Galante said he was taking the stance primarily because the divorced governor, who is Catholic, remarried without receiving a church annulment. Also, he said, McGreevey's record of "pushing" for legalized abortion, stem-cell research, and other positions the church views as immoral "is almost like he throws the gauntlet down."

He holds a Doctorate in Canon Law (1968, Lateran University, Rome) and a Master of Arts in Spiritual Theology (1991, University of St. Thomas, Angelicum, Rome).

Bishop Galante serves on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Communications, Committee on Canon Law, Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse and the Ad Hoc Committee on Economic Concerns of the Holy See. Previously, Bishop Galante was Chair of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Communications and Chair of the U.S. bishops' Religious Life Committee, as well as committees on Science and Human Values and African American Catholics.

In "A Test of Kerry's Faith," on the conflict between Roman Catholic Church authorities and John Kerry on issues like abortion [April 5], Time reported, "For now, theologians say, Kerry's conduct is principally a matter between the candidate and his own Archbishop."

As a practicing and struggling Catholic, I believe that Kerry's conduct is a matter between him and God. His Archbishop should have nothing to do with it.

Gloria W. Smith
Eden Prairie, MN

Many modern Catholics have adapted their beliefs to the realities of today's world. St. Louis, MO, Archbishop Raymond Burke's public warning to Kerry "not to present himself for Communion" because of his stance on abortion will not deter Kerry from making it to the White House. That warning will, however, further impede the Catholic Church's ability to meld relevant spiritual values with the choices all Catholics face today.

Jill Holdaway
San Jose, CA

If every Catholic who uses birth control or has had a vasectomy or an abortion were denied the sacraments, there would be very few people at the Communion rail on Sunday morning.

Gretchen W. Maring
Ellison Bay, WI

. . . And take a wild guess at who they recruit to write the article: None other than Thomas Fox, publisher of the National Catholic Reporter.

Fox: "Unfortunately, some Catholic bishops and conservatives now fail to distinguish moral from civil law, the ideal from the real."

Again, Evangelium Vitae: "Consequently there is a need to recover the basic elements of a vision of the relationship between civil law and moral law, which are put forward by the Church, but which are also part of the patrimony of the great juridical traditions of humanity. Certainly the purpose of civil law is different and more limited in scope than that of the moral law. But 'in no sphere of life can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence,' which is that of ensuring the common good of people through the recognition and defence of their fundamental rights, and the promotion of peace and of public morality. The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may 'lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way' (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being" (71).

"Unlike many who are driven to succeed in public life by a core belief system, the arc of Kerry's political career is defined by a restless search for the issues, individuals and causes to fulfill a nearly lifelong" ambition for the White House. The election is still six months away. But Kerry's reputation has been built over 40 years. And the voters seem to be sniffing it out.

LifeNews ran the story on Tuesday, and today posted an interview with two photographers who witnessed the incident.

According to LifeNews, this is the second time pro-life people have been victimized at a Kerry campaign rally. At a Kerry event in Tampa, Florida in March, Kerry campaign staffers destroyed the signs of two pro-life women.

The Kerry campaign has refused to comment on the matter.

The Church has the right to establish its own standards but that every bishop could "set the rules within the boundaries the Vatican has set forth."

Santorum indicated that if he were denied communion because of a position he took as a senator, he would have to think seriously about the stance. "God comes first, then my family and then this job," he said.

But how does this self-serving sound bite square with the simple fact that Santorum not only endorsed but vigorously campaigned for his anti-life colleague Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), enabling him to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat (51% vs. 49%) at the hands of anti-abortion Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA) in yesterday's GOP Senate primary?

The truth of the matter is that the seamless garment is used by politicians on the right as well as the left to cloak their support of abortion or beguile "pro-life" voters into voting for anti-life candidates by treating prenatal murder as just another issue. It is only in the political colors of the threads with which they weave their threadbare rationalizations for voting anti-life that their tailor-made garments differ.

Evil, however, being as persistent as it is perverse, our priest-warrior's convicing rebuttal appears to have convinced some proponents of the of the "seamless garment" scam to regurgitate their confusions in his comment boxes—scroll down.

Fr. Johansen is more than ready for their challenge. Thus, once again, he ably wields the sword of truth to hack away at their lies and half-truths so that honest men and women, seeking truth rather than self-justification, may have a clear view.

You'll want to read and savor Father's entire defense of truth and life, but here's an appetizer:

A number of commenters in my "More Than One Way..." post have advanced various arguments for why things like the death penalty and the war in Iraq are of equal moral weight as abortion. Some seem to think that their lack of distinction in these issues adds up to freedom to vote for pro-abortion politicians. They're wrong, and I'm going to show why.....

If we treat all matters of moral judgment as having equal weight and equal binding force, that will lead us to moral absurdities. For example, if, as some commenters claim, "killing is wrong in every form", that would make a cop who kills an armed perpetrator about to shoot someone the moral equivalent of Wanda Holloway, the infamous Texas "Cheerleader Mom", who murdered her daughter's rival for the cheerleading squad....

John Kerry made a familiar statement about abortion last week. Bill Clinton said it before him. Many Democrats who wish to remain in the good graces as well as the political clutches of the abortion-rights lobby say it. Kerry said he wants to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare."

I understand "safe" (though it's never safe for the baby and often not the woman). I understand "legal" (though contemporary jurisprudence is shifting sand). I don't understand "rare." Unless the pre-born child is human and worthy of the law's protection, why care if abortion is rare or common? Is Kerry attempting to satisfy the tug of conscience deep within this professed Roman Catholic that the teachings of his church are true and that he needs a kind of moral cover - genuflecting in the direction of truth but making no effort to slow or stop abortions should he gain the power to do so?

...In his memoir, "Inside: A Public and Private Life," Joseph A. Califano Jr. - a Catholic Democrat who worked in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations - expounds on his struggle with the abortion issue. After being nominated as Johnson's secretary of health, education and welfare, Califano, who opposed federal funding for abortion unless the woman's life was jeopardized, consulted his pastor, a Jesuit priest named James English. Califano writes, "I first confronted the tension between my religious beliefs and public policy on the searing issue of whether Medicaid should fund abortions." He says his priest told him while most of our laws are founded on moral values, "my obligation to my personal conscience was satisfied if I expressed those views forcefully. If another view prevailed, however, I was free, indeed obliged, to enforce the law. 'In a democratic society, you are free to struggle to change the law even as you enforce the one on the books,' he said." (Califano was interviewed on my TV show, where he talked about this and other issues.)

The problem for Kerry is that he won't even go that far. He is pro-abortion, for any reason and at any time. He has not said how he would work to make abortion "rare," except that like others who hold this position he would probably advocate more birth control, which would also place him in opposition to the teachings of his church.

Like the pro-life hospital administrator and nurses, Kerry has a choice: either "resign" as a Catholic, or withdraw from the presidential race. To be president and not even attempt to make abortion "rare" by changing the law that has permitted so many, even for convenience, ignores the power of the presidency and trivializes his faith. In the one case, it leaves an individual open to a charge of hypocrisy. In the other, it puts him in jeopardy of being labeled a heretic.

The first element is "gravi peccato," or grave sin. This can only be taken to refer to the matter of the action -- or omission -- without necessarily implying a judgment of subjective culpability. "Grave sin" in this case simply means objectively evil conduct of a serious nature.

The second requirement specified by Canon 915 refers to the "manifesto," or overt, character of the sin. This stipulation limits the sanction to sins of a public nature, and reiterates the public and ecclesial dimension of Holy Communion, which signifies moral, spiritual and doctrinal union with Christ and with his Church.

Thirdly, to be refused Communion a person must persist -- "perseverantes" -- in this openly sinful behavior. To say that a person persists in a public sin means that he somehow makes it known that he plans to continue engaging in his sinful behavior.

