The Iron Lady film is a must-see for any Margaret Thatcher admirers or Tory party conservatives out there. America’s best actress Meryl Streep masterfully portrays Great Britain’s former Prime Minister in a role for which she has already won numerous accolades, including the Golden Globe for best actress.

Lady Thatcher was brought up a Methodist and earned her Bachelor of Science degree from Oxford University. She married Denis Thatcher, a successful businessman. Her relationship with her husband is told in a series of flashbacks in the film. The story arc in the screenplay focuses on her rise to power and then the diminishing of that power with old age and dementia. At first, the flashbacks and time-line are a bit confusing. Yet it eventually pulls together for a reflective ending.

Given the current state of affairs of massive debt and unemployment in the US and throughout Europe, this biopic of Britain’s first and only female Prime Minister is as insightful as it is vindicating. For instance, Maggie vehemently opposed surrendering the pound sterling to the Euro currency. Who now can deny that her policy was the jolly good one? Considering that Maggie led the crusade for conservative fiscal responsibility, how can today’s socialist states of Europe claim that they knew better? Can anyone defend New Labour Tony Blair’s Cool Britannia fiasco to Thatcher’s 23% rise in Britain’s GDP and 33% rise in employment during her years in office?

Apart from her economic policies, the film, The Iron Lady, offers outlines and sketches of her personal life: her relationships, her marriage, and her struggles as a woman to balance power and motherhood. Due to the fact that Margaret Thatcher was one of the longest reigning Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, from 1979 to 1990 and leader of the Conservative Party between 1975 to 1990, one would surely expect her political responsibilities to overshadow her everyday life. I think the film interestingly examines these aspects through the eyes of a woman, her vulnerabilities and her strengths.

Although Streep doesn’t share the conservative fiscal views of the Iron Lady, she commented the following, which I think does reflect some of the actress’ admiration for such a remarkable woman as Margaret Thatcher.

“The prospect of exploring the swathe cut through history by this remarkable woman is a daunting and exciting challenge. I am trying to approach the role with as much zeal, fervour and attention to detail as the real Lady Thatcher possesses – I can only hope my stamina will begin to approach her own!”            ~ Meryl Streep

Also, for one of the best quotes and life lessons to take away from the film, see video below. A quote that champions thinking over feeling–a novel idea in the modern world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lia04BHT9hU

In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama declined to discuss any of the major policy initiatives from his first term. (That’s understandable, given that ObamaCare and the Stimulus remain widely unpopular.) Nor did he discuss any bold plans to address the country’s twin crises of unemployment and crushing public debt. (Partly because that would be a tacit admission that he has, after three years in office, severely aggravated the debt problem while failing to curb unemployment.) So rather than talk about the disappointing business of governing, he decided to do something he’s much better at: the president made a moving case for America as a shared good and common endeavor.

Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

While the president is going to need much more than soaring oratory to win reelection this November—and while some have rightly pointed out the problem with comparing society to a military unit, as Obama was—I think it would be a fatal mistake for Republicans to dismiss this as so much empty rhetoric, repeating one of the mistakes of 2008. If there is one important truth which the Democratic Party has not forgotten, and which remains its greatest moral and political strength, it is this: America is strongest when we act together.

President Obama is politically strongest when he appeals to the belief—deeply held by the American public—that beyond my individual good, there is the good of the whole, the common good, for which we all share some responsibility. That’s a message that has the advantage of being both true (pace Ayn Rand) and politically potent. But unless the topic is the American military, Republicans seem incapable of talking about shared responsibility and common endeavor. And that’s a problem.

One partial exception has been Rick Santorum, whose blue collar economic populism remains the closest anyone in this GOP field has come to making the case that government policy must serve more than a mere aggregate of individual interests. “We need a party that just doesn’t talk about high finance and—and cutting corporate taxes or cutting the top tax rates. We need to talk about how we’re going to put men and women in this country who built this country back to work.” Santorum isn’t against high finance or cutting corporate taxes, he simply realizes that economic policy, like all government action, must benefit the People, not just certain favored interests. That’s an important first step—but only one step—in articulating what one might call “conservatism for the common good.”

As Santorum often points out, this message plays very well especially in crucial swing states. Most middle-class Americans (including the all-important swing voters) aren’t terribly concerned with high finance—at least until their mortgage goes into foreclosure or their 401 (k) melts down. Nor are they interested in a class war. All they want is a fair shot and a level playing field—something they’re denied so long as Washington colludes with special interests (like Big Business and Big Labor) to pick winners and losers.

...in Order to form a more perfect Union...

But nor do these voters believe that government’s job is simply to leave them alone. Voters want to know that they are part of something larger than themselves. Americans instinctively know that their individual interests are inextricably bound to the good of this great nation, and they take immense pride in being part of it. They want leaders who understand that our government was founded, as the Constitution says, “to form a more perfect Union [and] promote the general Welfare” but also to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Which is why, given the President’s record, many Americans will understand the fatuousness of his assertion that he, like Abraham Lincoln, believes that “Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.” As my colleague Yuval Levin pointed out:

If [President Obama] thinks that all the tasks he laid out for government are things that people “cannot do better by themselves” then he must have a very high opinion of how well government can do things, or a very low opinion of how well people can do things by themselves, or (most plausibly) both.

Or, as Gov. Mitch Daniels put it in his response to the President’s address:

In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us, we might pick the wrong light bulb!

What Lincoln and the Founders understood, even if this president does not, is that the bedrock principle of the American polity, liberty, is not reducible to that which government allows citizens do for themselves. Liberty is not what’s left over after government “does its thing.” Government exists to protect the liberty of citizens, not because citizens always do right on their own (they don’t), but because liberty is a precondition for virtue, including those virtues necessary to good citizenship.

Without liberty, there can be no virtue; without virtue, there are no good citizens; without good citizens, the entire republic suffers. In Catholic terms, a government that fails to defend and respect the liberty of its citizens becomes an obstacle to the common good. The great American experiment in self-government can only be a shared endeavor—can only serve the common good—if the rights and liberties of citizens are first protected.

Republican candidates (at least these days) are good at proposing more liberty and less government, but from the libertarian Ron Paul to the more moderate Mitt Romney, they have failed to make any such appeal beyond the limited grounds of self-interest.

This isn’t a question of reviving Bush-era Compassionate Conservatism or Big Government Conservatism. It is a matter of candidates persuading their fellow citizens of something Americans have always know to be true: that limited government in the service of liberty does far more than serve individual self-interest; liberty serves the good of the nation as a whole. It’s what made America great.

That’s something the GOP field would do well to remember. And say.

Stephen P. White is a fellow in the Catholic Studies Program 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.

OBEY! says the mainstream media.

CAN RICK SANTORUM AND THE GOP GET A FAIR SHAKE?

I ask this when we well know that there is so much media bias against conservative/religious thought. As we near yet another presidential election, I thought it interesting to consider the immeasurable influence the media has on every day politics and the presidential election.

I also wonder what most Catholics think of the media’s treatment of Rick Santorum. At the end of this essay, I will mention a rather surprising positive review in Time magazine by Joe Klein, who isn’t by any stretch of the imagination on the right. But first, some other thoughts.

Although we in the US pride ourselves on freedom of the press and excellence in journalism, many don’t realize just how manipulated we are by the news coverage of politics. The TV tells so many what to believe and how to think. It is perhaps even more than you would imagine.

Case in point–look at the way Gov. Brewer has recently been treated by the media at large. The photo of her wagging her finger at President Obama has been plastered all over the mainstream press.

FINGER WAGGING and more

Recently, the mainstream media circled their wagons on Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. They have been lambasting the governor for her ‘finger wagging’ at President Obama.

The media released one out-of-context image with her finger raised to the president. Immediately, Gov. Brewer was declared as attacking the president, showing disrespect and even a racist. Democrats demanded that she apologize without the full evidence of the situation at hand. Should one photo be the barometer of Gov. Brewer’s treatment of the president and evidence of racism? I don’t think so!

