens’ nefarious Republican plot may just work as House Republicans seem willing to accept the fictitious tapestry of intrigue he wove before he died. They will soon hold hearings, and Gregory Hicks, the deputy mission chief in Libya at the time Stevens’ plan went into action, will play his part.

Hicks claims that he and everyone on the ground in Libya at the time “knew” it was a so-called “terrorist” attack immediately, and were “stunned” when Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who was drinking in the best intelligence available back in New York City, let us know it was actually not terrorism at all but a demonstration in reaction to a malicious video on YouTube that simply got out of hand.

According to Hicks, he fielded a call from Ambassador Stevens when the so-called attack got out of hand and he ordered military assistance to head to Benghazi. An order, he claims, that was “overruled.” Though a mere diplomat and not a military expert, he posits that commandos from the embassy in Libya or fighter jets in the area could have arrived in plenty of time to prevent the worst of the “attack.” Mitchell points out, however, that the commandos whose job when in theater is to always be ready to fight could not have gotten ready in time; that an embassy in a war-torn region had such sparse security that it could not spare four commandos to go save the ambassador’s life; and supersonic fighter jets based closer to Benghazi than Lincoln, Nebraska, is to Washington, D.C., would have taken five hours to arrive. So the refusal to send any assistance was entirely justifiable—after all, it was just a simple demonstration gone awry.

The moment of Christopher Stevens’ victory: at last, Hillary will be embarrassed.

Then there is the matter of the requests Stevens himself allegedly made for more security that some of these unstable Republicans are waving like a bloody, soot-stained shirt. This is more evidence of Stevens’ evil deep seated desire to embarrass Hillary Clinton, America’s favorite Democrat. Stevens, even though the additional security was not granted, chose to go to Benghazi at a time when a peaceful demonstration over a disgusting YouTube video might get out of hand. Had Stevens stayed back at the well-protected embassy in Tripoli (remember all those commandos defending the china?) then none of this would have happened. His decision to put himself in such a dangerous situation is clear evidence that he was, in Mitchell’s excellent phrasing, “a Republican taking direct aim at Hillary Clinton.” He calculated that he might die, and that his death would be an exquisite way to embarrass Hillary Clinton.

Clearly, this is a deep and committed plot on the part of unstable Republicans who have been led by the nose by that mastermind Republican, Christopher Stevens, whose example has emboldened his followers to pick up the torch and embarrass Hillary Clinton at all costs, even if it means their own death.

Thank Gaia the real menace behind this whole awful saga, the man who made that terrible YouTube video, is still safely behind bars, if only for giving Stevens, Hicks, and the other unstable Republicans a pretext under which to embarrass Hillary Clinton!

Parting question: CAN THE REPUBLIC SURVIVE IF HILLARY CLINTON IS EMBARRASSED?!

Campbell said earlier in the day that Hale was not fired because of her sexual orientation but because her “quasi-spousal relationship” with another woman violates the church’s moral teaching. He said Hale violated a teacher contract and Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus policy that prohibits immoral behavior and requires employees to follow general church tenets.

In an exclusive interview with The Dispatch, the bishop said diocesan officials “don’t necessarily go looking for things like that,” but Hale’s decision to name her partner in her mother’s obituary made the relationship public and initiated the termination process.

As bishop, he said, he has a “fundamental responsibility” to maintain the Catholic identity of the institutions under his purview.

“We do this in an atmosphere of care, of calm consideration, but yet out of the realization that at particular times we have to make particular decisions,” he said. “And they are difficult sometimes, but they do flow from what we believe, who we are and how we are to live.”

His Excellency, The Most Rev. Frederick Campbell, Bishop of Columbus (Catholic News Agency File Photo)

Unfortunately this is not the last word on the matter. According to the Columbus NBC affiliate, WCMH Channel 4, Hale’s attorney has formally filed a criminal complaint against the Diocese of Columbus which carries a possible penalty of up to six months in jail and has no exemption for religious organizations. That Bishop Campbell waited until now to speak publicly on the matter is evidence of how agonizing and heartbreaking this must be for him to see a former employee now lashing out against the Church.