Finally, the code speaks of obstinate persistence. The Latin adverb "obstinate" here means that the person has been duly informed of the evil of his behavior but deliberately chooses to persist in it anyway.

There is such a thing as inculpable persistence in evildoing, when a person is unaware that a certain habitual activity is sinful. But once the evil of his actions has been brought to his attention, his persistence qualifies as obstinate.

Judging from the foregoing considerations, it seems clear that a politician who votes in a way that fails to defend innocent human life on a consistent basis and gives every indication of his intention to keep doing so despite warnings from ecclesiastical authorities can be said to obstinately persist in objectively evil behavior of a public nature. And in this regard he fulfills the requirements of Canon 915.

Where a political party takes an anti-life stand as a fundamental component of its platform, the Church may have no choice but to denounce it.

If the Church's pastors were to make it clear to politicians that abortion is truly a non-negotiable question and one on which they were prepared to "go to the mat," they would exert considerable moral, and political, pressure on all politicians to give this moral issue the weight it deserves.

Sometimes a prophetic voice is needed to shake people out of their moral lethargy, especially when people have come to accept as "normal" something which by rights should provoke moral outrage.

If publicly supporting abortion doesn't constitute a sufficient pastoral reason to justify the denial of Holy Communion, it is hard to imagine when recourse to this measure would be appropriate.

Thanks to Dan Jasmin for the link, who has a fine post on his own blog "Working It Out" on the subject.

Ms. Hays contends that

The Church must do a better job of forming consciences in general, and John Kerry's conscience in particular. Kerry deserves to know, and to be told repeatedly, first in private and then in public, that he cannot claim to be a good Catholic as things stand. Public sinner though he is, Kerry deserves lengthy, intense, and private consultation from his Church before, if it comes to that, he must be turned away from communion. In a way, it's possible to regard Arinze's remarks as a way to open the campaign to educate John Kerry about what it means to be a Catholic. . . .

The important thing is to offer John Kerry the chance to do the right thing. Is a holy flip-flop impossible? Improbable? Yes, but with God all things are possible, and John Kerry deserves the chance to embrace his faith publicly. If he refuses, and if he becomes president, then the Church should turn him away. Having a Catholic of such stature flout the teachings of the Church would be untenable. The matter would no longer revolve around one politician's conscience but around the edification of the entire flock.

The problem with sanctioning Kerry is that part of the blame lies with the Church itself. The Church has not done an adequate job of forming consciences in this regard. Ordinary Catholics do not realize why certain difficult teachings are of paramount importance to leading a Christian life. So many Catholics think of abortion as something on which the Church has a "rule," but they do not realize that the Church's defense of innocent life has a direct link to Christ himself. There is a connection between killing an innocent child and killing Christ all over again. The Church teaches that every life matters. Every human being is offered redemption by that one oblation made on the cross. Because every life is important, even the most inconvenient among us cannot be snuffed out in utero.

1. From the Pope's encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" to the recently published "Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life" (specifically for those in Kerry's line of work) to the Bishop's document "Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility" to the public responses of several courageous bishops to Kerry's own private meeting with Archbishop Kerrick, who I'll wager reiterated the Church's teaching -- I believe the Church has already put forth a significant amount of effort to educate Kerry (and other Catholics) on the incompatibility of supporting abortion and being a "Catholic in good standing." If Kerry doesn't get the message, he's either deaf or unwilling to listen.
   

2. Ms. Hays' plea to give Kerry communion EVEN IF he persists in supporting abortion would contradict the Church's chief obligation to care for the salvation of his soul. If Kerry's priest values his soul, and takes seriously St. Paul's warning of "eating and drinking to one's damnation," then -- until Kerry publicly renounces his stance and indicates that he will adhere to the Church's teachings -- I would think it far better to refuse communion, causing temporary public embarassment, than risk jeopardizing his soul for eternity.

Finally, getting philosophical for a moment, I find the dilemma is reminiscent of "Pascal's Wager": supposing that the Church's teaching were true, and that one could indeed merit damnation by unfaithful reception of the Eucharist . . . wouldn't it be in one's best interest to refrain? And seen in this light, wouldn't it be the greatest sign of personal disrespect and carelessness as Kerry's priest to continue to dispense communion under the present circumstances?

Speakers at the rally on the Mall criticized Attorney General John Ashcroft for seeking medical records of women in defending a law Bush signed last year banning a medical procedure that opponents call "partial-birth abortion." Other speakers expressed concern about the long-term prospects for the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade if Bush were re-elected and vacancies on the high court occurred....Speakers from a number of foreign countries shared first-hand accounts of the effect of Bush administration policies limiting funding for international clinics that provide abortion counseling.

We didn't have to march for 12 long years because we had a government that respected the rights of women. The only way we're going to be able to avoid having to march again and again and again is to elect John Kerry president.

Several members of [Kerry's] family were among the marchers, as was Howard Dean, who had also sought the Democratic nomination; Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco and Democratic leader of the House; and Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic Party Chairman.

The religious and political faultlines on the abortion issue were apparent [at the march]. Several speakers took note of the debate within the Roman Catholic hierarchy over how to respond to Catholic elected officials who support abortion rights [sic], including Kerry. Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, took the stage and declared, "I am a mother of five, a grandmother of five and a devout Roman Catholic," as well as a supporter of "abortion rights."

Will Edward Cardinal Egan try to block Sen. John Kerry from the 59th Alfred E. Smith Dinner? The annual gathering, sponsored by the Archdiocese of New York, isn't until October, but organizers are already said to be worrying about whether Egan may take a hard-line against the Democratic candidate because he supports abortion rights.

Last week, we hear, members of the Al Smith Foundation met to discuss what to do if Egan takes a similar position, or tries to bar Kerry from the dinner, named for New York Gov. Al Smith, who ran for President in 1928 against Herbert Hoover.

"They're concerned that Egan may do something to win favor with the Pope," says a source. "Some people were nervous that the Cardinal wouldn't recognize a Catholic who is pro-choice."
[SOURCE]

. . . urge bishops to revive the ancient and honorable practice of shunning. Individual bishops should refuse to share the head table at any Catholic event (not just those sponsored by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops) with antilife politicians (including jurists) or the dais at events at Catholic colleges, universities, and other institutions. They should refuse to be photographed with such people or permit themselves to be used by them to any political advantage. They should ensure that such persons are never honored by Catholic institutions in their dioceses or given the podium in any context other than one designed to highlight the disgracefulness of their support for the "culture of death."

The shunning of antilife politicians would vividly remind ordinary lay Catholics of the seriousness of the Church's teachings regarding the sanctity of human life and would send the clear message that Catholics and other Christians who serve the "culture of death" are tragically weakening their relationship with Christ and alienating themselves from the community of Christian faith.

Fr. Joe Ciccone (Paulist Center): "We're following the directive of our archdiocese," said Father Joe Ciccone, who gave Kerry the Eucharist. "They have said we should give him communion."

Sen. John Kerry regularly receives Communion attracts Catholics uncomfortable with some of the Vatican's orthodox teachings or who otherwise feel alienated from the Roman Catholic Church.

The Paulist Center's congregation includes gay couples, whose adopted children are baptized there, unlike in some other Boston parishes. In November, its leaders refused to read aloud during Mass from a letter opposing gay marriage, as requested by the Massachusetts bishops.

The congregation is not geographical, but ideological, drawing people from as far as away as New Hampshire, said Drew Deskur, the center's music director and a parishioner for 25 years.

"It's not St. Around-the-Corner," Deskur said. "It's an intentional community that draws people from all over Boston. It tries to make sure that everyone feels welcome and that everyone participates in the liturgy."(source)

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry received communion from a Catholic priest Saturday, one day after a top Vatican cardinal said politicians who support abortion rights should be denied the Eucharist.

