Catholic[?] Kerry Watch

A Lecture From a Lady—Thank God, Not the First

2005-03-07T23:35:00.000-05:00

Writing on Bettnet, Domenico Bettinelli brings us "Ter-AY-za on the Catholic Bishops," as in Teresa Heinz Kerry, who recently ranted:

You cannot have bishops in the pulpit—long before or the Sunday before the election—as they did in Catholic churches, saying it was a mortal sin to vote for John Kerry.

And as if that were not bad enough:

The Church has a right and obligation to teach values. They don't have a right to restrict freedom of expression.

"Whose freedom of expression is being limited?" asks Dom.

How is a bishop giving his opinion limiting Kerry's freedom of expression? How does it limit the voter's freedom of expression? The Church doesn't have stormtroopers standing outside of polling places taking down the names of Catholics who vote for Kerry...and then carting them away later under the cover of darkness.

The reality is that all the bishop is saying is that God knows who they are voting for and the moral law says we must not provide support for the intentional murder of innocents, that God knows what we are doing and that our actions, including our votes, have moral consequences.

The funny thing, Dom notes, is that the response from the U.S. bishops to CINO Kerry was so tepid.

So few of them even took a stance on Kerry and other pro-abort Catholic pols. How would they react if the majority of bishops were actually courageous enough to do something so countercultural as a united front?

Do you think we'll ever have a chance to find out?

Democratic Party Post-Mortem

2004-12-28T02:39:00.000-05:00

In the aftermath of Senator Kerry’s defeat the Democrats are wondering how it is that the first Catholic nominee for President since 1960, a man who spoke glowingly of rosary beads and his days as an altar boy, lost the Catholic vote, lost the Mass-going Catholic vote by an even larger margin, and lost it by larger margins still in key swing states such as Florida and Ohio.

They have much to ponder, as do all Americans who truly care about life, for it should be clear that a Democratic Party in its current shape is not healthy for America. We need pro-life Democrats to be able to breathe again. This means that we need a Democratic leadership that doesn’t demand that Democrats vote against, among other things, judicial nominees whose only crime is their "deeply held" personal beliefs or a suspected skepticism toward the one dogma in the Democratic Party: that while all other Supreme Court decisions are malleable and must bend to the social and political agenda of the day, RoeCAv. Wade is holy writ.

As Democratic leaders perform their post-election postmortems, let us hope that someone poses the question Bob Casey would have asked: How different might the outcome have been if the Party’s Mario Cuomos, Mark Roches, and Paul Begalas had over the past two decades devoted as much of their passion and public commentary to the "personally opposed" as they have to the "but"?

Bob Casey's Revenge", by William McGurn. First Things 149 (January 2005): 6-8.

American Life League: "Even a Loser's Soul is Worth Saving"

2004-11-17T01:26:00.000-05:00

American Life League has published an ad in today's Washington Times alerting all Catholics, laity and clergy alike, that while the recent elections may be over, the scandal of pro-abortion Catholic public figures and the reception of Holy Communion continues. "With the defeat of the most pro-abortion Catholic public figure to ever seek the White House, many believe that this crisis can now take a backseat," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "That couldn't be farther from the truth. The problem is not going away until all of the bishops in the country actively enforce the Church's clear teachings on this matter."

Today's Washington Times ad is being run in conjunction with the annual meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in Washington, D.C. "At last year's USCCB meeting in Washington, not one bishop committed to enforce Canon 915 and withhold Holy Communion from pro-abortion Catholic public figures," said Brown. "Going into this year's D.C. meeting, at least 10 bishops have taken very strong positions against this scandal. We pray that all bishops will join these courageous men in defending the faith of the Church."

American Life League's Crusade for the Defense of Our Catholic Church has been actively exposing the scandal of pro-abortion Catholic public figures and the reception of Holy Communion for almost two years now, and will continue the campaign until all U.S. bishops uphold Church teachings. "The Catholic bishops are bound, by their vocation, to teach and defend the faith," said Brown. "This campaign has absolutely nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the clear and simple Catholic teaching that you cannot be both Catholic and pro-abortion."

WATCH THE AD: "EVEN A LOSER’S SOUL IS WORTH SAVING"

Democrats don't need to talk about "moral values."

2004-11-04T01:30:00.000-05:00

In the wake of the election and the revelation that those Americans who gave Bush his second term were motivated to do so not for reasons of economics, national security, but moral values, Crooked Timber is discussing the need for Democrats to "shed their inhibitions about talking about faith" and "reconnect with the American heartland."

Problem is, Kerry actually did spend a lot of time talking about his faith. How many times did he remind us that he was an altar boy, or that he carried a rosary in Vietnam? How many times did we hear him quote that verse from James (as if he knew nothing else from the bible)?

But if this election established anything, it's the fact that many Americans had simply heard enough about faith from John Kerry, and no amount of pandering to the pews could conceal the moral incoherence of a "pro-choice" politician with a 100% pro-abortion legislative record proclaiming himself a "good Catholic" in open defiance of the nation's bishops and the moral teachings of his Church. Spin all you want, but that is an ugly fact that played a greater role in this election, and in the minds of Catholic voters, then Democrats would care to admit.

* * *

Looking back at the presidential race, I can think of no more perfect an illustration of Democratic alienation from America's religious voters than the moment during the third debate, when a young woman by the name of Sarah Degenhart asked Senator Kerry whether he could provide her with assurance that he wouldn't use her tax dollars to support abortion.

Kerry responded by professing his "respect" for her question, and the moral convictions that her concern implied. . . . and then he proceeded to defend abortion as a constitutional right, and the necessity to preserve that right with taxpayer dollars. He went on to denounce religious criticism of abortion as a product of "rigid ideological restriction," a phrase he had often used on the campaign trail. And then, to top it off, he informed Ms. Degenhart that she would "do do a better job, I think, of passing on moral responsibility" by abandoning her opposition to taxpayer-funded abortion and embracing his pro-choice stance.

Senator Kerry's complete failure to understand her basic point, and his utter lack of respect for her religious convictions, spoke volumes.

* * *

If Kerry -- and his fellow Democrats -- want to connect to the American heartland, it will not be by talking the talk, but walking the walk.

To do so, they must reconsider their allegiance to -- indeed, completely severe their ties with -- the abortion industry; repudiate those who would sacrifice the unborn in utilitarian pursuit of "scientific progress"; forsake their support of legislative policies in blatant opposition to Judeo-Christian values; recognize what it means to believe in the sanctity of life from conception until death -- and why, with that conviction, many Christians find themselves unable to adopt a corrupt and morally-incoherent stance of "personally opposed, but . . ." when it comes to the deliberate murder of the unborn.

