Two Americans attend World Youth Day in 2011. Photo: CNA.

Not being bound together by a common history is problematic enough, but at least we have the universal Church to bring us together.

Or do we?

A current trend in Catholic youth ministry is the division of youth groups by ethnicity.  It’s not uncommon in parishes with large Hispanic populations, for example, to have a separate youth group for Hispanic teens.  It’s a troubling trend I hope parishes will reconsider because it flies in the face of the whole notion of the universality of the Church.  Segregation doesn’t bring us together or promote diversity and understanding.  But coming together to pray and celebrate our shared love of Christ and His Church can.

I had a first hand experience with this when I was 25 years old and spent a summer living in Kerala, India.  For those who don’t know, Kerala is a predominately Catholic state located in southwestern India.  Evangelized first by the apostle Saint Thomas and later St. Francis Xavier, the people of Kerala are devout, practicing Catholics. My experience living with an Indian family was unmistakably transformed by the simple fact that we shared a common faith.  The cultural chasm between us shriveled next to the overpowering strength of our shared history – a lineage we could trace back through the centuries to St. Peter and to Jesus himself.

I vividly remember the first time I went to Mass in India.  When I arrived I saw a sea of shoes at the church entrance.   “When in Rome (or India)”, I thought as I removed my shoes and walked into a church devoid of pews with worshipers sitting on the floor.  The women sat on one side of the church while the men sat together on the other.  And though the Mass was said in their native language, Malayalam, I could easily follow the order of the Mass, the prayers at consecration and feel every bit a part of the celebration.

There was absolutely no doubt in my mind that the instantaneous acceptance I received from my Indian “family” and the inexplicable sense of connectedness I felt toward them was the sole result of our shared faith.  Here I was, the product of centuries of Spanish and Mexican ancestry, a second generation American steeped in Western pop culture and yet, our Catholicism transcended everything.

Why wouldn’t this work in an American Catholic youth group where teens have far more shared cultural experiences?

Besides, are we really doing Hispanic teens a favor by not encouraging them to be part of the larger community?  Isn’t there something patronizing and ultimately unhelpful about balkanizing minority groups when we all know that their success greatly depends on how well they can navigate the world beyond their ethnic enclave? Aren’t we also robbing non-Hispanic teens of potential friendships and learning experiences they might not otherwise have?

Our country has never been more divided. If we as a church cannot encourage our young people to find common ground in faith, what hope does this nation have?

Rachel Campos-Duffy is an author, pundit, and mother of six. She works with The LIBRE Initiative, an organization that promotes economic empowerment and opportunity for Hispanics.

The Chair of St. Peter is empty. And the period of sede vacante has begun. Now we wait for the College of Cardinals to select the 266^th successor of St. Peter. 

While the papal conclave won’t begin until sometime between March 9 and 11, Cardinal Angelo Sodano just announced that the College of Cardinals will begin preliminary talks about what they are looking for in the next pontiff on March 4.

What they want in a pope, however, is probably at odds with what a growing number of U.S. Catholics want in a pope.

According to a recent Pew study, 46% of U.S. Catholics think the next pope should move the church in a “new direction,” especially when it comes to social issues like women’s ordination and gay marriage.

My hunch is that these people are more influenced by the “fair and flattering words” they hear on cable news and progressive media outlets than the Catechism itself, but I could be wrong.

Regardless, it’s good that a large number of people are interested in Benedict’s retirement. It’s unfortunate, however, that the majority of those people, the media in particular, don’t have a clue about basic Catholic doctrine or are downright hostile to it on a daily basis.

In an effort to calm your nerves over the countless number of attacks and misstatements put forth by the press over the past several days, I encourage you to read New York Times columnist Ross Douthat’s blog, as his clear-tinking perspective should serve as a calming antidote, especially if you’ve been paying attention to the heretical demands of prominent left leaning Catholics like E.J. Dionne and Chris  Matthews.

I also urge you to tune into NBC, as it appears Fr. Robert Barron has been hired by the network to share his insight during the conclave.