We're following the directive of our archdiocese," said Father Joe Ciccone, who gave Kerry the Eucharist. "They have said we should give him communion."

• Cardinal Arinze: "The norm of the Church is clear," he said. "The Catholic Church exists in the U.S.A. and there are bishops there. Let them interpret."
  
• Archbishop McCarrick (of Washington): "Every archbishop has the right to make his own decision in his own area."
  
• Archbishop O'Malley (Boston, MA): "These politicians should know that if they're not voting correctly on these life issues that they shouldn't dare come to communion."
  
• Rev. Coyne (aide and spokesperson for Archbishop O'Malley): "The position of Archbishop O'Malley has been that when people come forward to receive communion, we give them communion."
  
• Fr. Joe Ciccone (Paulist Center): "We're following the directive of our archdiocese," said Father Joe Ciccone, who gave Kerry the Eucharist. "They have said we should give him communion."
  

How long can this circus drag on? -- As Catholic apologist Karl Keating wondered in a recent newsletter:

What a difference four decades makes! In 1962 Leander Perez and several other Catholic politicians in Louisiana were excommunicated by New Orleans Archbishop Joseph F. Rummel. Their offense? Opposing Rummel's pleas to end racial segregation in schools.

Segregation was a Bad Thing. As bad as it was, at least it wasn't a species of homicide. But abortion is homicide, which means it is a Worse Thing. You will look in vain to find an analogue to Archbishop Rummel in today's American episcopate.

Even the level of the umbrage has changed. The discussion hasn't been about excommunicating politicians who, through their votes, end the lives of unborn children. No, the discussion has been whether these politicians should undergo the inconvenience (which is about all it would be for them) of not being able to receive Communion.

If the leaders of the Church refrain from giving even a slap on the wrist, who can take them seriously? Bishops who don't "bish" undermine their own authority, and everyone under their care suffers from that.

A small group of Catholic House Democrats have been meeting over the past several months to thrash out where their faith, their cultural heritage, and their jobs intersect.

...The half-dozen members of Congress meet informally, DeLauro told NCR, with a goal of promoting dialogue among Catholic elected officials and the church hierarchy. Some are pro-life, others pro-choice, but they are united in frustration that the range of issues they and the church care about—such as economic justice, immigration, foreign policy, and war—don't get nearly the attention as the 'one or two issues'—such as abortion and gay rights—that dominate public discussion of religion and politics.

To this point it would seem that DeLauro was talking to the group's de facto press secretary.

And yet, Feuerherd goes on to report "another view" on "the obligations of a Catholic politician when it comes to abortion" from Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ):

If the actual deed of abortion is what I and Catholics and Protestants and so many others say it is—an act of violence against children—then why wouldn't you want to treat it as a severe act of child abuse, and exploitative of women, rather than something you can disregard?"

If Kerry or someone like him were to say "I am for abortion" then they would have my opposition and I will argue against them, but I will at least respect them. But I find it very hard to respect someone who says I'm against it, but I'm going to vote for it, I'm going facilitate it, I'm going to defend it, I'm going to fund it, [and] I'm going to try to make it reach the four corners of the globe by repealing the Mexico City policy [which restricts U.S. foreign aid funds to countries with liberal abortion laws]

10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting-point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection. The sacrament is an expression of this bond of communion both in its invisible dimension, which, in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves, and in its visible dimension, which entails communion in the teaching of the Apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church's hierarchical order. The profound relationship between the invisible and the visible elements of ecclesial communion is constitutive of the Church as the sacrament of salvation.71 Only in this context can there be a legitimate celebration of the Eucharist and true participation in it. Consequently it is an intrinsic requirement of the Eucharist that it should be celebrated in communion, and specifically maintaining the various bonds of that communion intact.

Priests at the Paulist Center on Boston's Beacon Hill, where Kerry often worships, have said they won't deny the senator Communion, but didn't immediately comment on the statement from Rome.(source)

The official Canon Law of the church at the present time states that anyone who commits the sin of abortion automatically excommunicates herself from the church. To commit the sin of abortion, you have to think that an abortion in your case, with all the circumstances of your life and your pregnancy, is a sin against God. You then have to decide that you are going to do it anyway, thus going against your conscience.

The Catholic church officially teaches that the conscience of an individual is supreme. If you carefully examine your conscience and then decide that an abortion is the most moral act you can do at this time, you are not committing a sin. Therefore, you are not excommunicated. Nor need you tell it in confession since, in your case, abortion is not a sin.

If you do feel you committed a sin by having an abortion, you can seek reconciliation with the church by speaking to a priest in the sacrament of Reconciliation (confession).

If you carefully examine your conscience and then decide that beating your wife is the most moral act you can do at this time, you are not committing a sin. . . . nor need you tell it in confession since, in your case, beating your wife is not a sin.

[OR]

If you carefully examine your conscience and then decide that raping a child is the most moral act you can do at this time, you are not committing a sin. . . . nor need you tell it in confession since, in your case, raping a child is not a sin.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin." In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

To formally and voluntarily cooperate in the unjust taking of innocent human life is an objective mortal sin. A given individual may, stress may, not be subjectively guilty of sin while committing the objective act. Why? Well, ignorance, etc. However, one of the strongest imprints that God has place on the human mind, soul, and will is that deliberately taking the life of someone else who is not guilty of harming you, indeed is incapable of harming you, is wrong. Not just a bit wrong, but so wrong as to be evil. You don't have to study the precepts of all religions, or even adhere to any religion, to understand, to KNOW that is true. So genuine excuses are likely to be few and far between.

And so I tend to think that most Catholic women who turn to Catholics For Free Choice for moral advice are long past the point where they can plead "invincible ignorance" as justification for their actions.

I'm no expert in moral reasoning myself, so I'll leave it to my esteemed colleagues to provide further commentary on this issue.

I can call a rose a tulip, but that does not make it so. I can change the shape of its petals and even its color so much to make it look like a tulip, but it will always be a rose in disguise. Senator Kerry can call himself a Catholic and even perform all of the outward appearances of one (which he has not), but if he is not Catholic at the very center and core of his being, then he is no Catholic at all!

The term CINO simply means someone who calls himself Catholic for having received the sacraments, but who doesn't hold to the vital, bedrock, basic teachings of the Church, and in fact publicly rejects them. In the old days, we'd call them heretics. In the new politically correct days, we call them CINO.

A debate is brewing around St. Blog over the appropriateness of refering to pro-abort "Catholic" politicians as Catholic In Name Only (CINO). Initially, I intended to stay clear of this controversy since I'm personally not fond of the CINO label. This has nothing to do with canon law and everything to do with taste -- I prefer the much more inflamatory (and I would argue accurate) designation of Demoncrat.

Nevertheless, over at Catholic Kerry Watch my friend Earl Appleby posted a good post on why he believes the CINO term is appropriate. Additionally, Earl dropped me an email soliciting my thoughts as a canonist and inviting me to respond.

Truth be told, I really don't know what canon law says about calling a pro-abort "Catholic" politician a CINO. Nor am I all that interested in researching the question, since I really don't care about the answer. I only have so much sympathy to go around, and as long as innocent children in the womb are being brutally dismembered limb-by-limb, I'm not gonna waste a drop of sympathy on some panty-waist pro-abort who claims to share the same faith as I do. Guess what? You don't.

So if pro-abort "Catholic" politicians find the CINO designation offensive, I don't care. Why? Because try as I might, everytime I get past my outrage at their abuse of the name Catholic, the horror of abortion stops me before I can give the CINO debate any serious thought. In short, every pro-abort Catholic politician is, in my opinion, an offense that should be met with excommunication or public refusal of Holy Communion.

So rather than cry over a few lost votes, pro-abort "Catholic" politicians should sit down, shut-up and thank God their mother didn't similarly dissent from Catholic moral teaching.

