Today's Inspiration: The Zimmers: Oldest Band Ever

Anybody feeling old today? You won't after seeing these videos

From Wikipedia:

The Zimmers are a British band, thought to have the oldest members in the world:[1] the lead singer, Alf, is 90, and the oldest member, Buster, is 102. They take their name from the Zimmer frame (the British name for a walking frame).
The band was created as a feature in a BBC Television documentary, which was first broadcast on 28 May 2007.[2] The feature of forming the band and recording a single was intended to give a voice to the feelings of isolation and imprisonment suffered by the elderly.
The Zimmers' logo is a parody of The Beatles' logo, as is the image of them walking across Abbey Road. In September 2008, the band released its first full-length album 'Lust for Life', featuring cover versions of songs by Eric Clapton, The Beatles and Frank Sinatra.

Here are just two of their videos:

Pope Presses Obama on Pro-Life Issues

From John Allen at NCR and in my opinion the right way to engage the debate with the President. Thanks to the Pope for taking the lead here.

When President Barack Obama came calling on Pope Benedict XVI today, the two men enjoyed a “truly cordial” encounter, according to a Vatican spokesperson, but at the same time there was no diplomatic silence from the pontiff about their differences over abortion and other “life issues.”

Not only did Benedict press his pro-life case with his words to the president, but he even found a way to make the point with his gift, offering the president a copy of a recent Vatican document on bioethics. According to a Vatican spokesperson, the pope drew a repetition from Obama of his vow to bring down the actual abortion rate.

Beyond the life issues, the Vatican’s statement indicated that Benedict and Obama also found “general agreement” on the Middle East peace process and other regional situations. The two leaders also touched food security, development aid especially for Africa and Latin America, immigration and drug trafficking, according to the statement.
Coming away from the meeting, however, it was hard to escape the impression that Benedict wanted to use it to deliver a clear pro-life message.

Read the rest and then think about the Pope's actions today. Did he embarrass the President? No. Did he yell at the President and call him a baby killer? No. Did he not show up for the meeting? No.

What did he do? HE ENGAGED THE DEBATE IN A HEALTHY AND CORDIAL MANNER.

My guess is that President Obama will read the book he gave him and start noting it in his plans to reduce abortions bringing us closer together on this issue.

Sotomayor: Pro lifers have something to like about her

President Obama nominated Federal Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court pending congressional approval. Judge Sotomayor would be the first person of hispanic ancestry to rise to the Court. The question of her pro-life record is sketchy as she's never really decided a case which directly involved abortion rights. But here's an interesting case:

From Christianity Today

Shortly after President George W. Bush reinstituted the Mexico City Policy (which bars government funds to groups that support or perform abortion), the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy sued.

The pro-choice group's argument was that the Mexico City Policy unconstitutionally violated rights of speech (since it couldn't "actively promote" abortion) and association (it couldn't work with abortion rights advocacy groups overseas) as well as the constitution's Equal Protection Clause (it wasn't on "equal footing" with prolife groups in competing for funds).

When the case came before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Sonia Sotomayor (whom President Obama this morning nominated to the Supreme Court) ruled against the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy.

"The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds," Sotomayor wrote.

Sotomayor also has strong bi-partisan support. She was first appointed by President George H.W. Bush (the older, not the moron) to the federal bench and then later was nominated by President Clinton to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. She was involved directly and most famously in upholding the players grievances during the 1994 players strike that led to the cancellation of the World Series.

She's got an interesting background. From NPR:

Sotomayor grew up in a Bronx housing project after her parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico. She suffered from juvenile diabetes that forced her to start insulin injections at age 8. Her father, a tool-and-die worker, died when she was 9, and Sotomayor was raised by her mother, a nurse.

As a girl, she was inspired by the Perry Mason television show and knew she wanted to be a judge. "I realized that the judge was the most important player in that room," she said in a 1998 interview.

Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and went to Yale Law School, where she served on the law journal.

I love rooting for people who had to work hard to get where they are. So I hope for an easy confirmation.

More on President Obama and Abortion

So I've heard tons of comments online and in person with the new buzzword: President Obama is the biggest pro-abortion President in the history of our country.

Well, that wouldn't be hard since there's only 8 to choose from... let's also remember that in 1973 the President was a Republican.