If you watch the full event courtesy of Newsbusters: Exposing & Combatting Liberal Media Bias, it is clear how distorted the accusation of “attacking the president” is from watching the video. Remember the mainstream media portrayed her as “disrespectful and attacking.”

Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_mRhJwjwXqc

First of all, you clearly see how warmly Gov. Brewer greets President Obama. Secondly, Gov. Brewer recently released the letter she handed Obama, which is very respectful and contains a friendly invitation to lunch. She kindly invites him to visit the border with her and to have lunch. Plain and simple. She doesn’t insult him.

From the video, it is difficult to define the conversation as disrespectful. Granted some of their discussion is blocked by the limo, but overall she greets him in a cordial manner. Apparently, they discussed her depiction of the president in her new book with each of them having opposing views.

Following the media blast of Gov. Brewer, she has now stated that in mid-sentence the president actually walked away from her. So it seems both parties had a tense moment and dealt with it differently. This is a far cry from being accused of “attacking the president” and even “a racist.” So how did we get here?

MEDIA CONTROL THE MESSAGE

For some scholars, N. Chomsky among them and here quoted, it is believed that America has become a “spectator democracy.” Here the “public is seen as a ‘bewildered herd’ that needs to be directed, not empowered.” Furthermore, he states that the public relations industry in the US “focuses on controlling the public mind and not on informing it.”

It does seem that with every four years dominated by a presidential campaign, the country is unable to focus properly on our most critical problems. Many in the country are addicted to the news cycle and every word, sneeze, smile or frown makes headlines. Is it not over-rated political theater?

Endless hours are spent with the talking heads chattering away about inconsequential fodder. Eg: did he really say that? Did she really wear that?

The mainstream media tell us who are the frontrunners. They stage the lights. The cameras move at their direction. They select the stories to be told. They create the bandwagon mindset. And, of course, they muzzle, distort and mock the conservative voice. The incidents of mainstream liberal media bias are all over the place.

They are the primary vehicle for disseminating the propaganda of the left with terms like “a woman’s choice”, “diversity” and “empowering the poor.”  In some respects, we could say that we have a ruling class, a monarchy–it is the media elite. This explains why President Clinton was given so much “understanding” while Herman Cain was grilled.

Many could question if we are moving even closer with each new election to something like Orwell’s Ministry of Truth in his book 1984? For those who oppose the ministry, we will be accused of thought crimes. Too gloomy? Is there any hope on the horizon? I think so.

RICK SANTORUM’S COVERAGE

I don’t think I can say that everything is in the grips of the media monopoly. I have seen some surprising examples that would suggest that the answer is no. In Time magazine (January 16, 2012), Joe Klein says some rather nice things about Rick Santorum.

About Santorum Klein writes, “Unlike a great many other political loudmouths, he lives his faith.” After Klein recounts the Santorum family’s loss of their baby Gabriel and Karen’s refusal to have an abortion Klein stated, “They are a remarkable family.”

In closing his article, he wrote, “He may not win the nomination, but he has already won a good deal–the respect that attends a campaign, and a life, that has been honorably waged.” I have to say I was pleasantly pleased with this review and found it to be somewhat in contradiction to what I had earlier thought.

I truly believe that with the internet and so many alternative media sources, the coverage of the campaigns will be increasingly monitored. Certainly with the creation of independent blogs like this one, we have a much better chance of getting our voices heard. So remember: we are not puppies in training, and the media is never to be blindly obeyed.

_________________________________________________________________________

Jennifer Roche has authored many articles for secular and Catholic publications including the National Catholic Register, Inside Catholic, Crisis Magazine, the Catholic Herald (London, UK) and written a travelogue on the Maltese Islands called Cat Tails from Malta. She has also contributed to GodSpy, Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) college guide, MeloMag art magazine and Absolute Arts. She welcomes your comments!

I’ve heard a lot of folks complain about Rick Santorum’s “cafeteria Catholicism.” There’s been a lot of it in the comboxes here at CatholicVote. Even Ron Paul (or at least his website) has gotten into the act. I can understand Ron Paul not seeing why this is a frivolous charge, but I am sort of amazed (ok, maybe not that amazed) that so many Catholics do not understand the difference between the judgment of a pope or prelate about a particular matter, on the one hand, and Church teaching on the other; or the difference between intrinsically evil acts and matters about which there can be legitimate disagreement.

Most of the charges I’ve seen alleging Santorum is a phony Catholic have to do with his support of the War in Iraq, his alleged support for torture, his stance on immigration, or his preferences in social welfare policy. I may address the immigration and social welfare questions later, but for now I’ll handle the first two objections. I intend here to neither defend nor refute his positions, but simply to explain why the criticism of these positions as un-Catholic or Cafeteria Catholicism, is unfair and at best unhelpful.

First, regarding torture: Everything I have ever read or heard Santorum say indicates that he is opposed to torture precisely because torture is intrinsically evil. No problem there; that’s Church teaching. What is at issue, it seems to me, is Santorum’s support for the use of certain interrogation methods, in particular “waterboarding,” which he does not believe constitute torture. (If someone knows of a place where Santorum has justified torture as torture, please let us know.)

Personally, I don’t know if waterboarding is torture. It certainly seems very unpleasant. But even if one is very uncomfortable with the practice, can one say with absolute moral certainty that something thousands of American soldiers have voluntarily undergone in training constitutes torture? Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, has said about waterboarding, “If you’re willing to try it, it’s not torture.” I’m not sure I find that entirely persuasive, but is there not a grain of truth in it?

As the New York Times points out, many Catholics, of varied political stripes, vociferously disagree with Thiessen’s position—and by extension, Santorum’s. Regardless, there simply is no official Catholic teaching on whether or not the specific practice of “waterboarding” constitutes torture. Catholics cannot in good conscience disagree about whether or not torture is permissible, but they can and do disagree about what constitutes “torture”—similar to how American jurists can disagree in good faith about the definition of “cruel and unusual” punishment under the U.S. Constitution.

This isn’t to argue that Santorum is right about waterboarding not being torture; it simply means that there is nothing in his position that necessarily places him in a posture of dissent from Church teaching on torture or the dignity of human life.

The same goes for Santorum’s support of the War in Iraq. It is no secret that the War in Iraq was…er…unpopular…in the Vatican, as was the First Gulf War. But even then-Cardinal Ratzinger, who at the time made no bones about his opposition to the invasion (see the Ron Paul link above), allowed that, “One cannot simply say that the catechism does not legitimize the war.”

The point is that the Church has no “official” teaching on whether or not that specific war (or any other particular war) was just or unjust. Unlike an intrinsic evil, say abortion, which no prudence or responsible deliberation can ever justify (thus making all abortions illicit), the Church teaches that war can sometimes be justified. Santorum may well be wrong about the justice of the War in Iraq, as he may well be wrong about whether or not waterboarding is torture—and if he is wrong, he is likely culpable in some way for his choices—but if he’s wrong, it’s not because he denies Catholic teaching, and it’s certainly not because he’s not Catholic.

Here’s a succinct statement of what I’m talking about. This is from then-Cardinal Ratzinger, writing as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2004, after the Iraq Invasion, in a letter to American bishops about American politicians. (Keep in mind that no one who is not Catholic, or who is not in communion with the Church, is considered worthy to receive Holy Communion):

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. [Emphasis added.]

In sum, a politician’s support for the Iraq War may tell us something about that politician’s judgment or prudence, and may well influence our willingness to vote for him in the future, but it tells us next to nothing about whether or not that politician’s standing within the Catholic Church or about his posture with regard to Catholic teaching. To suggest otherwise only confuses the faithful and further complicates the Church’s important task of forming the consciences of faithful citizens.