A spokesman for Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley of Boston said Kerry had not been barred from taking communion in his hometown, and he indicated that no ban was likely.

"The position of Archbishop O'Malley has been that when people come forward to receive communion, we give them communion. The moment of communion is not the moment in which to raise the question of whether someone should or should not be receiving it," said the spokesman, the Rev. Christopher Coyne.

Coyne said that it would be appropriate for a priest or bishop to counsel a politician whose positions are contrary to church teachings. "But this is something that's handled privately with the Catholic," he said. "It's not something where you would make any kind of public action or public statement to withhold communion."

Catholics are obligated to regard the Body of Christ with the respect and honor He deserves. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." Most Catholics -- well, those that are properly catechized at least -- know that to approach the Eucharist in a state of unrepentance and obstinate sin is a source of grave scandal.

Obviously, the individual is in the best position to determine whether he or she is properly disposed to receive. One cannot expect the priest to stop each communicant in line and inquire where they stand. It is our own responsibility to do so as Catholics.

Nevertheless, there are indeed cases where a Catholic can be a source of grave scandal by receiving communion, and where a priest's compliance in giving a Catholic communion can in turn perpetuate that scandal. This is precisely what Cardinal Arinze meant when he refers to politicans who are unambiguously pro-abortion -- not mentioning by name, but obviously alluding to Senator Kerry.

Kerry's bishop, Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley, has stated that "politicians should know that if they're not voting correctly on these life issues that they shouldn't dare come to Communion." Kerry has already met privately with Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, who -- we may presume -- said something along those lines as well. But as far as we can tell, whatever happened at that meeting failed to persuade Kerry to reconcile with the Church's teaching. Rather, he has launched a campaign of television advertisements affirming "pro-choice" and criticizing the President's opposition to abortion. Today attended a public rally, where he gladly received the endorsement of Planned Parenthood, and reaffirmed his support for Roe vs. Wade.

Which, of course, creates no small amount of confusion for many Catholics -- catechumens, teachers, parents, clergy -- being counseled (or counseling others) on responsible reception of the Eucharist.

For when Kerry and like minded, unambiguously pro-abortion politicians continue to receive communion at the hands of complacent priests, one is tempted to wonder whether the Church is operating under a double standard, and whether St. Paul's admonishment truly applies in this day and age.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat John Kerry was shifting his attention to women voters, underscoring his support for abortion rights days before tens of thousands of people stream into the nation's capital for a women's rights rally.

After three days spent discussing the environment, the Democratic presidential candidate scheduled a rally Friday with leaders of women's groups to compare his stand on abortion with what he says are President Bush's extreme anti-abortion positions.

Kerry supports abortion rights and has said he would nominate only Supreme Court justices who support his position. Bush approves of abortion only in cases of rape or incest or when the pregnancy endangers a woman's life.

... Kerry has added a line to his stump speech warning that expected openings on the Supreme Court in coming years could jeopardize the right to an abortion.

"If you need any motivation let me give you three little words - the Supreme Court," Kerry says at every stop.

Kerry's rally on Friday comes ahead of Sunday's march in Washington, organized by groups such as the National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-choice America and the Planned Parenthood Federation. (source)

"Catholic Democrats", if they want to be taken seriously, should be devoting their energies to breaking the absolute lockstep conformity on abortion, and acquiescence to the Gay agenda, required by their Party. Unless and until they do so, they deservedly incur the suspicion that they are Democrats first and Catholics second.

By removing the protection of unborn life to an undefined Democratic utopian future, one might as well say "come the Parousia, then we'll do something about abortion." It turns protecting unborn human life into a meaningless abstraction. It puts defending innocent unborn life on the back burner.

Joseph Bottum has an article in the Standard on the subject. This seems as good a time as any to respond to the couple of emails I got taking issue with, or asking me to clarify, my remark the other day that "I think that Catholic bishops are probably obligated to withhold communion from pro-abortion politicians (after first talking with them privately)."

I think two things have often been lost in the discussion about that idea. First: The withholding of communion should be seen not as a punishment so much as an act of charity. The Catholic church teaches that the act of denying justice to the unborn (by voting for abortion) is a grave sin. The politician who persists in it is endangering his soul. To encourage him to mend his ways is to do him a favor, albeit one that he will understandably not recognize as such. Second: The church cannot fail to offer this charity. If my reasoning is correct, this is not a discretionary matter for the bishops. Thus: Even if the bishops knew to a certainty that withholding communion from Kerry would generate a backlash that helped him, and the Bush campaign were pleading with them not to do it, they would, if I am right, still have to do it for Kerry's sake.

Ekeh cites the USCCB's call for "more, not less engagement in political life" in their document "Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility" and asks:

What precisely does "more engagement" mean? What is meant by "working within political parties"? Does it not allow for Catholics to seek similar goals of creating a culture of life and human dignity, even if our political orientation impels us to seek it in different ways?

. . . encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity meaningfully to participate [more fully] in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power.

In protecting human life, "We must begin with a commitment never to intentionally kill, or collude in the killing, of any innocent human life, no matter how broken, unformed, disabled or desperate that life may seem. . . . We urge Catholics and others to promote laws and social policies that protect human life and promote human dignity to the maximum degree possible. Laws that legitimize abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia are profoundly unjust and immoral.

But working for the latter simply does not excuse or justify supporting a politican whose distinctly anti-Catholic voting record on abortion (not to mention verbal promises to his supporters) indicates that his administration will be a direct impediment to ending this profoundly unjust and immoral horror visited upon so many innocent lives.

Update Amy Welborn was likewise mystified by Ekeh's defense -- good discussion here.

Candidates who claim to be "Catholic" but who publicly ignore Catholic teaching about the sanctity of human life are offering a dishonest public witness. They may try to look Catholic and sound Catholic, but unless they act Catholic in their public service and political choices, they're really a very different kind of creature.

Vatican II can never be invoked as an alibi for Catholics ignoring grave public evil or failing to act on their faith in the political sphere. That's a distortion of the council's message. It also misreads the U.S. Constitution. America's Founding Fathers did not say, and never intended, that religious faith should be excluded from civic debate. They intended one thing only: to prevent the establishment of an official state church. A purely secular interpretation of the "separation of church and state" would actually result in the "separation of state and morality." And that would be a catastrophe for real pluralism and the democratic process.

If we're sincere about our faith, "conscience" can never be used as an excuse for dismissing what the Church teaches by pointing to her theological critics, voter surveys or public opinion polls, and then doing what we find more convenient. That's dishonest. And God made us for something better than that.

Required reading for Senator Kerry, although it's doubtful he'll get around to it what with his busy campaign schedule.

Chaput's latest column, by the way, appears to be motivated by the overwhelming response (positive and negative) from Denver Catholics to his previous column, his bold defense of the faith making him unpopular in certain circles. God bless Archbishop Chaput for his display of courage, and may other bishops follow his example!

Rural Catholics in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Missouri tend to be Democrats by registration but place high value on their Catholic faith. Kerry's position on abortion and a move to take Communion in defiance of a bishop's order could be a significant factor in pushing these voters out of the Kerry column.

Brazile, who is Catholic, said that Kerry would do best to ignore the two issues currently causing him trouble and focus on "the compassionate issues." "I think Gore did very well among these Catholics," she said, suggesting that Kerry appeal to them with arguments about economic justice rather than social issues such as marriage and abortion.

...Donna Brazile, who ran former vice president Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, found much to agree with in Morgan's analysis. Catholics "are a very important vote," Brazile said, pointing to the states in play for 2004 where Catholics make up a large segment of the electorate. "We targeted Catholics in the 2000 race, trying not just to reach the bishops and parishioners but also the Catholic lay groups that agree with Democrats on many social policy issues."

