Why the sudden lack of interest in religion?

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, has made some astute observations about the obvious lack of interest in religion as an issue of concern for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Noting the hubbub over John Roberts' Catholicism when he was nominated to the high court, Donohue points out that journalists and senators alike are so nonplussed by Sotomayor's Catholicism that it doesn't even warrant a mention, no less any prying questions.

"What’s going on? Are liberal Catholics Catholic? Obviously not, at least according to liberals. After all, if Sotomayor were known as a practicing Catholic, those who fretted over Roberts and Alito would have called 911 by now," Donohue said in a statement. "White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, however, put their worst fears to rest yesterday when he said of the Puerto Rican jurist, “I believe she was raised Catholic.” If this is true, then the telling verb “raised” would explain why liberals like Sotomayor—she’s one of those Catholics they can trust. Let’s hope they’re wrong."

To read Dononhue's full statement, click HERE.

In related Sotomayor news, the New York Times is reporting that abortion advocates are "quietly expressing unease that Judge Sotomayor may not be a reliable vote to uphold Roe v. Wade." Yeah, sure. As if abortion advocates would "quietly express" anything if they thought for one minute Roe v. Wade was in danger due to Sotomayor's nomination. I don't believe any of us are so naive as to think that certain assurances were not made before President Obama made his pick, which would account for the support Sotomayor has already received from some abortion rights groups.

President Obama promised to uphold -- and expand -- legal access to abortion. Unfortunately, Catholic or not, his pick is likely to reflect his views on that matter even if there aren't any written legal opinions to prove the point. Isn't that convenient? Of course, nothing is guaranteed once a judge is on the bench, so we can hope and pray that Judge Sotomayor will do the right thing if and when the time comes.

Supreme Court nominee is Catholic grad

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's pick to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, is a graduate of Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx. If she is appointed, Sotomayor, 54, will become the first Hispanic to serve on the court and the third woman. Checking her record on abortion brings up almost nothing. Here's one small snippet from The New York Times:

"On the Circuit Court, Judge Sotomayor has been involved in few controversial issues like abortion. In one case, she denied a claim brought by an abortion rights group challenging a Bush policy that prohibited foreign organizations that receive foreign funds from performing or supporting abortions. Another case concerned the definition of "refugee," which includes victims of coercive family-planning practices. The Second Circuit ruled that this definition does not extend to unmarried partners of women forced to abort their pregnancies. Judge Sotomayor joined a concurring opinion which said it was unnecessary to consider whether the definition extended to legal spouses, because this particular case dealt with Chinese men and their girlfriends, not their wives."

Sotomayor, who is currently a judge on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was appointed to Manhattan Federal Court in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush. She was later elevated to her present position by President Bill Clinton in 1998. Although she is seen as "liberal-leaning," her moderate liberal position seems to give her bipartisan support. She has been quoted, however, as saying that it is in the courts where "policy is made," making her less of a favorite among conservatives who oppose activist judges.

Talking 'new feminism' EWTN's Son Rise

One of my recent OSV Daily Take posts on old feminism vs. new feminism (click HERE to read that) led to a radio interview with Brian Patrick on EWTN's Son Rise Morning Show today. If you missed it, you can listen to the podcast. (I'm about 1:44 minutes into the program if you're searching specifically for the segment on new feminism.)

Click here for the list of Son Rise Morning podcasts and scroll down to 5/22/2009»

Father Martin's abortion spin

I am going to start this post by saying that I have been -- up until now -- a huge fan of Jesuit Father James Martin. When I read his book, My Life With the Saints, I was profoundly moved. In fact, I told Father Martin that in person when I met him at a Catholic Press Association convention a few years back. For me, the saints had moved into the background of my spiritual life and his beautiful writing and personal insights brought them back to the fore. I started reading everything he wrote and soaking up the wisdom and spirituality.

And then I read the transcript of his commentary on the Notre Dame scandal and went from sad to disappointed to infuriated in a matter of minutes. To see someone in his position sidestep the centrality of abortion among all the life issues is disheartening, to say the least.