In a bizarre side-story, an angry parent was escorted from a charity dinner with the Bishop after an outburst this past weekend. WCMH Channel 4 reports that John Petrucci supports Hale’s dismissal but was concerned about the violent threats that have been directed at Bishop Watterson High School. In response to the confrontation, a spokesman for the Diocese issued the following statement:

“During last evening’s dinner for diocesan ‘Bishop Annual Appeal’ contributors, an attendee, immediately prior to Bishop Campbell’s address, abruptly stood and began speaking regarding Carla Hale in a manner that was not understood or heard by many in attendance. While speaking, he began moving toward the Bishop in a way that concerned many in the audience.  Several attendees thought it necessary to intervene on the Bishop’s behalf, asked the man to leave, and escorted him from the event.  No extraordinary force was either required or applied in this process.

“Bishop Campbell is aware of the passions that have surrounded the Carla Hale issue and is deeply concerned about the anxiety and alarm it has created within our community.  He encourages all on either side of this subject to maintain civility and calm while the grievance process in this case moves forward.”

Given the threats that Petrucci is rightly concerned about, it is understandable that some in the audience may have thought he was a supporter of Hale. The attack on Belgian Archbishop Leonard is one recent example of the anger and hatred that is directed against the Catholic Church. The hacker group “Anonymous” has also issued threats against employees of the diocese. There will surely be worse to come for any who have the courage to defend the truth. Petrucci’s outburst illustrates how easily emotions and passions can overwhelm reason and good judgment. We must choose our words and our actions carefully.

Bishop Campbell and all who share his steadfastness will be called uncompassionate, intolerant, and hypocritical for holding fast to unpopular beliefs. However, we must remember that that love and compassion demand that we make sacrifices for the good of others. Carla Hale’s supporters who call for the Church to violate eternal truths have forgotten that compassion is not just about giving unconditionally, but that sometimes correction is needed when we go astray. The Bishop’s crozier is a reminder of this sacred duty not only to keep his sheep in the fold, but also as a rod to defend from wolves when the time comes.

Until these most recent development, the media coverage of this story has been entirely focused on Carla Hale’s supporters. However, members of the public who support Bishop Campbell and the Dioceses for upholding the Catholic faith have quietly begun to mobilize. A group of parents and students of Bishop Watterson High School has started a petition to offer prayers and encouragement to the Bishop and the Diocese. In the tribulations that lie ahead, they will need our help and our sacrifices.

I say “unlikely” not to cast aspersions on Broussard, but simply because he’s a reasonably prominent media member at a network that has mostly bowed down to secular liberalism. As such, I was surprised to hear him say the following in light of yesterday’s news…

“I’m a Christian. I don’t agree with homosexuality. I think it’s a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is…” Then after referring to a friendship with ESPN’s openly gay L.Z. Granderson, Broussard added “true tolerance and acceptance is being able to handle that as mature adults and not criticize each other and call each other names.”

Broussard has since had to issue a “clarification” of his remarks, but he did not back down from his religious beliefs, ones quite obviously shared by the Catholic Church on this subject. The clarification only confirmed that he has no objection to Collins playing in the NBA.

That wasn’t enough for media people like Yahoo’s Kelly Dwyer, who felt compelled to rush into print with a diatribe against Broussard that said America was not a “theocracy” (although if Broussard ever advocated making it such, I missed it) and that it was “it’s infuriating that Chris would go to this place immediately after talking up the massive outpouring of support he referenced from NBA players earlier in the program (Broussard had mentioned talking to many other players with Christian beliefs on the topic).”

Why is it infuriating? The media is regularly admonishing America that we need to have an open and honest discussion on subjects like these? Does an open and honest discussion mean tuning out the other side completely? Apparently Dwyer and those who agree with him feel that way.

And why was it inappropriate for Broussard to make his remarks yesterday? He’s a socially conservative Christian who covers the NBA at an all-sports network that owns a huge chunk of the TV rights to the league. Why on earth would he not give his view, especially given that his beliefs had apparently been expressed before and he was invited onto the network’s discussion? We might add that “his beliefs” on this speak for those of many, ranging from the Catholic Church, to various Protestant communities to Judaism and Islam.

What’s more disturbing is that Dwyer and his ideological compatriots really don’t grasp that it really is possible to see beyond a fundamental disagreement on questions of right and wrong and still like a person. Does this mean they’re only capable of talking to and connecting with those who toe their line?

It brings to mind the story of Andrew Sullivan and Pat Buchanan. Sullivan is an openly gay liberal writer and Buchanan a socially conservative Catholic and three-time presidential candidate. When it was made public that Sullivan had HIV, Buchanan sent him a note. Sullivan recalled that he expected condemnation and instead received a compassionate response and an offer of prayer. Sullivan at first could not understand how someone who had been so vocally opposed to his lifestyle could reach out in a time of need. He eventually came to realize that however much gay rights supporters get tired of hearing “hate the sin, love the sinner”, for many people that really is the way they live.