Brazile, who is Catholic, said that Kerry would do best to ignore the two issues currently causing him trouble and focus on "the compassionate issues."

"I think Gore did very well among these Catholics," she said, suggesting that Kerry appeal to them with arguments about economic justice rather than social issues such as marriage and abortion. "Kerry," she said, "will have to make a direct appeal to them. He cannot rely on other Democrat politicians to carry his message to them."

...Christine Sculti is the executive director of the Republican Party organization in Westchester County, N.Y., a mostly upper-income area just north of New York City. A suburban single Catholic, Sculti represents what is to both campaigns a targeted demographic. "The Catholic vote in Westchester," she said, "registers Democrat, and you often see them vote as a bloc when a particular social issue like abortion becomes significant in a national, statewide or local election."

But that is only part of the equation. Sculti, like Kerry and other prominent national politicians who seek to keep their own faith separate from political matters in a sop to the diversity of opinion among the electorate as a whole, is moved by her faith to reach conclusions that are, in a word, personal.

Some may find it surprising, but Sculti said she finds herself more troubled by Kerry's annulment than by his stand on abortion. "As an observant Catholic, I think it is unconscionable to annul a marriage when there are children involved -- even if the children are adults," she said, admitting that her position may put her among the minority of Catholics in her own community.

The NRCC has accused Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX) of trying to mislead voters by preparing a "Catholic Voting Scorecard" that compares the votes of Catholic lawmakers on both sides of the aisle on issues important to Catholics. Citing an article in last week's issue of The Hill, the NRCC said Lampson is trying to "draw attention away from his own voting record that flies in the face of Catholic teachings."

Nick Lampson hasn't voted in line with the Catholic Church since he came to Congress. Instead of changing his votes to reflect Catholic teachings, Lampson appears to be trying to change Catholicism to be more in line with his votes.

But let us be clear on one thing: in their presentation of Kerry, CNN simply recites the ever-pervasive "personally against" formula of liberal Catholics:

Kerry says he is personally opposed to abortion, but supports the rights of others to make that choice. He argues that church doctrine allows Catholics the freedom of conscience to choose that stance.

But if this were the case, it only reveals the hypocrisy in his position, for one can no more be "personally opposed to abortion, but respectful of other's right to choose" than one can be with regards to slavery, cannibalism, racism, sexism, [insert the evil of one's choice here].

I for one have a difficult time believing Kerry's "personal" opposition to abortion as presented by the media, for the following reasons:

• Kerry pledge his full support for Roe vs. Wade
  
• Kerry was endorsed by NARAL as "a President pro-choice Americans can rely on"
  
• Kerry has a consistent voting record in support of abortion
  
• And now, Kerry campaign has launched a television ad campaign blasting the President for his efforts to stop abortion.
  

Candidates who claim to be "Catholic" but who publicly ignore Catholic teaching about the sanctity of human life are offering a dishonest public witness. They may try to look Catholic and sound Catholic, but unless they act Catholic in their public service and political choices, they're really a very different kind of creature.

But some Democratic politicians say it is quite another matter to have their standing as Roman Catholics called into question because of their votes in support of abortion rights. Some conservatives are urging church leaders to do just that, most prominently in the case of Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, a self-described "believing and practicing Catholic" who attends Mass, receives communion and has a 100 percent voting record with Naral Pro-Choice America.

John F. Kennedy, the nation's only Catholic president, drew a distinct line between his religion and his public responsibilities,...[and] Mario M. Cuomo, New York's governor in 1984, tried to update the Kennedy standard in a speech at Notre Dame...Mr. Cuomo said that while he accepted the church's teachings on abortion, he could not impose his personal faith on a pluralistic society....

The Rev. Richard P. McBrien, a professor of theology at Notre Dame and the man who invited Mr. Cuomo to deliver his 1984 speech there, said that the bishops may be conservative religiously but are "pragmatists at heart" and well aware of the risks of stepping too far into politics.

In an interview on Fox News, Cardinal McCarrick said "every archbishop has the right to make his own decision in his own area," but added that "many of us would not like to use the eucharist"—communion—"as part of the sanction." The McCarrick guidelines may not be ready until after the election. For now, the old debate simmers.

"What belongs to everyone, since this is a national candidacy, is the responsibility to make clear that when Kerry says the Church's pro-life teaching is a sectarian position which cannot be imposed on a pluralistic society, he is willfully misrepresenting the nature of the Church's position -- by suggesting that this is something analogous to the Catholic Church trying to force everyone in the United States to abstain from eating hot dogs on Fridays during Lent."

"This is simply false. The Church's pro-life teaching is something that can be engaged seriously by anyone. You don't have to believe that there are seven sacraments to deal with this, you don't have to believe in the primacy of the bishop of Rome to engage this position. You don't even have to believe in God to engage this [pro-Life] position because it's a position rooted in basic embryology and in basic logic, and anybody can engage that."

But how are we to make our case to those who do not share that prior religious commitment, or to those Christians whose churches do not provide clear moral counsel on this issue? And how do we do this in a political-cultural-legal climate in which individual autonomy has been virtually absolutized?

The answer is, we best make our case by insisting that our defense of the right to life of the unborn is a defense of civil rights and of a generous, hospitable American democracy. We best make our case by insisting that abortion-on-demand gravely damages the American democratic experiment by drastically constricting the community of the commonly protected. We best make our case by arguing that the private use of lethal violence against an innocent is an assault on the moral foundations of any just society. In short, we best make our case for maximum feasible legal protection of the unborn by deploying natural law arguments that translate our Christian moral convictions into a public idiom more powerful than the idiom of autonomy.

To the extent that he maintains his current stance, he deliberately misrepresents the Church's teaching -- and denies what Weigel maintains should be evident to us all: that abortion is a fundamental crime against humanity and contrary to the basic principles upon which our nation was founded.

The real title of this column, if we want to get rough (and we do), might be "Dumbed down Catholics voting for dumb downed Kerry." Or "Welcome to Kerry's party for dummies." Allow me to explain why the dumbing down of U.S. Catholic laity is likely to win the 2004 presidential race for John Kerry....

Dissenting Catholic politicians' false statements, such as John Kerry's. seem to carry more weight with dumbed down Catholics than all of the Popes since St. Peter. –Barbara Kralis, Michigan News

By all means, Catholics and everyone else should bemoan and ridicule that aging stereotype that we should not elect a Catholic president because he will do the Vatican's bidding. Let's realize, however, that church coercion, overt and subtle, that requires a candidate to do its bidding will prove the stereotype in many minds....

It would not take much to take the church across the chasm that legitimately separates church and state. A sanction here. An official snub there. And pretty soon, the church will have proved the stereotype.

Such a tactic has tremendous potential to backfire. U.S. Catholics, 27 percent of the electorate, are not stupid and are not the braying, dutiful sheep that stereotypes would have you believe (even those taking communion). –O. Ricardo Pimentel, Tucson Citizen

What next? Will we have a political reporter to cover John Forbes Kerry at each Sunday Mass from now to November? Will there be wafer watch?

The intra-church debates about whether a pro-choice, pro-civil union Kerry could consider himself a good Catholic has been ratcheted up into a public spectacle about whether he would step up to the altar and whether a priest would offer him the sacrament. "I hope the bishops are satisfied that the sacraments of the church are now the subject of a media frenzy," fumed Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice....

In polls, Catholic opinions on abortion are in line with the rest of the country. Among churchgoers are those who beg to differ on civil unions or married priests, over abortion or women in the priesthood. "What do the bishops really want?" asks Kissling. "Would it be a good thing if John Kerry stopped going to mass and communion? Would it be a good thing if Catholics who disagree on abortion not go to church? The churches would be empty." –Ellen Goodman, The Topeka Capital-Journal

Any decision by Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry to receive Communion at Mass is likely to be a controversial action, a line drawn in the sand of conflict between the presumptive Democratic nominee for president and his church over its teachings on the contentious issue of abortion.