But let's also think about something else. President Obama may indeed uphold the right of women to seek abortions, but what he also said yesterday is that nobody makes those decisions lightly. And that's where we as Catholics come in.

At some point, a woman makes a choice to abort, it's that window where we have an opportunity to present other options despite the fact that the law tells her that she can just kill her baby growing in the womb. Are those options presented to her in ways that don't place undo pressure on her? Do they seem overly coercive or do they seem like sincere care and love? I fear that most often alternatives are presented as the former and not the latter.

President Obama, however short-sighted his view on the law may be, did have one very valuable point that we need to listen to:

"Let's work together to reduce the number of abortions."

Think about what that statement says:

Women have other choices than abortion, better choices. They just think that they can't choose them for whatever reason. The main one is that they feel they have no support. The issue here is that Republicans most often think that these women should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, from their family or from the church rather than get help from the government. They think women will abuse the system and get pregnant to get more welfare money.

Fair enough. Some will most certainly abuse the system, but does that mean we make overarching rules for the exceptions?
Are we really motivated by love when we think that way?

But no matter, welfare is not and can not be the only solution--perhaps not even the main one. What are we doing as Catholics to lobby for the care of women seeking abortion? If President Obama is serious about helping us reduce the number of abortions, then at least we're on the same page in SOME way. It also means that if we present a plan to put bigger and better pregnancy crisis centers in cities all over the country, we should be able to gain some support from the Obama administration.

The sisters of life are one group I know who does lots. Malta House in Connecticut is another good model. But there aren't enough of these models out there. Why is every parish in the United States not saying, we'll go an live in a tent so that these women can bring their children to term? Why is the outreach so minimal when it comes to offering to help these women?

President Obama seems to be saying some magic words to us and instead we are spitting venom back at him with our mantra of "most pro-abortion president". The magic words are "Let's work together to help these women not choose abortion to begin with." If we help them not make the choice to abort at least we'll save somebody, perhaps more than a majority begin to choose life--then we will be very successful at reducing abortions.

Women who abort despite these efforts are probably going to do it anyway. And if the law was not present they'd still find a way to do it illegally. I think that's the big fear from the majority of the pro-choice camp. They think that women who can't be convinced of the moral conviction that we hold dearly, are going to be placed in harm's way. While we value life in the womb, we also value life outside of the womb and sometimes we will lose one of those battles here. It's sad but even if the law were repealed, we'd still lose babies and we'd lose a few women along the way as well. Some people remain lost.

But the pro-life camp, of which I consider myself part of, also has its shortsightedness. They have an all or nothing approach. Now obviously our work isn't done until we eliminate abortion entirely, but shouldn't we also at least take small victories where we can get them. We seemed to do this with President Bush when he outlawed partial-birth abortion. We didn't have an all or nothing approach there did we?

So the larger question is: Are President Obama's efforts not welcome, even though he is much more vocal than previous Presidents about limiting abortion--where other Presidents would merely state that they would not limit a woman's right to choose. While we may not agree with him that these issues are complex (for us murder is murder in our view), we need to at least acknowledge that he sees some room in working alongside us.

Or we can just parrot back mantras.

The Vitae Monologues

Deacon Greg pointed me to this play:



Has anyone seen it? Offer a review. I think we need to do more things like this and most times unfortunately, these things are simply not well produced or professional but this one looks pretty good to me in the video.

Any thoughts from the crowd?

Notre Dame responds to Glendon rejection

With a big hat tip to American Papist

Statement by Father John Jenkins on the Laetare Medal

The following statement from Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., president of the University of Notre Dame, is in response to the decision by Mary Ann Glendon to decline acceptance of the University’s Laetare Medal:

“We are, of course, disappointed that Professor Glendon has made this decision. It is our intention to award the Laetare Medal to another deserving recipient, and we will make that announcement as soon as possible.” (University of Notre Dame Office of News & Information)

Pssst...Archbishop Sheehan and Bill Richardson...show the world that Catholics can indeed work with Pro-choice politicians.

As the Papist rightly mentions, I would like to see the Preisdent engage Ms. Glendon in some kind of dialogue.