Stephen P. White is a fellow in the Catholic Studies Program 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.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 5, 2012

Contact: Joshua Mercer
Email: mercer@catholicvote.org

CHICAGO, IL – CatholicVote.org, a leading national grassroots Catholic advocacy organization, today proudly announced their endorsement of Senator Rick Santorum for President.

CatholicVote.org President Brian Burch issued the following statement explaining the endorsement:

“Pennsylvania’s Rick Santorum represents our best hope to rally the nation behind a unified moral and economic vision that Americans are clamoring for in a President. CatholicVote.org is proud to stand with Rick Santorum, and is prepared to mobilize our rapidly-growing grassroots network to help secure him the GOP nomination, and ultimately win the White House.

“Catholic voters are looking for a candidate who can successfully combine the principles of the dignity of life and the dignity of work. Senator Santorum understands better than any other candidate the profound link between the moral, cultural and economic principles foundational to the success of America. We are convinced that Rick Santorum is the candidate best equipped to win not only the political arguments, but also the hearts of American voters as he did in Iowa on Tuesday.

“Rick Santorum is a workingman’s Republican with a record and a plan which are especially appealing to Catholic voters. His record in Pennsylvania, and his record as a presidential candidate confirms that Senator Santorum understands why four more years of President Obama would be devastating for America, but also why a GOP message focused too heavily on taxes, spending, and debt is simply not enough.

“Too often our debates on ‘social issues’ are fought at the margins with stale-talking points which pit economic justice and moral virtues against each other. The candidacy of Rick Santorum represents a chance to present an integrated approach to voters who are hungry for this kind of message.

“Catholic voters looking for moral and economic leadership also understand that the 2012 elections will inevitably focus on judges and the courts. With the Supreme Court poised to rule on immigration law, Obamacare, and potentially so-called same-sex marriage this summer, judges and our courts will dominate the debate this fall. On this score, there is no debate over which candidate has led, and can best be trusted to lead the fight over the role of our judiciary and the nomination of qualified judges to the courts that will respect our Constitution.

“Finally, Senator Santorum is a man of honor, integrity, and authenticity. What you see is what you get. He has faithfully served the cause of life and marriage as an elected official and as a husband and father. And while no political candidate, or human being for that matter, is perfect, Rick Santorum’s baggage contains his clothes.

“Republicans hoping to win back the White House in November must unite behind the candidate most dedicated to the foundational issues of faith, family and freedom. If the GOP hopes to defeat President Obama, it takes a Rick Santorum to get it done.”

###

Background on CatholicVote.org:

CatholicVote.org was launched in September 2008 as a new effort to educate, organize, and mobilize the Catholic vote. The national group was responsible for one of the most watched online commercials during the 2008 presidential campaign, watched by nearly 3 million viewers on YouTube alone. The group also received national attention for a second life-affirming viral ad depicting ultrasound images celebrating the life of President Obama. The popular website hosts the award winning American Papist blog, along with other political commentary relevant to Catholic voters. The organization regularly communicates with nearly 600,000 email subscribers and supporters.

To schedule an interview, please contact Joshua Mercer at mercer@catholicvote.org

Recently there has been a lot of discussion about the declining power of the USA. Many books have been written stating that the American Era or Empire is in decline. Books like Pat Buchanan’s “Will America Survive to 2025: Suicide of a Superpower”, Niall Ferguson’s “Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire”, Ivan Eland’s “The Empire Has No Clothes: US Foreign Policy Exposed” or Ronald Pollina’s “Selling out a Superpower.” These books present some hard facts that are alarming. As we enter 2012, the US seems to be at a critical point in its history. Decline is no longer a theory or an opinion, but we are witnessing it everyday. The old world, America of post-Cold war has past and many cracks in the US are beginning to show.

However, I think there are some thoughts worth noting as we step into 2012. Yes, the world is undergoing a dramatic transformation and the rise of new powers (Brazil, India, China, Turkey), both economically and militarily, are new realities.  America Inc. has lost its triple A rating, and the west is in financial crisis. But is all this imminent decline talk and power shift all we can think about?

First, it gives most Americans pause, I believe, to think of the US as an Empire. When did the US claim an empire or to be the Superpower of an era? It isn’t the US, but rather the rest of the world in many respects (not all) that knighted the US as “World Emperor.”

Americans never forced their culture or the capitalist free enterprise model and spirit of exploration on anyone. It just worked and was the preferred model. It was the world who stood in line to see Madonna or Michale Jackson wiggle in front of them, or Mickey Mouse make them laugh and be charmed by our heros, Indiana Jones, Superman, or Spiderman sweep in to the rescue while world audiences roundly applauded. This is as true just as China has framed their businesses after the American superstars such as Wal-mart, GE and Exxon Mobil.

Many can argue successfully that the US has embarked on a massive militarization over the last century. I think, at present, we have over 1,000 military bases throughout the world. Yes, this aspect is true. The scale and scope of the US as a military superpower and its multiple wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, to some extent Libya) does justify the notion of the US emperor flexing its muscles and maintaining its sphere of influence.

However, no one forces the estimated 20 billion dollar of foreign investment that pours into our country from students from abroad. Foreign students flock to our universities because of their excellence, their one-of-a-kind experience. Just walk around our top universities and the sense of “big stuff” going on is still quite palpable.

This kind of soft power doesn’t seem to be in decline. In fact our top universities increasingly attract students from across the globe. When these students return to their mother countries they import more than knowledge and skill. They import the American spirit, which is identified as optimism, flexibility, concern for community and a surprising ability to re-invent itself when needed.

We still have the world’s biggest economy, the most innovative technology (Google, Facebook, Microsoft) and a cultural force (the good and the bad–Mickey Mouse and Madonna) that resonates with a modern world. Yes, our dwindling productivity is worrisome, one can moan and groan that debt is the only thing really made in America today, our economic calamities of failure and our military overstretch in a new post-modern world is complex and expensive, but this is exactly the time when the US’s unique ability to be nimble and re-invent itself should be emphasized.  

I think the worn-out paths of the past need to be avoided and the American pioneering spirit needs boldly to be deployed. Re-orienting America towards the 21st century, creating the new American era requires progressive, innovative leadership. Unfortunately, I think most Americans are still seeking old world answers and loosing with increasing speed one of our most precious assets: the ability to dream and daring to re-create ourselves.

Happy 2012 America. May she continue to shine her light!

Surveying all my Christmas cards on the mantle, I marvel at the variety of beautiful renderings of Madonna and child paintings.  As many years as I have been receiving cards, I am continually surprised that I rarely receive the same cards. All this leads me to believe that the subject of the Madonna and Christ-child has provided a wealth of inspiration for artists throughout the centuries.

Just today, I spent some time looking up what modern art renditions were done of mother and child. After looking on-line a bit, I stumbled on the painting above by Picasso.

To compare the Picasso painting with the one here by Hans Zatzka (1859-1949), it is obvious to see the dramatic change introduced with modern art. The traditional painting fosters a love of beauty and displays a subtle balance of colors.

Whereas modern art throws out the notions of traditional beauty in exchange for experimentation, traditional art forms maintain that beauty is paramount. Traditional work disciplines the artist and in these restrictions, we find a peaceful mediation on love and loveliness.

The period of modern art begins loosely in the 1860s through the 1970s. Realism was forsaken for abstraction and a use of unusual materials. Picasso was certainly one of the most important modern artists and cannot be totally discounted.

Although I prefer the traditional portrait of the Madonna and child, I do have to admit that I have a certain fascination with the Picasso painting because it reflects a sense of humanity’s incipient struggle to maintain faithful to Christ. It does convey a feeling of emotional drama that is absent from more traditional mother and child paintings.

Pablo Picasso was influenced by Lautrec, Gauguin and Cézanne.  As an innovator Picasso made cubist paintings based on Cézanne’s idea that all depiction of nature can be reduced to three solids: cube, sphere and the cone. These inventions are characterized by the artist wish to break with tradition. The notion of his art is closely related to society’s break with traditional Christian values.