Furthermore, I ask that you pray that the College of Cardinals be guided by the Holy Spirit. Too often, as this post from Jimmy Akin explains, Catholics think that the Holy Spirit simply “takes over” the conclave and hand picks the next pope. That’s not completely accurate, says Akin, and it’s something we need to realize is not entirely true.

Finally, in an effort to re-familiarize ourselves with the way the pope is elected, I’ve uploaded the video below. To most Catholic Vote readers it won’t be anything new, but for the 46% of Americans who want to move the church in a “new direction,” it probably will be. Enjoy

On Tuesday, Roll Call ran a story about a political group striving to capture a youthful image, and in so doing, find relevance and resonance in one of the most hotly contested political issues of our age.

The group in question? None other than the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League — known to most as NARAL Pro-Choice America.

The problem that NARAL has is simple: it’s facing increasingly youthful, passionate opposition from pro-lifers. The pro-life movement has captured all the vibrant energy on the issue, and that’s something that NARAL hopes to imitate. So much so, that they’re studying young prolifers in the hopes of learning from them.

NARAL leaders have not been shy about acknowledging an “intensity” gap, making it a major theme of last week’s event. In doing so, the group placed Mark Earley Jr., a 24-year-old anti-abortion activist from Virginia, at the center of an effort to fire up members.

The group hired the public affairs firm GMMB to conduct blind interviews with activists on both sides of the issue, then singled out the University of Richmond law student’s tape as the most passionate, said Samantha Gordon, a NARAL spokeswoman. It featured the interview during the dinner “to show that passion to our audience,” she said.

Earley didn’t know he had become the face of the enemy, or even that NARAL was behind the taping, when he was contacted by CQ Roll Call. He said he didn’t mind.

“I had a hunch that it was not for a pro-life organization; I basically just figured my message would be used badly,” he said. “It is good for everyone to know that there are a lot of young people who are very serious about wanting to protect mothers and children.”

If their mission weren’t so vile, this would be laughable. NARAL is on an almost inevitable path to self-destruction. Although a recent NBC News/WSJ Poll shows that support for Roe v. Wade is at its highest point since 1989, that support isn’t unequivocal:

The shift is mostly the result of more Democrats backing the decision—particularly Hispanics and African-Americans—and a slight uptick in support from Republicans.

But the poll showed a consistent tension in Americans’ attitudes toward the decision.

Almost seven in 10 respondents say there are at least some circumstances in which they don’t support abortion.

Some 31% of respondents in the poll said abortion should always be legal, and 9% believed it should be illegal without any exceptions. Between those two opinions are the 23% who thought it should be legal most of the time, but with some exceptions, and the 35% who felt it should be illegal except in circumstances of rape, incest and to save a woman’s life.

But there’s another aspect to this story that nobody is talking about: the demographic war. Pro-lifers skew young in part because their parents — who are presumably also pro-life — have more children, to whom they pass on their philosophy of human dignity and respect for life at all stages. Members of the abortion rights movement champion contraception, small families, and abortion as a means of avoiding the “inconvenience” of a child. It’s only a matter of time, possibly even a single generation, before there are far more of us than there are of them.

NARAL is struggling to project a useful image is because NARAL itself is an organization of a bygone era. Nancy Keenan, the organization’s former president, announced that at the end of 2012 that she would soon be stepping down. The reason?

“Part of my decision was that, at 40, you have the opportunity to engage a new generation, the Millennials, because they are so huge, and that the person at the helm of this organization could reflect that youth and a younger generation,” Keenan said in an interview. “Because now the responsibility lies with these next generations to be vigilant.”

This is the same Keenan who, in 2010, came to a powerful realization:

What worries Keenan is that she just doesn’t see a passion among the post-Roe generation—at least, not among those on her side. This past January, when Keenan’s train pulled into Washington’s Union Station, a few blocks from the Capitol, she was greeted by a swarm of anti-abortion-rights activists. It was the 37th annual March for Life, organized every year on Jan. 22, the anniversary of Roe. “I just thought, my gosh, they are so young,” Keenan recalled. “There are so many of them, and they are so young.”