Democrats don't need to talk about "moral values." They must truly understand what it means to embodythem.

Until then, I see no way for Democrats to "heal the divide" or "reconnect with the heartland."

Let this election be a wake-up call.

This Is The Day

2004-11-03T01:35:00.000-05:00

This is the day the Lord hath made;
He calls the hours His own;
Let Heav'n rejoice, let earth be glad,
And praise surround the throne.

Today He rose and left the dead,
And Satan's empire fell;
Today the saints His triumphs spread,
And all His wonders tell.

Hosanna to th'anointed King,
To David's holy Son;
Help us, O Lord; descend and bring
Salvation from Thy throne.

Blest be the Lord, Who comes to men
With messages of grace;
Who comes in God His Father's Name,
To save our sinful race.

Hosanna in the highest strains
The Church on earth can raise;
The highest heav'ns, in which He reigns,
Shall give Him nobler praise.

Inside the Election With Inside the Vatican

2004-11-02T22:35:00.000-05:00

Tired of the constant chatter of the talking heads?

Why not take a break to examine Inside the Vatican's special dossier on issues facing voters in 2004 and beyond, as previously highlighted here.

Here are a few excerpts to whet your appetite:

The very same people who falsely accuse the Church of silence during the Nazi regime and the Holocaust are often the very same people demanding that the Church stay out of current affairs, especially the abortion holocaust and the immoral policies of groups like the United Nations Population Fund. –John Mallon, Contributing Editor, Inside the Vatican

It's a fact that 40 million unborn children have been aborted since 1973. In some way...as Catholics we have to ask ourselves, "What have we done?" If all Catholics would join those Catholics and other people of good will who were working to promote the respect for human life, this situation wouldn't be what it is. –Archbishop Raymond Burke, St. Louis, MO

The "Catholic vote" is, therefore, a nice phrase without much substance. Today, even the bishops of the United States cannot seem to agree that protecting Christ in the Holy Eucharist from sacrilege is serious enough to deny pro-abortion Catholic public figures access to Holy Communion. –Judie Brown, American Life League

In order to win this struggle we must avoid trying to win it. We must do what we do against abortion not because this or that action will secure us a victory but because it is right to perform that action. –Robert McFadden, Human Life Review

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a "proportionate reason" to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation's labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. –Archbishop John Meyer, Newark, NJ

It's a good time to reflect on the meaning of the Kennedy-Cuomo legacy. In brief, it’s OK to be Catholic in public service as long as you're willing to jettison what's inconveniently "Catholic." That's not a compromise. That's a deal with the devil, and it has a balloon payment no nation, no public servant and no voter can afford. –Archbishop Charles Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

On his first day in office, President John F. Kerry will take Holy Communion from the hand of a Jesuit priest at Holy Trinity Church in Georgetown. Shortly thereafter he will retire to his new office in the White House and proceed to carry out his "personally opposed but" policy toward the deaths of millions of unborn children. –Austin Ruse, Culture of Life Foundation

Without first securing the protection of all human life, it makes no sense to discuss how best to provide for the progress of that life. If life is not first secured, it is pointless to consider other issues. The Declaration of Independence would be severely weakened, if not rendered totally meaningless, if the order of unalienable rights was listed as liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and life. There is no liberty or pursuit of happiness to be had if we do not first recognize that the "inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual." –St. Blog's own Fr. Stephen Hamilton, Pastor, St. Peter's Church, Guymon, OK

Your Choice - Pray, and Vote.

2004-11-02T07:01:00.000-05:00

WeVoteProLife.com - find information for candidates for Congress and statewide office. (Local races are just as -- perhaps more -- important as the presidency in the struggle to build a culture of life.
Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics from Catholic Answers. (Read it online or print it out, before you vote).
What Every Catholic Should Know About Voting, addresses such questions as "Don't I have freedom of conscience to vote as I see fit?" and "What about 'separation of church and state'?". (Our Sunday Visitor Publications).

GET OUT AND VOTE!

John Kerry Was an Altar Boy . . .

2004-11-02T04:23:00.000-05:00

So Was Adolf Hitler

As posted on Fidelis by my fellow resident pundit, Barbara Kralis . . .

Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry is urgently pressing uncatechised or "dumbed down" Catholic voters to believe he is a faithful Catholic that best represents the Church's defined teachings. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

He woos the ignorant Catholics, laity, and clergy alike, by reminding them he was an altar boy. Adolf Hitler, a/k/a Adolf Schicklegruber, was also a Catholic altar boy, so this snippet of past religiosity tells us nothing of the man today—except that Kerry certainly has come a long way from being an altar boy.

Furthermore, this "Catholic" demagogue promises in the next sound bite that if elected he will assure that abortion remains legal in the U.S. for another generation. [1]

In George Orwell's 1984, it was stated, "Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past." John Kerry wants to control everybody's mind with his zigzagging on what he really believes.

Meanwhile, uncatechised Catholics sit in the pews listening to their bishops and pastors tell them Kerry best represents the Church's social teachings. Let us see if this is, in fact, true.

For instance, Kerry supports a woman's right to abortion; advocates embryonic stem cell research; and while he opposes same-sex marriage, he also opposes a constitutional amendment that would forbid such marriages.

In fact, John Kerry's beliefs are antithetical to the most important of all the Catholic Church's infallible teachings on faith and morals and he therefore has automatically separated him from the Catholic community. There is nothing Kerry will not say to get the Catholic vote.

So egregious to authentic Catholicism are Kerry's beliefs that twelve magisterial [2] Bishops have proclaimed that John Kerry cannot receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion anywhere within their diocesan boundaries. Several other Bishops have strongly warned their flock that if a Catholic were to vote for a candidate who promotes procured abortion, they will be committing a grave, mortal sin. [3]

While trying to decide an ending for this column, the temptation is too great for me not to use the following quote:

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator" [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 46]. Does this sound familiar?

Notes:

Spoken at the January 21, 2003, NARAL Dinner, John Kerry promised: "I will not overturn Roe v Wade; I will not appoint judges hostile to 'choice;' I will allow poor women to have free abortions; I will never outlaw abortion; I will increase American taxpayer's dollars on population control efforts around the world."
Magisterial means those bishops who teach as the Pope infallibly teaches. This is called the "ordinary Magisterium." If a Bishop or priest teaches contrary to the Magisterium, that Bishop is asked to reconsider his beliefs which are outside of the Catholic community; next the cleric is disciplined and, if necessary, then sanctioned.
The distinguished list of bishops to date (10/7/04) is: Archbishop Raymond L Burke of St. Louis, MO; Archbishop John F. Donoghue Archbishop of Atlanta, GA; Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz of Lincoln NE; Bishop Henry Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, TX; Bishop Robert F. Vasa, Baker, OR; Bishop Joseph Galante of Camden, NJ; Bishop John M. Smith of Trenton, NJ; Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, CO; Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger of Evansville, IN; Bishop Robert J. Baker Bishop of Charleston, SC; Bishop Peter J. Jugis Bishop of Charlotte, NC; Bishop John Y. Yanta, Bishop of Amarillo, TX.

