No one who knows the Crusader's heart of Fr. Rob Johansen would doubt for a moment that he shares Catholic Kerry Watch's nonpartisan commitment to equal-handed treatment of all public CINO pro-aborts who impiously approach the Sacrament of the Altar to profane the Body and Blood of Christ with hands stained with the blood of countless babies. Indeed, we could have said it no better:
There is no doubt that there are some pro-abort "Catholic" politicians in the Republican Party. And the bishops should, and in fact must, hold their feet to the fire as much as they do Democrats.
And yet, there is a reason why this blog bears the name it does:
The fact is, that John Kerry put himself squarely in the middle of this imbroglio. He insisted in proclaiming loudly that he is a "Catholic in good standing", and that he can remain a good Catholic while yet defying Church teaching on a fundamental moral issue. And he attempted to mislead Catholics and obfuscate the Church's teaching on abortion. In short, Kerry has been brazen about his advocacy of the abortion license in a way that no previous pro-abort Catholic politician has been before.
And, let us pray, shall be hence. As customary, you'll want to read every word of Fr. Johansen's cogent analysis on Thrown Back. I'll simply conclude with these words, which echo my thoughts:
Have no fear, CINO pro-abort Republicans. Your turn under the microscope is coming....I for one will be just as happy to denounce Pro-abort CINO Republicans as Democrats.
But "if everyone knows that the Democrats are The Party of Abortion...that's not the fault of the Bishops or the Church, but the fault of the Democratic Party itself." And a grievous fault it is.
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Pontius Pilate was personally opposed to executing Jesus
Father James Poumade, parochial vicar of the parish of Catholic Light blogger Eric Johnson, has a wonderful homily on the question of the denial of the Eucharist.
From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . . "'Catholic' homosexuals have an agenda set up for this weekend," Kevin McCullough reports for Crosswalk [May 26, 9:18 am]:
As an act of protest and defiance a new "Rainbow Coalition" of sorts has been set up. This Sunday, Catholics who are supposedly gay are encouraged to wear a rainbow sash to make a statement.
As the Chicago Sun-Times reports, however, another statement -- one faithful to Christ, His Church, and His Father's Commandments -- has been made by Chicago's Cardinal Francis George:
The Rainbow Sash movement wants its members to be fully accepted in the Church not on the same conditions as any Catholic, but precisely as gay. With this comes the requirement that the Church change her moral teaching which is from the Lord and his Apostles. The policy of the U.S. Council of Bishops is not to give Communion to those wearing the sash.
Predictably, those who wish to turn the Church Militant into the Church Negligent are disturbed not by defiant deviates seeking to profane the Body and Blood of Christ but by Cardinal George for defending the Holy Eucharist. Hence, Fr. Richard Predergast of Berwyn, IL, on receipt of the directive, parroted the Cardinal McCarrick party line:
I think the question of the increased usage of bishops withholding communion as a punitive measure is a slippery slope.
To his credit, Kevin McCullough gets it right:
There will be those who will no doubt try to make the case that the Cardinal is being prejudiced, that he is in some way perpetrating the furtherance of hate and intolerance to an already "picked on" community. Besides the fact that homosexuals nationwide are some of the most materially well endowed people in the nation today, the Cardinal's memo has nothing to do with hate or intolerance. The Cardinal has taken the path of God's truth on the matter. The fact that there are those who oppose the memo are really doing nothing more than demonstrating their opposition to the mandates, teaching, and understanding of God's ideals for sexual morality. It is the Cardinal's position to encourage people to move towards God's ideals. And I for one am glad he is!
So are we, Kevin, so are we.
You may listen to Kevin's comments and view the Chicago ABC affiliate's coverage with free Real Player.
Some items of interest discovered while making the rounds of St. Blog's Parish:
"I Have to Represent All the People" . . . such is the claim put forth by many a Catholic politician defending their "pro-choice" record on abortion. Fr. Rob Johansen of Thrown Back critiques this excuse.
John Allen, Jr. recently interviewed Cardinal George for the National Catholic Reporter. The full text of the interview was posted to NCR's website this past Wednesday.
As posted by my fellow pundit Barbara Kralis on Fidelis . . .
Several U.S. bishops have recently voiced their opposition and ersatz reasoning why no one should be denied the Eucharist according to Code of Canon Law n. 915.
Those in the pews are perplexed. Which bishop is correct? Why would some bishops teach that the laws are binding and other bishops teach that they are not?2
Quizzically, people are asking ten questions:
1. Why should the Church deny the Eucharist to hundreds of "Catholic" pro-abortion politicians?
The Catholic Church condemns abortion3, euthanasia4, sodomy5, cloning6, embryonic stem cell research7, as well as other attacks against the sanctity of life and the family. It is the obligation of the bishop to follow canon law. Canon 915 mandates the denial of Communion to all "manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners," including but not exclusive to politicians.8
Canon 915 not only protects the Eucharist from sacrilegious reception, but also prevents the faithful from sorrowful scandal.
It's important to understand what "manifest, obstinate, persistent" means. Many wrongly think it applies only to politicians.9 This is not so.
If a Catholic is a "manifest" sinner, that means he is known, or public. This must be differentiated from the Catholics who are in the state of private grave sin, whose sin is known only to themselves and God. The private grave sinner cannot be denied the Eucharist because their sin is unknown to the bishop, to his priests, and his ministers of the Eucharist.
If a Catholic is gravely "manifest" and "obstinate" in his sin, that means he pigheadedly continues to persist or stand firm in grave sin that is public in nature and causes scandal to others. This is quite different from those who persist in private sin.
"Catholic" pro-abortion politicians are certainly manifest, obstinate and persistent sinners and they are thus subject to the provisions of Canon 915.10
2. If they deny politicians, then shouldn't they deny all public sinners?
Not only does this canonical discipline, Canon 915, include the estimated 500 so-called "Catholic" pro-abortion politicians in the United States, but it also includes other manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners such as homosexual couples approaching the Eucharist arm-in-arm or with sodomite rainbow banners over their shoulders, those divorced and "remarried" without benefit of annulment11, directors of abortion mills and Planned Parenthood, Mafia figures, drug lords, notorious criminals, couples living openly in fornication or adultery (this is certainly not an exhaustive list of manifest sinners).
3. What about the couple or individual who lives in grave sin privately and their Pastor is made aware of their sin? Should the Pastor deny them the Eucharist?
No. Not if most people do not know this. He cannot make their sin known to people. The priest cannot make know the sin of another, if it is not already manifest. This is related to the seal of confession.12 If it becomes known by most in the parish, then the priest might then be obliged to deny the Eucharist under Canon 915 so as not to cause scandal.
4. Isn't there supposed to be a separation of Church and State?
The Founding Fathers of our nation believed in the promotion of religion. Thus, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The Fathers merely wanted to avoid a state church or any other favoring of one Christian denomination over another. In other words, the object was to avoid favoritism and compulsion, nothing more.13
It would be a sad day in America if only Catholics believed in protection of innocent life.14
5. Can the Church tell its members how to legislate and vote?
The Church is not asking Catholic legislators to impose her beliefs on unwilling populace. Rather, the Church is calling upon her Catholic legislators to defend human life, which is a basic responsibility of all civic institutions.15
The Church is not trying to influence legislation but instead is protecting the dignity of the Sacrament and addressing the grave scandal of Catholic legislators who fail to defend innocent life.
Implying that the Church is trying to tell its members how to vote is erroneous. It never directs its members to cast their vote for any specific party or candidate. It is reiterating that abortion, euthanasia, sodomy, cloning and embryonic stem cell research (this is not an exhaustive list) are intrinsically evil in and of themselves; all other human rights pale in comparison to the right of life of the unborn.
6. Isn't the Church turning the Eucharist into a weapon? No one should be denied the Eucharist. Where is the freedom of conscience?
It is true that Canon 912 does say, "Any baptized person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to Holy Communion." However, the canon's commentary further explains: "unless the existence of some impediment is evidence in the external forum of Canon 915."16
Canon 915 states:
Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are forbidden by law from receiving Holy Communion.
It is dishonest to use Canon 912 to justify permitting grave manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners to the Eucharist. It is a mockery of the faith and belies ones identity as a Catholic believer.
True freedom is not doing what you want to do, but doing what you ought to do.17 The Church teaches, "Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions."18
Conscience is not the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience is the voice of truth within you and your opinions and feelings must reflect your well-informed conscience.19
A well-informed conscience is one that is totally in accord with the church's magisterial teachings. If one is well informed (catechized), their conscience will be correctly informed. This transcends any choice for political party or candidate.
No pope or ecumenical council has ever said that Catholics who hold public office are excused from living by the teachings of the Church.20
Christians, like all people of goodwill, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts, which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from the responsibility, and on the basis of it, everyone will be judged by God Himself.21
7. Why not deny Communion to politicians and laity who support the death penalty and the Iraq war?
The Church has never taught, and does not teach now, that the death penalty and war are evil in all instances. But, the Church has always clearly condemned abortion, sodomy, euthanasia, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research in all instances.
The Church teaches that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good and citizens against the aggressor, even if it has to resort to the death penalty if no other means of defense is sufficient.22
8. All I hear about is the "right to life." What about the right to employment, the right to water, the right to food and clothing, the right to protection of the environment?
Without the right to life, no other rights are possible.
As men and women of good will we strive to achieve true justice for all people and to preserve their rights as human beings. There is, however, one right that is inalienable, and that is the right to life. This is the first right. This is the right that grounds all other human rights. This is the issue that trumps all other issues.23
The Didache24, written around A.D. 80, declares:
You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born.
The Catholic Church's social teachings are vast and complete. However, faithful Catholics may legitimately disagree on different points of view and on how to implement these social teachings.25 One can never disagree on the teachings regarding the right to life of the unborn, persons with disabilities, and the elderly.26
9. When "gays" and lesbians march up to the altar arm in arm for Communion, should they be denied?
Canon 915 states that if they are gravely manifest, obstinate, and persistent in their sins, then they must be denied. The Church condemns the sin of sodomy.27
Sodomites who approach the Eucharist wearing Rainbow sashes or who are living known lives of perversion are certainly manifest, obstinate and persistent in their grave sin.28
Legal recognition of same-sex unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.
There are absolutely no grounds for considering same-sex unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts "close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."29
10. What is Canon Law 915 that I hear so much about?
You may remember that Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, D.D., J.C.L., a canon lawyer, on January 8, 2004, promulgated a canonical notification in the diocese of La Crosse, WI, based on Canon 915. In other words, he imposed sacramental disciplines or regulations concerning the unworthy reception of the Holy Eucharist.
Canon 915 is a sacramental law, not a penal law, and applies only to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, not other Sacraments. It is not an excommunication or interdict.
Canon Law is the Church's Sacred Discipline and is binding on all Catholics, not just politicians, who reject Church law.
There are, however, other legislative powers that the Pope and diocesan Bishops possess which gives them the right to enact laws for their dioceses, including penal laws which impose latae sententiae ("automatically without sentence") penalties (Canons 1311, 1315, 1318, 1369, 1398). Here we are discussing only Canon 915.
When the diocesan bishops ignore enforcing Canon Law, they are giving license to all manifest sinners to commit Eucharistic sacrilege and cause grave scandal to the faithful.30
Editor's Note: A complete annotated edition of this article with endnotes can be found on Lifeissues.net
.
Friday, May 28, 2004
Newsweek Religion Writer Opines on Abortion Controversy
Newsweek religion writer Kenneth Woodward publishes an opinion piece in today's New York Times [free reg'n required] discussing the coming clash between pro-abortion politicians and Catholic bishops. Woodward clearly does not favor denying the Eucharist to these politicians. Yet, there are signs that the debate on this issue has focused the issue and advanced the defense of life even among those like Woodward who shrink from the obvious and long overdue need to deny the Eucharist to those pro-abortion celebrities who obstinately persist in propping up legal abortion.
The first positive sign is that Woodward eventually points out—after an initial erroneous description of papal teaching—that the abortion issue cannot be put on a par with issues like the death penalty and the Iraq War:
But this line of reasoning [the much misused "Seamless Garment" line of reasoning] is fraught with peril. For the pope, the bishops and—if polls are to believed—for most practicing Catholics, abortion is the taking of innocent life and therefore violates the most fundamental of human rights. By contrast, the pope's opposition to capital punishment is conditional, not absolute, and the church's application of just war principles is open to reasoned debate. When it comes to abortion, there is far less room for discussion.
Not only is there far less room for discussion when it comes to abortion—there is no room for discussion as to a Catholic supporting abortion. In a culture that shrinks from any absolutes—except perhaps when it comes to the evil of tobacco or "homophobia"—the Catholic Church announces that direct abortion is intrinsically evil. That is the source of the conflict because our culture finds any absolute, non-negotiable moral stand intolerable.
Woodward also reports that the U.S. bishops may release their task force report on the issue of pro-abortion politicians earlier than anticipated because of the controversy. An early release would be a sign that our opinions do count. When you write a letter to the editor or e-mail a bishop, your voice can have an impact on evolving events. Woodward in the paragraph quoted above faces the reality of Catholic teaching, instead of hiding behind the misuse of the Seamless Garment argument that falsely puts abortion, the death penalty, and war on the same moral level. They emphatically are not on the same moral level. The death penalty targets convicted criminals, not the innocent. The decision to go to war in Iraq was motivated by Saddam Hussein's defiance of the U.N. on disarmament. The Iraqi dictator was also a genocidal tyrant who routinely engaged in torture, mutilation, and massacre as an open and official instrument of state policy directed at innocent civilians.
From reading Woodward's column, it appears that he anticipates that the task force may favor telling the pro-abortion politicians to voluntarily refrain from receiving the Eucharist. The task force may even recommend imposing some lesser sanctions such as barring such politicians from making speeches at Catholic institutions. That is some progress, even if it fails to live up to the full moral imperative. Yet, no committee or task force can tie the hands of a courageous bishop. Some bishops will continue to be bold and apostolic on this issue. They will continue to move the ball down the field even if all we get is a field goal.
The truth is making progress when even someone like Woodward recognizes the moral problem of pro-abortion Catholic politicians and the sophistry of the excuses made in the past by such luminaries as former New York Governor Mario Cuomo. Yet, Woodward himself has room to grow. He refers to the stand of Bishop Sheridan of Colorado Springs as "eccentric" for calling on Catholic voters who vote for pro-abortion politicians to refrain from the Eucharist unless they repent and go to confession. Sheridan just stated the obvious, but the obvious becomes "eccentric" when compared to the timidity of many other bishops. It reminds me of one Catholic biblical scholar who refers to Jesus as a "Marginal Jew." I guess Bishop Sheridan should take comfort that on this issue he is the "Marginal Bishop." He has good company in his so-called "eccentricity."