NARAL is worried, and I can’t help seeing that as a good sign. Abortion is not only a religious issue. (Just ask pro-life atheists.) Things may get worse before they get better, but we have youth on our side. It’s cliche to say it, but children really are our future, and those who love children — and give them the gift of life — are going to shape our course.
(Images courtesy of Alicia Skojec Photography)

“Slashing government spending destroys jobs,” writes Krugman, “and causes the economy to shrink.” Fair enough. But as Krugman himself admits, “we will eventually need some combination of revenue increases and spending cuts to rein in the growth of U.S. government debt.” So Krugman’s fundamental point isn’t about whether or not spending needs to be cut—it does—but about the timing of those cuts: “nothing terrible will happen if we don’t fix everything this year.”

Krugman is right that, “nothing terrible will happen if we don’t fix everything this year,” but then, no one said it would. Speaker of the House John Boehner has called for balancing the budget within ten years. That means the debt continues to grow for at least a decade. Even Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget—which Krugman called “draconian”—didn’t try to fix everything in one year. Or even ten, for that matter. It called for continued—albeit shrinking—deficits at least through 2022. Presumably when Krugman says he wants to kick the can, he means “farther than Paul Ryan.”

Here’s the part Krugman leaves out, a part which makes all the difference: he assumes that there will be more favorable conditions for addressing the long term fiscal crisis at sometime in the future. This is a problematic assumption.

Set aside for a moment the sheer size of the debt ($16.5 trillion) and the fact that it continues to grow rapidly thanks to unprecedented deficits. Set aside the fact that the President’s own budget assumes debt service costs to exceed $550 billion annually by the end of his second term. Set aside the fact that artificially low interest rates discourage savings and encourage spending—both of which aggravate our long-term problem. Set aside any assumptions you might have about the economic drag created by higher taxes, more federal regulation, or Obamacare. Set aside all these common (conservative) objections and there remains one massive, compelling, immovable obstacle to prosperity through can-kicking.

Demographics.

As Jonathan V. Last describes in his fantastic new book, What to Expect When No One’s Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster, the birthrate in America is collapsing. It is now below replacement level, which means that, while America’s population will continue to grow for some years, in the coming decades, it will begin to contract.

The reasons for America’s declining birthrate are not as straightforward as you might think. Some obvious causes—e.g. the pill and abortion—contribute to, but don’t explain, America’s falling birth rate. Geographic mobility, more education, historically low infant mortality, falling marriage rate—all these contribute, too. What concerns us here is the fact that twenty or thirty years from now, America’s ability to dig itself out of our fiscal mess may well be dramatically reduced.

As Krugman knows, the primary drivers of our long-term debt crisis are entitlement programs—specifically, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. As the Baby Boomers retire, the number of American’s drawing on these programs will radically increase and so will the costs of these programs. More retirees to care for is one thing, but a declining birth-rate means that there will be fewer and fewer young people—who work and pay taxes—to pay for these ballooning costs.

Unlike past fluctuations in population—due to war or disease, for example—in a population contraction due to sub-replacement level birthrates, the population will contract “from the bottom up,” meaning the first age cohorts to vanish will be the youngest; not because they died, but because they were never born. As this happens, the tax base will shrink just as the costs of caring for the elderly are exploding.

Krugman’s suggestion that we kick the can down the road assumes that our future economy will perform more or less like the economy America had during the middle third of the 20^th century when our welfare programs were designed. Krugman’s advice is akin to telling a homeowner that, based on his current income, he can afford a second mortgage while ignoring (or simply missing) the fact that he’s about to take a significant pay cut.

There is no swift solution to America’s fiscal crisis. It has taken decades to create and will take decades to repair. A long-term, gradual fix makes the most sense and would be the least disruptive, both socially and economically. But the window for beginning such a gradual fix is closing, and more rapidly than many Americans seem to think. Krugman is right that we can’t fix the problem this year; but he’s wrong if he thinks we can afford to kick the can much longer.