Bishop Loverde on how to vote as a faithful Catholic

2004-11-01T01:12:00.000-05:00

. . . To be a faithful Catholic necessarily means that one is pro-life and not pro-choice. As my brother bishops and I said in our statement "Catholics in Political Life" this past June, "Failing to protect the lives of the innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice." To be pro-choice essentially means supporting the right of a woman to terminate the life of her baby, either pre-born or partially born. No Catholic can claim to be a faithful member of the Church while advocating for, or actively supporting, direct attacks on innocent human life. In reality, protecting human life from conception to natural death is more than a Catholic issue. It is an issue of fundamental morality, rooted in both the natural law and the divine law. . . .

. . . In our common life together in society, it is sometimes not possible to avoid entirely all cooperation with evil. This may be the case in electing to office our state and national leaders. In certain circumstances, it is morally permissible to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices. This is called material cooperation with evil. In order for material cooperation to be morally permissible, however, there must be a proportionate reason for such cooperation. Proportionate reason does not mean that each issue carries the same moral weight; intrinsically evil acts such as abortion or research on stem cells taken from human embryos cannot be placed on the same level as debates over war or capital punishment, for example. It is simply not possible to serve and promote the common good of our nation by voting for a candidate who, once in office, will do nothing to limit or restrict the deliberate destruction of innocent human life.

If, however, a candidate supports abortion in a limited number of cases but opposes it otherwise, a Catholic may vote for such a candidate over another, more unsuitable candidate who is unwilling to place any restrictions on abortion. In this case, the voter makes an effort to limit the circumstances in which procured abortion would be deemed legal. This is not a question of choosing a lesser evil, but rather the Catholic, by his or her vote, expresses the intention to limit all the evil that one is able to limit at the time.

"Pre-Election Letter to the People of Arlington" by the Most Reverend Paul S. Loverde, Bishop of Arlington.

(Thanks Bill Cork).

Musings on Senator Kerry and the Election -- Another Roundup

2004-10-30T23:01:00.000-04:00

Matthew Mehan ("Down to the Piraeus") believes that Catholics should have mercy on the Church and vote Bush".
So does Charlotte Allen, for whom the reason is simple:
Although Bush isn't a Catholic, and not all of his positions are always consistent with Catholic teaching, it is he, not his nominally Catholic opponent, John F. Kerry, who promises to foster and defend the Catholic ethic of life.
At the core of that ethic--and I'll say it bluntly--lies abortion, the life issue that most sharply divides Bush and Kerry. Bush supports at least some restrictions on abortion; Kerry supports almost none. Related to it are the Catholic Church's positions against euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research.
Philip Lawler, editor of Catholic World Report, takes a look at how John Kerry's "Catholicism" will affect the outcome of the election in Mixed Messages.
Patrick O'Hannigan ("The Paragraph Farmer") notes a conflict of ideas between Christianity Todayand Touchstone magazine on "single issue voting", and believes the latter has the upper hand.
For the philosophically-inclined, over at Philosophia Perennis, Dr. Philip Blosser engages a colleague in "An Exchange on Pro-Choice Logic", Part I, Part II, and Part III.
Robert ("Let's Try Freedom") muses on "Kerry's faith -- with works, or without?":
If, for example, I was a powerful Senator married to a billionaire who was "not in favor of abortion", but I thought it wrong to work directly against abortion in the legal arena, I might do some or all of the following things:
Work to fund pregnancy crisis centers that provide non-abortion counseling
Work to ease adoption restrictions and promote awareness of the adoption option
Work to encourage strong marriages
Work to encourage abstinence in young people not ready for childbearing
Generously contribute to pregnancy centers
Generously contribute to non-profit adoption agencies
Generously contribute to social welfare organizations working with young mothers
I wonder what Senator Kerry's actual record is in these areas? I'm sure it must be outstanding. Surely a man of such strong faith has made enormous contributions to the areas of public policy and private charity.
Right?

Sabotaging the Catholic Vote

2004-10-30T02:35:00.000-04:00

As posted by my fellow pundit Barbara Kralis on Fidelis . . .

The Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth, the complete moral teachings of our age. We thank God for the Magisterium of the Church, for the solemn teaching office of our Pope John Paul II and the Popes before him, and the "ordinary magisterium" or the bishops in communion with him.

Yet, attempts by Church leaders are made every day to sabotage these teachings. Let us look at a number of recent damages:

On August 20, 2004, La Crosse diocese Attorney James G. Birnbaum wrote a letter to diocesan pastors and administrators, advising the pro-life Catholic Answers' 'Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics' was "too narrow to pass legal muster." Attorney Birnbaum, a lector at the diocese's Cathedral, advised the diocese not to allow the voter's guide on parish grounds because it violated tax laws.

Shortly thereafter, documentation was revealed showing this "Catholic" diocesan attorney personally donated thousands of dollars to various pro-abortion Democrat Party candidates since 1997 until June 2004. [1]

It was reported that Birnbaum donated $6,000 over the past four years to pro-abortion Democrat Congressman Ron Kind, whom the abortion group NARAL reports has l00 percent anti-life voting record.[2]

Why was this attorney, who financially supports legislators who promote procured abortion, allowed to issue a Catholic diocesan legal opinion that prohibited the distribution of an authentically Catholic voter guide? [3] CWN has reported Birnbaum has recused himself of issuing further tax information to the diocese...but, he will remain as the diocese's attorney on other matters. [4]

Attorney Birnbaum's actions surely raise questions concerning a personal conflict of interests and distortion of Catholic teachings for political gain. His directive has caused Priests in the diocese to believe they should not be telling their congregations what kind of people they should or should not vote for.

It is important to note that La Crosse's former bishop, Archbishop Raymond Burke, has mandated full distribution of The Voters Guide for Serious Catholics for the year 2004 in his new diocese of St. Louis.