Sullivan would later write, “I think it would have been perversely churlish not to recognize his good intent, quietly and privately expressed.” He later lamented that “one of the deepest problems in today’s culture war is the reflexive imputations of bad motives to the opposition and the demonization that inevitably follows. The corollary is believing that we ourselves is capable of nothing but good, and so failing to see where we also go wrong.”

But if it is true, and I’m going to treat it that way until definitively renounced, bravo to whoever the brave souls are on each side who had the guts (decency?) to out this disgusting plan.

It seems members of both parties are involved in very confidential talks to exempt the whole seedy mess of lawmakers and their aides from the “third world experience” of the “huge train wreck” coming down the tracks we know as Obamacare…

Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.

Yes: the healthcare overhaul that we so desperately needed to make sure all was well in America; that we needed to come into the 20th century (let alone the 21st); that we needed to assure justice to all persons who manage to escape the womb alive; that we needed lest we all be a nation of selfish prigs… is not good enough for the very people responsible for foisting it upon us.

This law and its provisions are important enough that the religious objections of the nation’s largest religious group—objections that merited an unprecedented unanimity among the bishops (non-Catholics, and even a fair number of Catholics, have no idea how remarkable that is)—can be set aside. But it is not good enough for the very people responsible for tying this burden on our backs.

To be sure, scads of other exemptions have been granted—to unions and Obama donors, mostly—but the sheer, unmitigated gall necessary for them to see how bad it will be and choose to exempt themselves while not tossing it out root and branch lest that which they dislike fall upon the rest of us anyhow really beats all. As @Iowahawkblog said, “Here’s an idea: instead of just unions, Obama donors, and Congress, exempt EVERYBODY from Obamacare.” Couldn’t agree more.

I suppose I cannot really blame any Republicans here—they didn’t want the monstrosity in the first place, did what they could to stop it, and got absolutely steamrolled through procedural gimmickry. If they can rescue anyone from the huge train wreck they almost have an obligation to do so.

And, come to think of it, one sure way to sour the public on Obamacare even more is by executing a maneuver as distasteful and disgustingly yellow as this. It’ll probably result in a few Republicans going down, but far more Dems since it is their law. They own it. It is their unruly, menacing, spoiled rotten child entirely, without reserve, without joint custody, without weekend supervised visitation rights, even.

It’s a poison pill, then?

I don’t think I can give the GOP leadership credit for being that clever.

But there you have it: we have an aristocracy in this country, fellow subjects. That which is good enough for us simply will not do for them.

Speaking of the Second Coming, that would be preferable to our current plight—terrible yes, but decisive. That’s why the Church prays, as she always has, Maranatha! Until then, death lingers among us. Wickedness consumes us. Violence plagues us. Civilizations fall, and nations are ground to dust. Yet we continue to sow hatred, spite, malevolence, and cultivate them, only to weep at the harvest. No, for all our afflictions, this is not the end of the world; it’s just the way of things. Which is worse.

Only the powerful feel like they’re losing control, like things are slipping away. Maybe that’s why our world is so startled and shaken by death, though we encounter death less than ever before. Death has become a scandal to us, an affront to our sense of power and control. We have driven death from our homes and hidden it away in hospitals and hospices. We rarely see it visited upon the young, mercifully. Our culture is saturated in death, but we don’t see it.

Until we do. Anger often attends the loss of life, especially the taking of life. So it should. The death of the young is especially upsetting because it offends our sense of justice.  But life is also a gift—undeserved and un-owed—and death displays both God’s justice and mercy: justice, because the wages of sin are death; mercy, because, through His love, death is become the necessary condition of our salvation.

Death separates us from this life, opening up the possibility that, through the merits of the Cross, we may find new life, far greater than this life. As St. Paul says, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” The Cross is always a scandal to the world precisely because it does not know Him. Let it not be so for us. As the Gospel of John proclaims:

What came to be through him was life,

and this life was the light of the human race;

the light shines in the darkness,

and the darkness has not overcome it.

As we grieve, let us take comfort that a light still shines in the darkness. Let us take steadfast courage knowing that, against the light of the Resurrection, the darkness doesn’t stand a chance.

To be sure, I hope he made his peace with the Lord before he went to his personal judgment, but since he was the scientist who pioneered in vitro fertilization, he would have a lot of collateral damage to account for.

According to an article at BioEdge.org, in addition to being a “crusader” for IVF…

Edwards also laid the foundations for the defence of divorcing conception from sex, and biology from love.