Here's the most offensive of all his comments, but there are plenty of others to choose from:

"I think, unfortunately, for a lot of people in the pro-life movement, life begins at conception, but seems to end there."

What?!?! I know a lot of pro-life people, good people who stand outside clinics on Saturday mornings and march in the freezing cold in Washington, D.C, every January. I am offended that anyone would suggest that they have no concern for life once it is past conception. To all the people who work for Birthright, who collect clothes and food and diapers for children in need, who promote adoption and advocate for single mothers and poor families, thank you for your work and please ignore the careless comments of a priest who really ought to know better.

Please click HERE and read the transcript of Father Martin's comments over at Insight Scoop. Thanks to Ed Mechmann at Stepping Out of the Boat for the heads up on the transcript and accompanying analysis. Looks like I'll need to find a new favorite author.

A vote for school choice

USA Today called school choice "the most effective way" to give 20 million low-income students a chance to succeed. In an editorial today, the newspaper also took President Obama to task for killing a voucher program that allows poor parents to make the same he choice he made: a successful private school for his daughters over the notoriously failing public schools of Washington, D.C.

The editorial continues:

"All this occurred as the Education Department reported that voucher participants show superior skills in reading, safety and orderliness. The news was buried in an impenetrable study released without a news conference.

'Why the ambivalence? Because teacher unions, fearing loss of jobs, have pushed most Democrats to oppose vouchers and other options that invite competition for public schools. Put another way, they oppose giving poor parents the same choice that the president himself — along with his chief of staff and some 35% of Democrats in Congress — have made in sending their children to private schools."

To read the full editorial, click HERE.

Archbishop Chaput has "hard words" for ND's president

From a new commentary by Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput:

There was no excuse – none, except intellectual vanity – for the university to persist in its course. And Father Jenkins compounded a bad original decision with evasive and disingenuous explanations to subsequently justify it.

The archbishop also has some suggestions for the way forward. Read it here.

Obama at ND: Three lessons

Ten days before the May 17 Notre Dame University commencement at which President Barack Obama was to speak and receive an honorary degree, I told an archbishop who's a friend that I thought this was a watershed. One reason for that, I explained, lay in the remarkably large number of individual bishops — approaching 80 as this is written — who took the initiative to speak up in protest against Notre Dame's bestowal of honors upon our aggressively pro-abortion chief executive.

The archbishop smiled sadly and shook his head. "Six months from now it will all be forgotten, and everything will be business as usual," he said. It was clear that by "business as usual" he wasn't suggesting that the state of American Catholicism had been all that good before the Notre Dame-Obama flap.

Maybe he's right, although for once I hope he isn't. Obama's feel-good remarks at the Notre Dame graduation changed nothing of substance. But I agree with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel: You shouldn't waste a good crisis. In that spirit, here are three important lessons that can — and must — be learned from this extremely painful episode.

The first lesson, familiar by now, is that American Catholics are deeply divided. The Obama invitation was yet another occasion for two very different groups of Catholics to split over something serious.

The poll numbers were somewhat contradictory, but the overall picture is clear. Generally speaking, Catholics who go to Mass weekly tended to think that Notre Dame was badly off base in paying tribute to our pro-abortion president, while Catholics who don't go to Mass weekly tended to see it as okay. We've been seeing this split in Catholic ranks—those who go to Mass weekly vs. those who don't—for many years and on many different issues, both political and religious.

I have no solution to offer, except that the split must henceforth be taken far more seriously into account than it has been up to now in pastoral planning and action. It's just not meaningful to say, "American Catholics think this or that." The question is: Which Catholics do you mean—the ones who practice their religion or the ones who don't?

The second lesson is that Catholic colleges and universities face a choice. A couple of weeks before the Notre Dame event, I was discussing that with a notably well-informed Catholic editor. The bottom line, we agreed, is that these days many Catholic schools — Notre Dame being a prime example — claim Catholic identity without practicing accountability to the Church.