In addition, the title of Woodward's piece "A Political Sacrament" is vaguely offensive, if not outright blasphemous. The Eucharist is not a political sacrament in spite of the best efforts of pro-abortion politicians to make receiving the Eucharist a false public statement of their standing as Catholics. The Eucharist is, like all sacraments, an Ecclesial Sacrament. It is a sign of unity and communion with the Catholic Church. And that is the source of the problem for the politicians. On this Memorial Day weekend, it is good to recall the famous World War II saying, dating from Pearl Harbor, to "praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition." Keep praying and keep speaking out. The truth is our ammunition.
The Catholic News Service is reporting that Pittsburgh Bishop Donald Wuerl spoke recently to a Catholic audience and stated that denying the Eucharist was not part of the "pastoral tradition" of the Church. My initial reaction is that canon law clearly envisions denying the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians, as canonists have pointed out (see, for example, this analysis by Dr. Edward N. Peters). Does pastoral tradition nullify the explicit words of canon law? In my humble view, if it is in canon law, it is part of the pastoral tradition of the Church. Canon law reflects the pastoral tradition of the Church, and cannot contradict it.
The Pope's own words in promulgating the current Code of Canon Law bear witness to this organic and close relation between canon law and the pastoral practice of the Church by noting the purpose of canon law:
[I]ts purpose is rather to create such an order in the ecclesial society that, while assigning the primacy to love, grace and charisms, it at the same time renders their organic development easier in the life of both the ecclesial society and the individual persons who belong to it.
Source: Apostolic Constitution Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, available at this link (scroll down document).
Canon law, theology, and pastoral practice are intended to reflect the same truth. If American pastoral practice contradicts the carefully redacted text of canon law duly promulgated by the Pope, then it seems to me that something is amiss in pastoral practice in the United States (see Canon 24).
The Diocese of Pittsburgh website provides the entire text of the bishop's address on May 25, 2004. Most of the address is an eloquent affirmation that abortion and voting to keep abortion legal are both grave evils. The surprising problem is that the bishop fails to draw the logically required conclusion from his own eloquent statement of the relevant premisses! Instead, when you think he is about to concur that politicians who obstinately persist in supporting abortion should be denied the Eucharist, he pulls back citing concerns about Church interference in politics. The bishop puts forth three inadequate reasons for pulling back from the conclusion required by his own statement of Catholic teaching on abortion:
1. That the issue of supporting legal abortion is on a par with other issues such as the death penalty--but he himself states earlier in his remarks that the right to life is "the most fundamental of all human rights";
2. That we have to consider under what circumstances we would deny the Eucharist to any Catholic--but the issue, as he himself earlier pointed out, focuses on the peculiarly public position of politicians, not on the situation of unknown Catholics;
3. And that the Church recoils from judging the "state of the soul" of those presenting themselves for Holy Communion--but canon law does not require such a subjective assessment but merely a determination that the individual is in an objective state of grave sin, and certainly the Church makes that sort of determination in her rule barring divorced and remarried Catholics from the Eucharist without delving into the reasons for their marital situation.
The bishop's own analysis begs for the conclusion that pro-abortion politicians should be denied the Eucharist. His eloquent statement of the foundations for that conclusion lead me to hope that he will, sooner or later, come to the manifestly required conclusion.
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Bishop Olmstead considers measures "beyond those of moral persuasion"
Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix, AZ today responded to what he charged was a misrepresentation of his position on the "Kerry communion scandal" by the Arizona Republic:
The headline in the Arizona Republic (5/21/04), "Bishops won't link politics, Communion" misrepresents my position. Abortion is the killing of a completely innocent life and thus bad news for both unborn children and their mothers. It is a horrible wrong. It is intrinsically evil. We have a serious obligation to protect human life, and especially the most innocent and vulnerable. Whoever fails to do this, especially when they are able to do so, commit serious sins of omission. They jeopardize their own spiritual wellbeing and they are a source of scandal for others. Should they be Catholics, they should not receive Holy Communion.
No one who is conscious of having committed a serious sin should receive Holy Communion. For the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, our most precious gift in the Church. And St. Paul warns us (I Cor 11:27-29): "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself."
I call upon all Catholics, especially those in public life, to examine their consciences, and to refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they are unambiguously pro-abortion. As a bishop, I shall continue to pray for an end to abortion and other sins against life; I shall stand up for the life and dignity of every human person and I urge all people of good will to do the same. Should some Catholic politicians who are presently pro-abortion obstinately persist in this contradiction to our faith, this becomes a source of scandal and measures beyond those of moral persuasion would be needed. As God tells us in the Book of Leviticus (19:16), "You shall not stand by idly when your neighbor’s life is at stake."
Some might regard Olmsted's statements as akin to Cardinal McCarrick's -- perhaps more strongly worded than the latter, but begging the question: what is the next course of action when an "unambiguously pro-abortion" Catholic persists in his stance and disregards the Bishop's request? A discussion of this is taking place over at Amy Welborn's blog. I thought the following comment was helpful in understanding Olmsted's approach:
Canon law and Catholic Theology do not impose on the minister of Holy Communion the responsibility of judging the worthiness per se of everyone who comes up to receive -- that would be an impossible burden, for many reasons. The obligation of denying Communion to a baptized, non-sanctioned Catholic under Canon 915 is related to the problem of scandal rather than "complicity in profanation," which is one of the reasons why Bishop Olmsted said, "Should some Catholic politicians who are presently pro-abortion obstinately persist in this contradiction to our faith, this becomes a source of scandal and measures beyond those of moral persuasion would be needed."
Monday, May 24, 2004
Exactly which Catholic doctrine does Mr. Kerry support?
Salem, OR (LifeNews.com) -- In an interview with an Oregon newspaper, likely Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said he supports states' decisions whether or not to allow assisted suicides. Kerry also appeared to disagree with an effort by President Bush to disallow federally controlled drugs to be used in suicides in the state.
Kerry said, "I think it's up to the states to decide" whether or not to legalize assisted suicide.
"It's a very complicated, thorny, moral, ethical issue that people wrestle with. And I don't think it's the government's job to step in," Kerry told the Salem Statesman Journal newspaper.
To Tom Marzen, a leading pro-life attorney who monitors end of life issues, Kerry is taking out of both sides of his mouth.
"As usual, it seems that Kerry wants a foot in both camps without firm footing in either," Marzen tells LifeNews.com. "First he says that assisted suicide is a matter for the states. Then he says the whole business is all-so-very-complex that the government shouldn't be involved at all."
Kerry's comments make it appear he disagrees with the Bush administration about the use of federally controlled drugs in assisted suicides in Oregon.
Citing the Controlled Substances Act, Attorney General John Ashcroft ruled last year that the drugs used in Oregon assisted suicides, all of which are federally regulated, can no longer be used. The state took the Bush administration to court over the decision and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to rule soon on the outcome of the case.
But, when asked whether he would direct his attorney general, if elected, to back off of Ashcroft's decision, Kerry refused to answer directly.
"I think the states have the right to wrestle with those kinds of issues," Kerry told the paper. "I have my own personal beliefs about life and about what you do."
(source)
Catholics Less Likely to Back John Kerry on Abortion, Stem Cell Research
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new poll shows that Catholic voters are less likely to support Catholic candidates, such Sen. John Kerry, who favor abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
A Zogby International poll of 1,388 Roman Catholics in the U.S. shows the likely Democratic presidential nominee getting the support of only 20% of Catholic voters on issues where he disagrees with the position of the church.
Sixty-five percent of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who would appoint only judicial nominees who backed the Roe v. Wade decision allowing abortion. Only 16 percent said they would be more likely to support such a candidate.
That opinion is held by both churchgoing Catholics (71% less likely) and Catholics who attend church infrequently (57% less likely).
Despite a recent flip-flop on the issue, Kerry has affirmed that he will only appoint pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, 53 percent of Catholic voters would be less likely to support a candidate, like Kerry, who backs embryonic stem cell research, which involves the destruction of unborn children in their earliest stages of life. Only 23 percent said they would be more likely to back a candidate who favors such destructive research.
Churchgoing Catholics oppose such a candidate by 65 to 13 percent margin, while non-churchgoing Catholic voters are split (37-36) on whether they are less likely to vote for such a candidate.
The poll was commissioned by Associated Television News (ATN) and the O’Leary Report and conducted by Zogby International from a database of Roman Catholic likely voters from identified in previous surveys
(source)
If this is a true indicator of Catholic voting trends this is good news. Especially since the last election Catholics were evenly split between Bush and Gore.
This story came from an unreliable souce- The New York Times, yet it likely true.
NEWARK, May 21 - Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark said on Friday that he was "deeply disappointed" that his recent criticism of Roman Catholic elected officials who supported abortion rights had been interpreted by some New Jerseyans as a political slap at Gov. James E. McGreevey.
In an interview, Archbishop Myers said Mr. McGreevey was not the target of statements he had made in a pastoral letter saying that Catholic officeholders who did not share the Vatican's opposition to abortion should not seek communion. He said he had apologized to the governor for any misperception by the public.
"I didn't name him specifically in the letter,'' Archbishop Myers said. "We have an understanding that I won't personally criticize him. And we are working together on a lot of issues, like providing social services for the poor and helping people with H.I.V. So I think we reached an understanding. I actually like him, and I think we have a cordial relationship."
Previously Archbishops Myers had said in his pastoral letter "A Time for Honesty."
"...Catholics who publicly dissent from the Church's teaching on the right to life of all unborn children should recognize that they have freely chosen by their own actions to separate themselves from what the Church believes and teaches. They have also separated themselves in a significant way from the Catholic community.
"The Church cannot force such people to change their position; but she can and does ask them honestly to admit in the public forum that they are not in full union with the Church.
"One who practices such dissent, even in the mistaken belief that it is permissible, may remain a Catholic in some sense, but has abandoned the full Catholic faith. For such a person to express 'communion' with Christ and His Church by the reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is objectively dishonest."
But with abortion (and for example slavery, racism, euthanasia and trafficking in human persons) there can be no legitimate diversity of opinion. The direct killing of the innocent is always a grave injustice. One should not permit unjust killing any more than one should permit slave-holding, racist actions, or other grave injustices. From the perspective of justice, to say "I am personally opposed to abortion but…" is like saying "I personally am against slavery, but I can not impose my personal beliefs on my neighbor." Obviously, recognizing the grave injustice of slavery requires one to ensure that no one suffers such degradation. Similarly recognizing that abortion is unjust killing requires one-in love and justice-to work to overcome the injustice.
His pastoral letter was obviously not set as a specific attack at the Governor, but against all who hold views contrary to the faith. But even if he didn't name the Governor specifically in the letter it certainly described people such as Gov. McGreevey who have advocated for legalized abortion and embryonic stem-cell reseach. I am sure the Archbishop is not saying that his letter applied to people who hold views like the Governors, but just not Governor himself. But to then go on to say that he has a understanding with the governor just contradicts the teaching office of a Bishop. It sounds like a deal with the devil. I'll ignore your pro-abortion advocacy if only we can work on providing social services for the poor. One of the social services pro-abortion supporters want to provide to the poor is free abortions. And then to add that he personally likes the Governor is just adding something that doesn't matter to the argument. We can like many people that we might vehomently disagree with on many issues, but we should never turn liking a person as equivalent to liking their culture of death they advocate. We are called to love our neighbor, but we can't fully love him if we don't want them to turn away from sin. Did not Jesus love those very people he called "A brood of vipers?" Did he not say this because in fact he did love them?
This espiscopal flip-flop if accurate will just affirm those who hold positions contrary to the Church's view on the dignity of life.
I start to wonder just how much a baby in the womb weighs. They must be made of extremely light material because it seems almost anything can outweigh it. Concern for and helping the poor tips the scale. Careers tips the scale. Inconvience tips the scale. Controling your body or life tips the scale. Polical consideration tip the scale. Not wanting to appear political tips the scale. Being uncomfortable tips the scale.
Q.: How can you tell when Sen. John F. Kerry has done something right? A.: When he flip-flops and apologizes for having done it in the first place. Thus in today's Boston Globe we learn that Sen. Flip Flop now regrets his 1986 vote to confirm Justice Antonin Scalia, whom Associated Press writer Ron Fournier describes as "one of the high court's most conservative justices"—scarcely a competition at the level of the contest to become the next American Idol or president of the United States, for that matter. which appears to be a dead heat at this early stage of the race. Of course, what the dominant media monopoly really means is that Justice Scalia, like fellow justices William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, has voted to overturn the infamous Roe v. Wade abortion edict. Of course, a Supreme Court justice appointed by—pardon the expression—Pres. Kerry would never do that, and yet today's papers parrot such headlines as the following:
(Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise) The devil, of course, particularly with this CINO servant, is in the details. You needn't click on more than one of the above links for they and scores more—that's why it's the dominant media monopoly, after all—are publishing the same AP account, in which we read:
Democrat John F. Kerry said yesterday he's open to nominating antiabortion judges as long as that doesn't lead to the Supreme Court's overturning the landmark 1973 Roe ruling that made abortion legal.
In other words, Judge Pino—as in pro-life in name only—report to traffic court. And this is what the anti-life media would have its duped readers believe is "a moderate note"? Liars covering liars. Stay tuned to Catholic Kerry Watch and reliable news sources like Mallon's Media Watch for the unspun truth!
...Do they have to agree with me on everything? No," Kerry said. Asked if they must agree with his abortion-rights views, he quickly added, "I will not appoint somebody with a 5-4 Court who's about to undo Roe v. Wade. I've said that before."
"But that doesn't mean that if that's not the balance of the court I wouldn't be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view. I've already voted for people like that. I voted for Judge Scalia."
...Calling himself a strict constructionist, a phrase Bush has used to describe himself, Kerry paraphrased former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart and said: "A good justice is somebody that when you read their decisions you can't tell if they are Republican or Democratic or liberal or conservative, a Christian or a Jew, a Muslim, male or female. You just know you're reading a good judicial opinion."
Mr. Kerry has been pretty good at that himself. You can hear and read his speeches and have no idea by their content that he is a Catholic. Now even with his statement that he would not appoint anyone that could shift the balance on Roe V. Wade the pro-abortion lobby has a fit.
His comments on judicial nominations drew a concerned response from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, with president Gloria Feldt saying, "I'd like to hear him use language that is stronger."
What would that language be. To pledge allegiance to Moloch and to never dare flip-flop on abortion support?
Elizabeth Cavendish, interim president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said, "there's a huge difference between Bush and Kerry on choice and this is not going to undermine the pages-long documentation that Kerry is pro-choice."