Once upon a time after going through a cubist exhibition in NYC, I took tea and scones with friends. After some discussion, there was a moment of quiet reflection, and I penned the following small poem:     Cubist form, sides broken; Angles hard, fast spoken; Color shapes in fact and fiction; Artist speaks in foreign diction.

For me, the idea of abstraction or cubist form as a foreign language became a new way of understanding and appreciating modern art. It has its place in the canon of art history, and although more of a traditionalist myself, I do enjoy very much modern works of art.

While ultimately beauty always does prevail, I think Picasso’s painting does enable us to reflect on a different side of life.  I think by nature we are attuned to something appealing and comforting. However, we also must recall that the traditional paintings allow for a more realistic  documentation  of the message of God’s love. It is a legacy at once artistic, but also philosophical. So no matter how interesting a modern portrait may be such as Picasso’s painting, one returns to the deeper meaning presented in such loving depictions as this Sassoferrato painting.  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_______________________________________________________________________

Jennifer Roche has authored many articles for secular and Catholic publications including the National Catholic Register, Inside Catholic, Crisis Magazine, the Catholic Herald (London, UK) and written a travelogue on the Maltese Islands called Cat Tails from Malta. She has also contributed to GodSpy, Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) college guide, MeloMag art magazine and Absolute Arts. She welcomes your comments!

Recently in the Catholic Herald there was an article posted about women not dressing in pants. Here is the link:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/12/05/in-1960-cardinal-siri-urged-women-not-to-wear-trousers-he-may-seem-like-a-blimp-now-but-i-suspect-he-had-a-point/

This made me wonder what was in the bible regarding this subject. In Timothy 2:9, women are told to “adorn themselves in modest apparel.” There is no absolute edict that women must not wear trousers/pants. However, I do think women/girls do look so much more feminine in dresses/skirts.

Today when the lines between male and female are getting increasingly blurred, it does make sense that Christians make more of an effort to dress for these distinctions. However, the bible only states in the New Testament that we should be modest in apparel. There is not an absolute statement against trousers/pants. This is what the Bible says, and it isn’t a matter of opinion. If a woman who fears God does care then naturally she is careful in the way she clothes herself.

In addition, Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that “outward apparel should be consistent with the estate of the person, according to the general custom.” Since we see so much sloppy dress in ripped jeans, sweatshirts and skin-tight pants or even skirts, I think it is important to educate girls to think when they go shopping and before they get dressed. After all, clothes make a statement about who we are and what we believe.

What goes through a man’s mind when he sees a girl in a dress that would cause him to react differently than if she were in a pair of jeans, I don’t know because I am not a man!  But it is true that the clothes women wear do send a message. Mark Twain said, clothes make the man.

The word modest used in 1 Timothy 2:9 comes from the Greek word kosmios which means “of good behavior”. It seems that as long as suggestive clothing isn’t worn then one conforms to God’s law. After all, God made the human body and it is up to us to make it look its most beautiful and honored.

Advent is not really understood today. Some Christians don’t even know why we have Advent wreaths. So often in our consumer society, Advent is totally forgotten. We should remember that there is no true Christmas without Advent.

In fact, the word Advent means coming or arrival. We anticipate the coming of the Christ child, and this is what prepares us for Christmas–the longing for the savior.

Advent also symbolizes our journey towards becoming Christians, welcoming Christ not only into the world, but also into our hearts. The Church celebrates this preparation time with Advent wreaths and candles near the altar.

The wreath and candles represent the coming light of the world casting out darkness. Drawing near a home wreath with family and friends allows us to meditate on the mystery of this coming light. Around the wreath, everyone can sing and/or pray which opens our hearts to the deeper meaning of Christmas. This allows us to remember how we were delivered from sin and darkness.

The tradition of the wreaths comes from the old European tradition of lighting candles, and placing them around bundles of evergreen. During the darkest months of the year, these decorations looked to the light of spring. Jesus, in many ways, can be seen as our spring, who gives light to our lives.

Later on, Christians adopted this practice. As early as the 16th-century, Advent wreaths were made essentially as we see them today with four candles–3 purple and 1 rose.  The 3 purple candles represent hope, peace and love (or prayer, penance and preparatory sacrifices). The 1 rose candle represents the joy of the arrival of Christ, which ends our Advent experience, and we celebrate the beauty of Christmas.

_________________________________________________________________________

Jennifer Roche has authored many articles for secular and Catholic publications including the National Catholic Register, Inside Catholic, Crisis Magazine, the Catholic Herald (London, UK) and written a travelogue on the Maltese Islands called Cat Tails from Malta. She has also contributed to GodSpy, Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) college guide, MeloMag art magazine, Absolute Arts, and the Henry Koerner Review Catalogue. She welcomes your comments!

Heavenly Christmas angels will take your breath away. The National Gallery in London, UK stages major art exhibition, Leonardo da Vinci: Painter at the Court of Milan from now through February 5, 2012. It is the most complete display of da Vinci’s rare surviving paintings ever held. Bringing together a wide selection of international loans, it is truly an unprecedented exhibition.

The exhibition features several splendid artworks of angels from the 15th-century Renaissance artist. Before the Christmas rush, these masterpieces are splendid to see at this time of the year, even if just on the National Gallery (London) website. Each painting shows the elegance and graceful figures of Da Vinci’s interpretation of angels.

Study of an Angel (chalk on paper) (b/w photo) by Leonardo da Vinci

The show mainly concentrates on the work Da Vinci produced as court painter to Duke Lodovico Sforza in Milan in the late 1480s and 1490s. Although Leonardo da Vinci (1455-1519) is recognized as the legendary painter, he was also an inventor and scientist. As a consummate draughtsman, his painting surfaces reveal the mystery and power of great art.

In addition, Da Vinci’s famous The Virgin of the Rocks, which was recently restored is part of this exhibition. Hopefully, Christmas cards will be reproduced of the newly restored and celebrated painting.

Enjoy these celestial and musical angels, a truly special exhibition.

___________________________________________________________________________

Jennifer Roche has authored many articles for secular and Catholic publications including the National Catholic Register, Inside Catholic, Crisis Magazine, the Catholic Herald (London, UK) and written a travelogue on the Maltese Islands called Cat Tails from Malta. She has also contributed to GodSpy, Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) college guide, MeloMag art magazine, Absolute Arts, and the Henry Koerner Review Catalogue. She welcomes your comments!

Construction on the Vatican Nativity scene started in mid-November. This year the Nativity scene will feature environmentally-friendly LED lights. There will also be a special emphasis on the Virgin Mary. A Christmas tree from Ukraine has already been installed in St. Peter’s Square.

Two Vatican architects designed this year’s project. The Vatican Nativity scene is one of the most visited in the world.  In keeping with tradition, the Nativity scene will be unveiled on Christmas Eve in St. Peter’s Square. In 1982, Pope John Paul II started the outdoor Nativity tradition.

For the origin of the Nativity scene, here is an except from Wikipedia:

St. Francis of Assisi is credited with creating the first nativity scene in 1223 at Greccio, Italy, in an attempt to place the emphasis of Christmas upon the worship of Christ rather than upon secular materialism and gift giving.  Staged in a cave near Greccio, St. Francis’ nativity scene was a living one with humans and animals cast in the Biblical roles. Pope Honorius III gave his blessing to the exhibit. Such pantomimes became hugely popular and spread throughout Christendom. Within a hundred years every church in Italy was expected to have a nativity scene at Christmastime. Eventually, statues replaced human and animal participants, and static scenes grew to elaborate affairs with richly robed figurines placed in intricate landscape settings. Charles III, King of the Two Sicilies, collected such elaborate scenes, and his enthusiasm encouraged others to do the same.