That is because over the past few months, several prominent U.S. Catholic bishops, including Sean O'Malley, archbishop of Kerry's hometown of Boston, have decided finally to take a stand against Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. Like many Catholic politicians in this age when the majority of Americans support legal abortion to some degree -- and when the backing of abortion-rights groups can be critical to a candidate's electoral success -- Kerry distinguishes between what he calls his personal opposition to abortion and his legislative support of unrestricted abortion.

The bishops want to make clear that Catholic politicians like Kerry who defy the church's teachings on grave moral issues such as abortion are not in good standing as Catholics and are thus ineligible for Communion. For a Catholic, being barred from the Eucharist is tantamount to excommunication.

In fact, it is excommunication: the denial of the church's central sacrament and hence full participation in the Catholic community.

So far, only one U.S. Catholic bishop, Raymond Burke, the newly installed archbishop of St. Louis, has said explicitly that he would refuse to give Communion to Kerry on the basis of the senator's stance on abortion. Burke warned the candidate a few days before the Missouri primary election on Feb. 3 "not to present himself for Communion" in St. Louis-area churches while campaigning. (Kerry finessed the issue by attending a Sunday service at a Baptist church in St. Louis.) O'Malley, replacing Cardinal Bernard F. Law, who resigned last year amid the Boston archdiocese's sexual abuse scandal, hasn't named Kerry specifically, but has been quoted as saying that Catholic politicians whose political views contradict Catholic teaching "shouldn't dare come to Communion." Ironically, Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts's other Catholic Democratic senator and also a supporter of abortion rights, received the sacrament at the archbishop's installation Mass last July.

O'Malley's stance marks a major departure from the passivity and confusion with which most American Catholic bishops have approached -- and in many cases still approach -- the conundrum of the Catholic politician who declares that he or she is "personally opposed" to abortion but then, like Kerry, votes to support abortion rights.

...Pope John Paul II had made it clear in a 1995 encyclical, Evangelium vitae, that Catholic citizens of democracies have an obligation to oppose laws that conflict with Catholic moral teaching on such issues as abortion and euthanasia. But the newer doctrinal note was unprecedented in its specific repudiation of the "personally opposed, but ... " option for Catholic politicians. The statement declared that Catholic teaching on abortion and the sanctity of marriage are not "confessional values" unique to Catholicism but are "ethical precepts ... rooted in human nature itself." Catholic lawmakers, the document stated, have a duty not to enact laws "which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends."

Nonetheless, most bishops are still reluctant to respond publicly to Catholic politicians whose views contradict church teaching -- for all kinds of reasons. One is that Canon 915 of church law makes clear that public denial of Communion is a punishment of last resort, to be invoked only against those who "obstinately persist in manifest grave sin." Those words suggest that the bishop should contact the offender privately first. Moreover, the word "manifest" implies that such a form of ostracism is an inappropriate sanction against mere private citizens who disobey church teachings in their private lives. Then there is the perception that the recent sex scandals have robbed U.S. bishops of their moral authority. Another reason may be that many politicians who support abortion rights are politically liberal on other issues, such as welfare and the death penalty, and thus perhaps acceptable to an episcopate whose members tend to be politically liberal themselves.

But the most likely reason is that excommunication so far has proved to be a two-edged sword. In 1989, Bishop Leo T. Maher of San Diego, Calif., forbade Lucy Killea, a former California Democratic assembly member who was a Catholic and was running for the state Senate, to receive Communion in Maher's diocese because of her opposition to abortion restrictions. Killea cast herself as a martyr of conscience and flew to Sacramento, whose ultraliberal bishop at the time, Francis A. Quinn, assured her that she would not be denied the Eucharist in his diocese.

Killea won that election -- and after the trouncing of Maher, few bishops until recently have considered following his example. Indeed, Kerry may be counting on a Killea-style national reaction should a Catholic priest ever turn him away in the Communion line. In a recent New York Times interview, Kerry declared with evident irritation that "our Constitution separates church and state," and that the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council of the 1960s had allowed for "freedom of conscience" for Catholics with respect to choices concerning issues such as abortion rights and same-sex marriage.

Kerry has openly defied the Vatican on other issues (by supporting gay unions, for example). But truth be told, he probably has little to worry about in terms of lost votes from all but the most faithful Catholics. Even among the 45 percent of Catholics who attend Mass weekly or more often, fewer than one-third said in a 1999 poll conducted by the National Catholic Reporter that they thought church leaders should have the final say on the abortion issue. "People just don't like the idea of bishops telling them how to vote," says Philip Lawler, editor of Catholic World Report, a conservative Catholic magazine.

Undoubtedly for this reason, even Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, a prominent church conservative, has stated that he was not ready to deny Communion to Catholic politicians who take positions on abortion rights that are contrary to church law.

Most other U.S. Catholic bishops are so far imitating George's caution -- and his discretion. But the very fact that some are speaking out is evidence of a shift that may well lead to a time when Catholic politicians have to be concerned not only about the political consequences of their votes, but also the religious consequences. Which is as it should be.

Kerry says he is personally opposed to abortion, but supports the rights of others to make that choice. He argues that church doctrine allows Catholics the freedom of conscience to choose that stance.

Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law. . . . Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.

"The presumptive Democratic nominee and McCarrick declined to comment after the 45-minute session, with Kerry telling aides that the meeting was "completely personal and private, " according to spokesman David Wade.

Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the Washington archdiocese, said Kerry and McCarrick, who had never met, had "a chance to get to know each other" at a session requested by Kerry. Gibbs said she couldn't say if the work of the task force had come up, but said she "wouldn't expect it to particularly."

Aides to Kerry said the meeting had been in the works for months, but it came just days after McCarrick, in a national television interview, raised the specter of punishing Catholic politicians who break with the church in supporting abortion rights and stem-cell research.

McCarrick is heading a seven-member task force, created last year by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to study what steps to take against Catholic politicians who vote and support positions at odds with church teachings.

Among the options are denying access to Catholic schools or hospitals that might be venues for campaign events to excommunication, but McCarrick made it clear that he does not favor the latter choice.

"I think there are many of us who would feel that there are certain restrictions that we might put on people, that there are certain sanctions that we may put on people," he told Fox News Sunday. "But I think many of us would not like to use the Eucharist as part of the sanctions."

The task force was established after the Vatican issued a decree that said Catholic politicians have a duty to uphold the church's "nonnegotiable ethical principles"—specifically mentioning opposition to both legalized abortion and recognition for same-sex couples.

Gibbs said it would be "several months or even after the election" before the task force makes its recommendations.

Kerry says he is personally opposed to abortion, but supports the rights of others to make that choice. He argues that church doctrine allows Catholics the freedom of conscience to choose that stance.

"As priests ordained to preach the Gospel of justice and peace, it is of grave concern to us when someone seeking the highest office in our land claims to share our faith and ignores the most fundamental injustice our country faces, namely, abortion.

"It causes even greater concern when public officials try to privatize the issue, as if the shedding of blood can ever be simply a matter of "private religious faith." Abortion practitioners are testifying in these very days in court trials about the partial-birth abortion ban. They describe how they crush the heads of babies, and those are the words they use. Those procedures are not "personal, private beliefs." They are publicly available, legal activities, repulsive to most Americans. (Transcripts of the court proceedings can be found at http://www.priestsforlife.org/pba).

"We reach out privately to dialogue with such officials. At the same time, we hold that if they publicly support abortion, they should not try to hide what abortion actually is.

"Thirteen-hundred priests in our association have signed a commitment to preach on abortion as the single most important electoral issue. More are committing to this daily.