Obama and Notre Dame Insanity Continues

The lack of journalistic integrity in headlines at the Cardinal Newman Society is astounding. Their headline reads:

Notre Dame President refuses dialogue with students on Obama invitation.

But a quick perusal of their own stupid press release shows that this is hardly true.

The leaders of ND Response, a broad coalition of Notre Dame student groups founded to express the “deepest opposition” to the invitation to President Obama to speak at commencement, informed The Cardinal Newman Society that they wrote a letter to Father Jenkins confirming their interest in discussing concerns with him. The students expressed hesitancy at accepting the limited closed-door meeting which was at first suggested by Father Jenkins. They instead proposed to allow all student members of ND Response to attend.

Perhaps the headline should be:

Pro-lifers blow chance to influence University President because of their own arrogance. Although admittedly that's a bit long--albeit more accurate.

It's a simple algorithm. When people have disagreements they argue (in the best sense of that word) together about it. They do so with charity and civility.

The unborn are not being served by the arrogance of people who would rather host a side-show in which they can gang up on a University President, than to have an actual civil discussion of the issues.

Here's the main story: If these people can't even get a meeting with Notre Dame's President because he views them as either extremists, or at minimum uncharitable and unable to have a half-way decent discussion, then what shot do they have in gaining the ear of the President of the United States or for that matter, with anyone who disagrees with them?

My second point on this:
Would they be making similar objections to a pro-choice republican? Patrick Reilly the proported head of the Cardinal Newman Society sheepishly admitted that George W. Bush also shouldn't be invited to Notre Dame not that long ago--and then clammed up when he was invited to a lesser known Catholic institution as Joe Feuerhard pointed out in NCR:

In 2005 I pointed out to Reilly that should Bush be invited to speak at a Catholic campus, the Society would be compelled to outrage. “Bush, you see, supports embryonic stem cell research, though his policies limit it to existing stem cell lines,” I wrote. “That’s a position directly counter to church teaching.

“Similarly, despite his anti-abortion record, the president supports exceptions for abortion in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is threatened. That alone should be enough to draw the wrath of the Virginia-based group ... ’”

Responded Reilly: “Certainly if his position is opposed to the church on those issues (stem cell research and abortion exceptions),” he would be treated “just like anyone else.”

That, I concluded, was “more than a little hard to believe.”

Two years later, Bush was invited by his old friend and former adviser Jim Towey, president of St. Vincent College in Pennsylvania, to give the commencement address at the small Catholic school.

Not a peep from Reilly – a silence that says more about Reilly and company than all the “outrages” and “scandals” he manufactures and exploits.

Bottom line: Mudslinging is not a gospel value. Learn how to come to the table with love and charity and maybe then you have a chance to influence decisions.

Until then...you're just another guy at the end of the bar.

The Anchoress on Obama and Fire Breathing Pro-lifers

A hat tip to Deacon Greg and Pajamas Media

For many pro-life Catholics, myself included, the thought of President Obama addressing the upcoming commencement exercises at Notre Dame just scalds.

It scalds, but as my email fills up with angry press releases from various pro-life groups and with appeals to sign anti-Obama petitions, I find all the fire-breathing just a bit scalding, as well.

I understand and support the duty of Catholic bishops to register strong disapproval of the president’s anti-life positions, and I further believe that teaching the truth is always imperative, but Catholic universities have never been intellectual ghettos, offering only narrow exposure to ideas. On the contrary, Catholic universities have been bastions of rigorous debate with the application of reason triumphant over trends, sentiments, or policies. Because I believe that, and because I believe in the rightness of the Catholic position on life and the ability of the Holy Spirit to use surprising people and circumstances to do God’s will, I keep thinking, “Why are the Catholics approaching all of this with outrage and apparent fear, instead of confidence in battle?”

The current administration has famously quipped “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Well, Catholics might take a page from the president’s book and see this situation as less a “crisis” than an opportunity.

Amen, Anchoress! That's exactly what I've been saying--which you've said much more eloquently.

Read some more comments from her here

CUA Law Commencement Speaker: Let Obama Speak

A hat tip to American Papist.

Mark Shields, the political columnist who will be addressing graduates as commencement speaker at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law next month, disagrees.