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life, recently discussed the issue of dioceses and their attorneys misinterpreting tax laws. Fr. Pavone suggested the following in his October 28 article, "Distorted Citizenship":

Unfortunately, the Church has been fed for decades with legal advice which is far more restrictive of the Church's freedom than the IRS or the FEC has ever been. And this is wrong. Not only are the IRS/FEC restrictions on the Church minimal, but the enforcement policy is even looser. No Church has ever lost its tax exemption by teaching about abortion, or the primacy of the right to life, or the duty of public officials and voters to advance the Culture of Life by voting. No Church has ever lost its tax exemption for doing what it exists to do, namely, convey the teachings of the Church. No Church has ever lost its tax exemption for distributing materials that did not cover a wide-enough range of issues; in fact, no Church has lost its tax exemption for distributing voter guides, period. [5]

Adding to the obfuscation of truth, the Catholic organization Pax Christi USA is placing ads that speak against infallible magisterial teachings of the Church. Targeting Catholic diocesan newspapers in three states, their ads read: "Catholic voters should not make abortion a single-issue litmus test for candidates."

The Diocese of Pittsburgh's Director of Communications, Robert Lockwood, says the diocese allows the Pax Christi ads because they do not oppose the teachings of the Church [6] ...and because "Financially, it's been a great assistance to our apostolate." [7]

Here is more disturbing news. Most recently, the Cardinal Newman Society completed a list of Catholic university employee donations [of $250 or more] to the Bush and Kerry campaigns, as reported to the FEC. The non-partisan study examines ten of the largest Catholic universities. It was revealed that more than 90.24% of the so-called 'Catholic' university employee gifts went to the Kerry campaign, totaling $196,025. The Bush campaign received just 9.75% of total donations, or $21,200. Moreover, a whopping 59.65% of Kerry's donations came from "Catholic" Georgetown University alone, or $116,915. [8]

Catholic parents, be mindful of what your kiddos are being taught at these so-called Catholic institutions. Alumni, remember this corruption when your alma mater asks you for donations. It would be better to donate your money elsewhere.

Another attempt of Church leaders to sabotage Catholic voters can be found within the worldwide "Catholic" organization of the Maryknoll Society of religious priests, including the Maryknoll Congregation of nuns, and the Maryknoll Mission Association of lay missionaries. Maryknoll is mailing worldwide their 4,000-word election guide. Entitled Impact on Peace, Social Justice and the Integrity of Creation, the voter guide emphases sixteen social issues such as "hunger and food," "water," "biotechnology," "U.S. unilateralism."

Stunningly, not one single word mentions the most preeminent of all human rights, "the right to life of the unborn." Not one word, of the 4,000 words, mentioned "abortion,'" "euthanasia," "embryonic stem cell research," "cloning," or "sodomy."

Another example of obfuscation can always be found with the well-known dissident priest, Fr. Richard McBrien, Chairman of the Theology Department at the Catholic University of Notre Dame. Appearing in his clerical collar on Fox News Channel Wednesday, October 13, 2004, McBrien told millions of viewers that they could vote for someone like a pro-abortion John Kerry. Fr. McBrien clarified his theological confusion:

"The American Catholic Bishops as a body do not follow the approach that's been taken by the archbishops of Denver, St. Louis and Newark and some other Bishops of smaller diocese...[Cardinal Ratzinger] said if someone votes for a candidate for other reasons, well, taking other issues into account as the American Catholic Bishops say they should, we should put everything in a consistent ethic-of- life framework, they said, then it would not be a sin to vote for... the teachings of our Bishops [is] that we have to follow a 'consistent ethic of life.' The proportionate reasons would involve taking other life issues in account... The proportionate reasons would be that you're looking at a candidate and trying to see what that candidate's views and policies are on a broad range of life issues...[the Bishops] have never said that [abortion trumps the other issues]. They have never said that...this is not a card game...there's no trump card." [9]

Fr. McBrien is a priest of the diocese of Hartford, CT, was one of the original dissenters/signers of Fr. Charles Curran's Statement of Dissent against Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae.

Fr. McBrien's dangerous book Catholicism [condemned by the U.S. bishops in l996] [10] clothed in dissent contains heretical teachings from Frs. Schillebeeckx and Hans Kung. Why has Fr. McBrien's Hartford bishop not silenced him nor removed him from teaching errors and ambiguities for too many years to our Catholic youth?

Here is another bishop who supports the excellent Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics, Bishop Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix. His spokesman, Mary Jo West, told this writer that Bishop Olmsted is fully allowing the Catholic Answers guides to be distributed in diocesan parishes. Emphasizing the importance of Catholic voters to be fully informed of the Church's teaching, Bishop Olmsted recently said:

The Catholic Church is actively engaged in a wide variety of important public policy issues.... We should do our best to be informed and to support those proposed solutions that seem most likely to be effective. However, when it comes to direct attacks on innocent human life, being right on all the other issues can never justify a wrong choice on this most serious matter.

However, just 117 miles away from Phoenix, in Tucson, AZ, Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas' office told this writer this week they will not allow the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics to be used in their diocese. Instead, Bishop Kicanas is promoting the confusing Faithful Citizenship guidelines.

Bishop Kicanas held two public meetings recently to explain how Catholic social teaching applies to Catholic voters. "It's not a sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate if it's because you are supporting that candidate for a wide range of reasons." Oh, by the way, Bishop Kicanas is Chairman of the USCCB Communications Committee. [11]

San Bernardino's diocesan Director of Office of Social Concerns issued on October 6, 2004 a diocesan directive saying that parishes are to only use material derived from the confusing USCCB's voter guide Faithful Citizenship.

In an interview with Culture and Cosmos, the Director of the Family Life Office of the Arlington, Virginia diocese said, "Faithful Citizenship equates abortion with debt relief. They are not equal." [12]

Archbishop Harry Flynn of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis forbids the Catholic Answers' Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics. A phone call to the Archdiocesan office revealed that Flynn allows only the USCCB voter guide, Faithful Citizenship.

It was reported by Catholic World News that the diocese's reason for banning the excellent guide, in favor of the confusing USCCB guide, was that they "felt the document was too one-sided...You can only read the document and come to one conclusion," said Dennis McGrath, Director of Communications for the Archdiocese.

The Culture of Life Foundation and Catholic World News reports that "Faithful Citizenship has been criticized even within the Church for placing the paramount issue of abortion on the same moral plane with lesser issues like promoting 'social justice'and 'global solidarity.'" [13]

Unfortunately, this is the status quo in most U.S. Catholic dioceses.

The laity not only should, but also must, discuss problems of disobedience, errors, and heresy with their pastors and bishops. In fact, Pope Leo XIII declared, "When circumstances make it necessary, it is not prelates alone who have to watch over the integrity of the faith." In addition, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church [Lumen Gentium n.37], Apostolicam Actuositatem [Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity n.2] and The Code of Canon Law n. 212 teach that laity have not only the responsibility but the duty to openly reveal to their bishops their needs and desires fitting for children of God. [14] In addition, the laity are permitted and even obliged to express their opinion on things that concern the good of the Church.