…

Edwards’s “vision” did not stop at solving the mechanics of IVF. He also argued forcefully that science could not be limited by ethics. As he told a journalist for the magazine Living Marxism, Anne Bradley (later Anne Furedi, the head of the UK’s leading private abortion provider) in 1969, “I cannot accept this hyper-emotional stuff that says that some areas are out of bounds and cannot be touched.”

In 2003 he told the London Times: “It was a fantastic achievement, but it was about more than infertility. It was also about issues like stem cells and the ethics of human conception. I wanted to find out exactly who was in charge, whether it was God himself or whether it was scientists in the laboratory.” And what he discovered was that “It was us.“

Yes, well about that… The room temperature-ness of his body ought to indicate a more moderated conclusion, no?

Even scientists die.

The chutzpah of scientists who fancy themselves god-like because they can figure out the mechanics of nature.

As though in the discovery of the mechanics they thereby established, or created, those mechanics. Nonsense. Science is nothing more than the discovery of how it all was designed to run and, where appropriate and possible, harnessing the powers and processes discovered for our own purposes.

I brew beer with some friends. One of our mottos is “beer wants to be beer.” By that we mean the ingredients that go into beer have the enzymes and sugars and acids that make beer—all we do is introduce water and heat and combine the ingredients at the right time and the natural process will make beer. Basic beer will just happen, almost naturally. But the process was discovered, human persons, as rational beings, have studied it, tinkered with it in controlled environments, and have refined it over the millennia so that we don’t get “just beer,” but really amazing beer. It’s still just a natural process according to what is in the ingredients already.

Since we are rational beings with morality, part of the process must be determining whether something we are able to do is also something we ought to do. Making beer is a good thing according to the natural processes of the ingredients. On the other hand, I can punch my neighbor in the face for no reason at all. I am able to. But I ought not, so I don’t. Just because someone, including a scientist, is able to do something does not, ipso facto, mean he or she should.

How many of us wish no scientist had ever put forth the work to figure out how to build an atomic bomb even once they realized they probably could?

But the march of technology continues and we devise ever new and more powerful means of communication, transportation, leisure, medicine, construction, and, of course, destruction. None of this puts us ahead of God—He plays a longer game with an overarching and irresistible set of rules.

In the end science stays on this side of grave and while it can delay death, it cannot keep death at bay forever. Each and every one of us will have to pass through death to the hereafter and make an account for what we did in this life. We’ll have naught but our record of love, service, and responsible use of the powers and abilities and gifts given.

That is when we will realize, if we stubbornly refused to accept it in this life, “God is God, and I am not God.”

I hope in the end Robert Edwards realized that fundamental truth, if only for a moment on his death bed, and he accepted it.

In a letter sent Monday, attorneys for Kennedy show that the campaign is fraught with factual inaccuracies that even the most cursory investigation would have revealed. Public records indicate that Autocam has paid almost $10 million in real property and personal property taxes in the State of Michigan since 1997, including $961,386.74 in the year 2012 alone.

“Autocam not only provides well-paying jobs and award winning benefits for hundreds of Michigan families, they also pay their fair share of property taxes,” said Brian Burch, Executive Director of CatholicVote.org Legal Action Fund, which represents Kennedy in his federal lawsuit. But Planned Parenthood has misrepresented the facts in a malicious effort to disparage the Kennedys.”

“The truth of the matter is very different. Planned Parenthood evidently considers Autocam and the Kennedys fair game for political smearing because they wish to provide health care benefits to their employees consistent with their deeply held moral and religious beliefs and therefore do not cover abortion-inducing drugs, sterilizations, and other medical services. Autocam already provides first class benefits, including a $1,500 match contribution to each employee’s health savings account. But compliance with the mandate would require Autocam and the Kennedys to pay millions of dollars in fines, which would destroy their company.

“Rather than addressing the important issues raised by Kennedy’s lawsuit, Planned Parenthood has resorted to a smear campaign designed to discredit the Kennedy family and their company. Their campaign is a shameless effort that cannot go unanswered,” said Burch.

The letter sent Monday demands that Planned Parenthood immediately eliminate all references to the baseless charges, including the implication that the plaintiffs in Autocam’s suit are all male, and publish a retraction of the false and defamatory statements.

The CatholicVote.org Legal Action Fund is representing Autocam and John Kennedy in Autocam v. Sebelius in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Western District of Michigan along with the Thomas More Society, a national public interest law firm headquartered in Chicago.