Stephen P. White is a fellow in the Catholic Studies Program in Washington, DC and coordinator of the Tertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society. The views expressed here are his own.

This is, of course, entirely nonsense. The pro-life movement is filled with resources and people that are a great comfort and aid to women with crisis pregnancies, both before and after birth.

And the members of the pro-life movement are the most likely to come to the aid of the helpless even after they’re born. We all remember the battle to save Terri Schiavo.

I’ve recently been made aware of another opportunity to help, and I want to share it with you.

Joe Pascale is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville and currently works as a video editor at EWTN. He and his wife Leigh have two little boys, Eli and Ethan. But just after Christmas, tragedy struck their family:

On December 29^th, Joe was found unresponsive by his wife and was immediately taken to the Brookwood Medical Center in Birmingham, Alabama where he was treated for encephalitis and spent 3 weeks in the ICU/SICU.  After a myriad of blood tests, EEGs, CT scans, MRIs, and a brain biopsy, the etiology of Joe’s illness is still unclear.  It is believed to be ADEM, a rare form of encephalitis which has a good prognosis but recovery can be very long.  Thanks to the coordinated efforts of an excellent team of doctors and the faithful prayers of friends and family, Joe has improved enough to be transferred to a regular medical floor in the same hospital, where he remains semi-comatose, with a tracheotomy tube, G-Tube and PICC line. He is receiving physical therapy but has experienced extensive muscle atrophy, weight loss and foot drop. He is slowly showing signs that he may be closer to regaining consciousness, but is still unable to actively participate in any therapy and therefore is not a candidate for a rehab facility or skilled nursing home.

He will be discharged to home where insurance will cover only limited care.  The responsibility of Joe’s extensive care needs will fall mainly on his wife, Leigh, whose unwavering love and devotion to Joe has been inspirational.  We know she is up to the great challenge of caring for Joe at home, but it will require a tremendous amount of emotional, physical and financial support to accomplish all of the therapies, treatments, and care that Joe requires, as he remains completely helpless.   Leigh and other family members will be trained to perform the necessary treatments Joe needs prior to his discharge from the hospital.  Leigh will continue to have the support of our parents and her family who have been there with her from the beginning, but with 2 young children at home and the need to return to work, she will need more help.  The cost of Joe’s home care will be extensive.

I’ve known the Pascales for many years. Joe and I did missionary work together in the late 1990s, and Joe’s brother John (who has set up a website in support of his brother) went to Steubenville with me. Though I haven’t seen Joe since college, I remember him as an incredibly positive, enthusiastic guy who was on fire for his Catholic faith. I can only imagine how difficult this must be for his family, and how stressful the financial burden has become.

John tells me that Joe’s 24-hour nursing care is going to cost roughly $10,000 per month in out-of-pocket expenses. As if that burden weren’t difficult enough, Joe is still not responsive. Doctors are hopeful, but nobody knows for sure if he will come out of his semi-comatose state. Despite these trials, the family’s hope and optimism are inspiring.

Please pray for Joe and share his story among your family and friends and ask them to do the same. If you feel called to give, the Pascales say no donation is too small. Everything helps. (Donations can be made on the website linked above.)

We have so many chances to prove that we are a pro-life people, from conception until death. I can’t think of a more worthy cause or a more fitting opportunity.

As we wait for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to hand down her latest edits to the First Amendment, let me suggest a little light reading to pass the time.

I just came across this interesting column by David Catron at The American Spectator, in which the author connects the dots between the Administration’s adamant defense of the HHS Mandate and the drug companies that stand to profit from it. Here’s the heart of the piece:

Why would the Obama administration, having won the legislative struggle to get Obamacare passed and fought a brutal legal battle to prevent it from being overturned by the Supreme Court, risk another visit to that fickle tribunal by insisting on this egregious mandate?