Pages long documentation of pro-abortion support and some people get squeamish about denying him Communion.
But there is also the matter of canon 915, which expressly provides: "Those ... who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion." And see again the Vatican's official interpretation of that canon - it refers to objectively grave sin, not (only) to those subjectively guilty of grave sin (i.e., "in mortal sin") because they've not only committed it but also done so with full knowledge and freedom.
However much McCarrick might "disagree" with this canon, it is his duty to the Church and the world to enforce it. This goes double inasmuch as his characterization of "denial of the Eucharist as a public sanction" is somewhat misleading. The point is not merely - or probably even primarily - to realize some sort of retributive justice against those who commit grave sin. The point is also to avoid scandal, scandal that has the effect of further undermining respect for the lives of the unborn.
Furthermore, his concern about "confrontation at the altar rail" is somewhat (I hedge because of ALL's approach - but theirs need not be considered the only possible one) of a "straw-man" argument. As the Vatican interpretation linked above indicates, such "confrontation" need not, indeed should not, be the first step. Yet McCarrick does not even seem willing to take "non-confrontational" first steps. And again, the problems with his argument are doubled when one realizes that the scandal of giving communion to "Catholics" like Kerry (or Schwarzenegger, or ...) might be at least as great as the scandal of a "confrontation" would be.
Giving Communion to these politicians is already a scandal. I doubt if there would be any "confrontation" at the altar rail. These politicians probably would not show up for Communion if they knew they would not be allowed to receive.
Cardinal McCarrick responds -- implicitly -- to ALL's ad campaign in a recent column for the diocese newspaper ("If the world loves you" Catholic Standard May 13, 2004):
There is a saying that has its roots in the 10th chapter of St. John's Gospel. It reminds us that we should not look for the love of the world, but strive only to find God's will and do it with all our hearts. There is a good chance that if we are never criticized by others, we have missed the mark of being faithful to the teachings of the Gospel. If the world loves you, you are probably always saying what the world wants to hear.
In light of that simple but very profound truth, I hope you were not upset at the criticism of your archbishop in an advertisement that has appeared in some places lately. I appreciate the zeal of those folks who are critical, but I do not agree with them, and during my recent Ad Limina visit to Rome, it was clear that so many of the highest authorities in the Church are in agreement with my position. . . .
I'd be curious which of the "highest authorities" he is referring to at the Vatican?
The disagreement that I have with the folks who are annoyed at me is that I disagree that in this instance we should use denial of the Eucharist as a public sanction. As a priest and bishop, I do not favor a confrontation at the altar rail with the Sacred Body of the Lord Jesus in my hand. There are apparently those who would welcome such a conflict, for good reasons, I am sure, or for political ones, but I would not. . . .
He does adopt something of a stance on the issue, which is to say reiterating the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist and placing the burden of responsibility on the individual Catholic to "informing his consciences" and determine whether he is worthy of reception:
I am asking the Catholic Standard to reprint the statement about the worthy reception of the Eucharist which appears in the missalettes and which was authorized by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Basically, it places on the individual Catholic the need to make a judgment as to whether he or she can properly come to receive Communion. One must not be conscious of any serious sin that has not been absolved in the sacrament of Penance. One must be striving to live as a good Catholic, keeping the commandments of God and of the Church, especially those two great commandments to love God and neighbor. This would exclude from Communion anyone who would hate his neighbor or harm his neighbor, in particular when that neighbor is a little unborn baby in its mother's womb. This doctrine by which the Church places a particular personal responsibility concerning the decision to approach the altar on each individual, protects the holiness of the Eucharist and challenges its children to holiness as well. It places the decision to approach the altar on the informed conscience of the individual Catholic - informed by the truth of our teachings - and, therefore, each one of us must not presume to approach Holy Communion if we are not, in our informed conscience, already with the Lord and in communion with the teachings of His Church.
This is what the Church teaches and, as your bishop and your servant and your friend, this is what I teach, too. Thinking of you, as I come back home to Washington, I pray that each one of us will never approach this most holy sacrament of the Eucharist without the necessary disposition to receive its awesome grace.
Relatively strong words coming from McCarrick -- but I have the distinct feeling that it's not the response Judy Brown and American Life League were hoping to provoke by their ad campaign.
And here is the question that's been asked countless times already: what do you do when a pro-abortion Catholic politician reads a warning such as McCarrick penned, shrugs, and continues to recieve communion while actively promoting and campaigning for abortion, in open defiance of the Church? Catholic politicians who, by this time and after all that has been written, are fully aware that they are acting contrary to the explicit teachings of their Church?
What is the next step?
Further reaction and discussion around St. Blog's Parish
Christopher posts below on what Cardinal Mahony said about denying Communion to politicians and Dr. Peters' response to it.
I don't find the Cardinals arguments to be convincing. Especially the statement that the only way to reduce and eventually eliminate abortion is to convince people that it is wrong. I agree that the Church should loudly proclaim the Gospel of Life and to educate people as to the truth of its message. This should be where the majority of the emphasis is applied. Where I disagree with his argument is that it is the only method that can be used. Often times in Catholic circles we discuss the idea of both/and where it is not always one idea against another. There is no reason why both education and discipline can not be used to advance the culture of life. It is not a question of which is more productive, together they augment each other. A loving parent both educates and disciplines. Not all will respond to the Church even when it does correctly articulate its views. I do not think that it is reasonable to believe that politicians who support abortion and homosexuality do not know what the Church teaches. That only if they were educated more that they would then change their minds. Original sin has thrown a monkey wrench into this concept. Some will obstinately refuse to follow the Church no matter the effectiveness of its cathechesis. We need to prevent both scandal and sacrilege
I find the following to be a misrepresentation of what the church says.
"The church has always been quite cautious about denying anyone the sacraments of the church," he said. "And, in fact, with respect to the Eucharist, it really is not possible for a priest or bishop to deny someone Communion unless that person is known to have been a public sinner, in the sense of having been interdicted or excommunicated or formally sanctioned in some way.
"The presumption is that if someone presents himself for Communion, that they are doing so with the belief that they are in a state of grace and receiving in good faith the Eucharist,"
According to this declaration by the the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts in June 2000:
The discernment of cases in which the faithful who find themselves in the described condition are to be excluded from Eucharistic Communion is the responsibility of the Priest who is responsible for the community. They are to give precise instructions to the deacon or to any extraordinary minister regarding the mode of acting in concrete situations.
4. Bearing in mind the nature of the above-cited norm (cfr. n. 1), no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.
I don't see why the Vatican would release this document if it was not possible for a priest or Bishop to deny someone Communion unless they were formally excommunicated.
We bishops have to be very careful," he said. "We cannot be giving the impression that we are telling people to vote for this candidate or that candidate. That has never been our role, and if we give the impression that that is what we are doing, then we have failed our people."
So if your a Catholic politician you get a free pass since we don't want to tell people how to vote. Maybe we should remove some of the disturbing lines in the Bible like "Thou shall not kill" should be removed since it might form someone's conscience and they might vote that way. They should not be giving the impression that they our telling people how to vote the impression should be that they are upholding the faith and calling people to repentance. Besides Catholics hardly vote as a block anyway. How many Catholic pro-abortion Kerry supporters will change their vote if Mr. Kerry is denied Communion?
Cardinal Mahoney made a number of interesting comments on the topic of giving communion to pro-abortion Catholics politicians. According to Tidings Online:
In Rome, Cardinal Mahony told CNS: "I'm slightly mystified why this is all coming up now. We've had pro-choice Catholic politicians going to Communion since Roe vs. Wade," the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
"The church has always been quite cautious about denying anyone the sacraments of the church," he said. "And, in fact, with respect to the Eucharist, it really is not possible for a priest or bishop to deny someone Communion unless that person is known to have been a public sinner, in the sense of having been interdicted or excommunicated or formally sanctioned in some way.
"The presumption is that if someone presents himself for Communion, that they are doing so with the belief that they are in a state of grace and receiving in good faith the Eucharist," he said.
"That is the decision the communicant makes, not the person giving Communion," Cardinal Mahony said.
The Cardinal's position appears to be that education is a more efficient and productive strategy than sanctions:
The cardinal said the only way to reduce and eventually eliminate abortion is to convince people that it is wrong.
"What the church has been doing has had great success," he said, citing a recent poll of young women showing that support for the most liberal access to legalized abortion "has dropped from 64 percent to 55 percent."
"The politicians themselves are not going in for abortions; it's women themselves, so that's the group we need to influence," he said.
I'll agree with Mahoney that education should be emphasized -- from every pulpit, in every parish, our bishops and priests should be proclaiming the Church's teaching. Denying communion to obstinate sinners, however, is another matter. Canon law professor Dr. Peters has posted an analysis of the Cardinal's comments to his blog, pointing out statements by the Cardinal that are either incomplete or altogether erroneous. Dr. Peters concludes:
Let's be clear about what Abp. Burke and others are doing: Their stance against pro-abortion Catholic politicians receiving the Eucharist is completely justified. In brief, their decisions are 1) made in the realm of sacramental discipline, not penal law; 2) meant to prevent serious scandal to the faithful, curb sacrilegious reception of Communion, and impress upon certain persons the gravity of their deeds; 3) binding on all ministers of the Eucharist in their jurisdictions; 4) illustrative for others who, someday, as will we all, have to account to Jesus for what they did with His Precious Body and Blood. I need hardly add that all that is necessary to secure one's readmission to the Eucharist would be confession and firm purpose of amendment.
I agree with His Eminence that we have had pro-abortion Catholic politicians receiving the Eucharist since 1973. What’s changed is that we now have bishops who are saying enough is enough.
Another bishop has courageously stepped up to the plate and dared to repeat Catholic teaching in a pastoral letter, citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Pope's encyclical The Gospel of Life, and the Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In his pastoral letter, Bishop Michael Sheridan of the Diocese of Colorado Springs begins with a welcome and needed discussion of the Catholic view of what conscience is and its role in our moral decisions. He then proceeds to state clearly that in the November election Catholic voters must ensure that pro-life candidates win. He states clearly the bottom-line on pro-abortion Catholic politicians and voters:
There must be no confusion in these matters. Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance. (Bishop Michael Sheridan, Pastoral Letter On the Duties of Catholic Politicans and Voters, (PDF document), May 1, 2004, Diocese of Colorado Springs)
In his pastoral letter, Bishop Sheridan correctly applies this same conclusion to those advocating same-sex "marriage":
As in the matter of abortion, any Catholic politician who would promote so-called "same-sex marriage" and any Catholic who would vote for that political candidate place themselves outside the full communion of the Church and may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been
reconciled by the Sacrament of Penance.
The document is worth reading in its entirety. Bishop Sheridan also makes clear that he is in solidarity with and supporting his brother bishops who have dared to clearly state Catholic teaching on these issues. After you read the letter in its entirety, then consider what I will now say about the NY Times coverage of the same letter. The theme of the NY Times headline, "Bishop Would Deny Rite for Defiant Catholic Voters," and story is that Sheridan is now daring to advocate denying the Eucharist to any Catholic voter who votes for a pro-abortion politician. Of course, this sensationalistic approach is intended to panic the average Catholic parishioner who fears that now he or she will be denied the Eucharist just as some pro-abortion celebrities have been. Well, if a Catholic voter is a well-known activist for abortion or gay marriage who obstinately and knowingly persists in pushing these anti-Catholic positions then he or she can and should under canon law be denied the Eucharist. But it is obvious that no anonymous, average Catholic voter by definition fits into the category of a public activist. This pastoral letter is telling average, anonymous Catholic voters that if they have freely and knowingly voted for pro-abortion politicians and/or politicians supporting gay "marriage," fully aware, as is likely, that these positions are gravely immoral under Catholic moral teaching, they need to go to confession prior to receiving the Eucharist. But obviously no one will be able to deny the Eucharist to such an average voter for the simple practical reason that his acts are not known to the public. Even the NY Times article makes note of that, even while distorting the wording of the bishop's pastoral letter. In my view, the NY Times is distorting the message of the pastoral letter—which at no point addresses the issue of denying anyone the Eucharist—in order to paint Sheridan as an extremist inquisitor who will now harass every Catholic communicant, however humble and anonymous. In my opinion, this distortion is part of the liberal strategy to save Kerry and other pro-abortion celebrities by linking their fate to that of noncelebrity, average Catholics. The NY Times is so alarmed and aghast that some Catholic bishops are showing chutzpah that it misrepresents Sheridan's written statement and thereby creates confusion among average Catholics. But the same liberal media won't be alarmed about someone like Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles who is indirectly quoted in the same story as asserting that Kerry is "welcome" to receive the Eucharist in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Mahoney's compromise of Catholic teaching is to be expected by anyone familiar with his liberal reputation. It is no surprise. I would not even be surprised to see Mahoney leading the invocation for Kerry at the Democratic convention in Boston. Kerry recently met privately with Mahoney on May 5th. It would not be out of the ordinary for Kerry to have already issued the invitation for Mahoney to appear at the Democratic convention. As I recall, Mahoney has done that before. But what is a newsworthy surprise is that an increasing number of Mahoney's brother bishops are showing that they are cut from a different cloth. Update: If you would like to thank Bishop Sheridan of Colorado Springs for his strong apostolic witness, you can e-mail the Diocese of Colorado Springs at info@diocs.org. The media will try to paint these stalwart bishops as extremists or kooks. We know better, and should encourage bishops who stand up to the errors of the secular culture.
Akin can't comment on Kerry in particular because his organization is a nonprofit. But he says church law clearly states that someone who is "obstinately persevering in manifestly grave sin" shouldn't receive communion.
"Advocating a horrendous evil like baby killing is a grave sin. If it's publicly known, that's manifest, and if you do it regularly, that's persevering," Akin said. "And if you do it after you've been warned, that's obstinately. So it would seem that a Catholic politician who's been spoken to about the matter ... is therefore not to be admitted to Holy Communion," Akin said.
Mr. Akin on his blog points out that he was quoting the Code of Canon Law. He also points out that there were several errors in the article that got printed.
The secular media is trying to cover this story because of the amount of attention it has gotten this political season. Unfortunately they are unfamiliar with both what Catholics believe about Communion and why in some cases people should be denied Communion. There has been a hodge-podge of coverage with a lot of misinformation mixed in. Yet it is a positive sign that it is getting covered at all.
Since the story of Monsignor Edward Kavanagh denying then Gov. Gray Davis annual trip to the orphanage because of his unapologetic pro-abortion stance to Bishop Robert Carlson leaked letter to Tom Daschle saying that Catholics have a "duty to be morally coherent." The story escalated when Bishop Raymond Burke wrote that politicians who support abortion or euthanasia are to be refused Holy Communion. With the prominence of a self-identifying Catholic John Kerry in the presidential race this has prompted other Bishops to respond to this scandal.