It doesn't work. Identity and accountability — it's a case of both or neither. Notre Dame, Georgetown, Boston College and the rest have to choose.

The third lesson is that the bishops also face a choice. Will they fight to uphold the Catholic identity of Catholic institutions or let them go without protest? Many already are gone, and more currently are being forced into secularization — or extinction — by  economic factors and/or ideology.

Where Catholic identity remains a viable option, however, the bishops still have a little time to exert themselves in its defense. Otherwise they'd best resign themselves to its all-but-universal loss. Merely hoping for the best won't work.

If these lessons are learned, the Notre Dame controversy may do some good. But if my friend the archbishop is right in predicting business as usual within six months, the future of Catholic identity in higher education and other areas of the Church's infrastructure isn't bright. How very sad if it turns out like that.

Some questions for critics of mandatory priestly celibacy

Father Donald Cozzens has an essay on CNN's website urging a rethinking of the discipline in the Latin Church of mandatory celibacy for priests. It recaps arguments from his 2006 book, "Freeing Celibacy" (Liturgical Press, $15.95).

He makes some good points. Celibacy has not always been the practice in the Church (but the two popes he cites as examples don't quite work; it is historically uncertain whether Pope Innocent I was Pope Anastasius' son; and Pope Hormisdas was a widower when he became pope). Even today celibacy is not required of those married Protestant pastors who have become Catholic priests. Father Cozzens also points to what he calls an "inherent paradox lying just below the claim that the gift of celibacy is a precious gift of God to the priesthood and the Church: How can a gift be legislated?"

Nevertheless, I have lingering doubts. Or questions.

The first regards this quote from Father Cozzens: "The most human, existential factor that should keep the celibacy issue on the table is the spiritual and emotional health of priests."

As a married layman, that statement bothers me. It seems to imply that the function of sex is a sort of psychological relief valve. It doesn't situate it within the vocation of marriage. (And it seems to perpetuate that idea that celibacy is somehow a more saintly, or superhuman, route to heaven than the exercise of conjugality.)

Second, and related, Father Cozzens talks about celibacy as not just an ecclesial discipline, but a "discipline" in the more common sense. But he seems to underestimate the sacrifice and discipline involved in marital fidelity and in chastity for those who are single. Yes, I'm sure living celibately is not easy. But does he really think it is more difficult than singlehood or marriage? Each of the vocations has its sacrifices and joys; and might celibacy be not just a "discipline" for most priests but also a source of freedom and joy?

Third, he seems to believe it is unfair for the Latin Church to demand a commitment to celibacy from men who feel called both to the priesthood and to married life. Why? There is a theological richness to the idea of a celibate priesthood; either one feels called to it, or one does not (or, I suppose, one becomes Eastern Catholic to be able to pursue dual vocations). If a man feels called to be a priest in the Latin Church, he feels called to celibacy; if he does not, then his discernment of calling is far from complete.

Fourth, although Father Cozzens acknowledges that a married Latin clergy would bring "scandals of its own -- infidelity and abuse among others," I wonder if he takes that possibility seriously enough. Our culture is not supportive of commitment (see the divorce rate, and even the attrition rate of priests), and Catholics bring that cultural weakness to their own weddings or ordinations. It seems to me that focusing on living one vocation well and faithfully is challenging enough, without adding the unique challenges of another.

Tide turning on abortion

Great news from the Gallup poll: For the first time, more Americans are pro-life than are "pro-choice." In a survey conducted last week, 51 percent of Americans identified themselves as pro-life, the first time the numbers have tilted in favor of life since Gallup started asking the question.

The hypocrisy of Archbishop Weakland

Archbishop Rembert Weakland, OSB, who is obviously preparing for the book circuit to promote his upcoming memoir, has decided that he'll speak out vigorously against the Church's position on homosexuality. In a story posted today on the New York Times website, the archbishop points the finger of blame for his current state of semi-exile and disrepute at everyone else but himself. At the same time, he takes the opportunity to make some headlines and ensure that his book will get the publicity he needs to bring in the big bucks. Maybe he can pay back the $450,000 he took from the Catholics of Milwaukee when he decided to cover up his gay love affair all those years ago.