"The central issue regarding Senator Kerry is not about Communion, or whether the bishops will allow it. It is about violence against children, and whether public officials will allow it. We challenge Senator Kerry to either renounce his support of legal abortion, or to publicly admit what he's supporting, and what abortion practitioners already testify to under oath: that abortion dismembers and crushes the heads of babies."

"By the way, I'm not planning on voting for Kerry either. At the moment I intend to write in "None of the Above." Neither Kerry nor Bush is a comprehensive pro-life candidate."

American Catholics now find themselves having to think about a question that concerns their church and the Democratic party's presumptive presidential nominee, John Kerry. The question is: Can Kerry be a good Catholic and yet take positions as a lawmaker that contradict the teachings of the church on "life issues," especially abortion and stem-cell research?

The question didn't arise only with Kerry, who hardly is the first Catholic politician to support abortion rights. Church leaders have been mulling for some time how to respond to politician-parishioners holding views at odds with the church's. And John Paul II approved a "doctrinal note" two years ago advising Catholic politicians of their duty "to oppose any law that attacks human life." A task force now is developing guidelines for use by American bishops in their dealings with Catholic lawmakers.

Most church leaders don't appear ready to use the Eucharist as an instrument of sanction. Most seem of the same mind as Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the archbishop of Washington, who has made vague allusions to milder sanctions.

But whatever sanctions might be used, for many leaders there is the matter of fair enforcement, for if Kerry is to be disciplined, they argue, there surely are others who also should be dealt with.

The fact is that, long before Roe v. Wade, Catholic politicians were being carefully coached by theologians, mainly Jesuits, in a disingenuous vocabulary of pluralism that would not only permit them to tolerate liberalized abortion laws but would make them the prime movers in legislating abortion-on-demand. . . . READ MORE.

House Democrats are preparing a "Catholic Voting Scorecard" in an effort to show that Catholic Democratic lawmakers have adhered more closely to the position of the U.S. Catholic hierarchy on key issues than their Catholic Republican counterparts.

Under the misconception that single issues such as choice or gay rights best represent their interests, Catholics are voting for Republican candidates with increasing frequency.

Democratic House members vote with the Catholic interest much more often than their Republican counterparts.

A preliminary copy of the scorecard obtained by The Hill...shows that the 67 Catholic House Democrats received an average score of 76 percent, while the 49 Catholic Republican members averaged 64 percent....

Seven Democrats received 100 percent ratings on the preliminary scorecard: Reps. Jerry Costello (IL), Mike Doyle (PA), Dale Kildee (MI), James Langevin (ME), Michael McNulty (NY), Michael Michaud (ME) and Tim Ryan (OH). Six others had scores of 90 percent or better, while Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA) scored the lowest, at 60 percent, only slightly lower than Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA), who had 63.6 percent.

We are of many religions and spritual notions in America, and we have, in the past, largely come eventually to our senses when one group's beliefs were thrust upon the nation. (Prohibition and divorce come first to mind.) We ask other religions in the world to learn to tolerate each other.

But here is the Boston Globe reciting John Kerry's alleged sins. The Catholic faith promotes examination of conscience, not promotion of the Vatican hierarchy's policies. An American politician should not be an agent of any religious agenda.

Cardinal O'Malley's jabs at Kerry will be felt by every parishioner who has ever thought birth control might be a blessing, abortion may sometimes be necessary, a married priesthood would attract more good men, women might be priests, and politeness demands we participate when we find ourselves at services of other faiths.

Well worth reading for anybody who wants to familiarize themselves with this debate. As Stricherz makes clear, this isn't just a Kerry thing; nor is it a Democratic thing:

The most important political body -- when it comes to abortion and cloning -- is the 100-member U.S. Senate. Since the early 1980s, the upper chamber has been a veritable graveyard for pro-life legislation, culminating in last year's failure to ban all forms of human cloning.

Throughout this time, about a dozen pro-abortion senators have been Catholics, or at least publicly identify themselves as such. Today there are 15. Five are women. Eight come from the Northeast. Two are Republicans; the other 13 are Democrats.

ExcommunicateKerry.com, another one-man operation, advocates harsher measures than the mere withholding of communion. And judging from his latest email newsletter, it would seem that Catholic apologist Karl Keating would agree with the proposal:

What a difference four decades makes! In 1962 Leander Perez and several other Catholic politicians in Louisiana were excommunicated by New Orleans Archbishop Joseph F. Rummel. Their offense? Opposing Rummel's pleas to end racial segregation in schools.

Segregation was a Bad Thing. As bad as it was, at least it wasn't a species of homicide. But abortion is homicide, which means it is a Worse Thing. You will look in vain to find an analogue to Archbishop Rummel in today's American episcopate.

Even the level of the umbrage has changed. The discussion hasn't been about excommunicating politicians who, through their votes, end the lives of unborn children. No, the discussion has been whether these politicians should undergo the inconvenience (which is about all it would be for them) of not being able to receive Communion.

If the leaders of the Church refrain from giving even a slap on the wrist, who can take them seriously? Bishops who don't "bish" undermine their own authority, and everyone under their care suffers from that.

Would most of me love to see it happen? Sure! And I'll bet the cry "Hulk Smash" is cathartic for Dr. Bruce Banner too. But do I think that the final result of the American episcopacy sending that message could well end in catastrophe? Yeah, I do.

At the very least, I'd be interested in seeing some real discussion and thought about what such a move would logically entail. Some of my readers seem to think "Bring it on!" is the only Truly Christian approach to possibility of major schism. I think schism would be catastrophic.

"The problem with the Kerry situation is that it is a PUBLIC scandal. And as such needs a timely public response. Should they try to manage it privately with Kerry at first, absolutely. Is the decision theirs to make, absolutely. However, by not making a decision, and allowing different priests to make up their own mind on whether it is appropriate for a pro-abortion Catholic to recieve communion, the bishops feed into the modern "as long as my conscience tells me it's okay then it is okay" mentality."

Some might be wondering "what's the big deal with sharing of the Body of Christ between fellow Christians?" -- In anticipation of such questions, I've tried to explain at greater length not only why this is a cause for concern for Catholics and Protestants, but also why I would consider it an indirect insult to ecumenical relations.

. . . the Kerry case reflects the fissure between the modern mindset, which puts self first, and the ancient, traditional stance, which puts what God has revealed at the center of my journey. The basic point here, is that as individual with power, John Kerry is an enabler of legalized, easily-obtainable abortion. He seeks and values the support of abortion advocates and providers. We're not just talking about ideas, although that is not unimportant. We're talking about a person who, when given a choice to support the abortion industry and abortion advocacy groups or not, chooses, by his votes and his stated positions, to support it. He doesn't have to. No one is forcing him to. But he does. This active support of abortion is incompatible with the life of a disciple of Jesus. That's not me talking, by the way. That's the ancient Christian witness to the preciousness of life. . . . [READ MORE]

Despite the growing anxiety of several national Roman Catholic leaders, Senator John Kerry took communion here on Sunday at Easter services at the Paulist Center, a nontraditional church that describes itself as "a worship community of Christians in the Roman Catholic tradition" and which attracts people drawn to its dedication to "family religious education and social justice."

Mr. Kerry's decision to receive communion amounts to a challenge to several prominent Catholic bishops, who have become increasingly exasperated with politicians who are Catholic but who deviate from Catholic teaching. . . .

In November, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops organized a task force headed by Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the archbishop of Washington, to study how the church should treat Catholic politicians like Mr. Kerry, who say they are personally opposed to abortion, for example, but support abortion rights legislatively. . . . The task force has not issued specific recommendations, but some members have discussed a range of penalties, from withholding communion to excommunication.

To be honest, when pressed by Wallace on what kind of action was needed, I was less than impressed with Cardinal McCarrick's roundabout response:

WALLACE: At least one archbishop has said that he would not like to see Senator Kerry take communion there in St. Louis. How do you feel about that?