How this story is affecting people in the pews we don't know. But hopefully people will be reminded that Communion is not just some symbolic act. That when we receive and say amen that we are truly saying amen to all that the Church definitively teaches. That we all examine our consciences to see if we are truly following Christs' Church and whether we are in fact in communion with its teachings. That as St. Paul says that we are discerning the Body and Blood of our Lord when we receive the Eucharist.
As posted by my fellow pundit Barbara Kralis on the pages of Fidelis...
In times of great crisis there are two types of men: those who are overwhelmed by the crisis and those who rise up to resist the trend of events and so change the course of history.1
A Catholic bishop's ministry is a crucial part of God's saving work in human history. The bishop must be forthright in proclaiming and defending the unchanging truths of the Church, "in and out of season," at a time marked by "both a widespread relativism and a tendency toward facile pragmatism."2 When a bishop permits another to persist in his manifest, obstinate sin against the Eucharistic Sacrament of Christ, is not the bishop cooperating in the scandal as well?3 The munus episcopale or office of the faithful bishop has a most crucial obligation in guarding the truth that has been entrusted to them by the Holy Spirit to bring all souls to God, no matter at what cost, even if it means the persecution and death of the Bishop.4 The Ecclesia docens (teaching Church) must not fail in this most fundamental obligation to save the souls of the Ecclesia discens (learning Church). "Full adherence to the Catholic faith does not diminish, but actually exalts human freedom."5 The first and essential step in returning a manifest sinner to the healing love of God is for the bishop to teach the sinner that he is causing grave scandal, even if this means challenging socially acceptable opinions and prevailing political popularities. Remember the sorrowful indignation in Jesus' harshest words showing the seriousness of the sin of scandal (which is defined as something said, done or omitted which leads another person to commit sin):
It would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world for temptations to sin. (Mt.18: 6-7)
What terrible things come upon the world through the sins of scandal? But the gravity of scandal increased if a bishop causes it.6 So serious is the moral obligation to avoid scandal that we are admonished not only not to do wrong but also not to appear to do wrong. When a person acts, he or she must always consider the appearance of the act to be done.7 The church's apostolicity is clear regarding the bishop's indisputable pastoral obligation for the care of souls, particularly weak souls, and most notably in protecting sacrilege of the Eucharist:
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...for any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.8
The Council of Trent, teaches upon Paul's words:
No one who has a mortal sin on his conscience shall dare to receive the Holy Eucharist before making a sacramental confession. This holy Council declares that this custom is to be kept forever.9
The Church has always believed and taught that the Eucharist is really, truly, substantially the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. This explains why everyone who partakes of the Eucharist must be free from mortal sin. Despite these clear teachings of the Catholic Church, many U.S. bishops give license and assent to manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners, especially pro-abortion politicians, who give scandal by unlawful reception of the Eucharist. In fact, Canon Law n. 915 places the burden of the scandal of sacrilegious reception on the minister, or "ne admittantur," who unlawfully administer the sacrament, and who, in some canonists' opinions, could be punished according to canon 1389 § 2. It is false and illusory for a bishop to promote other human rights as being equal to the most basic of all human rights - the right to life.10 It is a grave error to preach against the first laws of nature that protect and promote human life.11 Those who manifestly reject the Church's teachings and admonitions regarding the sanctity of life of the unborn cause the greatest scandal of our era. There is no greater evil than abortion. Unless each diocesan bishop bears public witness to Church Law and promulgates "canonical notification," as Archbishop Raymond Burke and Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz have done, several serious consequences will continue to happen. Each bishop's complacency in the Eucharistic scandal:
Affirms, even encourages, manifest sinners in their scandalous actions.
Contributes confusion, malaise, and embarrassment for Catholics everywhere. World media are reporting, with amusement, each Bishop's reaction.
Distorts the Church's catholicity to potential converts from other denominations who may subsequently question the authority of the Pope and his teaching Magisterium.
Discourages young men in their own dioceses from answering the call of God to the ordained priesthood. Who wants to serve under such confusion and blatant Episcopal disregard for Church law?
Causes great rifts and divisions within dioceses, parishes and families. The faithful Catholics who remain loyal to the magisterial teachings regarding this scandal are persecuted as Papists, "judgmental," and "unenlightened" by the scandalmongers.
Does the U.S. hierarchy need a filibustering Bishop's Task Force on the Doctrinal Note on the Participation of Catholics in Political Life to decide how to admonish the manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners and stop the scandal? Bishops Burke and Bruskewitz didn't need one. Were they wrong? No, Bishops Burke and Bruskewitz acted in faithful adherence to already clearly defined laws, specifically canon 915, that require all bishops to "govern" and "correct" to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege and the lay faithful from scandal. Ergo, why is the scandal permitted?
Thanks to the commentators for responding to my query regarding ALL's ad campaign against Cardinal McCarrick,, and to my co-editors Jeff Miller, Earl E. Appleby, Oswald Sobrino for taking the time to express their thoughts.
I am deeply dismayed to see that one commentator has compared Ms. Welborn's criticism of American Life League to the apostle Judas, and assumes that the reason we have objected to the campaign is because we believe bishops ought not to be criticized, period. In response, I would like to clarify that the issue is not whether McCarrick should be criticised, but how -- I daresay most if not all of us participating in this discussion are in agreement that McCarrick's tepid response to Senator Kerry merits criticism. (In my own defense, please see earlier posts to this blog).
At the same time, as another commentator reminded us, our bishops are successors to the apostles, and while we have the right to criticize their actions under the present circumstances, basic respect for their office should influence how we go about doing so.
Had American Life League chose to express their concerns about McCarrick in a different (and, in my opinion, more civil) fashion -- for example, by way of a petition to the Cardinal which urged him to take a stronger stand, I would have enthusiastically joined them.
I also suspect that a petition containing the signatures of thousands of concerned Catholics might have made a greater impression on the Cardinal than opening up the morning paper to read a full-page advertisement by Judy Brown branding him a coward, and condescendingly lecturing him that "you can't be Catholic and pro-abortion" (as if the Cardinal didn't have a clue where the Church stands on the matter).
But again: that is my opinion, and to those who maintain that ALL had the correct strategy, I trust that we can respectfully disagree.
In any case, time will tell if ALL's ad campaign bears any fruit, and what kind of impression it will have both on McCarrick and the general public. Who knows? -- So many other bishops have risen to the challenge (Bishops Sheridan, Wenski, Aquila, Myers, et al.) in recent days that their displays of courage could inspire Cardinal McCarrick to meet our expectations.
Thanks to my co-editors and commentators for a stimulating discussion!
Saturday, May 15, 2004
Senator Kerry to venture into Archbishop Chaput's Home Turf
The religion news blog 'Get Religion" has a good roundup of news on the Kerry Communion scandal, noting that Kerry plans to venture into the homestate of Archbishop Chaput and Bishop Sheridan, who have been making headlines at Episcopal Spine Alert with their bold defense of the faith:
Kerry is planning a fundraising event in posh Aspen, followed by several events in Denver.
This is especially interesting since this visit falls during a June 14-19 U.S. Catholic Bishops gathering at the Inverness Hotel in suburban Denver. As veteran Rocky Mountain News religion reporter Jean Torkelson noted, this quiet meeting "may be the most misnamed 'spiritual retreat' in history."
This mile-high prayer meeting will be hosted by Archbisop Charles Chaput of Denver, with, it would be assumed, the symbolic help of Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan. Please note that neither of these men has been silent on the issue of abortion and other Catholic moral teachings during this election year.
Although the USCCB has put together a task force led by Washington, D.C., Cardinal Theodore McCarrick to examine the issue of pro-abortion Catholic politicians (which conveniently, and perhaps cowardly, chose to postpone presentation of its results until after the election), the Rocky Mountain News is reporting that, as host of the gathering, Archbishop Sheridan may force a more prompt consideration of the issue:
As host, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput will invite the bishops to discuss what to do about giving communion to Catholic politicians - many now on the campaign trail - who disregard the church's teaching against abortion.
"It seems like an opportune time (to discuss). It's been on people's minds," said Chaput's communication director, Sergio Gutierrez.
The Washington Times has more coverage from the on-going unravelling of the "traditional" consensus of meekness among Catholic bishops about pro-abortion politicians. Sometimes, it is exhilirating to undo the "traditional." In its coverage, the conservative Washington Times correctly follows the significant change in course from the past resulting from more Catholic bishops being more outspoken against pro-abortion political celebrities. For the liberal spin, you can read this article from the National Catholic Reporter in which the reporter has obviously gone out of his way to interview two known "liberal" or "moderate" clerics in order to get on the record opinions in favor of coddling pro-abortion politicians. In this case, the liberal reporter searched out well-known liberal Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles and "moderate" Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of Cincinnati. (Of course, in liberal spin, moderates are "reasonable" and "open-minded" as opposed to "rigid" and "close-minded" conservatives.)
Yet, even the liberal spin can't cover up the liberal alarm over some Catholic bishops taking their charge to defend the truth seriously. Mahoney expresses alarm in the article:
"I am puzzled by people rattling sanctions at the moment. That has not been our tradition over the years," he said.
It looks like Cardinal Mahoney is a bit taken aback by a new generation of bishops who are bucking the spineless consensus.
In addition, the National Catholic Reporter (also known, for very good reasons, on these pages as the National Catholic Distorter) thinks the matter so alarming that is posts a hyperventilating editorial excoriating bishops who have rebelled against the past paralysis on this issue. The editorial argues that the faulty logic of the outspoken bishops was exposed when pro-life leader Senator Santorum recently endorsed pro-abortion Senator Specter in Pennsylvania. The editorial argues that, under the logic of bishops taking action against pro-abortion policians, Santorum should be denied communion. Let me say from the outset that I would support any bishop who would deny Santorum communion for his support of Specter. But the editorial's argument falls apart once you think clearly about it. Santorum is a strong pro-life leader who wants to keep Senate control in the hands of the only pro-life national party, the Republican Party. Unfortunately, Santorum made the judgment that goal meant supporting Arlen Specter. I, for one, think that judgment was mistaken. But it was a tactical judgment meant to advance the current strategic advantage the pro-life movement now holds in the Senate with Republican control--an important strategic advantage that the editorial writer is surely aware of but fails to mention. The bottom-line is that Santorum made a tactical decision to preserve a strategic pro-life advantage. That much is clear even if you think, as I do, that Santorum's tactical decision was mistaken.
That tactical scenario is very different from the pro-abortion politician who is acting solely to protect Roe v. Wade's regime of abortion on demand. If a bishop thinks that Santorum should be denied communion because of the tactical Specter endorsement, that is fine with me, although the fact is that any pro-life person can only dream that a Kerry, a Kennedy, a Clinton, or any other national Democrat for that matter would ever come close to matching the strong pro-life leadership demonstrated in the past by Senator Santorum.
More interestingly, the editorial ends with a plaintive plea:
"The circular-firing-squad mentality infecting too many conservative Catholics and a number of bishops should stop now. Before it is too late."
Before it is too late for what? The editorial does not say. Maybe, the editorial writer is worried that his liberal Catholic subscriber base will begin to actually leave the Catholic Church. In my opinion, that outcome should be welcomed because it is merely a recognition of the truth that they have long since fallen out of full communion with the Catholic Church by pursuing religion as something we make up. Better the honest truth than a lifetime of self-deception and denial.
But the promised "Absurd Quote of the Week" goes to Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, D.C., as recorded in the Washington Times, defending his discomfort with refusing communion to anyone: "[A]s a priest and bishop, I do not favor a confrontation at the altar rail with the sacred body of the Lord Jesus in my hand."
Cardinal, what altar rail? The altar rails of the vast majority of our churches have been ignominiously torn out of church after church. And, what confrontation? Any political celebrity to be denied the Eucharist by the cardinal will have been duly informed, in accordance with canon law, well before he or she shows up at the communion line. All the ministering priest has to do is to kindly give a blessing and move on. I assure the cardinal that none of the political celebrities will try to forcibly take the Eucharist from him--that would not look good, even in the secular press. And if the political celebrity wants to exchange words, so be it. Is that too much for a priest of the crucified Christ to risk? Is that too much to risk to protect the Body of Christ from sacrilege? The cardinal is straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel. And so to him belongs the absurd quote of the week.
I welcome the thoughts of my co-editors on this issue.
One of our fellow contributing editors, Jeff Miller, has already availed himself of this offer in the comment boxes following the report, and I would be remiss in my duties to my colleagues and to you, dear reader, were I to fail to respond to Christopher's generous invitation. But first, a brief introductory note. Because I try—though often fail—to reserve my public criticism to those who act in ways inimical to life, such as Senator Kerry, or indifferent to its defense, such as Cardinal McCarrick, I choose not to critique, save by inference, criticisms made by others here or elsewhere, not even by those who, emulating the Culture of Death, seek to anathematize defenders of an uncompromising defender of life as folks on the fringe. To which charge, I plead guilty. In a society steeped in innocent blood that cries out to God for judgment, count me (and mine) among the fringe. Rather, I shall briefly state my views of the problem we face and the response it demands.
The problem should be clear to all who respect life and our Holy Catholic Faith, which safeguards it—body and soul. If you still cannot recognize it, just read a random selection of the nearly 100 reports that can be found on this blog, which merely scratch the surface.
The greatest scandal is not that CINO politicians, like Judas before them, have sold Christ out for the electoral equivalent of 30 pieces of silver, but that so many heirs of the Apostles, like Pontius Pilate, are washing their hands of the blood of the innocent lest Caesar be discomforted.
As for the response, in particular, the American Life League's recent ad campaign, as Flannery O'Connor once observed, when the world is deaf, you have no choice but to shout. Indeed, if uncompromising defenders of life are folks on the fringe, if defenders of the Faith of Our Fathers are a remnant, let us then shout all the louder, and may our cries, please God, join those of countless victims whose silent screams call out to You for justice for, in this lost world, we have no other hope.
As reported on Catholic Kerry Watch and elsewhere, three of New Jersey's five Catholic bishops have spoken out in defense of the integrity of the faith in the face of challenges by CINO politicians: Archbishop John Meyers, Newark, A Time for Honesty:
Catholics who publicly dissent from the Church's teaching on the right to life of all unborn children should recognize that they have freely chosen by their own actions to separate themselves from what the Church believes and teaches. They have also separated themselves in a significant way from the Catholic community.
The Church cannot force such people to change their position; but she can and does ask them honestly to admit in the public forum that they are not in full union with the Church.
One who practices such dissent, even in the mistaken belief that it is permissible, may remain a Catholic in some sense, but has abandoned the full Catholic faith. For such a person to express "communion" with Christ and His Church by the reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is objectively dishonest.
