American Life League has published an ad in today's Washington Times alerting all Catholics, laity and clergy alike, that while the recent elections may be over, the scandal of pro-abortion Catholic public figures and the reception of Holy Communion continues. "With the defeat of the most pro-abortion Catholic public figure to ever seek the White House, many believe that this crisis can now take a backseat," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "That couldn't be farther from the truth. The problem is not going away until all of the bishops in the country actively enforce the Church's clear teachings on this matter."
Today's Washington Times ad is being run in conjunction with the annual meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in Washington, D.C. "At last year's USCCB meeting in Washington, not one bishop committed to enforce Canon 915 and withhold Holy Communion from pro-abortion Catholic public figures," said Brown. "Going into this year's D.C. meeting, at least 10 bishops have taken very strong positions against this scandal. We pray that all bishops will join these courageous men in defending the faith of the Church."
American Life League's Crusade for the Defense of Our Catholic Church has been actively exposing the scandal of pro-abortion Catholic public figures and the reception of Holy Communion for almost two years now, and will continue the campaign until all U.S. bishops uphold Church teachings. "The Catholic bishops are bound, by their vocation, to teach and defend the faith," said Brown. "This campaign has absolutely nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the clear and simple Catholic teaching that you cannot be both Catholic and pro-abortion."
In the wake of the election and the revelation that those Americans who gave Bush his second term were motivated to do so not for reasons of economics, national security, but moral values, Crooked Timber is discussing the need for Democrats to "shed their inhibitions about talking about faith" and "reconnect with the American heartland."
Problem is, Kerry actually did spend a lot of time talking about his faith. How many times did he remind us that he was an altar boy, or that he carried a rosary in Vietnam? How many times did we hear him quote that verse from James (as if he knew nothing else from the bible)?
But if this election established anything, it's the fact that many Americans had simply heard enough about faith from John Kerry, and no amount of pandering to the pews could conceal the moral incoherence of a "pro-choice" politician with a 100% pro-abortion legislative record proclaiming himself a "good Catholic" in open defiance of the nation's bishops and the moral teachings of his Church. Spin all you want, but that is an ugly fact that played a greater role in this election, and in the minds of Catholic voters, then Democrats would care to admit.
* * *
Looking back at the presidential race, I can think of no more perfect an illustration of Democratic alienation from America's religious voters than the moment during the third debate, when a young woman by the name of Sarah Degenhart asked Senator Kerry whether he could provide her with assurance that he wouldn't use her tax dollars to support abortion.
Kerry responded by professing his "respect" for her question, and the moral convictions that her concern implied. . . . and then he proceeded to defend abortion as a constitutional right, and the necessity to preserve that right with taxpayer dollars. He went on to denounce religious criticism of abortion as a product of "rigid ideological restriction," a phrase he had often used on the campaign trail. And then, to top it off, he informed Ms. Degenhart that she would "do do a better job, I think, of passing on moral responsibility" by abandoning her opposition to taxpayer-funded abortion and embracing his pro-choice stance.
Senator Kerry's complete failure to understand her basic point, and his utter lack of respect for her religious convictions, spoke volumes.
* * *
If Kerry -- and his fellow Democrats -- want to connect to the American heartland, it will not be by talking the talk, but walking the walk.
To do so, they must reconsider their allegiance to -- indeed, completely severe their ties with -- the abortion industry; repudiate those who would sacrifice the unborn in utilitarian pursuit of "scientific progress"; forsake their support of legislative policies in blatant opposition to Judeo-Christian values; recognize what it means to believe in the sanctity of life from conception until death -- and why, with that conviction, many Christians find themselves unable to adopt a corrupt and morally-incoherent stance of "personally opposed, but . . ." when it comes to the deliberate murder of the unborn.
Democrats don't need to talk about "moral values." They must truly understand what it means to embodythem.
Until then, I see no way for Democrats to "heal the divide" or "reconnect with the heartland."
Tired of the constant chatter of the talking heads?
Why not take a break to examine Inside the Vatican's special dossier on issues facing voters in 2004 and beyond,as previously highlighted here.
Here are a few excerpts to whet your appetite:
The very same people who falsely accuse the Church of silence during the Nazi regime and the Holocaust are often the very same people demanding that the Church stay out of current affairs, especially the abortion holocaust and the immoral policies of groups like the United Nations Population Fund. –John Mallon, Contributing Editor, Inside the Vatican
It's a fact that 40 million unborn children have been aborted since 1973. In some way...as Catholics we have to ask ourselves, "What have we done?" If all Catholics would join those Catholics and other people of good will who were working to promote the respect for human life, this situation wouldn't be what it is. –Archbishop Raymond Burke, St. Louis, MO
The "Catholic vote" is, therefore, a nice phrase without much substance. Today, even the bishops of the United States cannot seem to agree that protecting Christ in the Holy Eucharist from sacrilege is serious enough to deny pro-abortion Catholic public figures access to Holy Communion. –Judie Brown, American Life League
In order to win this struggle we must avoid trying to win it. We must do what we do against abortion not because this or that action will secure us a victory but because it is right to perform that action. –Robert McFadden, Human Life Review
What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a "proportionate reason" to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation's labs?
Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. –Archbishop John Meyer, Newark, NJ
It's a good time to reflect on the meaning of the Kennedy-Cuomo legacy. In brief, it’s OK to be Catholic in public service as long as you're willing to jettison what's inconveniently "Catholic." That's not a compromise. That's a deal with the devil, and it has a balloon payment no nation, no public servant and no voter can afford. –Archbishop Charles Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
On his first day in office, President John F. Kerry will take Holy Communion from the hand of a Jesuit priest at Holy Trinity Church in Georgetown. Shortly thereafter he will retire to his new office in the White House and proceed to carry out his "personally opposed but" policy toward the deaths of millions of unborn children. –Austin Ruse, Culture of Life Foundation
Without first securing the protection of all human life, it makes no sense to discuss how best to provide for the progress of that life. If life is not first secured, it is pointless to consider other issues. The Declaration of Independence would be severely weakened, if not rendered totally meaningless, if the order of unalienable rights was listed as liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and life. There is no liberty or pursuit of happiness to be had if we do not first recognize that the "inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual." –St. Blog's own Fr. Stephen Hamilton, Pastor, St. Peter's Church, Guymon, OK
WeVoteProLife.com - find information for candidates for Congress and statewide office. (Local races are just as -- perhaps more -- important as the presidency in the struggle to build a culture of life.
As posted on Fidelis by my fellow resident pundit, Barbara Kralis . . .
Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry is urgently pressing uncatechised or "dumbed down" Catholic voters to believe he is a faithful Catholic that best represents the Church's defined teachings. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
He woos the ignorant Catholics, laity, and clergy alike, by reminding them he was an altar boy. Adolf Hitler, a/k/a Adolf Schicklegruber, was also a Catholic altar boy, so this snippet of past religiosity tells us nothing of the man today—except that Kerry certainly has come a long way from being an altar boy.
Furthermore, this "Catholic" demagogue promises in the next sound bite that if elected he will assure that abortion remains legal in the U.S. for another generation. 
In George Orwell's 1984, it was stated, "Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past." John Kerry wants to control everybody's mind with his zigzagging on what he really believes.
Meanwhile, uncatechised Catholics sit in the pews listening to their bishops and pastors tell them Kerry best represents the Church's social teachings. Let us see if this is, in fact, true.
For instance, Kerry supports a woman's right to abortion; advocates embryonic stem cell research; and while he opposes same-sex marriage, he also opposes a constitutional amendment that would forbid such marriages.
In fact, John Kerry's beliefs are antithetical to the most important of all the Catholic Church's infallible teachings on faith and morals and he therefore has automatically separated him from the Catholic community. There is nothing Kerry will not say to get the Catholic vote.
So egregious to authentic Catholicism are Kerry's beliefs that twelve magisterial  Bishops have proclaimed that John Kerry cannot receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion anywhere within their diocesan boundaries. Several other Bishops have strongly warned their flock that if a Catholic were to vote for a candidate who promotes procured abortion, they will be committing a grave, mortal sin. 
While trying to decide an ending for this column, the temptation is too great for me not to use the following quote:
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator" [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 46]. Does this sound familiar?
Spoken at the January 21, 2003, NARAL Dinner, John Kerry promised: "I will not overturn Roe v Wade; I will not appoint judges hostile to 'choice;' I will allow poor women to have free abortions; I will never outlaw abortion; I will increase American taxpayer's dollars on population control efforts around the world."
Magisterial means those bishops who teach as the Pope infallibly teaches. This is called the "ordinary Magisterium." If a Bishop or priest teaches contrary to the Magisterium, that Bishop is asked to reconsider his beliefs which are outside of the Catholic community; next the cleric is disciplined and, if necessary, then sanctioned.
The distinguished list of bishops to date (10/7/04) is: Archbishop Raymond L Burke of St. Louis, MO; Archbishop John F. Donoghue Archbishop of Atlanta, GA; Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz of Lincoln NE; Bishop Henry Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, TX; Bishop Robert F. Vasa, Baker, OR; Bishop Joseph Galante of Camden, NJ; Bishop John M. Smith of Trenton, NJ; Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, CO; Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger of Evansville, IN; Bishop Robert J. Baker Bishop of Charleston, SC; Bishop Peter J. Jugis Bishop of Charlotte, NC; Bishop John Y. Yanta, Bishop of Amarillo, TX.
Monday, November 01, 2004
Bishop Loverde on how to vote as a faithful Catholic
. . . To be a faithful Catholic necessarily means that one is pro-life and not pro-choice. As my brother bishops and I said in our statement "Catholics in Political Life" this past June, "Failing to protect the lives of the innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice." To be pro-choice essentially means supporting the right of a woman to terminate the life of her baby, either pre-born or partially born. No Catholic can claim to be a faithful member of the Church while advocating for, or actively supporting, direct attacks on innocent human life. In reality, protecting human life from conception to natural death is more than a Catholic issue. It is an issue of fundamental morality, rooted in both the natural law and the divine law. . . .
. . . In our common life together in society, it is sometimes not possible to avoid entirely all cooperation with evil. This may be the case in electing to office our state and national leaders. In certain circumstances, it is morally permissible to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices. This is called material cooperation with evil. In order for material cooperation to be morally permissible, however, there must be a proportionate reason for such cooperation. Proportionate reason does not mean that each issue carries the same moral weight; intrinsically evil acts such as abortion or research on stem cells taken from human embryos cannot be placed on the same level as debates over war or capital punishment, for example. It is simply not possible to serve and promote the common good of our nation by voting for a candidate who, once in office, will do nothing to limit or restrict the deliberate destruction of innocent human life.
If, however, a candidate supports abortion in a limited number of cases but opposes it otherwise, a Catholic may vote for such a candidate over another, more unsuitable candidate who is unwilling to place any restrictions on abortion. In this case, the voter makes an effort to limit the circumstances in which procured abortion would be deemed legal. This is not a question of choosing a lesser evil, but rather the Catholic, by his or her vote, expresses the intention to limit all the evil that one is able to limit at the time.