An answer is suggested by the President’s recent nomination of William B. Schultz to head the legal team at Health & Human Services. Never heard of Mr. Schultz? He is an attorney and long-time lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. He has been acting general counsel for HHS since last year. What has this to do with the contraception mandate? Well, as Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner has pointed out, Schultz’s biggest client was “Barr Laboratories, maker of the morning-after contraception pill known as Plan B.”

Contraception is big business, and the HHS mandate promises to turn it into a cash cow for companies like Barr Laboratories. How? Avik Roy explains: “Under the current system, drug companies have an incentive to compete on price.… Under the new mandate, this price incentive disappears.” Insurance policies that covered contraception prior to the mandate encouraged patients to forego pricey products by charging higher co-pays than for generic equivalents. The HHS mandate forbids such co-pays, so there is no incentive to choose “Brand X.”

Principled disagreement about the nature of religious freedom is one thing; cynical cronyism at the expense of basic freedoms is something else entirely. Catron’s column is worth reading in full.

UPDATE: The new “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” is out. You can read it, here.

Stephen P. White is a fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC and coordinator of the Tertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society. The views expressed here are his own.

Like Reagan, Obama hopes to usher in a long-term electoral realignment — in Obama’s case toward the moderate left, thereby reversing the 40th president’s political legacy. The Reagan metaphor helps explain the tone of Obama’s inaugural address, built not on a contrived call to an impossible bipartisanship but on a philosophical argument for a progressive vision of the country rooted in our history.

Reagan used his first inaugural to make an unabashed case for conservatism. Conservatives who loved that Reagan speech are now criticizing Obama for emulating their hero and his bold defense of first principles.

Dionne’s point is a good one, so far as it goes. Obama is neither a moderate centrist (like Mitt Romney) nor a triangulating pragmatist (like Bill Clinton); he is a devoted Leftist—at least as progressive as Reagan was conservative. Dionne, however, overlooks one very important difference between the two presidents’ competing claims to be the standard-bearer of the American Founding. When Reagan claimed in his first inaugural that his vision of conservatism reflected an understanding of limited government commensurate with the Founding, he was saying something both appealing and true. When Obama made the same claim about his Progressive agenda, he was saying something appealing but false.

While Progressivism is deeply ingrained in American political life, it has also always had it out for the Founding. Progressivism arose a century after the Founding precisely as an alternative to that way-of-being-American embodied by our Constitutional system, a system Progressives found—and find—to be fundamentally inadequate to the ends of government.

Of course, the claim that Progressivism is contrary to the Founding is not, in itself, sufficient to claim that Progressivism is bad for America; Republicans would do well to stop acting as though it were.

The goodness of the Constitution is not self-evident—just ask those who worked to see it ratified. Those who would preserve it today must never weary of making the case for it. Conservatives, of all people, should know better than to take the weight of tradition for granted. If there is something in the American founding worth preserving but jeopardized by Progressivism, then conservatives must be prepared to make that case for preservation over and against the alternative. (See, for example, Carson Holloway’s excellent post from yesterday.)

All of which brings us to another good point from Dionne. He writes, “Reagan forced Democrats to realize they wouldn’t keep winning simply by invoking FDR’s legacy.” The same, Dionne suggests, goes for the GOP and their own favorite forbears.

The GOP must realize that they won’t get back to winning elections simply by persistently invoking the legacy of the Founders or Ronald Reagan. These legacies are important—very important—but not because they tell us anything about today’s Republican Party. They are important because they remind us that a conservative approach to governing can succeed if, and probably only if, it is bound to, and points toward, a robust vision of the good of the whole polity—what we Catholics call the common good.

The great principles of American conservatism—limited government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility—are not opposed to the common good. On the contrary, they serve it. As Catholics we must know this and we must say it. The Founders did so, in their own way; that’s why the Constitution justifies itself on the promise of “a more perfect union.” Ronald Reagan knew this, too. That’s why he asked, in his first inaugural address:

How can we love our country and not love our countrymen, and loving them, reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they are sick, and provide opportunities to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?