This is the kind of thing that makes disaffected Catholics go ballistic. I can hear the questions I'm going to have to answer the next time I see certain neighbors and friends who will, rightly so, take umbrage with the fact that an ordained Benedictine priest, who took a vow of obedience to the Benedictine Rule, which includes chastity and poverty, managed to sidestep all of that and land himself a very cushy retirement at a Benedictine abbey in the lovely landscape of western New Jersey. That's a pretty hard sell when there are good Catholics who desperately want to be part of their Church but cannot because of far lesser sins. (I'm thinking of some really holy people I know who are struggling with the tragedy of divorce and the desire to still have a marriage partner at some point down the road.) Somehow the idea that a man who broke all of his vows and paid out hush money with Church funds to cover it up can still celebrate Mass and hear confessions doesn't sit well with many in the lay state who are struggling with their own issues of broken vows.

Read the full story HERE, and prepare to be furious as the archbishop manages to find one excuse after another for his indiscretions, for his cover-up, for his decision to reassign pedophiles despite taking a hard line against other Church members who did the same. It's shameful, and it's disheartening for so many people trying to live good lives who do not get similar treatment because they do not hold the clerical clout of the archbishop.

Live blogging from the ND Commencement

I received final confirmation tonight that I've got press credentials for the University of Notre Dame commencement this Sunday May 17, featuring President Barack Obama as speaker and recipient of an honorary degree.

I'll be live blogging (and Twittering @johnnortonosv) from the 2 p.m. to 4 p.m event in Joyce Center, starting no later than 1:30 p.m. Eastern time. Be sure to check back then.

Why do you pray the Rosary?

These charming, unsuspecting YouTube videos promoting the Rosary took me by surprise. They are powerful in an understated way (with great music in the background to boot). If you ever need motivation to get you to take out your beads and pray the Rosary, check out these clips produced by Belomasan Films and be inspired. Hat tip to Deirdre McQuade for the lead on these.

Vatican opens Secret Archives on Henry VIII

The Vatican is opening its Secret Archives to give the world a glimpse of the original letter that became a determining factor in England's decision to part ways with the Roman Catholic Church. The 1530 letter asks Pope Clement VII for the annulment of Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon. In the Vatican Archives photo above, you can see the letter, complete with the seals of Henry's peers who went to bat for his cause. Click HERE to read more at the Vatican Archives site, and HERE to read an entry about the letter from the New York Times Art Beat blog.

'New Feminism' vs. old feminism

UPDATED
The 12-year-old daughter of a Catholic friend of mine recently joined Facebook and "friended" me. I was stunned when, over the course of the first few hours of our "friendship," I watched as she posted a series of provocative photos that, to my mind at least, demonstrated a girl far more "worldly" than her years. Later that night, she began posting her favorite designers and her top five TV shows, which included the likes of Keeping Up With the Kardashians. Now, I had no idea what this show was about, so I googled it and learned, unfortunately, that its episodes include such high-brow fare as the girls going to Mexico for a Girls Gone Wild photo shoot, one of the girls posing for Playboy, the girls going to Vegas and one learning she may be pregnant, and on and on. Other favorite shows on the 12-year-old's list weren't much better.

I couldn't understand the whole thing. The obviously unfiltered -- by parents -- Facebook page, the choice of entertainment, the choice of dress, all happening in a Catholic home where Catholic education is a mainstay. The mom is highly intelligent, a former religion teacher, and a feminist (pro-life as far as I know). If this kind of family can fall prey to the seduction of the secular culture with its misguided view of women, what hope is there for those who don't have the benefit of faith and values?