Bishop Joseph Galante, Camden, as reported by Oswald Sobrino on Catholic Kerry Watch:
Bishop Joseph Galante, a prominent figure in the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference, has gone on the record stating that he will deny the Eucharist to New Jersey's pro-abortion Governor James McGreevey....Bishop Galante cited the fact of McGreevey's irregular marriage and anti-Catholic positions on life issues. As David O'Reilly reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer:
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."
Now it is the bishop of Trenton, NJ, John Smith, who is causing consternation among local CINO pols. A few nights ago at Roman Hall in Trenton, NJ, plates of pasta were passed among Catholic judges, lawyers, and politicians at a social featuring Bishop Smith. As Joseph Dee reports in the Trenton Times:
The dinner was not unlike other St. Thomas More Society functions, except that it was the first one since the bishop labeled Democratic Gov. James E. McGreevey "not a devout Catholic" for his support of abortion.
Those words, spoken by Smith during a recent Mass in Red Bank, have thundered through Mercer County, where a large number of elected officials are Catholic. Some of them are now wondering where they stand with the leader of the Diocese of Trenton, which, with 760,000 Catholics is the 20th largest in the country.
Now we have heard—or rather not heard— from a fourth New Jersey prelate, Bishop Paul Bootkoski, Metuchen, [pictured above] as reported by Bob Cullinane in the Home News Tribune:
In the Diocese of Metuchen, which represents 560,000 Roman Catholics in Hunterdon, Middlesex, Somerset and Warren counties, Bishop Paul Bootkoski said he is waiting for guidelines to be developed by the U.S. Conference of Bishops. A task force led by Washington, D.C., Cardinal Theodore McCarrick is expected to issue a final report after the November general elections. McCarrick was the first bishop of Central New Jersey's Diocese of Metuchen when it was formed in 1981.
And so the silence continues, as the body count mounts.
A popular argument by some clerics who argue that they are not comfortable with denying the Eucharist to pro-abortion political celebrities is that the decision to receive is up to the conscience of the celebrity. In prior posts, I have indicated why this highly subjective view of conscience is contrary to Catholic teaching and even to relevant canon law. But today it is time to consider one of the most effective ways of exposing fallacy: reductio ad absurdum, that is, showing that a point of view is mistaken by showing that it leads to absurd results-- to "a reduction to absurdity."
Let us take a hypothetical bishop who goes to the media and says that he is not comfortable with denying the Eucharist to a pro-abortion celebrity--in reality, some have already actually done this. But now let us go to a local priest who has a correct grasp of Catholic teaching and canon law on this issue and as a result is firmly convinced in his conscience that for him to give the Eucharist to the local pro-abortion governor or legislator or to John Kerry would make him as a priest an accomplice to the profanation of the Eucharist. Our hypothetical priest has an informed and correct conscience. Moreover, he is certainly obligated to protect the Eucharist from profanation. How can our hypothetical bishop expect that priest (or for that matter a lay person who is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion) to act contrary to a well-formed conscience and give the Eucharist to a pro-abortion celebrity?
The hypothetical bishop can forbid the priest from denying the Eucharist, but, in that case, the bishop has contradicted his own public statement that the individual conscience is supreme on this issue. Or the bishop can let each priest make his own decision on giving or denying the Eucharist. That latter option would at least be consistent with the bishop's public statements on the supremacy of individual conscience. Yet, even this latter option is not desirable because it introduces chaos into the sacramental life of the Church within a particular diocese and between different dioceses.
In other words, the best our hypothetical bishop can do is to recognize that both theology and canon law require a consistent policy of refusing the Eucharist to pro-abortion celebrities. The Eucharist is protected, and Catholic sacramental life remains orderly and uniform within and between dioceses.
Some may object that a policy of denying the Eucharist to pro-abortion celebrities would itself be the source of chaos because there would have to be a complex laundry list of political positions that preclude one from receiving the Eucharist. The truth is that there would be no chaos. Any political celebrity openly and obstinately contradicting Catholic teaching on what is grave sin should be told not to approach the Eucharist and should be denied the Eucharist if he or she does approach. We are not talking about the death penalty issue--the Church has no absolute prohibition against the death penalty, contrary to the implications of some who speak publicly. We are not talking about the mechanics of economic policy about which Catholics can and do legitimately differ. We are not talking about the Iraq War because the Church recognizes that Catholics can legitimately differ on the application of just war criteria to a particular situation.
Any laundry list of obstacles to communion would involve grave and intrinsically evil matters about which the Church recognizes no right to diversity of opinion. In addition, the only practical and feasible targets would be celebrities who persist in denying such Church teaching and thus create scandal--not the average anonymous parishioner.
Catholic liberals are continuing to spout what can only be called "whoppers" in the news media that misrepresent Catholic teaching in their eagerness to defend pro-abortion Democrats. As noted before, one common misrepresentation is that the abortion issue and issues such as the death penalty or the Iraq War are on the same plane. The other great misrepresentation is that denying the Eucharist to a political celebrity is equivalent to denying the Eucharist to an anonymous parishioner where scandal is not a factor.
The biggest misrepresentation was recently made by that reliably unreliable source of Catholic teaching, the Rev. Richard McBrien of Notre Dame University, who is quoted as saying that "Abortion is not a dogma." Here is an excerpt from the news article containing the McBrien quote:
"The only way that you can separate yourself from the church is by knowingly and deliberately denying a dogma of faith," said the Rev. Richard P. McBrien, a professor of theology at Notre Dame and a liberal in such matters. "Abortion is not a dogma."
"Communion Becomes a Test of Faith and Politics," by Daniel J. Wakin, N.Y. Times online, May 9, 2004 (free reg'n required).
Well, a "dogma" is a divinely revealed teaching. It may be defined solemnly as was done in the case of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary, or it can be defined "in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life" (John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary s.v. "Dogma"). As Hardon notes, a dogma is a "[d]octrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation" (Ibid.). And it is clear that the grave immorality of the direct and voluntary taking of an innocent human life--which includes deliberate or procured abortion--is a divinely revealed teaching:
This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
Consistent with the Pope's declaration, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed that the grave immorality of the direct and voluntary taking of innocent human life is a divinely revealed teaching (see Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the 'Professio fidei,' June 29, 1998, section 11 (also refer to section 5), available at EWTN.com.)
So McBrien, not surprisingly, is again wrong. The only remedy for this mess is exposure of these wild misrepresentations and a constant reiteration of the truth. The power of the truth cannot be suppressed by sound bites.
As posted by my fellow pundit Barbara Kralis on Fidelis . . . A surprising turn of events recently took place on the political scene. It may have gone unnoticed by most of the top analysts, politicos and pundits, but it has given many faithful Catholics a sign of hope. The man, Gov. James E. McGreevey of New Jersey, deserves a little more of our attention. Here's why.
Catholics have suffered from a 30-year-old scandal of hundreds of pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians, both in the U.S. Congress and in State and local legislatures, who defiantly rejected clearly defined Church teachings, some which are 2,000 years old, warning members not to receive the Eucharist unworthily or with mortal sin.
Over the past twenty years, several U.S. and world bishops have warned manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners not to come to the altar to receive sacrilegious Communions. To date, none that we know of have obeyed their bishops but continued instead to give grave scandal to the Church and its members.
None, that is, until May 5, 2004, when Newark's Archbishop John J. Myers released a much needed pastoral statement, A Time for Honesty. In it, Bishop Myers wrote that Catholic politicians who support the right of a mother to abort the child in her womb should not seek Communion. The statement fell short of being promulgated as a "canonical notification" but was nonetheless a powerful admonition.
Here's the surprising event. On the same day, New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey, a pro-abortion "Catholic" Democrat, actually said he would voluntarily refrain from taking Communion at Mass out of respect for his bishop.
Now, I'm not saying the pro-abortion, pro-sodomite governor is my hero—far from that. What I am pointing out is he is one of the few CINO politicians—if not the only one—to obey his bishop's warning to stop receiving the Eucharist. And, he did it publicly, with humility.
Could this be the beginning of a conversion of conscience for Gov. McGreevey, the former altar boy? Could this be the first step towards the governor's return to Christ and His Church? With God, all things are possible. McGreevey's response, of course, was only proper—short of conversion. We remain sorrowful for his continued support for evil legislation.
Before McGreevey, saints have also had to take their first steps back to Christ; St. Paul persecuted Christ's Church and later became one of the greatest disciples. St. Augustine lived a sinful life of fornication and unbelief; he recanted his ways—thanks to the prayers of his mother, St. Monica—and became one of the great doctors of the Church. The number of sinners who returned to God is well documented in the lives of the saints.
Will more pro-abortion legislators actually start obeying magisterial warnings against sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist? This is more likely to happen if all the heads of the l96 U.S. dioceses will promulgate "canonical notifications" in each of their dioceses, just as the Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, MO, did when he was bishop of La Crosse, WI. Bishop Burke explained, "No good bishops could stand by and let this [sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist] happen. These public legislators are in grave sin."
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, NE, initiated a similar action, a synodal law in l996 that has an automatic penalty of excommunication attached to it. Recently, Bishop Bruskewitz issued another official statement saying he would deny the Eucharist to manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners and gave total support to Archbishop Burke's "canonical notification."
Two of New Jersey's 4 other Latin Rite bishops, Bishop John Smith of Trenton and Bishop Joseph Galante of Camden have publicly supported Archbishop Myers in recent days, stating that they would deny the Governor the Eucharist. Bishop Myers urged that Catholic voters and Catholics in public life carefully consider their position if they find themselves in opposition to Church teaching in these matters. He then implored Gov. McGreevey and all dissenters to be honest and to admit in the public forum that they are not in full union with the Church and that they have abandoned the full Catholic faith. Shortly after the Archbishop released these pastoral statements, McGreevey admitted at a Trenton press briefing:
The archbishop of Newark is clearly the leader of the Catholic community throughout the Archdiocese. I will respect the Archbishop's request.
I don't know about you, but I'm writing the Governor, inviting him to come back to full union with the Catholic Church. Perhaps if he receives enough prayers and encouragement, we'll witness an outpouring of grace upon his soul. The holy remedy now for the Governor is to publicly recant his pro death mentality on abortion, sodomy, and embryonic stem cell research, go to his bishop for the Sacrament of confession, make reparation for his sins and spend the rest of his life working to undo all the harm he has done. The recompense will be great. God awaits Gov. McGreevey just as much as he awaits you and me.
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
CINO Governor Roars Defiance, While Bishop Ducks for Cover
Just as the light of the full moon reveals the werewolves among us, the growing number of statements issued by bishops with spines in defense of the integrity of the faith and the sanctity of Communion designed to safeguard the faith , as reported on Catholic Kerry Watch, Episcopal Spine Alert, and elsewhere are bringing the defiance of Holy Mother Church by pro-abortion CINO politicians into the light of day. This morning's Associated Press provides us with the latest example:
Gov. John Baldacci [D-ME] says he plans to take Communion whenever he chooses, despite a move by anti-abortion groups to deny the sacrament to Roman Catholic politicians who support abortion rights.
Revealing his true religion, Baldacci reminds us:
America was founded on the principles of religious freedom and separation of church and state. He said he takes his Catholicism seriously and tries to practice his religion every day.
No doubt babies about to be murdered in the their mothers wombs—Catholic and non-Catholic alike— would join me in wishing that the "religion" Baldacci practices daily were Roman Catholicism and not American secularism. And what does Baldacci's bishop have to say? Nothing that would merit notice on Episcopal Spine Alert. As the AP concludes:
A panel of America's Catholic hierarchy is considering whether bishops should settle on uniform church sanctions against U.S. Catholic politicians who champion abortion rights.
A spokeswoman for Maine Bishop Richard Malone says he's waiting to hear what the panel comes up with before taking a position on the Communion issue.
Waiting until after the election, no doubt, as befits a true disciple of Cardinal McCarrick. Too bad the babies don't have that long to wait.
When an educated professional with qualified staff and other available resources gives a superficial and erroneous analysis of an issue within his area of responsibility with harmful results, our culture calls it malpractice. Recent statements by clerics, such as Cardinal McCarrick in Washington, DC, respond to the issue of pro-abortion politicians receiving the Eucharist by saying that you cannot deny them the Eucharist because we cannot see into their hearts and minds and know what lurks therein. Here is what Cardinal McCarrick is quoted as saying in a recent Catholic News Servicestory:
I would be very uncomfortable to have a confrontation at the altar, because it implies that I know precisely what's in a man's heart or in a woman's heart, and I'm not always sure.
That is the analysis presented to the public and to fellow Catholics. It is devastatingly wrong. It is clerical malpractice. In a recent Zenitinterview, priest-theologian Thomas Williams, the dean of the School of Theology of the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum in Rome, gave a professional analysis of the issue based on canon law. You can and should read the entire interview. But let's get to the heart of the issue: to deny the Eucharist to these politicians, does a bishop have to know what lurks in the hearts of men? Canon law clearly says no. Here are the words of Fr. Williams:
Four essential elements come into play, all of which are necessary to fulfill the conditions laid out in Canon 915.
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. (emphasis added)
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.
No judgment of subjective culpability is required. What canon law requires is "objectively evil conduct of a serious nature." This objectively evil conduct creates scandal. Canon law contemplates denial of the Eucharist to squelch the scandal. So for Cardinal McCarrick and other bishops, such as Bishop Mengeling of Lansing, MI, for example, to speak of not being able to judge the hearts of communicants is to miss the boat. Here are Bishop Mengeling's remarks as reported in the Lansing State Journal:
Mengeling said denying Communion to Granholm [the pro-abortion Michigan governor] and other politicians who support abortion rights would force the church to judge every Catholic, a task he said is up to God.
"We assume that (people) are in good standing with the law in terms of their own conscience," Mengeling said. "The Lord knows that. I don't."
No one is making the straw man argument of reading anyone's heart or conscience. In the same Zenit interview, Fr. Williams points to the absurd situation of effectively open Communion created by irrelevant talk of reading someone's heart:
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.
Canon law is not speaking here about reading anyone's heart. Canon law does not contemplate impossibilities. The issue of reading someone's heart is a red herring that is, from all indications, a convenient way to dodge the issue and avoid confrontation. Avoiding confrontation over the truth is episcopal malpractice. The People of God deserve better. And, thanks to Zenit, the People of God now know better.
All roads do not necessarily lead to Rome, as recent developments in the Garden State remind us.
In New Jersey, where pro-abortion Gov. James McGreevey has taken what the Associated Press describes as "the rare step" of promising not to receive Communion at public Masses, another prominent CINO pol has chosen a different path.