Reagan knew that loving one’s countrymen is something citizens do, not governments. But he also knew that love for our fellow man was not a luxury afforded by liberty, secondary to the ends of society; it was the whole point of our common life and a necessary precondition of our liberty. In short, Reagan made a common-good case for conservative policies. If Republicans hope to shape the American future, the first step they must take is to learn (or perhaps, re-learn) how to make that case.

Individual liberty, limited government, personal responsibility—these principles can no more be sustained in a people dedicated primarily to self-interest or personal gain than in a people bent under Leviathan’s yoke. These principles must serve the common good—and be seen to serve the common good—or they will fail, both politically and morally. In the end, citizens, not governments, are the true guarantors of freedom. And citizens who forget their obligations to the good of all only invite the loss of their own.

Stephen P. White is a fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and coordinator of the Tertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society. The views expressed here are his own.

Last Wednesday was Religious Freedom Day, by proclamation of President Obama.  The proclamation reads almost like it was written by the USCCB’s Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Freedom. It speaks of religious freedom as our first freedom, a God-given right which, through the wisdom of the Founders, is enshrined and defended in the Constitution. “Because of the protections guaranteed by our Constitution,” the President insists, “each of us has the right to practice our faith openly and as we choose.”

Of course, these words come from a President who has used the authority of his office to define religious freedom more narrowly than any President in history and whose administration recently argued that Americans who operate a “secular business” cannot also claim a right to the free exercise of religion.

Surely the President must know how this sounds to the dozens of institutions that are currently suing his administration and to the millions of Americans who find his stance on religious freedom down-right dangerous.

Does the President not hear himself? Does he not grasp the contradictions? Is he really so obtuse? I don’t have an answer—although cynicism comes to mind—but I think I can point to the beginning of an answer.

Here’s President Obama in his first inaugural address, four years ago:

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.

Morally mature and sophisticated people will agree that a healthy dose of benevolent grown-up-ness is just what we need to get down to the business of “progress.”

But the President knows full well that our deepest political divisions are neither petty nor childish: abortion, the nature of marriage, the waging of war, and a national debt so large it beggars belief. Here he is in his commencement address at the University of Notre Dame:

Understand – I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Irreconcilable: that’s not a word one hears from president’s very often, at least not when speaking about differences between and among the American people.

On Monday, in his second Inaugural Address, the president returned to the theme of his first inaugural:

Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time – but it does require us to act in our time.

For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. We must act, knowing that today’s victories will be only partial, and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years, and forty years, and four hundred years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.

It doesn’t matter that our views of right and wrong are irreconcilable, or that American society is rife with moral contradictions. What matters is that we have a president who has deigned to rise above our childish and petty grievances. President Obama, believes himself to be a judicious and reasonable man, the Adult in the Room. Who but the petty and childish could oppose such a judicious and reasonable man?

To make matters worse, President Obama has a hard time distinguishing his own person from the office he holds.

Having a pedant in the White House may be annoying, but what is dangerous—and I don’t use that word lightly—is having a president who believes his job  is to use the force of government to settle “irreconcilable” disputes. I say dangerous, not because President Obama means the country ill, on the contrary. (We must not confuse arrogance with ill-will.) No, the President’s understanding of government is dangerous because it self-consciously places government ahead of the governed. A government that merely expresses the will of the people is not enough—Progress cannot afford the luxury of forbearance.

Government, as the President sees it, must lead the people to will what they ought, by force of law if necessary. And he, as head of the government, gives to government its direction. Such a vision of the presidency cares little for contradictions of principle because all principle ultimately yields to Progress.

And guess who defines “Progress.”

No matter how well-intentioned the President, a government that takes it upon itself to show us the way—“Forward!”—is not the kind of government Lincoln had in mind when he spoke of “government of the people.” It seems clear to me that under such a government it is no longer the case that the president governs but the people rule.