The Catholic Church's social teachings on the human condition are vast and complete. However, faithful Catholics may legitimately disagree on different points of view and on how to implement these social teachings. One can never disagree on the teachings regarding the right to life of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly. [15]

"One can never approve of abortion; but it is above all necessary to combat its causes. This includes political action" proclaimed Pope Paul VI [16]

Pope Pius XI, in his more relevant than ever landmark encyclical, warns—this will give you goose bumps:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority...to defend the lives of the innocent...among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And, if the public magistrates...do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors and others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cries from earth to heaven. (Casti Connubii n.67).

Only by a return to the order established by God in all our social structures, including obedience to God and His divinely ordained Roman Pontiff, by all public servants, could the way to true peace and true justice in this world be attained. Everything else is a false peace, a false justice. Disobedience by Church leaders to Church teachings contributes to the disorder which rules creation that once subject to Divine Order.

Abortion will not end until the work of the Church is consistent and faithful to the most preeminent of all human rights—the right to life of the unborn.

Editor's Notes:

For the original annotated article, see "Some Attempts to Sabotage Catholic Voters," on Renew America.
See also "Does the Bishops' Voter Guide Confuse Priorities of Magisterial Teaching?" on the same site.

"Practicing Catholic" or Practicing Deception?

2004-10-30T01:07:00.000-04:00

In the quiet of the voting booth, at long last beyond, the steady din of the hired hands, will the still voice of Catholic consciences recall the silent slaughter that lies behind what Prof. Paul Kengor, writing in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, calls the "quiet issue" of the 2004 campaign?

It is the quiet issue of the 2004 presidential election, but it remains etched in the minds of liberals and conservatives, of the most devout secularist and most pious believer: abortion....

Among the left, a John F. Kerry victory would be viewed as not just a win for Democrats but a huge victory for legalized abortion, just as a Bush re-election would be a continuing triumph for forces allied against legalized abortion....

Indeed, a telling difference between Kerry and Bush is how their faith relates to their positions on abortion. Bush believes that a life in the womb is a gift from God that should be protected. Kerry's position is more complicated....

A President John F. Kerry would shape the direction of the court, starting with the U.S. Supreme Court, filling the courts with pro-choice appointments, and rejecting pro-life judges. Kerry would be the most staunchly pro-choice president ever....

The pro-life constituency that would be most crushed by a Kerry victory is Catholics. No other group has so doggedly led the fight to halt abortion, and a potential Catholic president stands poised to undermine that progress. What Pope John Paul II has described as the "culture of life" could be hindered by no less than a practicing Catholic in the Oval Office.

With all due respect, Professor, "a practicing Catholic" would practice the faith and not merely its rhetoric in order to deceive the elect and win the election.

The Political Implications of the 1992 Snubbing of Democratic Governer Bob Casey

2004-10-29T23:49:00.000-04:00

. . . my object here is not to declare between Republicans and Democrats but to highlight the cleavage between the Democratic party whose mission Hubert Humphrey defined as standing for "those in the dawn of life, those in the shadows of life, and those in the twilight of life" and the Democratic party of this platform, whose first sentence thumps for the most extreme of all abortion positions: abortion on demand with taxpayer funding. Thumps for it clearly and without apology.

The political consequence of this position is evident every day in our headlines: war on anything that threatens this absolutist stance, whether it be restrictions on federal funding or partial birth abortions, to the maligning and political destruction of judicial nominees deemed to show insufficient piety for the view that Roe is sacrosanct while at the same time every other precedent is for grabs depending on the social or political exigencies of the moment.

John Kerry did not create the abortion test that is today operates to push faithful Catholics off the public square on the grounds that their Catholicity may be deeply held. But John Kerry, like all national Democratic contenders, must be defined by it or become, a la Governor Casey, a stranger in his own land.

From Life of the Party, the first Bob Casey lecture delivered by William McGurn in the Catholic archdiocese of Denver. McGurn spoke of the deliberate and malicious snubbing of pro-life Democratic Governor Bob Casey at the 1992 Democratic National Convention.

A very good address -- one Democrats ought to listen to (but probably won't).

5 Issues That Matter Most: Catholics and the 2004 Election

2004-10-29T22:54:00.000-04:00

Catholic Outreach is making available for free downloading their 90-page book "5 Issues That Matter Most: Catholics and the Upcoming Election": "The book offers an easy-to- understand explanation, in a question-and-answer format, of the key issues that are being debated in this election. With its gentle tone and clear answers, The Five Issues That Matter Most is the perfect resource for family members or friends who are still on the fence about the moral issues facing American society today."

For those with the time to read, it takes a more detailed and substantial approach to the issues of abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research and human cloning, by Fr. Frank Pavone (Priests for Life), Fr. Tom Euteneuer of Human Life International, Mark Brumley of Ignatius Press, Kim Marshall of Generation Life, Fr. Tad Pacholczyk of the National Bioethics Center and author Matthew Pinto.

Worth checking out.

Greg Sisk: "Kerry's Record: It Just Gets Worse"

2004-10-29T21:18:00.000-04:00

Editor's note: this was originally posted by Greg Sisk to the group blog Mirror of Justice -- as Greg in his most recent post encourages "re-postings of our words on other web sites," in the interest of reasserting the truth of Senator Kerry's militant pro-choice/pro-abortion stance, I'm taking the liberty of reposting Greg's post in full:

The more the information flows in, the more it is confirmed that Senator Kerry's record as a self-proclaimed opponent of those attempting to protect innocent human life is even worse than I at least had originally understood. His own words confirm that he is directly at odds with any understanding of Catholic teaching on the sanctity of unborn human life.

Herewith just a few examples:

In January of last year as he opened his presidential campaign, Senator Kerry spoke to a National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) dinner. Beginning his campaign by touching base with his closest allies in the abortion industry was in itself sadly unremarkable, as Kerry has regularly lent his name and proudly pledged his loyalty to those advancing the war against the unborn. Still, the effusiveness of his words of praise for the abortion advocates and his expressions of contempt for those working to protect unborn human life are astounding. You can read the entire speech here. Below are a couple of excerpts:

With respect to John Kerry's admiration for the pro-abortion movement: "NARAL is without question the front line defense in this struggle and when judgments are made, the judgment is inescapable that Kate Michelman is one of the most effective and important civil rights leaders in our time. Kate has saved more women's lives and liberated more women than almost anyone and taken on more tough fights than anyone else committed to this cause."