Gov. McGreevey's announcement came after Archbishop John Myers, Newark, had declared that abortion supporters should not receive Communion, and Bishop Joseph Galante, Camden, had stated that he would be refused Communion. Adopting "a respectful tone," Gov. McGreevey promised to honor Bishop Meyers' request, showing himself a cut above the-Church-be-damned Sen. John F. Kerry.
Now comes news that State Senator Bernard Kenny (D-Hudson) has taken a profoundly more radical and reckless step, announcing that he "has decided to leave the Roman Catholic church after 57 years, citing Church demands that politicians vote in accordance with Catholic doctrine."
The former altar boy and Majority Leader of the New Jersey State Senate, who like McGreevey supports abortion and immoral stem-cell research, revealed that he had been advised by his pastor that he would offer him Communion one more time if he came to receive the sacrament, "but that then he would tell me not to come again."
All roads do not lead to Rome. The broad way leads to hell.
Ann Rodgers has written a story on the Catholic faith of John Kerry for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I found the following excerpt especially revealing:
Kerry's first political speech was at St. Paul's on Kennedy's behalf. He knew that many Protestants feared that a Catholic president would allow the pope to control the White House. Kennedy's response became Kerry's model: "I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair," Kennedy said.
On public issues, "I will make my decision in accordance ... with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate."
With these words, President Kennedy determined that the teachings of his faith would have no influence over his public policy, and established a questionable precedent for Catholic politicians in decades to come. Judging by Kerry's voting record, it is all too clear what he deems to be of "national interest":
His first Senate speech in 1985 defended legal abortion. He has voted to deny federal funds to hospitals -- including Catholic ones -- that refuse to perform abortions. He voted against a bill to establish penalties for harming a fetus during the commission of a federal crime. He has consistently opposed a ban on partial-birth abortions. When President Bush signed that ban, Kerry declared, "There is no such thing as a partial birth."
Less than a century ago, in Germany and other nations under the shadow of the Third Reich, Catholics found themselves governed by a state that sanctioned the gradual dehumanization, oppression and inevitable execution of innocent human beings whose very existence was judged to be against the "national interest" of the state. Rather than protest, many Christians to their great shame fell into step with the state, turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the plight of those the Nazis had deemed inhuman.
Christians today live in a time when our courts and our political leaders propose that it is in the "national interest" to ensure that every woman has the "right" to kill her child when she simply deems it personally expedient to do so, for whatever reason. Every Catholic, every Christian, today faces this choice: we can go along complacently, or we can resist the tide and work together to bring about a culture oriented towards life.
Mixed Responses to American Life League's Ad Campaign
Amy Welborn and company are discussing American Life League's recent ad campaign against Cardinal McCarrick. The advertisement -- viewable here in PDF Format -- takes issue with McCarrick's statement to the Associated Press: "I have not gotten to the stage where I'm comfortable in denying the Eucharist," and has provoked mixed reactions by many around St. Blog's Parish. Some are enthusiastically for it, while others have deemed it a questionable strategy of public shaming.
Ms. Welborn is particularly upset about the cost of the campaign -- a whopping half a million dollars, about which she exclaims:
"Half a mil? To scold Cardinal McCarrick? Like it's going to do any good? Aren't there some CPC's that could use that dough, buy a few 4-D ultrasounds, set up some more women with free medical care?"
While I think that Cardinal McCarrick and others certainly merit criticism, there are far better ways to express it. And I also agree with Amy that American Life League could have found better uses for that kind of money.
Speaking of criticism, perhaps more can be achieved in the long run by conveying recognition, appreciation, and support for bishops who are defending the faith than simply berating or shaming those that aren't. A remarkable number of bishops are rising to the challenge lately, perhaps inspired by the initial actions of Archbishop Raymond Burke and gestures of support from the laity. God knows I would like to see the day when a blog like Episcopal Spine Alert has more bishops to praise then it can possibly keep up with.
I welcome the thoughts of my co-editors on this issue.
While frankly I have greater respect for a man who identifies himself when he asks a question, the questions our "Anonymous" troll inquisitor asks in the comment boxes below my colleague Jeff Miller's recent report are common enough to merit public response. Q: "I wonder if the pro-abortion governor of California should be denied Communion." A: Of course, pro-abortion Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should be denied Communion. Q: "I wonder if the pro-abortion Catholic Mr. Pataki should be denied Communion." A: Of course, the pro-abortion governor of New York, George Pataki, should be denied Communion. Q: I wonder if the pro-abortion Catholic Mr. Santorum should be denied Communion. A: While I have publicly deplored—here on Catholic Kerry Watch—Sen. Rick Santorum's campaigning for his pro-abort colleague Sen. Specter in the Republican primary, a betrayal of the unborn that ensured Specter's win over his pro-life challenger, Sen. Santorum's pro-life voting record scarcely merits the description "pro-abortion Catholic." I'm afraid your letting your mask slip with this dishonest query, Mr. A. Do "pro-life" individuals—Catholics and non-Catholic alike—ever act in ways that are anti-life? Alas, this is not a rare event by any means. Indeed, it happens every time they compromise Catholic doctrine and the Life Principles. Q: Thanks for your double standard. A: What double standard? But thanks for making it clear that is you, dear "Anonymous," who has two faces, just like CINO Senator Kerry. Come to think of it, I suspect you two have a lot in common. Oh, and for the record, my name is Earl E. Appleby, Jr.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry talk with Rev. Robert Duch, left, after attending morning Mass .
PITTSBURGH -- Democrat John Kerry attended Mother's Day Mass on Sunday and took communion although some Roman Catholic leaders say he should not receive it because his abortion-rights stance violates church teachings.
Kerry and his wife, Teresa, took communion from Father Robert G. Duch at St. Scholastica Catholic Church in suburban Pittsburgh, where the presidential candidate often worships when staying here.
"The homily was perfect," Kerry told Duch as he left the church.
Some Catholic leaders have said they would withhold communion from Kerry because he supports abortion rights. The church itself opposes abortion.
Kerry declined to answer questions about his taking of communion.
He mingled with parishioners after the hourlong service and greeted 8-year-old Emma Prescott, who received her first communion. "I remember my first communion still," Kerry told her. "It's so special." (source)
"A Successor of the Apostles Cannot Remain Silent"
As readers of Catholic Kerry Watch know, a growing number of American bishops are begining to speak out against what LifeSite News describes as "the scandal of U.S. Catholic pro-abortion politicians defying Catholic teaching and receiving Communion despite their grave sin of supporting abortion." One of the latest to join this remnant's ranks, as Episcopal Spine Alert has noted, is Bishop Samuel J. Aquila, of the diocese of Fargo, ND. In his homily for April 25, 2004, delivered in the Cathedral of St. Mary, Bishop Aquila declared:
In the light of the last few days and all of the media coverage regarding John Kerry's unambiguous support of abortion rights, his personal opposition to abortion, and his insistence on the separation of his Catholic faith from his professional life, I, as a successor of the apostles, cannot remain silent. I, as an apostle, must speak with the apostles and obey God rather than man and present to you the teaching of the Church on the proper relationship between our faith and professional life.
"The lie of thinking that we can have one foot with God and one foot with the world," Bishop Aquila observed," is a "grave error that the Father of lies has planted in the hearts of many." The heir to the apostles was quick to dispel such diabolic deceptions.
In regard to the question of sanctions for Catholics who are "pro-choice," who say that they are personally opposed to abortion but whose words and actions speak otherwise in their support of abortion rights, I would share with them the words from St. Justin Martyr in today's Office of Readings. This was in 165 A.D. They shared the same problems we do today. "No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.'"
Nor did this pastor of souls leave his duty half done.
I would remind Catholic politicians, clergy, and all the faithful of the words of St. Paul when he reminds the people who are not living their lives according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and yet still receive the Eucharist that they bring judgment on themselves. (1. Cor. 11:27-29)They bring judgment on themselves. [original emphasis] Let those words sink in.
Reacting on Laudem Gloriae, to Catholic Kerry Watch's report of the recent FDA ruling against the abortifacient "morning-after" pill, Christine notes that "Kerry is steamed." She then describes the rationale of some seeking to rationalize voting for the anti-life Senator:
I've heard from those who have weighed Kerry against Bush and, despite their dislike of Kerry, have an even stronger aversion for Bush. Some fear that leaving Bush in office will mean certain disaster for the country, as terrorists are likely to continue escalating attacks on America, resulting in more lives lost. I can understand the concern. Their reasoning is to vote Kerry into office, but then vote against any pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-homosexual marriage laws.
Such muddled thinkers would do well to heed Christine's cogent counsel:
Keep this in mind: Kerry is not merely a pro-choice politician (as he claims). He is a pro-abortion politician. When the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was ready for a vote, Kerry flew across the country to vote against it. Now, let me give you a little background on this law. Currently, about half the states have such laws in place, which criminalize the murder of a pregnant woman by counting it as a double homicide—the mother's, and the baby's deaths. Nothing new here. Our country has had such laws from its inception. In fact, this law arises from English common law and is as old as the hills. But since Roe v. Wade, a double standard has been introduced between criminal law (under which a fetus counts as a person as to homicide) and constitutional law (under which a fetus is a non-person as to abortion).
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA)was merely federalizing state criminal law—in this sense, it was not doing anything particularly sensational. But because abortion has become such an intensely politicized issue, pro-aborts view such a law as a thinly disguised effort at cutting away the right to choose. Now for Kerry. He claimed at a rally before the D.C. March for Women's Lives that he was not "pro-abortion," but rather "pro-choice." He believed in allowing choice for women. But his vote against the UVVA belies this claim. Because the mother who dies at the hand of a murderer dies against her will, and loses her child against her will. There is no choice involved. Thus, Kerry's vote against the UVVA shows that he cares nothing for the woman's "choice," but everything for abortion.
Christine concludes:
For those who are still considering voting for Kerry, think long and hard about his position. He's not your run-of-the-mill pro-choice Democrat, though he likes to paint himself as such. His actions prove himself to be far more radical. Please think about it, and pray about it, before you vote such a man into office.
Better yet, think about the more than 4,000 babies that will be murdered by abortionists tomorrow thanks to Catholic Judases like JFK and save your prayers for them. One thing is certain, if you can "pray" your way into voting for Kerry, it is Moloch—not God—who has answered your prayers.
A Catholic Analysis reader sent me the May 6th New York Times article noting that pro-abortion Governor James McGreevey of New Jersey has decided to bow to reality. He says that he will not receive communion in the dioceses of three New Jersey bishops who have said that he should not seek to receive the Eucharist. The bishops are Archbishop John Myers in Newark, Bishop John Smith in Trenton, and Bishop Joseph Galante in Camden. Three bishops stood up, said the obvious, and the politician bowed to reality. The governor is free to attend Mass, come forward, receive a blessing, and make a spiritual communion. The bishops have done him a great spiritual favor. They have rescued him from compounding his own confusion about abortion with the sin of sacrilege and have clearly shown him the path to full communion with the Catholic Church. I would not be surprised if one day McGreevey thanks these courageous bishops for their clarity. The New York Times article makes much of the fact that pundits believe that this action by the bishops will help the governor politically. The article misses the boat. The bishops' action has nothing to do with the political fortunes of the governor. It has everything to do with the sacramental discipline of a religious community. The political effects are irrelevant. These observers just can't seem to understand that for Catholics protecting the Eucharist is worth all the political setbacks in the world. The pundits can't seem to understand anything beyond the back and forth of political competition. Yet, the governor is still resistant, as seen in his comments complaining that the bishops have violated the separation of church and state. Of course, this complaint is ridiculous. Freedom of religion, enshrined in the Constitution, means that religious communities are free to decide who has access to their rites and rituals. In fact, it is the governor and other pro-abortion politicians who are violating the separation of church and state by pressuring a religious community to change its age-old moral teachings and sacramental discipline to match a secular political agenda that became prominent only in the nineteen seventies. As to other, less courageous Catholic bishops, the lesson is clear. Here, three bishops in a very liberal, pro-abortion state took a firm and clear stand, protected the Eucharist, and protected the integrity of the Church's teaching against abortion, and their world has not collapsed. The consciences of the bishops are clear. No priest in these dioceses will be placed in the position of possibly contributing to the profanation of the Eucharist. It is as it should be. It is good to see bishops in a major state not following the passive approach advocated by Cardinal McCarrick in Washington, D.C. It is obvious that McCarrick's view is his own problem that he will have to sort out on his own and will not inhibit bishops who wish to act like bishops. It may be that we are seeing the beginning of the end of a long, cowardly phase of American Catholicism.
From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . In today's New York Times, Gardiner Harris reports on a "surprise" ruling by the Food and Drug Administration that John Mallon is describing as a "victory!":
Federal drug regulators yesterday rejected a drug maker's application to sell a morning-after pill over the counter because of concerns about whether young girls would be able to use it safely....
The decision was a surprise because in December, a panel of independent experts assembled by the Food and Drug Administration voted 23 to 4 to recommend that the drug be sold over the counter....The Food and Drug Administration normally follows the recommendation of its advisory panels.
The decision was immediately attacked by a spokesman for CINO presidential contender John F. Kerry, who, unlike AmChurch bureaucrats, is quick to act when the lives of unborn babies are on the line—albeit in the wrong direction.
By overruling a recommendation by an independent FDA review board, the White House is putting its own political interests ahead of sound medical policies that have broad support. This White House is more interested in appealing to its electoral base than it is in protecting women's health.
Translation from Kerryspeak: President Bush's White House is more pro-life than John Kerry's would be. Tell us sometbing we don't already know, John!
Of course, the extent and longevity of the purported "victory," remains to be seen, as close perusal of Harris' story reveals. The FDA—hardly a friend of life—has already offered Barr Pharmaceuticals, manfacturer of the baby kill pill two outs:
Either it can undertake a new study among girls 16 years old and younger to show that they can use the drug safely without the help of a doctor. Or the company must write a new label and construct a system that would allow women older than 16 to buy the drug over the counter while those younger than 17 would be forced to get a prescription.
The compromise concessions freely offered by the FDA have already inspired Barr CEO Bruce Downey to dismiss the significance of the ruling with these words:
It's the kind of objection that can be addressed in weeks or months, not years. We are committed to taking one or both of these approaches.
Will the FDA "setback" prove a lasting "victory"? The answer to that question will prove yet another indicator of whether the Bush administration is truly pro-life or simply more "pro-life" than the regime of his anti-life opponent John Kerry would be.
Post Script: I thank all those who responded to the emergency appeals posted on Times Against Humanity and elsewhere and my brother bloggers who posted those appeals. Whatever the ultimate outcome, the setback is a powerful reminder of what we can accomplish when we work together under God, imploring His indispensible aid, i.e., when we act as what we are called to be—the Church Militant.