Shield’s syndicated column, published after the University announced him as speaker, goes against the stated opinions of O’Connell and several members of the board of trustees, including chairman Bishop William E. Lori.

“As a proud graduate of Notre Dame and, frankly, as an admirer of Father Jenkins, I am not a disinterested bystander in this controversy,” writes Shields. “My university likes to think of itself, not immodestly, as the place where the Catholic Church does its thinking. But the current rhubarb is already conspicuous for generating — mostly off the campus — more heat than light.”

“The reality is that Roe v. Wade is not going to be overthrown,” he continued.

American Papist noted sarcastically after quoting this: "Yes, defeatism is generally a feature of enlightened discourse." And I must say that the line made me chuckle (in a good way--funny is funny). However, I think he misses the point.

If the likelihood of Roe v. Wade is in fact that at least in the near future our likelihood is that the law won't be overthrown shouldn't we at least concentrate just as much on trying to serve the needs of pregnant teens who seek abortion as we do on trying to influence politicians to change the law? As one who is pro-life, I think that this is what Bishop Chaput was driving at when he said and I paraphrase: "we don't really care."

If we really cared the law wouldn't stop us from creating a solution that stops abortion. The law would make it harder for us to completely stop it altogether to be sure, but showing people great victories in changing the lives of these mothers, caring for them and their children and honoring the unborn as full persons who deserve not merely our PROTECTION but also our CARE. I've been to a few events at Malta House in Connecticut and was quite moved by the stories of the young women who they serve. They do this DESPITE the law and uphold our Catholic values greatly. They also hope that the law will one day change, but if it doesn't they're not going to close up shop. The Sisters of Life in New York do similar good works.

Why aren't these stories being told? What if we all told just one small story of how we saved a life and supported it for years beyond that first year each day? We know those stories are out there.

Or would we rather just complain about a speech by the President?

To Vatican Critics: Media Matters for You Too

I got annoyed at a few friends the other night and I think I shot the messenger. They mentioned that they were annoyed at Pope Benedict's statements while he was in Africa about how condoms are not a solution to the AIDS crisis.

I asked them (probably in an angry NY tone) what they thought the Pope meant. One claimed that they weren't sure and the other said that they thought the Pope was saying that condoms are not a way to prevent the spread of AIDS--that they don't work--that scientifically condoms don't really prevent the AIDS virus.

Balderdash.

What the Pope was saying was that condoms are a quick fix. That they don't stop the real systemic problem at hand which is an unhealthy and cheapened view of sexuality--which most people in the world actually subscribe to and which many men especially in Africa have taken to an extreme.

Women are regarded in Africa by many men in that culture as disposable. They are only there to serve the sexual needs of men. We shouldn't single out Africa in this regard as this is a widespread phenomenon.

So the Pope's suggestion is that condoms do not create a culture change and a shift in the sexual mindset of the world--especially on a continent where AIDS and HIV is a huge problem--is what is really needed.

But what happens now? His answer is taken out of context and blown up in the media as the Pope saying that we don't need condoms in Africa to solve the AIDS crisis with no explanation at all and most people come away thinking that the Pope just made a stupid and perhaps even an out-of-touch statement.

He did not. But now we'll never hear him go beyond this statement because the Vatican PR department won't field anymore questions on the subject out of fear.

The good follow up question that I suspect the Pope may even have a brilliant idea about is this:

"While it may be true that a more systemic change is needed to really solve the problem of AIDS in the world, there are many people who may not share that opinion. While we realize that you need to set the bar high by calling people to a higher standard and uphold the teachings of the Catholic faith, can you also share any ideas you may have to keep people safe in the meantime, before this culture change hopefully takes hold on the culture--or even dare we say, if it doesn't?"

Culture change doesn't happen overnight. And while I agree with the Pope's point, I'd sincerely like to hear what ideas he might promote of a practical nature that will protect, especially women who are often raped by men with the AIDS virus or are forced to have sex with their husbands who may be transmitting the virus as well.

While I'm not likely to get an answer from the Holy Father on this matter, I'm wondering what y'all think about two things:

1) Is the media as well as the general public shooting us in the foot by taking questions out of context?

2) What ideas might we have for both building a change in the culture and for keeping people safe in the meantime?

Let's say that condoms are not an option just for kicks!