A tradition in England, United Kingdom involved baking a mince pie in the shape of a manger to hold the Christ child until dinnertime when the pie was eaten. When the Puritans banned Christmas celebrations in the 17th century, they also passed specific legislation to outlaw such pies, calling them “Idolaterie in crust”.

Hugo, a delightful family film

Finally, a family film that you can take your children or nieces and nephews to see, and not feel embarrassed. This film has actual dialogue, vocabulary and a heart-warming message. So many of the films targeted at children have overt violence and ugly bathroom humor. Not Hugo. Of course, no film is perfect. But you can rest assured that this is a holiday film that won’t leave you wondering why you went.

I was even more pleased when a Christina Rossetti poem was recited. I guess I was so pleasantly surprised because Rossetti is known and admired for having written beautiful and very religious poems. It appears very rare in popular culture to quote such a poetess and give her honor, so I was excited for sure.

Hugo is the story of a little orphan boy lives inside of a busy Paris train station (probably Montparnasse) in the 1930s.  At first, he is the apprenctice to his uncle who winds the clocks and lives within the walls of the station.

His final gift from his father is an automaton which has secrets inside. (For classic film buffs, Scorsese surely tips his hat here to Fritz Lang’s masterpiece Metropolis) The history of its maker is revealed when his world suddenly interlocks with an eccentric girl and the owner of a small toy booth in the train station.

The film is a delight. Visually it is stunning as it is set in 3D. Close-ups of the gears and the inner workings of the station’s main clock are captivating. Magnified scenes of the meshed gears, with their wheels and axles turning, are sure to attract the attention and imagination of little ones.

At its core, one could easily say that the film is very life-affirming. Hugo at one point states that everyone has their purpose, no matter how small. He thinks the world seems like a machine, and that everyone is an essential part.

As a sophisticated visual triumph, Hugo renders old-world Paris in an innovative, imaginative way. Yes, this does seem to be the era of 3D, but at least we are spared the goofy, stale effects of low-brow humor from what has been expected for children. Despite a few odd pauses, and what I would suggest a little bit of over-acting on the part of the children, the film is two thumbs up.

The story is based on Brian Selznick’s award-winning, imaginative “The Invention of Hugo Cabret.” The movie magically recreates a vintage Paris feel, with feature highlights of some of the great silent films starring the great Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd.

Director Martin Scorsese masterfully filmed this holiday delight. No worries for the children since the movie steers away from crude humor and excessive violence, which is a pleasant surprise for today’s movie-goers.

If you’ve seen it, tell us what you thought. I would love to know.

_________________________________________________________________________

Jennifer Roche has authored many articles for secular and Catholic publications including the National Catholic Register, Inside Catholic, Crisis Magazine, the Catholic Herald (London, UK) and written a travelogue on the Maltese Islands called Cat Tails from Malta. She has also contributed to GodSpy, Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) college guide, MeloMag art magazine, Absolute Arts, and the Henry Koerner Review Catalogue. She welcomes your comments!

The internet is great for reading magazines that you wouldn’t necessarily ever buy. For me that would be the The Progressive. Very liberal. Very left. Surfing their articles, I recently found one by the provocateur Noam Chomsky. Personally, I always find reading Chomsky interesting. Sometimes I actually agree with him. (I guess if I go so far to the right, and he so far to the left then we meet.)

In this article, he links Obama to the big banks (Wall Street), removing the image of “Obama is grassroots/of the people.” I agree with him, and we certainly wouldn’t hear of Obama linked to Wall Street in normal liberal press.

However, in the same article, he also historically links by association Christians with fascism/nazism. Here is the Chomsky quote:

When farmers, the petit bourgeoisie, and Christian organizations joined forces with the Nazis, “the center very quickly collapsed.”

I wonder if there is any historical evidence for this claim. Ok, Franco in Spain. But he is talking about Germany, not Spain. Further Spain’s revolution isn’t all black and white like the left would like to assert. Returning to the issue at hand, are there real links between fascism and Christianity during Hitler-era’s Germany? I am not aware that any Christian organization was specifically pro-nazi during WWII. After all, weren’t the nazi leaders essentially pagan?

Here is the entire article.            

http://www.progressive.org/wx041210.html

Some final thoughts, I ask: Who is the fascist when Big Brother on high dictates to the Church that Catholic organizations must hand out contraceptives? Also, who is the fascist when Catholics must provide adoptive services to same-sex couples, which blatantly violates a Catholic’s conscience?

Since we are close to Thanksgiving Day, here is a my version of a Holy Song of Thanksgiving. I wrote this little poem today. The title is borrowed from my favorite Beethoven string quartet in A minor, No. 15. (The third movement to be precise called Heiliger Dankgesang or as known in English Holy Song of Thanksgiving by a Convalescent to the Divinity). Beethoven composed this piece after recovering from an illness.

After reading about how some schools have already eliminated penmanship from their curriculum as well as scaling back on basic writing instruction, I wanted to upload my own handwritten version of the Thanksgiving Day poem. Some are even making cursive writing obsolete. In the U.S., Indiana is the latest school to drop handwriting requirements. Officials there say that there “isn’t enough time to teach both handwriting and basic typing skills.”

The cultural shift of handwriting to typing is not just a phenomenon of the West. One study found that Chinese youth are increasingly having difficulty with writing various characters by hand. Further, according to the same study, 69% of respondents claimed that they have not received handwritten notes or letters in more than a year.

HOLY SONG OF THANKSGIVING

Jennifer Roche has authored many articles for secular and Catholic publications including the National Catholic Register, Inside Catholic, Crisis Magazine, the Catholic Herald (London, UK) and written a travelogue on the Maltese Islands called Cat Tails from Malta. She has also contributed to GodSpy, Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) college guide, MeloMag art magazine, Absolute Arts, and the Henry Koerner Review Catalogue. She welcomes your comments!

In his first day on the campaign trail, Gov. Rick Perry does some good housecleaning, making amends in explaining his decision to mandate the vaccine Gardasil to 11-year old girls in Texas.

As I said earlier, his executive order easily could have hurt him with Catholic and evangelical voters.

When a voter in New Hampshire confronted Perry on this issue, he gave a great response:

“I signed an executive order that allowed for an opt-out, but the fact of the matter is I didn’t do my research well enough to understand that we needed to have a substantial conversation with our citizenry,” he said. “I hate cancer. Let me tell you, as a son who has a mother and father who are both cancer survivors.”

Perry said he’d invested government resources in cancer cures, adding, “I hate cancer. And this HPV, we were seeing young ladies die at the early age. What we should have done was a program that frankly should have allowed them to opt in, or some type of program like that, but here’s what I learned — when you get too far out in front of the parade they will let you know. And that’s exactly what our legislature did…

Had Rick Perry not addressed this issue, Michelle Bachmann surely would have pounced on it. I’m glad the Texas Legislature overruled Perry. And I’m glad that he calls it a mistake.

What a crazy week it has been, between the Obamacare/HHS mandate, over 150 bishops speaking out against it, and the battle between Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood.

A great many people are visiting this site today because of my comments on the Komen situation — my most recent thoughts on that can be found here (ongoing updates can be found at my twitter page @AmericanPapist — the story is very fast moving and complex).

But I don’t want to lose track of the “bigger” story – Obama’s war against religious liberty in this country and the Catholic effort to win this war definitively.

Peggy Noonan calls this a “battle the President can’t win” in her syndicated column today for the Wall Street Journal and says “President Obama just may have lost the election” because, in going after the religious liberty of Catholics, he has “awakened a sleeping giant”:

If [Catholics] stay strong and fight, they will win. This is in fact a potentially unifying moment for American Catholics, long split left, right and center. Catholic conservatives will immediately and fully oppose the administration’s decision. But Catholic liberals, who feel embarrassed and undercut, have also come out in opposition.