As for the pro-life movement, while out of one side of his mouth Kerry said "nothing we say here diminishes or disrespects someone else's belief or morality," he nonetheless blasted those who stand opposed to NARAL: "We need to take on this President and the forces of intolerance on the other side. We need to honestly and candidly take this cause to the country -- speak up and be proud of what we stand for."

Late last year, at a forum on women's issued for Democratic presidential candidates organized by, among others, Planned Parenthood (which operates the largest chain of abortion mills in the country), Senator Kerry again made clear his extreme views on abortion. The transcript of the entire forum can be found here. At that forum, Senator Kerry responded to a question about the President's signing of the ban on partial-birth abortion by saying: "There's no such thing as a quote "partial birth." It is a late term abortion. They've done a very effective job of giving people a sense of fear about it and it's part of their assault on the rights of women in America. It is the first step in their effort – there's nothing partial, may I say, about their effort to undue Roe v. Wade. And I am the only candidate here who has said declaratively, I will support no person to the Supreme Court of the United States whose philosophy is to undue Roe v. Wade. They call it a litmus test; I call it protecting Constitutional rights in America. And we need a president who stands up and does that."

Of course, none of this is a new direction for John Kerry, for whom the abortion cause has been the signal continuity of his political career. He often tells pro-abortion rallies of his pride that his maiden speech in the United States Senate in 1985 was to proclaim his unwavering support for Roe v. Wade.

In another speech to the Senate in 1994, Senator Kerry made clear that he is not merely pro-choice but approves of abortion: "The right thing to do is to treat abortions as exactly what they are -- a medical procedure that any doctor is free to provide and any pregnant woman free to obtain. Consequently, abortions should not have to be performed in tightly guarded clinics on the edge of town; they should be performed and obtained in the same locations as any other medical procedure. . . . [A]bortions need to be moved out of the fringes of medicine and into the mainstream of medical practice." More about his record, together with the suggestion that pro-life Democrats could swing the election to Bush in Pennsylvania, may be found in Professor Paul Kengor's column.

In sum, the more we learn about John Kerry's record on the sanctity of life, the uglier and more despicable it appears. It is no wonder that John Kerry has proven unable to utter even a single word of condemnation of abortion or rebuke to the abortionists. He has never fully expressed any personal opposition to abortion because, well, his own words make clear that he has no genuine qualms about abortion, personally, legally, or politically.

Source: "Further Examination of Kerry's Record on Life: It Just Gets Worse" Mirror of Justice. Oct. 29, 2004.

The Stem Cell Truth

2004-10-29T20:30:00.000-04:00

I received an e-mail this morning forwarded from a medical professional in Arizona who felt impelled to share what she knows: that embryonic stem cell research is not under any ban, but is in fact going forward. The key point is that, in her experience, the research is going forward by harvesting embryonic stem cells from umbilical cords and placenta taken after the birth of a child. No destruction of embryos here.

So, in addition to promising research on adult stem cells, there is a way to conduct morally legitimate embryonic stem cell research. But, of course, the Kerry/Edwards ticket has no time for ethical niceties. Rather, consistent with their radical embrace of abortion, Kerry/Edwards now radically embraces a blank check for embryonic stem cell.

What can we say about politicians who recognize no ethical limits, about politicians who will sacrifice unborn children and embryos at will? Two words come to mind: corrupt and idolatrous. The ancient Israelites lived in the midst of pagan peoples accustomed to child sacrifice (see Leviticus 18:21). The Canaanites sacrificed children by burning to the god Molech (see the New Jerusalem Bible's comment on the above verse).

Our own culture has sunk to the level of that ancient barbarism. Kerry and Edwards have a corrupt vision with political power and self-indulgent egoism as the new Molech.

Bill Cork's "Letter to the Principle"

2004-10-28T02:34:00.000-04:00

Read Bill Cork's "letter to the principal", which he wrote in response to a school assignment his son was given, "to write a persuasive essay on why he might choose one presidential candidate over the other" -- but without any reference whatsoever to abortion, which the teacher considered to be a "non-issue" in the election.

The Catholic Vote—A Closer Look

2004-10-27T23:50:00.000-04:00

As Geoff Earle writes in today's issue of The Hill:

Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, is predicting that Bush will win both the electoral vote and the popular vote on election night. He said the president could prevail even if Kerry were to pull out victories in Pennsylvania and Ohio—an outcome that is a distinct possibility.

"I am confident we're going to win Ohio and Florida," Mehlman said at a Christian Science Monitor lunch yesterday. He said Bush was "in the ball game" in Michigan and Pennsylvania, ahead in Wisconsin and Iowa, and "very close" in New Mexico. "All of these are states that were blue last time that are now within the margin of error today," Mehlman said.

As we enter the closing stretch of the presidential race, "both candidates are spending their last days trying to fire up their own supporters while also trying to pick off wavering supporters from their opponents," Australia's Financial Reviewreports.

Scott Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said this is why the president was holding a bus tour in the more rural, western half of Wisconsin. "It's an area of the state where we feel we have room for improvement," Stanzel said. "Western Wisconsin is home to many conservative Democrats who share the president's values. That includes the sanctity of marriage and right to life. Kerry is 'out of step' here."

While Bush did three campaign stops in Wisconsin, he also flew out to Iowa for another day of stumping in that state and the strategy was the same. In his appearance in Dubuque, Bush planned to try to appeal to conservative Catholic voters who dislike Kerry's pro-choice stance, Stanzel said.

With all this in mind, let's take a closer look at how the Catholic vote is shaping up in two key battleground states.

Iowa

President Bush wrapped up a two-day blitz of Iowa in Dubuque on Tuesday with a sharp indictment of Democrat John Kerry's record on cultural issues..."The final clear choice in this election is on the values that are crucial to keeping our families strong. And here, my opponent and I are miles apart," Bush said at a late-afternoon rally at the Grand River Center.

"I believe marriage is a sacred commitment, a pillar of our civilization....But Senator Kerry was part of an out-of-the-mainstream minority that voted against the Defense of Marriage Act," Bush said, prompting a chorus of boos from 4,500 supporters at the rally. "Republicans and Democrats came together and agreed we should ban the brutal practice of partial-birth abortion....But my opponent was part of an out-of-the-mainstream minority that voted against the ban."

On his second campaign stop in Democrat-heavy Dubuque, Bush was hoping to improve on the support he received in 2000 by focusing on issues critical to some of the city's large Roman Catholic population.

In 2000, Democrat Al Gore beat Bush by about 6,000 votes in Dubuque County, where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 10,000. Bush aides said they hoped to suppress Kerry's support among devout Roman Catholics, who disagree with Kerry's support for abortion rights and his opposition to a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. Bush opposes abortion rights and has called for an amendment banning gay marriage.