All of this got me thinking about the strange dichotomy between secular feminists and secular culture. Why aren't secular feminists outraged by the constant portrayal of women as nothing more than objects designed for the pleasure of men? Why aren't they out on the streets protesting the rampant rise in pornography, the renewed stereotyping of females according to body measurements, the effort by the media to convince young girls that being an overtly sexual female is what will make them a successful female.

The secular culture loves to cast the Catholic Church as anti-woman, pointing to the all-male priesthood and the ban on birth control, and yet it is the Church that continually strives to protect the dignity of women and to promote a true appreciation for feminine genius and feminine influence in a culture that really couldn't care less about any of that.

As I was ruminating on all of this, I happened upon a YouTube clip of Catholic University law professor Helen Alvare discussing the "New Feminism" as described by Pope John Paul II. In the five-minute clip, she addresses the Church's appreciation of and respect for the inherent and vital qualities that women bring not only to the family but to the public square, qualities that have everything to do with intelligence and compassion and strength and nothing to do with the warped secularized view of the female role in society. Take a few minutes and watch it, if you can. (UPDATED COPY: The Alvare video was recorded as a Mother's Day feature for Fathers for Good, a program of the Knights of Columbus.)



If you'd like to learn more about the New Feminism, visit ENDOW, the Denver-based organization that helps women "discover their God-given dignity and understand their role in humanizing and transforming society." ENDOW has small study groups throughout the country. For more information, click HERE.

Celebrating the 'genius' of Catholic schools

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York goes to bat for Catholic schools in a wide-ranging article on the topic in today's Wall Street Journal. He extolls the virtues of the "Choice in Education" voucher program that is now helping 20,000 low-income families in Milwaukee choose private schools, saying that the 15-year-old program is applauded by "all sides" except the powerful teacher's lobby organization in Wisconsin.

The new Archbishop of New York, who will have to contend with keeping New York's 279 Catholic schools solvent and strong, called Catholic schools "scrappy" for their ability to beat the odds and do the undoable.

"And in a way that's part of the genius of our schools: We are not rolling in dough. We have to fight for every dime; it becomes a communal endeavor. There is a sense of pride and ownership among people because, darn it, we fought for this school, we love it, we scraped for it, we have mopped floors and painted classrooms, and we do not take this for granted."

To read the full story, click HERE.

Wow. Another must-see pro-life ad

The latest from catholicvote.org:



Apparently talks are underway to air this during the American Idol finals. Here's hoping.

Archbishop Burke calls ND decision a 'scandal'

Archbishop Raymond Burke said Notre Dame's decision to invite President Obama to offer this year's commencement address and receive an honorary degree was "the source of the greatest scandal," charging the president with "aggressively advancing an anti-life, anti-family agenda."

The archbishop, who is prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, made his remarks to applause at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., this morning. The New York Times reported that Archbishop Burke, former archbishop of St. Louis, said that if Catholics are not willing to stand up for Church teachings, "we are not worthy of the name Catholic."

Read the full story by clicking HERE.

Boy in famous photo is grateful to God

Remember that amazing 1999 photo of a baby in utero grasping the hand of a doctor during surgery for spina bifida? It was a photo that touched hearts, changed minds and to this day remains a stunning reminder of the reality of life in the womb. Well, Samuel Armas, whose tiny but perfectly formed hand touched the world, is now 9 years old and talking about his first brush with fame and his role in changing attitudes toward the unborn.

Click HERE to read the Fox News story, which also includes some pretty powerful comments by the photographer who went from "pro-choice" to pro-life with that one click of his camera. Thanks to Ed Mechmann at Varia for the lead on this one.

Like a mini-retreat right at your computer

If you need to get away from it all and spend some quiet time reflecting on your prayer life and your relationship with God, have I got a plan for you. You need one hour. OK, don't bail on me already. This hour will be worth your time. You will feel as though you have had some serious retreat time without ever leaving your desk.