Stephen P. White is a fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC and coordinator of the Tertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society. The views expressed here are his own.

“Along with traditional means such as witness of life, catechetics, personal contact, popular piety, the liturgy and similar celebrations, the use of media is now essential in evangelization and catechesis. Indeed, “the Church would feel guilty before the Lord if she did not utilize these powerful means that human skill is daily rendering more perfect”. The media of social communications can and should be instruments in the Church’s program of re-evangelization and new evangelization in the contemporary world. In view of the proven efficacy of the old principle “see, judge, act”, the audiovisual aspect of media in evangelization should be given due attention.”

- Pastoral Instruction Aetatis Novae, Pontifical Council for Social Communications

By now, you’ve probably seen the video, A Nation Rises. President Obama’s moving speech in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting tragedy acts as voiceover for images of children, infants, the unborn, and the actions of the pro-life movement. If you haven’t seen it, please take a moment to watch:

The juxtaposition of these profound, passionate words about our collective need to protect our children with images of the fight for the unborn is startling, coming  as they do from the most pro-abortion president in history. It’s a work of cinematographic brilliance, replete with high production values, a moving score, and well executed edits.

It is, in my opinion, a perfect example of how Catholics can use new forms of media and social communication to accomplish, as Bl. Pope John Paul II called it, “The New Evangelization.”

I contacted John-Andrew O’Rourke, founder of Blackstone Films and creator of A Nation Rises to discuss the film, what it means, and how social media will help to advance the pro-life cause.

SS: Tell me a little bit about yourself. How old are you, where are you from, what is your religious background?

JAO: I’m the oldest of 9 children. I was born and raised Catholic in central Indiana, and after homeschooling through High School, I forwent college in favor of interning with Grassroots Films in Brooklyn, NY. Now, almost two and a half years later, I am 20 and have started the production company Blackstone Films.

SS: Your video, A Nation Rises, juxtaposes the speech President Obama gave about protecting our children after the Sandy Hook shooting with images of the unborn and members of the pro-life movement. Where did the inspiration come from to compare and contrast these themes?

JAO: After President Obama’s speech, which I did not see live, I noticed several different graphics and a video floating around on Facebook. They were all using the speech to call Obama to the carpet for not holding the same standard regarding protecting the unborn as he does regarding protecting children. However, it wasn’t until I actually heard Obama’s speech in the context of a LifeSiteNews video that I realized just how unbelievably pro-life his words were. They were (and are) strong enough to be the rally-cry of the Pro-Life Movement. Nothing I had seen to that point was highlighting this reality effectively, so I felt called to use those words in a powerful pro-life video. My coworker Tom Shannon had already filmed the March for Life in 2011, so I thought using that as our call to action was more than appropriate.

SS: President Obama makes an incredibly passionate and eloquent pro-life speaker, if one interprets his words to mean what the video suggests. Do you believe that the irony of this message in the video is making an impact on people who don’t equate being pro-life with protecting children? Does it have the power to change minds?

JAO: I think the most important thing is that the video is causing debate. It has given people an avenue to voice their thoughts regarding the issue of abortion, and I’ve already seen some who were shocked to realize that Pro-Lifers don’t “just care about the baby”. We care about all stages of life. While I would hesitate to call A Nation Risesthe silver bullet in the Pro-Life debate, I do think it’s an excellent starting point for discussion.

SS: Have you received any official response to your video from the White House, the Democratic Party, or any other pro-abortion political groups?

JAO: None officially, though I would love if the president got to see the video. ; )

SS: When I first came across your video a week ago, it had only 13,000 views. Now it’s at almost 200,000. What is it about this video that is resonating with people?