MCCARRICK: I think every archbishop has the right to make his decision in his own area. I think that there are many of us who would feel that there are certain restrictions that's we might put on people, that there are certain sanctions that we may put on people. But I think many of us would not like to use the eucharest as part of the sanction.

WALLACE: Would you, if Senator Kerry were at mass that you were...

MCCARRICK: I think I would want to get to talk to him, get to see him and get to understand him before I would make a decision like that.

If a man said to me, "I don't believe in Jesus Christ, I don't believe in the church, I don't believe in holy communion," and then comes up to me, I wouldn't give him communion.

WALLACE: But what if he said, "I disagree with the church's position on abortion and stem cell research"?

MCCARRICK: Well, I'd have to know exactly what his disagreement is all about.

John Kerry believes that women have the right to control their own bodies, their own lives, and their own destinies. He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God. He will defend this right as President. He recently announced he will support only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court.

Ardis, who received about 50 critical messages yesterday after word spread that he was willing to give Kerry communion, asked, "How come it's so much easier to see other people's sins than to see our own?'' And he noted Kerry's positions are in line with the church's on the death penalty and 'social justice'" issues.

To a practicing Catholic, what lay in a woman’s womb is not just some anonymous blob of cancerous tissue. Rather, it is a human life. Abortion ends that human life. Therefore a Catholic is no more open to negotiating the abortion issue than an African American is open to debate over slavery. Catholics believe that abortion is murder, and when the state permits abortion, Catholics believe that abortion is state sanctioned murder. Regardless of whatever stance a candidate puts forward when it comes to other issues, abortion trumps them all. As practicing Catholics we believe in freedom of choice within the abortion debate only insofar as a well-formed Catholic conscience always chooses a pro-life candidate over one who is pro-abortion. We simply have a hard time voting for politicians who campaign on the killing -- rather than the kissing -- of babies.

This is not merely a "Catholic issue," of course, for evangelical Christians face the same dilemma in dealing with candidates who claim to be evangelical but support same-sex unions and abortion. Have we really reached the point when candidates must just "happen" to be evangelical Christians, Jews or Roman Catholics? This implies that faith is nothing more then a matter of ethnicity or privatized belief.

Political maturity -- and Christian conviction -- must require that we judge a candidate by consistency of character as well as by the eagerness of identification with one faith or another. We should look for integrity of heart and consistency in political judgment. In other words, we should hope for Catholic politicians who are genuinely Catholic and evangelicals who are authentically evangelical. This is especially true when dealing with issues of life and death, marriage and family, war and peace.

There is no getting around the reality that candidates who merely "happen" to be Christian and make no connection between their faith and public policy will produce a nation that "happens" to be fully secularized. That's just the way it is. Or, as John Kerry might prefer to put it, faith without works is dead.

Rev. John Ardis, director of the Paulist Center, said the Kerrys had received Communion there and were always welcome to do so. Asked if he had been instructed not to offer Kerry Communion Ardis said: "No. Definitely not. I got a call from them (the archdiocese) an hour ago ... They wanted me to know that the archbishop has not taken a stand and he is free to receive the Eucharist."

Commentary:

• Bill Cork: "Some years ago Cardinal Law made the Paulists at this Center (yards down the hill from the State House) redo dozens of baptisms that were invalid because they were performed "in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier."
  
• Curt Jester: "Probably the only people that would get denied communion there are orthodox Catholics."
  

(CNSNews.com) - A pro-life group plans to protest the appearance of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on the campus of Georgetown University, a Catholic school, because of the Catholic senator's pro-abortion stance.

The American Life League's Crusade for the Defense of Our Catholic Church will lead a "peaceful protest" Wednesday outside Kerry's planned speech and is calling on the archbishop of Washington to speak out against Kerry and his pro-abortion views.

"Once again, Georgetown University's adherence to Catholic teaching is being called into question. This time it's an on-campus appearance by a Catholic elected official whose political stance in favor of legal abortion is well known," said Joseph M. Starrs, director of ALL's Crusade, in a statement.

"It is up to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, as archbishop of Washington, to remind the administration that one cannot be both Catholic and pro-abortion," he said.

Mr. Kerry became combative when told that some conservatives were criticizing him for being a Roman Catholic who supported policies, like abortion rights and same-sex unions, that are at odds with Catholic teaching.

"Who are they?" he demanded of his questioner. "Name them. Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching?"

He added: "I'm not a church spokesman. I'm a legislator running for president. My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. And it is separate. Our constitution separates church and state, and they should be reminded of that."

Mr. Kerry apparently meant John XXIII, as there is no Pius XXIII.

• Curt Jester's diagnosis:

  I will give Mr. Kerry a pass on misspeaking Pius XXIII instead of John XXIII, this can be an honest mistake. The egregious error is the fictional oath from Vatican II. No such oath exists in the documents of Vatican II just as the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. Those who have lost limbs in accidents sometimes feel a phantom limb. Democrats seem to have "phantom documents syndrome." In this syndrome you have the tendency to quote from documents, phrases that don't exist. . . . these manifestations also find common root in "Spirit of Vatican II" syndrome.
  

• Carson Holloway says Kerry is "begging for a rebuke":
  

  Prior to these remarks, the question confronting the bishops was this: "Can a man who runs for president claiming to be Catholic while rejecting key Catholic moral teachings be ignored?" Now they confront a different question: "Can a man who runs for president, claiming to be a Catholic , rejecting key Catholic moral teachings, and insisting that the Church says that this is all O.K. be ignored?" That is, can they fail publicly to correct a prominent Catholic who not only rejects but also actively mischaracterizes Church teaching? Kerry evidently does not want his Catholicism questioned, but he has just made it much more difficult for the bishops not to question it -- perhaps to his electoral disadvantage.
  

  (Via Amy Welborn).
  

If Kerry, who is Catholic, sticks with his plans to attend Easter services in Boston at a local Catholic church, he may possibly be refused communion on one of the most important days for Christians worldwide.

While other parishioners take the Lord's Supper and celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Kerry may not participate, thanks to Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston.

O'Malley has told Catholic elected officials who are pro-abortion that they should not be receiving communion and that they should refrain from taking part in the sacrament on their own.

Confronting the archbishop or his minions could get pretty ugly, especially in front of the cameras. Perhaps Kerry should consider worshipping with tolerant folk, like Baptists or Methodists.

Here's Kerry taking Communion at a Protestant church. Here's what PJPII reiterated on this matter in his encyclical Ecclesia De Eucharistia: "The Catholic faithful, therefore, while respecting the religious convictions of these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their celebrations, so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist...."

(Ambiguity, however, seems to be Kerry's forte).

"My view that this is a huge decisive moment for Catholics in the United States. I hope they will rise to the challenge and refuse to endorse another Catholic politician who is pretending to be a Catholic while rejecting the Church's central moral and social teachings.

"I think that the challenge is bigger for the laity than it has been for the bishops. It's an election. The issue is who's going to vote for the guy. . . . if [Catholic laity] show massive support for Kerry, that's going to set back the church in this country for at least a generation, just at a time when a significant number of bishops and laity are beginning to get active on this issue. I am keeping my eyes more focused on the laity and hoping they will reject such Catholic politicians."

Will Kerry be allowed to publicly define the Catholic faith before the American people as consistent with the myths of the Culture of Death, or will the bishops define Catholic teaching before the American people as unequivocally rejecting the myths of the Culture of Death? We will find out the answer in the next few months. Boston was the epicenter of the homosexual scandal that has shaken the Church. Boston has also become the epicenter of heterodox movements such as Voice of the Faithful. Boston will be the epicenter of an even greater scandal that goes to the heart of the Gospel of Life. Archbishop O'Malley, fulfil your ministry as a true soldier of Christ.