The church is split on many things. But do Catholics in the pews want the government telling their church to contravene its beliefs? A president affronting the leadership of the church, and blithely threatening its great institutions? No, they don’t want that. They will unite against that.

I hope and pray she is exactly right.

Stephen White (a valued CV contributor) writes in National Review about the brazen politics behind Obama’s decision — exploding the myth that this was about helping women. It wasn’t. It was about asserting the raw power of the state over people and institutions of faith:

Perhaps the most telling moment in the [White House briefing] call came when one official conceded that the administration has no idea how many people this exemption is expected to “help.” In other words, in all HHS’s “careful considerations,” there was no comparison of the “benefit” (however marginal) of this exemption versus possible alternatives.

It mattered not at all whether this narrow exemption, when compared to a more robust exemption, expanded coverage to one more woman or one million more women. Coverage simply had to be expanded as a matter of principle. Whoever meets the requirements of the narrow exemption, and decides to take advantage of it, should be grateful they are allowed even that.

… Overall, the administration’s defense of the HHS mandate has been an exercise in condescension. In their eyes, the “religious exemption” wasn’t carved out so the government could protect constitutional rights while it addressed what it saw as a compelling interest — those rights, we are told, are not even at issue. In the eyes of this administration, the “exemption” is a benevolent, even gratuitous, concession. HHS even allows a whole year for certain cultural laggards (read: Catholics) to bring their “religious beliefs” up to speed. Is that not generous?

No kidding.

Luckily, a rising chorus of voices (in addition to all those I have already cited over this past week) are speaking out. Radio pundit Hugh Hewitt writes a “memo” to the U.S. Bishops:

It may have taken a few days to sink in, but by now you should all have realized that President Obama has opened a massive assault on the Roman Catholic Church in America the likes of which none of you have ever experienced and for which few of you have prepared.

He goes on to interview Presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who says he has condemned the Obama/HHS decision “in every speech I’ve given today.” And that Catholics should respond to the law with “civil disobedience.”

GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has published an op-ed in the Washington Times on the subject of standing up for Catholics and religious liberty:

I stand with the Catholic Bishops and all religious organizations in their strenuous objection to this liberty- and conscience-stifling regulation.  I am committed to overturning Obamacare root and branch. If I am elected President, on day one of my administration I will issue an executive order directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a waiver from its requirements to all 50 states. And on day one I will eliminate the Obama administration rule that compels religious institutions to violate the tenets of their own faith.

Imagine that: we have the possibility of electing in November a President who will respect the constitutional right of American citizens to be, to live, Catholic.

That’s a battle worth winning. Let’s not forget it.

First of all, everyone needs to take a deep breath.

About an hour ago my twitter feed exploded with headlines of “KOMEN CAVED!!!”, etc, etc.

No, they didn’t.

They released a very carefully scripted statement today which echoes what their President Nancy G. Brinker said yesterday on MSNBC.

They didn’t cave. They apologized for how their previous statements were misconstrued, but that’s different. In terms of their actual operating procedure, they are saying the same thing they’ve always been saying in terms of implementing a new award protocol, just in a more nuanced way that appeases some of their most vitriolic critics, all in an effort to beg for space and a break from the incessant threat by liberal elites and attacks by the mainstream media (GetReligion has good commentary) and left-wing activists.

Make no mistake, Susan G. Komen is in a fight for its life. WSJ columnist James Taranto describes what is happening to Komen as a mafia shakedown:

Planned Parenthood’s bitter campaign against Komen–aided by left-liberal activists and media–is analogous to a protection racket: Nice charity you’ve got there. It’d be a shame if anything happened to it. The message to other Planned Parenthood donors is that if they don’t play nice and keep coughing up the cash, they’ll get the Komen treatment.

There’s one crucial difference, however. In a real-life protection racket, the victim never pays voluntarily. The threat is present from the get-go. By contrast, Komen presumably was not under any duress when it made its grants–and it could have avoided all this nasty publicity by never dealing with Planned Parenthood in the first place.

Thus smart prospective donors–especially ones that are apolitical, like Komen–are getting the message that supporting Planned Parenthood is a trap. Give once, and you will give again–or else you will pay.

This is more than a pro-life, pro-abortion debate. It’s a culture war between the powerful liberal elite and grassroots pro-life conservatism. It’s also a battle of identity for the pro-life movement. Will we listen to our own, trust our instincts and remain focused? Or will we allow the pro-abortion forces to knock us off our game and play by their rules?

As I’ve been saying since this story broke, we need to be doing two essential things: 1) support Komen in their bid to cut Planned Parenthood out of their funding streams and 2) keep the focus on Planned Parenthood‘s hypocrisy and lies.

If we do these two things, we win. If we get distracted and cease supporting Komen or stop focusing on Planned Parenthood, we lose. It’s as simple as that.

As for what is happening at Komen: I’ve received a crash-course education in the foundation over the past couple days and I can say without doubt that one thing motivates their President Nancy Brinker: ending breast cancer. That’s why she decided to cease funding Planned Parenthood, because they are about the lousiest group to help if you are serious about ending breast cancer. Second, that’s why their President is worried about the damage to the Komen brand being done by Planned Parenthood and its pro-abortion allies. President Brinker knows if Komen is weakened it will be less able to pursue its objective of ending breast cancer. She’s not throwing pro-lifers under the bus, she’s trying to save an organization she built to honor the memory of her sister (who died from breast cancer) and prevent it happening to others.

That’s why we need to make common cause with Komen and support their pro-woman goals. That’s why we need to expose Planned Parenthood’s scurrilous move to destroy Komen.

I mean, just pause for a moment: if Planned Parenthood is so serious about protecting women’s health, how does it justify leading a crusade to destroy the world’s leading breast cancer research foundation over these past days?? It’s simply incredible, and we need to make sure it’s never forgotten!

One last thing: we need to remember the big picture. Over the past 48 hours, not only did Planned Parenthood reveal itself as willing to seriously damage and attempt to destroy the pro-woman Komen foundation, but also, thousands and millions of people potentially learned for the first time that Komen doesn’t believe Planned Parenthood is an ideal provider of health care for women. So even if Planned Parenthood wins this battle (an outcome very much in doubt), I would argue they have seriously weakened themselves for the wars ahead. This will be a long fight, so take the long view.

Here’s what you can do to continue to support Komen in the short term:

1) email news@komen.org and say “Thank You for Defunding Planned Parenthood” and promise to buy products bearing the pink ribbon. Encourage them directly in other ways.

2) sign the petition at www.IStandWithKomen.com (this is not an effort to harvest emails, you only have to supply your name and location) and invite your family and friends to do the same.

3) blog/facebook/tweet/email/write op-eds about this. Get the word out any way you know how.

More from me later this afternoon. Please keep checking this post. Thank you!

UPDATE — This interview with a Komen Foundation board member may be helpful:

I asked Komen board member John Raffaelli to respond to those who are now saying that the announcement doesn’t necessarily constitute a reversal until Planned Parenthood actually sees more funding. He insisted it would be unfair to expect the group to commit to future grants.

“It would be highly unfair to ask us to commit to any organization that doesn’t go through a grant process that shows that the money we raise is used to carry out our mission,” Raffaelli told me. “We’re a humaniatrian organization. We have a mission. Tell me you can help carry out our mission and we will sit down at the table.”

Pushed on whether this means the new announcement wasn’t really a reversal, Raffaelli pushed back, arguing that Komen, in response to all the criticism, had removed politics from the grant-making process. “Is it really unclear that we’re changing the policy to address criticism?” he said. [WaPo's Plum Line Blog]

UPDATE 2 — Erick Erickson of RedState has an excellent update that I think gets the story right:

The major outrage against Komen funding Planned Parenthood came after an undercover sting of Planned Parenthood proving conclusively that Planned Parenthood does not offer mammogram services. Komen claimed it funded Planned Parenthood because of its mammogram services. Planned Parenthood’s dodge is that they referred women to places to get discounted or free mammograms, which itself is not true.