Kerry's campaign said Bush's emphasis on cultural issues was an attempt to divide and distract voters. ("Bush Accents Values, Taxes,"The DesMoines Register, October 27, 2004)

Bush lost Iowa to Gore by 4,144 votes, less than one-third of a percentage point, in 2000.

See also, "Mix of Politics, Church Creates Tough Choices," Quad-City Times, October 27, 2004.
See also, "One-of-a-Kind Sister Supports President Bush's Re-election," The Daily Nonpareil, October 27, 2004

Pennsylvania

Voters who "take[their] Christianity seriously" are "a prime target of President George W. Bush's campaign."

He is counting on religious voters—especially women—to win a state that Democrat John Kerry can't afford to lose. And unlike 2000, when he lost here by four points, Bush operatives have been organizing almost pew by pew....

Bush's "values" push has persuaded some Democrats. "Abortion is above all other issues for me," Sandy Beveridge said at her door. "I don't think I can vote for Kerry."...

As part of his appeal to the state's huge Catholic population, Bush recently was granted an audience with Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, who, like many bishops, had said Catholics had "a duty and responsibility" to back candidates who upheld church teachings on "life" issues. Kerry's response was to say he "respects" his church and its leaders, "but I respectfully disagree."
Bush has volunteers in every one of the state's 1,000 Catholic parishes. This weekend, as part of a huge get-out-the-vote effort that didn't exist in 2000, volunteers will hand out pamphlets at churches that compare the candidates' positions on a variety of issues, from abortion to tax cuts for children in religious schools.
"If you follow the teachings of the Catholic church, you can't vote for Kerry," said Rob Gleason, who runs Bush's Catholic outreach in Pennsylvania. "I was stunned that [Al] Gore got the majority of Catholic votes here. We're doing every thing we can to make sure that doesn't happen again."...

Bush has a prayer here in part because of inroads with Democratic Catholics and evangelicals. If Bush wins this state, and thus the presidency, he literally can thank God—and thousands of volunteers who spread his and Bush's word. It would mean Bush's religious strategy netted more new voters than it repelled. It would mean his gamble paid off. ("Strategy Could Turn Women Off," Newsday, October 27, 2004)

Bush lost Pennsylvania to Gore by 4% in 2000.

See also, "The President in PA Today," Catholics for President Bush, October 27, 2004.

Supplemental Reading:

"Religion Playing Key Role in Election, Say Analysts," Associated Press, October 26, 2004.
"In Final Push, Kerry Tries to Close a Perceived 'God Gap', The Christian Science Monitor, October 26, 2004.

Florida Bishops: "Dignity and rights have no meaning for the person who has been denied life."

2004-10-26T10:09:00.000-04:00

Florida Bishops are collectively reminding their parishioners to vote . . . and countering the misleading notion that all issues on the table "are of equal importance" in this election:

From a moral perspective, the issues of concern are not always of equal importance or urgency. Some are more fundamental and therefore more pressing than others. Pope John Paul II reminds us in the Gospel of Life, "It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop."

In our preparation, each of us should measure candidates and proposed constitutional amendments by how they will safeguard or diminish the life, dignity and rights of the human person. Dignity and rights have no meaning for the person who has been denied life. We should inform the candidates that our values impel us to insist -- because of our Lord's own witness to the sacredness of human life -- that the killing of an unborn child or vulnerable adult is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified.

Source: "Be Faithful Citizens! Vote on November 2".

Thanks to blogger Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.

Former plaintiff of Roe vs. Wade endorses Bush

2004-10-26T01:39:00.000-04:00

LifeNews reports that:

Norma McCorvey, the former plaintiff in the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision, has endorsed President Bush in his re-election bid.

"This year I am going to vote to re-elect President Bush, because he is committed to the cause of life and wants our nation to make room to welcome and protect every unborn child," McCorvey said.

"Unless we do that, we can never have a world of social justice," the former Jane Roe added. "I urge all my pro-life friends to likewise vote for the President."

And here's a bit of trivia I didn't know:

McCorvey became a Christian in 1995 and renounced her part in the Roe v. Wade decision. She now heads up Roe No More, an organization dedicated to overturning the landmark case. Father Frank Pavone [of Priests for Life] is the priest who facilitated McCorvey's conversion to Catholicism in 1998.

You can find Norma's account of her conversion to the Catholic faith here.

Another pro-choicer turns pro-life.

2004-10-25T22:08:00.000-04:00

Over the course of several months, Catholic Kerry Watch has posted numerous intellectual and moral arguments against the evil of abortion.

For some, it just takes a picture.

Robert, a former advocate of the "pro-choice" position, explains how a third-trimester ultrasound of his baby daughter Stephanie turned him into a pro-lifer.

My Faith

2004-10-25T17:59:00.000-04:00

From John Kerry's My Faith speech

My faith, and the faith I have seen in the lives of so many Americans, also teaches me that, "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me." That means we have a moral obligation to one another, to the forgotten, and to those who live in the shadows. This is a moral obligation at the heart of all our great religious traditions. It is also the vision of America: "E Pluribus Unum." The ethical test of a good society is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

"Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me." So I guess then John Kerry is admitting that he is aborting Jesus and chopping Jesus up to get at his stem-cells.

Who among us is more vulnerable today than the 8 million Americans who are out of work? Who is more vulnerable than the 45 million Americans without health insurance? Who is more vulnerable than the parents who have to choose between food and medicine for their children?

I guess he can't see the forest because of all the abortion clinics in the way. Chris Burgwald also posts on that statement with:

This is who, Senator: the 43 million people we have allowed to be killed since abortion was legalized in 1973. That's 4000 people a day, today, Senator. Where are you for those vulnerable?

I know there are some Bishops who have suggested that as a public official I must cast votes or take public positions - on issues like a woman's right to choose and stem cell research - that carry out the tenets of the Catholic Church. I love my Church; I respect the Bishops; but I respectfully disagree.

"Personally opposed" and yet speaks of a women's right to choose. I would hate to see the rhetoric if he was "personally for". Elaine of My Domestic Church says "I won't mention that I think Kerry is an H******" Well for the record I don't think John Kerry is a heretic. A heretic actually believes in the falsehoods they profess. If the core constituents of the Democratic party were pro-life is there any doubt that John Kerry would also then be pro-life?

Orson Scott Card on John Kerry's "faith"

2004-10-25T16:25:00.000-04:00

"Ornery American" and science-fiction writer Orson Scott Card questions Kerry's faith ("in science"):

We already knew Kerry had a plan for everything -- ending the war, not getting in the war in the first place, getting allies to join us in the war, saving Social Security, lowering taxes, vastly increasing spending, cutting the deficit in half.

You know. Miracles.