Imagine being transported to the desert to experience a little taste of what St. Antony of Egypt lived each day 1,800 years ago. That's what you'll find if you take the time to watch the BBC documentary (Extreme Pilgrim) on the life of a desert hermit. It's the third part of a series on spirituality. In it, Anglican Vicar Pete Owen Jones heads to a silent and isolated cave in Egypt for three weeks to wrestle with his demons a la Antony the Abbott and the Desert Fathers. The result is a powerful TV experience that will make you think and leave you longing for a little quiet spiritual time of your own.

Once at the cave, Father Pete meets Father Lazarus, a Coptic Christian priest who lives in a cliffside cave day after day, year after year. Father Lazarus asks Father Pete if he is aware of his own sinfulness, explaining that the silence and loneliness of the cave is a life of penitence. "This is like hell. This is like a war," he says, talking about Satan's seductions and banishing any romantic notions of spiritual ecstasy amid the desert sands.

Father Lazaraus tells Father Pete that by being awake in his spirit, awake in his soul, he will bless the world through his prayers. He points to the narrow door of the prayer cave and the wider door of the "kitchen" and says that the narrow door leads to heaven, but once you get a bird's eye view of what's behind narrow door #1 it becomes painfully obvious that this three-week experiment is going to be a trial that tests physical, mental and spiritual strength.

One of my favorite lines in the documentary is when Father Pete wonders aloud why the path to God has to be so difficult. "Why can't the road to God be eating tomato basil soup and getting up and having a lovely day?" Then he trudges up the cliffs to face the unknown. After a difficult start, we see Father Pete emerge from self-doubt, frustration and sleeplessness. By the end of the three weeks, he likens his experience to being born, saying that he is "coming alive again." As he departs for England, Father Lazaraus challenges him to carry the "full emptiness" of the desert back with him to life in the world. But we all know how difficult that will be when "regular" life is anything but empty.

By the time the final credits rolled, I really felt as though I'd experienced my only little spiritual respite. I highly recommend it. Hat tip to Conversion Diary for this one. It's a gem. I just hope some day they make a sequel that will give us a glimpse of how Father Pete wove that desert emptiness into his busy life back home. I know I sure could use some pointers.

Making torture safe, legal and rare

I ran across this comment at Amy Welborn's blog and thought our readers might enjoy it:

All of you commenters here who keep bringing up torture and going on and on about it:

You all are such simplistic one-issue voters on this torture issue. You're in such lockstep with the Vatican and the hierarchy that it's clear you have abandoned free thinking entirely.

I’m personally opposed to torture, but I don’t think I could ever impose that view on somebody else.

I’d rather see us have a President who works to reduce the need for torture. We need to get at the deeper issues here – it’s not just as black and white as you religious-types always say. We should work with torturers to support them, not criminalize them.

Your belief that torture is “wrong” is just that – a religious belief. Well, what about all of the people who don’t share that belief? We live in a diverse, pluralistic society. Get with the program.

How can you take what is a matter of faith for you and impose it upon another person who might not share that faith?

Did you know that the amount of torturing in this country actually went up during the Clinton presidency? It was lower under Republican presidencies.

Torture is a difficult issue, and people of good will can disagree about it. Ultimately, I think the torturer should be free to make that choice in consultation with his attending doctors, his field agents, and his God.

Besides, even if we made torture illegal, guess what? - there would still be people out there torturing. And they wouldn’t have access to all the sophisticated equipment that we have in modern torture chambers. They’d use whatever they could find – sticks, broken glass, even coat hangers.

Is that what you want? You want us to go back to the days of back-alley torturing with coat hangers?

A truly enlightened society would keep torture safe, legal, and rare.

Time to brush up on your history...

I just forced myself to sit through the trailer to Angels & Demons, the soon-to-be-released Ron Howard film based on the Dan Brown novel of the same name. You remember Dan Brown, with his inaccurate and anti-Catholic DaVinci Code? Well, steel yourself for another round of Catholic bashing and rewritten history, this wave perhaps even worse than the first.