During his campaign for the presidency, Senator John Kerry has tried in various ways to square his self-description as a "believing and practicing Catholic" with his unalloyed record of support for abortion-on-demand, including partial birth abortion. Perhaps the senator's most succinct statement of his case came in St. Louis this past January: "What I believe personally as a Catholic as an article of faith is an article of faith...(But it is not) appropriate in the United States for a legislator to legislate personal religious beliefs for the rest of the country."
In other words, Senator Kerry believes that the Catholic Church's pro-life position is a sectarian position, whose imposition on a pluralistic society would be constitutionally unwarranted -- something like the Catholic Church trying to force all Americans to abstain from hot dogs on Fridays during Lent.
This is simply not true. For the past thirty-one years, the Catholic bishops of the United States have made public arguments that can be engaged by any serious person on behalf of the right to life. You don't have to believe in Petrine primacy, seven sacraments, or the two natures of Christ to engage the Catholic pro-life argument; you don't even have to believe in God. You simply have to be willing to take elementary embryology and elementary logic seriously. For the senator to suggest that the Church's position is sectarian is either woefully ignorant or deliberately mendacious.
The bishops of the United States must address this sorry misrepresentation of their teaching -- soon, crisply, and preferably as a united body.
Leaving this distortion of the nature of the Church's pro-life position unchallenged would have several serious consequences. It would further corrupt the public debate, which would decay into a non-argument between mis-named "sectarians" and misguided "pluralists." The bishops have done the entire country a great service these past thirty years by using a vocabulary in defense of the dignity of life that everyone, irrespective of religious convictions, can understand. If that genuinely ecumenical, public approach is successfully labeled "sectarian" -- and by a Catholic, no less -- lasting damage will be done to our political culture.
In an effort to defend his political appeal among Catholics, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is to meet today with Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, who has strong ties to the Latino community.
The meeting follows another Kerry held last month with Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, who is leading a bishops committee studying the possible sanctions against politicians who defend abortion rights.
Some Catholics say Mahony is one of most liberal of America's 14 cardinals.
Kerry's campaign has met with dozens of Catholic theologians, lay people and church leaders in recent weeks to familiarize them with what they say is Kerry's strong faith. The campaign wants to learn how to defend Kerry against conservative attacks and appeal to Catholic voters better.
In response to which fellow blogger and celebrated author Amy Welborn has this wise advice:
. . . when they say they're trying to woo you, Fight The Power. Whether it's the GOP or Kerryites doing the wooing, forming their Catholic Outreach Committees, playing off however they've decided to spin your faith, spurn them.
Further, here's another teachable moment for you. It's clear that the Kerry camp is trying to play sympathetic, Public Catholics, including bishops. (Just as the other side does, as well). The bishops have a responsibility to refuse to be played and to really publicly resist this politician's attempt to define Catholicism on his own terms.
My colleague Oswald Sobrino has just mentioned Newark Archbishop John J. Myers' pastoral letter "A Time for Honesty"; I was particularly impressed by this clear, straight and unwavering call to Catholics on their public duties with respect to abortion (a not-so-subtle allusion to the current scandal):
"There is no right more fundamental than the right to be born and reared with all the dignity the human person deserves. On this grave issue, public officials cannot hold themselves excused from their duties, especially if they claim to be Catholic. Every faithful Catholic must be not only "personally opposed" to abortion, but also must live that opposition in his or her actions. In Robert Bolt's play A Man for All Seasons, St. Thomas More remarks, "I believe, when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties . . . they lead their country by a short route to chaos." Sadly, too few follow the example of St. Thomas More. As voters, Catholics are under an obligation to avoid implicating themselves in abortion, which is one of the gravest of injustices. Certainly, there are other injustices, which must be addressed, but the unjust killing of the innocent is foremost among them."
Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando, FL delivers an instructive homily on the proper relationship between church and state (Gov. Jeb Bush was in attendance).
Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix continues to fulfill his obligations to his diocese, standing up for the faith (and getting the East Valley Tribune in a tizzy).
On May 5, Archbishop John Myers of the Archdiocese of Newark, NJ, issued an eloquent statement that clearly analyzes the issues involved in the propriety of pro-abortion politicians receiving the Eucharist. The archbishop correctly distinguishes between grave and instrinsic evils like abortion on which there is only one Catholic position and other issues of social policy, such as increases in welfare payments or tax cuts, about which Catholics can differ in good faith. The archbishop also makes clear that receiving the Eucharist is not an absolute right, and that those who are pro-abortion should honestly admit they are not in communion with the Church.
Let us hope that this statement is a prelude to action. What is also striking about this statement is the contrast with the weak-as-water comments of Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, D.C., who heads a task force considering this issue for the bishops' conference. It has even been reported that this task force will probably not finish its work before the 2004 election! So in the end, Cardinal McCarrick's passive response to the issue is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that some bishops and archbishops are taking action or preparing to take long overdue action. Maybe the rest of their colleagues will eventually emulate their apostolic boldness. According to Vatican II, each bishop is a vicar of Christ in his diocese—not a vicar of the bishops' conference or of a committee or of a paralyzed task force. Fortunately, it seems that several bold bishops have taken that teaching of Vatican II to heart.
Papabile? Dark Horse Candidate of Forces of Darkness
"Greeley for Pope!!! Greeley for Pope!!!" shouts Len Cleavelin, a self-described twice-divorced, failed lawyer, in a comment box on the aptly named Lean Left. And what makes Len, who was "raised Catholic," so enthusiastic about his dark horse candidate for the Chair of St. Peter? Why, it is what Len describes as "Rev. Andy's excellent piece" in yesterday's New York Daily News. But you've waited long enough—this is the Internet, after all—so here are excerpts from said "excellence":
There is currently a discussion among some Catholic bishops about refusing the sacraments to Democratic Sen. John Kerry for not opposing abortion, thus doing the Republican National Committee's work for it.
And you thought it had to do with defending the faith, safeguarding the Eucharist, and saving souls—the work of priests like Fr. Greeley—you dolt!
Bishops also threaten political leaders who support civil unions between homosexuals. Given their tolerance for sexual abusers in the priesthood, that looks a bit hypocritical. I have never heard any of them criticize gay bashing.
I'm afraid you've lost me here, Father. On the one hand, it's hypocritical for bishops who coddled homosexual predators to oppose treating perverted pairings as tantamount to bona fide marriages. (Change "hypocritical" to "risky business," and I'm apt to agree.) But it isn't "hypocritical" for these same bishops to knock "gay bashing"—pace Canada, reading the Bible, for instance. How about "self-serving"?
Finally, some bishops have doubts about permitting women to participate in the washing of feet during the Holy Thursday services.
Like the bishop of Rome, Father?
These men will tolerate women distributing Communion only when it is absolutely necessary.
Would this were true of lay men and women, but then they really would be "extraordinary ministers," wouldn't they?
They are uneasy about females serving Mass.
I guess I have more in common with these bishops then I realized.
Such sentiments doubtless also will promote their careers.
Holding to the Faith of our Fathers is a career enhancer, Fr. Greeley? Have you spoken with Fr. Charles Murr lately? How about Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.? How about Fr....I'm sorry, my time is up. Thanks for yours. P.S.: In his Pignedoli Principle, George Wiegel holds that a man's chances of becoming pope decrease in proportion to the number of times he's described as papabile in the press. Hence, our headline.
I was recently stuck in a traffic jam in Sterling Heights, MI, one of the original enclaves of the famous Reagan Democrats. As you may recall, the Reagan Democrats were those traditional, usually working-class Democratic voters who crossed party lines to elect Reagan twice as president. This time the traffic jam was caused by Bush supporters heading to an outdoor rally at which George W. Bush would speak. It is likely that more than a few Reagan Democrats were headed to the rally. All of which raised for me the different personal styles of Reagan and Bush on one hand and John Kerry on the other.
If the pollsters are correct, a "gender gap" persists in this presidential election with more women preferring Kerry, while more men prefer Bush. Whether that gap will last until November 2nd is unclear. My own hypothesis is that the gender gap may have to do with our differing cultural reactions to assertive politicians with a penchant for morally unambiguous statements. Back in the eighties, when Reagan stated the abundantly obvious—that the Soviet Union was an "evil empire"—he was roundly criticized as a warmonger by the liberals and the liberal media. Reagan had committed the sin of making a clear-cut distinction between good and evil. Reagan had played the role of the assertive male. At the same time, Margaret Thatcher, the "Iron Lady," was playing the role of the assertive female who did not shrink from calling a spade a spade and was also the target of venomous criticism.
The assertive proclamation of good and evil is viewed in today's culture as insensitive and unintelligent. We can see that in the current paralysis by many Catholic bishops on the question of denying the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians. Some—including most recently Bishop Mengeling of the Diocese of Lansing, MI—take cover in the obvious fact that they can't read the minds of every Catholic seeking to receive communion. Of course, this excuse is transparently baseless. No one is talking about denying the Eucharist to anonymous parishioners. We are talking about prominent political celebrities who go out of their way to publicly reaffirm again and again that they are leaders in the pro-abortion movement. There is no need to read their minds or consciences. They have spilled forth the contents of their minds for all, but the most timorous, to see. But there is a strong cultural affinity for the "nice" approach that shrinks from unambiguous confrontation with evil.
In a way, an inaccurate view and caricature of Christ has been partly responsible for this cultural preference for moral ambiguity. The false image of Christ that is the darling of liberal Protestants and liberal Catholics is that of Christ as the sensitive male who never confronts evil. The Gospel picture is radically different. Christ was brutally executed because he would not desist from confrontation. Christ had a spine of steel, while the caricature is that of a biblically fictitious person who would have offended no one and would have never been executed.
But back to political preferences. Today, George W. Bush is the favorite political target of those, both male and female, who favor the morally ambiguous male. Bush is mocked and derided as unintelligent, as a warmonger, and even as a killer of civilians because he dared to overthrow a genocidal tyrant who terrorized thousands of his subjects for years while the U.N. engaged in endless debate. Bush routinely refers to the terrorists as evildoers, while the culturally sensitive seek to focus exclusively on the excuses and frustrations that lead to terrorism.
Kerry, on the other hand, with his trademark pink salmon-colored tie, is the quintessential tortured Hamlet who is incapable of making a clear judgment call. He is for and against everything, and breathes ambiguity. The ambiguity even enveloped for years his own ethnic background. As reported by the Boston Globe, Kerry was happy to leave Massachusetts voters for years with the useful impression that he was of Irish Catholic background. To the surprise of many who had been his constituents for years, Kerry lacks any Irish Catholic background. Kerry's ambiguity extends to more significant matters: rejecting Catholic teaching on abortion but refusing to get out of the communion line, supporting and then attacking the Iraq War, crowing against gas guzzling vehicles but owning an SUV, basing his whole campaign on his Vietnam war record but refusing to release all of his military records, and making populist attacks on tax cuts for the rich while at the same time being an extremely wealthy man with a conspicuously opulent lifestyle who supports his heiress wife's refusal to release her own tax returns. In sum, Kerry is the incarnation of the cultural affinity for the Hamlet-like, sensitive, "intelligent" male paralyzed by distinctions.
Experience teaches many of us that, at some point, excessive introspection is not a sign of intelligence but of moral escapism. Life is by nature dramatic and requires dramatic choices. That is how we form our character. Yet, we see a strong cultural affinity for ambiguity that is a mark of our preference for seeking escape, whether in the pursuit of power, alcohol or other drugs, pornography, or materialism. In the real world, escape is sometimes not an option. Sometimes you must make a clear choice and take up the cross.
Hilarious Left-Wing Conspiracy Theory of the Month
Providing a moment of comic-relief from the ongoing travesty of John Kerry, The Binghamton, NY Press and Sun-Bulletin publishes a letter by a reader attempting to weave a conspiracy behind Cardinal Arinze's statement last month that "unambiguously pro-abortion" Catholic politicians should be denied communion:
When Jack Kennedy ran for president in 1960, there were open questions on whether as a Catholic president, he would be beholden to the Vatican. . . . A cardinal in Rome recently said any elected official who challenges the church's stand on abortion should be denied the sacraments. Why now? Could the answer be Vice President Dick Cheney?
Last year, Cheney, while not a Catholic, paid a visit to Rome for an audience with the pope. Since that trip, the war in Iraq heated to a fever pitch, while the Vatican's opposition to the conflict has been put on the back burner.
Did Cheney meet with the Curia to provide assurances that Supreme Court appointments in the second Bush term would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? In return, were any assurances given of political support over the abortion issue and a dampening of criticism over the war?
Any further pursuit of the campaign to question Kerry's standing as a Catholic should be with a demand that Cheney explain his visit to Rome.
I can just see this rumor making its rounds through the ranks of the left-wing fringe, and it's sad to see a newspaper damage its credibility by publishing such speculations.
As Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments -- which, incidentally, concerns itself not only with the proper celebration of the liturgy but the objective conditions under which the Eucharist may be received -- I would imagine that Cardinal Arinze is qualified to venture his opinion on the matter, even without the bidding of our Vice President.
The always interesting William F. Buckley weighs in on Kerry and Communion in this article
I am in favor of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, with one exception. Nobody should be permitted to say flat-out that "the government should stay out of the bedrooms of America." What if a civil-rights hate act was being conducted in the bedroom? For that matter, what if Daddy was forcing his way with a 10-year-old girl? Or Mom was starving her 10-month-old boy?
The phrase is an idiotic invocation of a taboo whose single purpose, in current usage, is to illegitimize concern about sexual activity. Said John Kerry (news - web sites), "Abortion should be rare, but it should be safe and legal because the government should stay out of the bedrooms of America." Just by the way, the bedrooms of America aren't where abortions are had; they're where seeds are planted that lead to abortions.
That government should stay out of the bedrooms of America has come to mean an ever-increasing area of official non-concern. There is to be no concern over sodomy in the bedroom. But are there limits? What about incest? We know that infanticide is just plain illegal, even if undertaken in the bedroom -- provided the infant is at least 1 day old. If the infant is minus 1 day old, it's all right to snuff him/her out, and go to church on Sundays.
We bump now into a second maxim, to which insufficient thought is given. "John Kerry is a believing and practicing Catholic," said his campaign spokesman David Wade. "His faith has played an important role in his life, but he also believes in the separation of church and state."
Well, so do us guys, Wade. But when John Kerry approaches the altar rail to present himself for communion, why are so many people saying that he should be given communion? If we have a separation of church and state, then the right of the church is to decide who does and who does not receive communion. If you are saying that a member should be given communion even if he counsels laws that violate rights believed by the church to be universal, then you are not arguing the separation of church and state. You are arguing the supremacy of the state. State believes abortion OK; therefore, church must not discriminate against anyone who also says it is OK.