In walking back its denial of funds to Planned Parenthood, my understanding is that Komen will not cancel already approved grants to Planned Parenthood, but in the future will only fund organizations that provide mammograms themselves. That, in effect, still shuts out Planned Parenthood unless they actually invest in in-house infrastructures to give mammograms instead of just killing kids in-house.

I’ve been so caught up in covering the Obama/HHS mandate story (and updating this list with the latest bishops’ statements – now up to 140) that I haven’t had much time to reflect and present the picture I’m seeing unfold.

Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, ironic considering his decision to attack religious liberty last week. Politico makes clear it was his decision ultimately to force religious institutions to subsidize sterilization, contraception and abortifacient drugs. It tells us that Obama is intent on motivating his base beyond all else. Gone is the mask of compromise.

On a deeper level, I think it also tells us that Obama really believes religious freedom means only the freedom to worship, not the freedom to act on our public beliefs in the public square. He, however, reserves the right to justify Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank financial regulation as inspired by his religious beliefs. In other words, his religiously “inspired” vision of government has the authority, he believes, to crowd out through the use of the state’s force other competing religious visions of the good (on this topic see Ross Douthat’s column), for instant, the Catholic vision.

On a more cynical note, I think it means he believes people will be more excited about scoring free birth control than angered by his forcing religious institutions and individuals to violate their conscience.

Nancy Pelosi said, when asked about the mandate, that she will “stand with her fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this” and that she believed the President’s move was “courageous.” Speaker Boehner has said he believes the mandate is unconstitutional. Constitutional expert Ed Whelan says that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

It’s fascinating to watch liberal Catholics tie themselves in knots over this. But it’s not hard to imagine what confusion having dual allegiances causes. Michael Gerson writes that “Obama play[ed] his Catholic allies for fools” and he’s right.

Many have noted that even veteran liberal E. J. Dionne calls this “Obama’s breach of faith.” But that breach was made long ago. Dionne only was forced to notice it now. Some liberals are attempting to make this dispute be about contraception, but it is not — it’s about religious liberty. Even Sister Carol Keehan, who lobied for Obamacare, gets this:

The impact of being told we do not fit the new definition of a religious employer and therefore cannot operate our ministries following our consciences has jolted us.

No kidding. But who gave Obamacare the power to do this in the first place? Sister, you did.

On the far end of the religious spectrum you have unabashed liberals who are rejoicing over this move. The canard they tend to use (see: Kevin Drum at Mother Jones and Joan Vennochi at the Boston Globe) is that since some Catholic institutions receive federal dollars they should all be forced to do whatever the government tells them to do. This is also a red herring, because the mandate applies equally to religious organizations that receive and DO NOT receive federal funding. Props to Megan Mcardle at The Atlantic for making this salient point.

Perhaps saddest in the list of Obama’s excusers is Cecilia Munoz, a Catholic whom David Gibson admits was basically hired to appease “tense relations” with Catholics. You’ll notice that the Obama administration has Munoz front and center to supply spin.

The smartest liberal Catholics understand how big a deal this all is:

“In my estimation it’s a huge misstep politically,” said Stephen Schneck a political scientist from Catholic University who has consulted with the administration on Catholic issues.

“The way in which the narrative is being developed is that the administration is at odds with the Catholic Church fundamentally. What I’m seeing in the pews is something of a waking up, a Catholic solidarity. That I think could very well carry over into their political activities” Schneck said. “There’s nothing like having a sense of opposition to you to rally the troops and I suspect that’s going to happen here.”

Schneck pointed particularly to states with large Catholic populations where this new solidarity could have a far-reaching political impact.

“If you look at where those Catholics are, they’re in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Florida, which are of course critical states for anyone who wants to become president of the United States,” he said.

A final thought: Obama’s decision is a power move. It uses the power of government to force religious entities to either break the law and face the consequences or buckle. Obama only understands power politics. If Catholics want to teach him a lesson, the only lesson he’ll hear is a power lesson. So power on. Lobby hard. Stay focused and energized.

And let’s win this. That’s a thought that ought never be neglected.

How revealing this fight over Susan G. Komen’s defunding of Planned Parenthood is!

Wesley J. Smith asks exactly the right question: “Abortion Matters More Than Fighting Breast Cancer to Liberals?”

So it would seem. Various Democrats like Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) are boycotting Susan G. Komen over this decision. Howard Dean is encouraging corporate sponsors to punish Komen. Welcome to the real face of the pro-abortion movement: bullying liars. They immediately and viciously throw Komen under the bus simply for ceasing to give them money (and their seal of approval).

One of the main lies being pushed by pro-aborts is the claim that women will go without care now. Nonsense. Planned Parenthood never provided the services that Komen contracted through them in the first place. The founder of Komen, Nancy G. Brinker explains in a moving video released today (please click on the link and LIKE the video!) that no woman will experience a gap in Komen’s services. A friend with inside knowledge wrote to me:

…[Planned Parenthood does] not provide essential life-saving screening mammography. They instead refer women to hospitals for those services. But there’s no way of knowing how many women actually follow through and receive a mammogram, which makes measuring impact very difficult.

A better granting model would be to invest in grants with the actual service provider whenever possible, which is exactly what Komen has done with its new strategy…

In other words, Planned Parenthood wasn’t giving women mammograms in the first place, as LiveAction exposed some time ago. Komen simply chose to cut out the middleman (Planned Parenthood) and instead directly support hospitals that actually provide life-saving services.

All of which reminds us of another lie: that Planned Parenthood is about protecting and promoting women’s health. Sue Thayer, who worked for Planned Parenthood for 20 years, exposes that lie in the Washington Times today.

Jill Stanek has more of the inside story on what led Komen to make it’s decision. But as I wrote yesterday, we need to stay focused on two main things: thanking Komen and exposing Planned Parenthood.

Also, important to note: Komen has also promised to stop funding embryonic stem cell research centers, a promise I believe.

Let’s keep up the positive pressure on Komen and push back against the pro-abort lies. If Planned Parenthood thought last year was their worst they are in for bigger surprises this year!

UPDATE — Proabort activists hacked the Komen website yesterday, according to pop culture web site Mediate, inserting the phrase ”Help us run over poor women on our way to the bank.” What a stupid stunt. Women who are fighting for the end of breast cancer should be outraged.

UPDATE 2 — Watch liberal MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell interview Susan G. Komen founder Nancy Brinker. Andrea barely lets Nancy speak. Then Andrea interviews two liberal pro-abortion Senators (Boxer and Murray).

The best part of the interview is when Nancy says the feedback Komen has received has been “favorable” to their decision (or words to that effect) — THIS IS HUGE! It means we’re winning the email war. Please email news@komen.org with the subject line “Thank You for Defunding Planned Parenthood!” and keep up the positive momentum.

Here’s the interview:

UPDATE 3: — donations to Komen are up 100% since they cut ties with Planned Parenthood!

Huge news in the battle to get the truth out about Planned Parenthood.

Susan G. Komen, one of the world’s most respected organizations dedicated to fighting cancer, has dropped all ties with Planned Parenthood. In addition to the over hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding Planned Parenthood loses from this move, it’s a huge blow to Planned Parenthood’s credibility.

Planned Parenthood and its liberal pro-abortion allies are filling the air waves and trying to change the subject, claiming this is about Susan G. Komen making a political decision to defund Planned Parenthood.

This is not about Susan G. Komen. This is about Planned Parenthood.

Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun told The Associated Press that the cutoff results from the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities. Aun said this applies to Planned Parenthood because it’s the focus of an inquiry launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., seeking to determine whether public money was improperly spent on abortions. [AP]

In addition to being under investigation by Congress, Planned Parenthood is also under investigation in numerous states and localities.