JAO: I think what resonates with people is the undeniable reality that we can’t leave abortion unaddressed, and that our president’s stance on the issue is hypocritical. It is completely unacceptable that Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for 40 years, and President Obama has unknowingly lit a fire in the pro-life movement. We are quickly realizing that we are NOT “powerless in the face of such carnage” and that the politics are NOT “too hard.” If, less than a month after 27 people were killed during the Sandy Hook shooting, President Obama can begin enacting legislation against guns, then surely there is something we can do after 55 million unborn children have been slaughtered within the sanctuary of their mother’s womb. The fact that Obama is completely ignoring this while claiming that we need to do something to “protect our children” is infuriating to say the least.

SS: As someone who studied radio and television production in college, what stood out to me about A Nation Rises were the production values. It’s a very professionally-produced piece. How did you choose video production as the medium you wanted to use for telling this kind of story?

JAO: Since I was 5 or 6, I have felt drawn to video production. I see film as one of the most powerful mediums of storytelling at man’s disposal, and I am blessed to work in such an influential field. Consequently, after I first saw Obama’s speech, producing a video seemed like the natural next step.

SS: The January 14th cover story of Time Magazine suggests that since the Roe v. Wade decision 40 years ago, abortion-rights activists have been fighting a losing battle. Do you think that’s true? What role do you think socially sharable videos like A Nation Rises play in advancing the pro-life cause in our national discourse on abortion?

JAO: While I think the Pro-Life movement is making a lot of progress and winning hearts and minds in the process, I hesitate to say that we’re “winning” the battle. As long as abortion is legal in our country, we have a long way to go. We need to keep our eye on the final goal, which is living in a country where ALL life is not only protected, but respected. Videos like A Nation Rises help this cause in two ways. First, they provide a positive means for discussion and keep the issue on the forefront of people’s minds. Secondly, and just as importantly, they remind Pro-Lifers that the Pro-Life fight is not only necessary and influential, it’s also cool. The media often labels us as “radicals” and “out of touch with everyone else”. What I tried to portray in A Nation Rises is the idea that we’re in a battle, a battle for hearts, minds, souls, and lives. There’s no reason to be ashamed of that. In fact, it’s pretty awesome.

SS: What are your future plans for your production company, Blackstone Films?

JAO: We are currently in production on a 20-30 minute documentary concerning the Catholic Church’s teachings on Homosexuality. After that, we hope to produce some Catholic-themed short films.

SS: Is there anything else you’d like to tell people on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade?

JAO: Not everyone can protest in front of an abortion clinic, join the March for Life, enact pro-life legislation, or make pro-life videos. But the most important thing that needs to be done to end Roe v. Wade is something that everyone can do – pray. I strongly believe that if every pro-lifer prayed and fasted for the end of abortion, we would see a greater change in public opinion than anyone could ever imagine. While politics and action may be the face of the Pro-Life movement, prayer is its strength. Without prayer, all other efforts are in vain.

]]> http://www.catholicvote.org/interview-with-john-andrew-orourke-director-of-a-nation-rises/feed/ 2 http://www.catholicvote.org/incredibly-powerful-pro-life-video-featuring-president-obama/ http://www.catholicvote.org/incredibly-powerful-pro-life-video-featuring-president-obama/#comments Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:08:24 +0000 Steve Skojec http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=40864

You’ll never believe he said it.

President Obama is responsible for some of the most moving pro-life rhetoric I’ve heard:

This is our first task: caring for our children. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.

[. . .]

If there’s even one step we can take to save a child, then surely we have an obligation to try.

Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

President Obama was, of course, talking about the Sandy Hook tragedy. But his words apply equally to the tragedy of abortion, legal in America 40 years this month. And when his heartfelt speech is applied to the images and action of the pro-life movement, well, I challenge you not to be moved. If we ever had a president who spoke like this about abortion, so openly, so passionately, so unafraid, it would be the fulfillment of our hopes and prayers these past four decades.

Please watch this brilliant video from Blackstone Films. Like this post, share it, spread it far and wide. This video speaks truth to power so eloquently, juxtaposes the hypocrisy of our concern for our children against the ongoing promotion of their legal slaughter so perfectly, it needs to be seen by as many people as possible. This has the power to wake people up. Let’s get this video millions of views.

Spread the word.