Lots of murder and mayhem going on in and around and under the Vatican. Of course, the real danger here is that people don't know enough about world history, science or Catholicism to recognize when they are being fed complete nonsense. Even Wikipedia has taken issue with the fact that Angels & Demons includes inaccuracies when it comes to the Italian language and to scientific theories. Yes, yes, it's fiction, fans will scream. But fiction that so closely resembles non-fiction in order to convince people that the world is not as it seems is something different altogether.

Here's a quote from John C. Wright over at Livejournal regarding the film, which is likely to be another blockbuster:

Golly. I thought ANGELS AND DEMONS by Dan Brown would turn out to be just an ordinary run-of-the-mill Catholic-bashing hate-fest. But, no, the whoppers told strain credulity. Do people actually know that little about history? It seems that they do.

Click HERE to read his rundown of the inaccuracies that target the Catholic Church. (Hat tip to Happy Catholic for the lead on that one.) So study up because all those friends who are Dan Brown fans will soon be bombarding you with outrageous accusations and questions.

And, if you're still playing catch-up on all those inaccuracies that were in the DaVinci Code, click HERE to order Amy Welborn's de-coding DaVinci: The Facts Behind the Fiction (OSV).

Pro-Obama Catholics, where's the apology?

Lately I've been observing the spread of a disease. No, not swine flu. I mean a condition that I call apology aversion. Its distinctive symptom is an apparently permanent inability to speak the words "I'm sorry" and mean them.

Years ago a wildly popular novel about true love at Harvard told the world that being in love means never having to say you're sorry. If that were so — and it emphatically isn't — it would point to a remarkable conclusion. Considering how few people these days ever express honest regret for their misdeeds and mistakes, you've got to figure that the world has been inundated by a tidal wave of love.

If only it were so!

Often enough, of course, people do say they're sorry. But time and again they do that without really meaning it. The clumsy oaf who stomps on your foot and mumbles "Sorry" as he stumbles off to cripple someone else. The charming lady who cheerfully cuts you off in traffic while flashing you a beatific smile of regret. The expressions of sorrow in these and other situations are roughly equivalent to "Tough luck, fella."

This is apology aversion in everyday life. Refusal to admit mistakes in matters of public significance is more sinister and equally common.

Consider all those journalists and think tank talking heads who helped sell America on the need for the war in Iraq and then, without so much as a word of apology, turned on George Bush for getting it wrong. Think of all those members of Congress — of both parties — who were looking the other way while the economic bubble expanded and now are busy demagoguing the bubble's collapse at somebody else's expense. And on and on and on.

In a special way these days I'm reminded of those Catholic sources—periodicals like the National Catholic Reporter and Commonweal as well as some individuals claiming special wisdom—who raised their voices often and loudly last year to declare that even if Barack Obama and the Catholic Church didn't quite see eye-to-eye on everything, the candidate was moderate man, committed to reducing the frequency of abortions and to much else congenial to the Church.

Having loaded up his administration with veteran pro-abortion activists, however, Mr. Obama so far has reinstituted funding for groups that promote and perform abortion overseas, significantly expanded funding for stem cell research that involves killing human embryos, and set the wheels in motion to overturn a Bush policy extending conscience protection to hospitals and medical personnel who object to abortion.

A little down the line, Obama's choice to succeed Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court will almost certainly be a liberal pro-choicer, while the question about his health care reform isn't not whether but how far he and congressional Democrats will go in attempting to mandate abortion coverage.

Nor is there much encouragement in the president's disclosure that a White House task force is looking into ways to cut the number of abortions. The answer almost certainly will be more sex education and contraception — of which we have plenty now — plus swift enactment of Obama's domestic program.

Dialogue? So far as is known, Mr. Obama has had one half-hour meeting with anybody qualified to speak for the Catholic Church—the president of the bishops' conference, Cardinal George of Chicago. Even admirers concede the administration is tone-deaf on Catholic concerns.

So are Catholics who said Obama and the Church would have a lot in common saying they're sorry? No way. Apology aversion won't allow that.

Russell Shaw is an OSV contributing editor.