Here is Komen’s statement:

At Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the women we serve are our highest priority in everything we do.  Last year, we invested $93 million in community health programs, which included 700,000 mammograms.  Additionally, we began an initiative to further strengthen our grants program to be even more outcomes-driven and to allow for even greater investments in programs that directly serve women.   We also implemented more stringent eligibility and performance criteria to support these strategies.   While it is regrettable when changes in priorities and policies affect any of our grantees, such as a longstanding partner like Planned Parenthood, we must continue to evolve to best meet the needs of the women we serve and most fully advance our mission. It is critical to underscore that the women we serve in communities remain our priority.  We are working directly with Komen Affiliates to ensure there is no interruption or gaps in services for women who need breast health screening and services.

Please join me in thanking Susan G. Komen!

Email news@komen.org with the subject line: “Thank You for Defunding Planned Parenthood!” – this only takes a few seconds. Please do it now. And invite your friends to do the same. It’s important that we stand with organizations and individuals who have taken a stand against Planned Parenthood.

Special thanks to Austin Ruse at C-FAM for his work and leadership on this.

Plenty happening on this story:

1) By my updated count, over 70% of bishops who head dioceses in the U.S. have spoken out against the mandate (131 of 184). I think we’ll pass 75% this weekend easily as more and more bishops join the movement.

2) CNSNews reports that White House press secretary Jay Carney claimed there was “no constitutional rights issue” when questioned about the mandate. This coming from the administration that just lost their religious liberty argument 9-0 at the Supreme Court.

UPDATE — here is the video:

At one point he says: “I would also just note that our robust partnerships with the Catholic Church and other communities of faith will continue.” — I wouldn’t be so sure.

The Commonweal blog has a full transcript of both times the issue came up in the press briefing. Some clues are beginning to emerge about the Obama’s administration’s attitude towards the Catholic counter-reaction, but more on that from me later.

3) This is not just a Catholic issue (something we have to stress). The Becket Fund has released a statement from Protestant and Jewish leaders: “We Stand with Catholics“:

Today, more than 40 non-Catholic religious organizations including Protestant-affiliated colleges, National Association of Evangelicals, Focus on the Family, Assemblies of God, Northwest Nazarene University, and Eastern Mennonite University, sent a letter to the White House demanding religious protection against the newly issued HHS contraceptive mandate.

“We write not in opposition to Catholic leaders and organizations. We write in solidarity.” Says the coalition letter. “Leaders of other faiths are also deeply troubled by and opposed to the mandate and the narrow exemption.”

More coverage of this letter from Baptist Press.

4) GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich spoke out against the Obama/HHS mandate in an email distributed by Human Events:

“Last week, the Obama administration finalized a radical new rule that uses the health care law to require all health insurance providers to cover abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization as well as contraception, all free of charge,” Gingrich writes. “The administration based the rule’s “religious exemption” on a provision drafted by the ACLU, applying the rule even to religious organizations such as Catholic schools, hospitals, universities and charities that oppose such things as a matter of religious belief.” [Continue reading]

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney included this line in his acceptance speech last night after winning the Florida primary: “President Obama orders religious organizations to violate their conscience. I will defend religious liberty and overturn regulations that trample on our first freedom.”

5) It’s important during critical moments such as these to remember our history. Obamacare was amended to authorize HHS to make this coercive decision back on December 3rd, 2009 through the passage of the Mikulski Amendment (#2791) in the U.S. Senate.

Republican Senators Snowe, Collins and Vitter voted for that amendment, helping ensure passage (all other GOP senators voted NO). All Democrat Senators (except Ben Nelson and Russ Fiengold who went on to vote for Obamacare and help it pass) voted YES on the amendment.

The Senators who voted YES on the Mikulski Amendment and voted YES on Obamacare played a special role in authorizing HHS to make this bad decision. When Catholics and pro-lifers warned that passing this amendment would result in precisely this sort of coercion taking place down the road, these Senators ignored us. We should remember that when they all come up for reelection.

Ph/t: Michael Blissenbach for refreshing my memory on #5.

1) My list of bishops who have spoken out against the Obama/HHS mandate now stands at 115. So well over half of the U.S. bishops who head dioceses have spoken out.

2) Senator Marco Rubio today introduced a bill (“the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012″) to repeal the Obama/HHS mandate. This is significant because the Democrat-controlled Senate will be the hardest obstacle to overcome on the way to getting legislation to President Obama’s desk to overturn this onerous law.

3) Pat Buchanan predicts that Catholics can win this fight if they play for keeps:

Not only should the bishops file suit in federal court against the president and Sebelius for violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, they should inform the White House that no bishop will give an invocation at the Democratic Convention.

Then, they should inform the White House that in the last two weeks of the 2012 campaign, priests in every parish will read from the pulpit at Sunday mass a letter denouncing Obama as anti-Catholic for denying the Church its right to live according to its beliefs.

If Obama loses the Catholic vote, he loses the election.

The White House will come around, fast. Rely upon it.

4) Brian Montopoli of CBSNews’ Political Hotsheet blog has to win the prize for most anti-Catholic biased headline: “Catholics hear anti-Obama letter in church” — are you kidding me? GetReligion has good coverage of the Media ignoring the controversy.

5) As far as gauging Catholics-in-the-pews reaction to these statements from the bishop I have been monitoring, Catholics in Green Bay gave their bishop a standing ovation after he read his statement after Mass (I’m no fan for applause during Mass, but if you’re going to applaud anything after Mass, this is a good choice):

In the past I’ve compiled a list of all the bishops speaking out on a particular controversial issue (for instance, over Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama) — here are the bishops who have spoken out against the Obama/HHS mandate.

[See my ongoing coverage of Obama/HHS's war against religious liberty here, here, here and most recently here. I'm also tweeting more updates @AmericanPapist.]

If I have missed anyone please let me know in the comments! And please double-check that your bishop really is not there before posting. The list is not in any particular order at this point.

Items in bold mean the statement was read at all diocesan Masses or included in all parish bulletins on Sunday:

(more…)

This video will brighten your Monday. At the end of his Sunday Angelus greeting, Pope Benedict attempted to release two doves into the air.

Unfortunately, the doves had a different plan – stay in the pope’s cozy apartment!

His laugh is charming as he ad libs: “They want to be in the pope’s house!”

… and yes, he even says “Mama Mia” at one point.

Watch for yourself:

Side question: has releasing doves jumped the shark yet?

Ph/t: Rome Reports.

And the Pope has cast his arms abroad for agony and loss,
And called the kings of Christendom for swords about the Cross…
– Lepanto by G. K. Chesterton

I have sympathy for the sentiment Emily expresses. I do. I know it’s a lament shared by many Catholics when they look at the state of the Church now. It’s important we acknowledge past sins of omission — personal, pastoral, institutional. It’s important that we get our history straight.

But why? So we can better shape the future.

I agree that we can’t win this fight for the culture on the legislative or legal fronts alone. But these are important fronts we cannot afford to abandon. Culture isn’t just shaped by personal conversations and conversions. It’s also shaped by foundational structures such as law and government. That’s why Catholics need to be active warriors in the public square. The fight for religious liberty, after all, is a battle to preserve the right to have those personal conversations and conversions.

Basically I’m arguing that we need two specific things: optimism and priorities. Optimism because the resources at our disposal are immense. In addition to our human potential, we have Christ. So ultimately, we win. But to avoid the cost and unnecessary suffering which would result from a domineering state denying our religious liberty: we have to win this critical battle first. It’s the most important priority, because everything the Church stands for in public and everything the Church safeguards concerning the common good is premised on the right of the Church to be free to do so.

There is a time for sackcloth and ashes — it’s after the battle has been won. But when the innocent are threatened and the one thing standing in the way of government tyranny is the Church and the right of Christians to believe in peace and live out the truth, now that’s a time for swords and shields.