Or is the complaint against the Catholic Church that it is laying down laws not only for Catholics, but also for non-Catholics? But if the moral commandments of a church extended only to the treatment of its own members, then it would be fine to ignore the rights of people who were merely, oh, Hindus, or Jews. It is another thing, of course, to limit the sanctions of a church to its own members. A Catholic bishop would be presumptuous if he announced that Al Franken would not be welcome at the communion rail. It is widely understood, and not resented, that only Catholics go to the Catholic communion rail, the same kind of thing as only Democrats go to Democratic caucuses.
But now we have a Nigerian cardinal in the Vatican (news - web sites) who has reaffirmed the right of an American Catholic bishop to deny communion to someone who votes in favor of permissive abortion laws. The organization of the Catholic Church is centralized. The pope is the head of the church, but bishops are vested with authority that is theirs, and includes, in this case, the authority to deny communion to those who flout precepts thought by the bishops to be central to moral obligations.
The difference between giving communion to John Kerry, presidential candidate, and giving communion to John Doe, who voted for a local abortion law, is that Kerry is a public figure, and therefore a transgressor whose transgression is a public act, inviting reprisal, like the protester who draws attention to himself by proclaiming his defiance. To upbraid a bishop for denying communion to a public figure who espouses permissive abortion laws is to upbraid him for upholding the doctrine of the separation of church and state. If the churchman allows himself to be governed by state practices, he violates that separation.
I just love how he reversed the church-state separation argument in the last paragraph.
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.
It was reported that members of the Al Smith Foundation met to discuss what to do if Cardinal Egan tries to bar Kerry from the dinner. According to an informed source:
They're concerned that Egan may do something to win favor with the Pope. Some people were nervous that the Cardinal wouldn't recognize a Catholic who is [pro-abortion].
It's beginning to look that that last sentence may prove prophetic. In today's Newsday, Wiliam Murphy reports:
While Kerry might get an invite to this fall's dinner, a spokesman for Cardinal Egan said a decision has not been made on who would be allowed to speak, leaving open the possibility that Kerry could attend but not be officially recognized.
"Okay, let's get one thing straight," Justin Katz begins his recent commentary "Politicians Without Conscience" on the ever interesting Dust in the Light.
In our system of government, citizens vote for a certain number of representatives, depending upon where they live and what governing body they're voting to fill. Those leaders then vote and otherwise create the laws under which we all live. Unless I've failed to notice it across the decades of my citizenship, there is nothing in the Constitution or the law that dictates what criteria or areas of thought legislators must utilize in deciding their votes.
The point he makes is basic, as most sound points are.
One can disagree with the Catholic Church's position on abortion. One can even disagree with the Catholic Church's internal derivation of that position. Such a person would be wrong in both respects, but we are free to be wrong. However, I have lost patience with the argument that it violates some objective principle that the Church declares pro-abortion politicians to be out of communion with their Church and, therefore, not appropriately situated to take Communion.
You'll want to read the rest of Mr. Katz's cogent comments to discover the straw that broke the camel's back, but here's a hint. Like the editors of Catholic Kerry Watch, the creator of Dust in the Light appears to have a low tolerance level for such secularist drivel as the following:
It is a lawmaker's sworn duty to argue and vote as he deems best for his nation. That's the burden of office. That's the price of its prestige and perquisites. For anyone to make that burden worse in an attempt to coerce the lawmaker into changing his position against the dictates of his conscience is deplorable. It is morally unacceptable.
No, what is unacceptable is to muzzle the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ and drive Her from the public square, for while men are free to be wrong, it is truth, not error, that has rights. And rest assured that while Roman Catholics yet live, we shall defend those rights. It is vice, not virtue, that is "morally unacceptable," after all.
The bishop of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, has barred pro-abortion Indiana Governor Joseph Kernan from giving a commencement address at a local Catholic high school. You can read about Bishop John D'Arcy's action in this Associated Press story.
As previously reported on Catholic Kerry Watch, the bishop of Camden, NJ, Joseph Galante, a prominent figure in the U.S. Bishops' Conference, has gone on record promising to deny Holy Communion to New Jersey's pro-abortion Governor James McGreevey. Now it is the bishop of Trenton, NJ, John Smith, who is causing consternation among local CINO pols. A few nights ago at Roman Hall in Trenton, NJ, plates of pasta were passed among Catholic judges, lawyers, and politicians at a social featuring Bishop Smith. As Joseph Dee reports in the Trenton Times:
The dinner was not unlike other St. Thomas More Society functions, except that it was the first one since the bishop labeled Democratic Gov. James E. McGreevey "not a devout Catholic" for his support of abortion.
Those words, spoken by Smith during a recent Mass in Red Bank, have thundered through Mercer County, where a large number of elected officials are Catholic. Some of them are now wondering where they stand with the leader of the Diocese of Trenton, which, with 760,000 Catholics is the 20th largest in the country.
One cafeteria Catholic with reason for concern is Mercer County Freeholder Elizabeth Muoio. A parishioner of St. James Church in Pennington, Muio supports abortion, stem-cell research, and same-sex "marriage." "I guess the bishop wouldn't consider me devout," she candidly admits.
"I'd be curious to know what the Church's definition of 'devout' is," Muoio said in a telephone interview. "I think it's more than following the black-and-white dictates of the Church. It's having faith in your heart. And how you treat your fellow man and how you choose to apply Jesus' teachings in your daily life."
Apparently, Muio's "fellow-men" exclude the more than 4,000 American babies butchered each day through surgical abortions alone. Not surprisingly, Muio's complaint was echoed by the "seamless garment" set, who "wondered why a politician's stance on abortion draws a public rebuke when views or votes on the death penalty, social justice, or the United States' pre-emptive war on Iraq do not." And, yes, Virginia, Muio opposes capital punishment for those guilty of capital offenses, including heinous murders—and not just abortions—while sanctioning it for unborn. She's not the only one, of course.
Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Princeton Borough, wondered about the lack of religious outrage over the Iraq war. "They're killing people over there," he said. Gusciora is on the same page as the Church when it comes to the death penalty, but he favors a woman's right to choose an abortion and supports stem cell research and civil gay marriage.
And here's a third, Mercer County Executive Brian Hughes.
As someone brought up in the Catholic faith, I am proud of the way it has shaped me and fostered my bedrock of independent thought. It is that kind of interconnectivity between faith, personal beliefs, and responsibility to a civil society that allows me to maintain views supportive of the right to choose, civil union, stem cell research and against the death penalty without impinging on my fundamental religious beliefs.
Hughes also supports the "civil union" or "marriage" of homosexuals. Raymond Scroth, a professor of humanities at St. Peter's College in Jersey City, said directives from a bishop "just doesn't cut it these days." Like pro-abort CINOs, Muio,Gusciora, and Hughes, Scroth also questioned Bishop Smith's "focus on abortion," declaring:
You've got to make an across-the-board case on the value of life. That includes the death penalty, pre-emptive war, and all those children in Fallujah who are getting their arms and legs blown off when we bomb them.
Of course, one mustn't get the impression that Scroth is criticizing the bishop, he wants you to know.
Whatever I say, I don't intend to criticize Bishop John Smith. I like him. In one sense, that is the bishop's job, to teach. The question is, to what degree should they single out an individual politician, lest it seem to be a targeted attack? So often when this does happen, abortion seems to be the only issue church leaders tend to address. It makes them look like Republicans.
No doubt, that's why Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ, who opposes abortion, is so delighted.
I'm glad they're speaking out. The more assertive the better. There was a sense among a lot of politicians that there were no consequences.
According to Dee, Bishop Smith didn't have time to respond to questions about whether he plans to instruct his priests to deny Communion to Gov. McGreevey and other pro-abortion CINO politicians. But let's keep asking!
Kieth Fournier, a human rights lawyer from Chesapeake, Virginia and a Deacon of the Diocese of Richmond, posts his prediction that "Catholics will decide the election":
Though I lived and worked "in the beltway", I no longer do. I am out in the "real world" and I discern an amazing phenomenon brewing in the Catholic community. It is not that most Catholics are necessarily "pro-Bush", though some are. It is the reverse of what some pundits maintain will be the deciding factor in this election. You have heard some refer to a growing "anyone but Bush" sentiment in some circles. I see the opposite among Catholics. There is a growing "anyone but Kerry" sentiment.
Why? Because we do not want to be used by an opportunistic candidate who professes to believe what our Church teaches about life and marriage but acts in a manner that is diametrically opposed to these positions. By doing so, Mr. Kerry not only puts his own soul at risk, but he has alienated scores of Catholics as a result and is going to lose the election because of it. There is an obvious irony here. This allegedly "Catholic candidate" will be kept out of office by Catholics. The Catholic community senses a fraud and will not be used in this way. . . . [READ MORE]
Question for our readers -- do you get this sense in your parishes as well? A lot could happen between now and November, but this is what I'd call a sign of hope. Discuss.
Cardinal McCarrick: An Invitation to Open Communion?
Some of us have noticed that the comments by Theodore Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, D.C., on the denial of communion to pro-abortion politicians are reminiscent of the kow-towing to political power pioneered by those proto-Anglicans who succumbed to the political bullying of Henry VIII in sixteenth century England.
Well, conservative Anglican Christopher Johnson of the Midwest Conservative Journal seems to see this similarity, although Johnson draws the comparison not with Cranmer but with the present-day weak-as-water bishops of the Episcopal Church USA. Different comparisons, same defects. See Johnson's post for April 29, 2004, entitled "Outbreak" at the Midwest Conservative Journal. Johnson with his usual skill analyzes McCarrick's recent comments to the media and rightfully asks if the Catholic Church is now practicing open communion since McCarrick seems loathe to deny the Eucharist to anyone who comes forward to receive. If Johnson, an Anglican, can see the strange muddle in McCarrick's recent comments, then so should more Catholics and, more importantly, so should McCarrick's fellow bishops.
Liberals frame the issue of denying the Eucharist to pro-abortion Catholic politicians as one of the Church interfering with politics. Of course, the exact opposite is true. This whole matter is an issue of pro-abortion politicians seeking to revise Church teaching and thus interfering with an intimately religious issue: the sacramental discipline and parameters set by a Christian community. First, they contradict Church teaching by being blatantly and uncompromisingly pro-abortion. Second, they proceed to proclaim that they are "devout" and faithful Catholics. Third, they proceed to prove their good standing as Catholics by receiving the Eucharist. The inevitable conclusion from their actions is that being pro-abortion is reconcilable with the Catholic faith. That conclusion is heretical because the Catholic faith proclaims the direct killing of innocent human life as inherently and gravely evil.
But there is an additional heresy involved in the "three-step" dance by which the pro-abortion politicians mock the Catholic faith. That heresy is the notion that there is an unconditional right to receive the Eucharist. Scripture is clear:
Whoever, therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and the 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.
1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (RSV).
Participating in the Eucharist is not unconditional. This teaching was recently reiterated in the just released disciplinary Vatican document on the Eucharist (see Redemptionis Sacramentum, sections 80-86, 91). Canon law provides that Catholics have a right to the assistance of the sacraments, but canon law does not and cannot alter the theological conditions on that participation ("Can. 213 Christ's faithful have the right to be assisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the sacraments." See the 1983 Code of Canon Law at this link.) To give the Eucharist in a situation where those conditions are not met is not "assistance" but rather the condemnation spoken of by St. Paul.
Liberal activists use arguments based on access to the Eucharist to push for the ordination of women and even for erasing the distinction between the ordained and the non-ordained in consecrating the Eucharist. The hypocrisy of this liberal reliance on access to the Eucharist is that the liberals never want to discuss the primary condition under which one can exercise that access: freedom from mortal sin. But, of course, liberals stopped believing in mortal sin a long time ago. Under the liberal version of "fundamental option" theory in moral theology, the rule is simple: "Once a Catholic, always a communicant." It doesn't work that way, and it never will. To the surprise of many in an age of poor catechesis and confusion, merely being Catholic is not enough to allow one to receive the Eucharist. But that is the additional heresy that the pro-abortion politicians and their defenders are pushing, even after being clearly told not to approach the Eucharist.
Ongoing commentary by the editors of CatholicKerryWatch
Sen. John Kerry stands with Kate Michelman (right) President of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Since 1995, Michelman's group has given Kerry a 100% rating for his voting record to defend abortion.
No one who knows the Crusader's heart of Fr. Rob Johansen would doubt for a moment that he shares Catholic Kerry Watch's nonpartisan commitment to equal-handed treatment of all public CINO pro-aborts who impiously approach the Sacrament of the Altar to profane the Body and Blood of Christ with hands stained with the blood of countless babies. Indeed, we could have said it no better:
From the pages of 
As posted by my fellow pundit Barbara Kralis on 
Q.: How can you tell when Sen. John F. Kerry has done something right?
As posted by my fellow pundit Barbara Kralis on the pages of
My friend and colleague Christopher Blosser concludes his recent report on "
As reported on 
As posted by my fellow pundit Barbara Kralis on 
Just as the light of the full moon reveals the werewolves among us, the growing number of statements issued by bishops with spines in defense of the integrity of the faith and the sanctity of Communion designed to safeguard the faith , as reported on 
When an educated professional with qualified staff and other available resources gives a superficial and erroneous analysis of an issue within his area of responsibility with harmful results, our culture calls it malpractice. Recent statements by clerics, such as Cardinal McCarrick in Washington, DC, respond to the issue of pro-abortion politicians receiving the Eucharist by saying that you cannot deny them the Eucharist because we cannot see into their hearts and minds and know what lurks therein. Here is what Cardinal McCarrick is quoted as saying in a recent Catholic News Service 
All roads do not necessarily lead to Rome, as recent developments in the Garden State remind us.
While frankly I have greater respect for a man who identifies himself when he asks a question, the questions our "Anonymous" 
As readers of 
Reacting on 
From the pages of 
"Greeley for Pope!!! Greeley for Pope!!!" shouts 
I was recently stuck in a traffic jam in Sterling Heights, MI, one of the original enclaves of the famous Reagan Democrats. As you may recall, the Reagan Democrats were those traditional, usually working-class Democratic voters who crossed party lines to elect Reagan twice as president. This time the traffic jam was caused by Bush supporters heading to an outdoor rally at which George W. Bush would speak. It is likely that more than a few Reagan Democrats were headed to the rally. All of which raised for me the different personal styles of Reagan and Bush on one hand and John Kerry on the other.
Recently, Catholic Kerry Watch, citing the New York 
"Okay, let's get one thing straight," Justin Katz begins his recent commentary "
As previously reported on 