But who knew that Kerry and Edwards could cause the crippled to rise up and walk?

I don't think that has ever been promised in a political campaign before.

I was amused when Kerry said, during the second debate, "I believe in science."

That was a pretty clear contrast with George W. Bush, who believes in God.

. . . and the reasoning behind Kerry's opposition to "rigid ideological restrictions" -- that is to say, Christian -- on abortion:

When Kerry really believes something is wrong, he does not hesitate to call for laws to ban it. What he's really saying is that it's illegitimate to ban something you believe is wrong if -- and only if -- your belief in its wrongness comes from your religion.

So in his worldview, only religious people are forbidden to impose their beliefs about right and wrong on others. As long as you have no religion behind you, you can force your beliefs about right and wrong on anybody you want.

John Kerry says he's against "disenfranchising" people.

He really means, "except for people who believe their view of morality comes from God." Those people can just sit down and shut up, while the unbelievers make all the laws that rule their lives.

Dumb Science, Kerry's Religion. World Watch Oct. 17, 2004.

Something is Changing.

2004-10-25T08:45:00.000-04:00

As we enter the last week before the presidential campaign, it struck me last night at a Sunday evening Mass that something is changing for the better in our Church: people are getting bolder in resisting the Culture of Death. Before the beginning of the quasi-youth Mass with its contemporary music, the young female singer urged us to vote for God's choice in the election and then proceeded to sing a song about the tragedy of abortion.

After the Mass, pro-life volunteers handed out their pro-life voting guides as people exited the door. The setting was a very large middle class, suburban parish in a strongly Democratic and pro-union part of Michigan.

Of course, this experience is anecdotal. But it matches what we have seen on the internet, in newspaper advertisements, in the form of a highly publicized canon law complaint boldly filed against Kerry, in the questions directed by ordinary citizens toward the candidates in the town hall presidential debate, in the outspoken bishops and archbishops who have denied Communion to Kerry, and in the articulate and aggressive election year posture of Archbishop Chaput in Denver. What all these actions have in common is that the ambiguity and pusillanimity of the past are wearing thin with many pro-life Catholics. We are in a cultural war, and faithful Catholics are ready to rumble.

People, young and old, are bolder and less inhibited in expressing support for life and for marriage. This boldness did not come from the U.S. Bishops Conference or from a diocesan workshop or roundtable discussion.

And this boldness certainly did not come from the liberal precincts of heterodox Catholic ivory towers and their in-house academic theologians and canon lawyers. In my opinion, this new boldness among faithful Catholics comes from the Holy Spirit. Finally, we have a good example of the authentic workings of the sense of the truly faithful, from the bottom up.

Prayer for Our Nation: Day One

2004-10-24T13:10:00.000-04:00

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

We invite our readers to join us in praying Lane Core Jr.'s:

Novena for Our Nation
Almighty God, all things are in Your hands: our nation, our communities, our families, our lives.

In this time of great decision, bless our country and its people. Prosper the efforts of the just and true, and thwart the purposes of the unjust and dishonest. Preserve our land from violence and turmoil, and keep our relationships decent and respectful.

Inspire voters, legislators, executives, and judges so our country may be a land where morality is furthered by law and authority; where life is protected, marriage respected, and family supported; where the innocent are spared, and the guilty punished; where justice is tempered by mercy, and mercy fortified by justice.

Help us to keep the United States of America a land where the rule of law and respect for individual dignity are the legal foundation of a just order.

Amen.

My personal prayer addendum:

And, dear Lord, we pray that in the next presidential election we might have a candidate whom we could support wholeheartedly, without moral or mental reservation, rather than one whom we feel duty bound to vote against in defence of every scrap of moral deceny that yet remains in our once Christian nation.

Please share Lane's Novena with family, friends, and readers who share our love for God and country.

Senator John Kerry, Abortion and the Relation Between Church & State

2004-10-24T11:06:00.000-04:00

Senator John Kerry, Abortion and the Relation Between Church & State, a compilation of links to online articles and resources from the Ratzinger Fan Club's affiliate study website: "The Church and the Liberal Tradition".

Very much a "work in progress."

Fr. Neuhaus on the Kerry Communion Scandal and the USCCB

2004-10-24T10:30:00.000-04:00

Two must-reads: "Communion & Communio, etc." and "Bishops at a Turning Point" (First Things 145 August/Sept '04 and 146 October 2004.

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus looks at the Kerry communion scandal and provides an excellent recap of the Bishop's Conference in Denver in June 2004, including Fr. Neuhaus' thoughts on Ratzinger's letter to Cardinal McCarrick and the latter's failure to disclose the complete contents and intent of the letter to the bishops:

. . . The Ratzinger letter and how McCarrick used it is the subject of lively discussion. No bishop wanted to say that McCarrick "misrepresented" Ratzinger’s message but, as one put it, "The charitable thing to say is that he did not tell us the whole truth." It appears, although it is not certain, that the letter was sent only to McCarrick and the papal nuncio, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, who was, of course, present at the meeting. At least a few bishops, however, were apprised of the full text and were less than pleased with McCarrick’s presentation of what Ratzinger had to say. When the full text was later made public, first in an Italian newspaper, McCarrick suggested to the press that there were other communications with Ratzinger that put the letter in context, justifying the interpretation he had offered the bishops. Back at the June meeting, the bishops had, despite McCarrick’s resistance, made up their minds. There needed to be a clear and firm statement that unmistakably underscored the utterly distinctive status of abortion and euthanasia in Catholic teaching, and that approved, but did not mandate, specific pastoral approaches, including the denial of Communion to the obdurate.

Fr. Neuhaus also seems to be very impressed with the "new generation" of bishops in the American Catholic Church -- among them Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, Archbishop John Myers of Newark, and others who have stood to criticize Senator Kerry's misrepresentation of the Catholic faith.

Reasons to hope.

Kerry vs. Bush - The Stakes are Higher than a few Supreme Court Justices

2004-10-23T01:20:00.000-04:00

Amy Welborn brings us up to date at Dr. Stassen's response to the National Right to Life Committee's rebuttal of her study that abortions increased under Bush, and a subsequent response by Ramesh Ponnuru at The Corner.

Mrs. Welborn shares some thoughts of her own:

Posters who remind us that even one abortion is terrible, and that while one goal of the pro-life movement is to reduce numbers of abortions, certainly (and remember- those aren't "numbers" - they're people. "reduce numbers" = "saving lives"), another goal is to reshape the culture and law - are correct.

But this is an important issue, especially now, because I've seen Stassen's information and perspective already, in just a matter of days, pulled out and used in defense of support for a "pro-choice" candidate. A "pro-choice" candidate, who, I might add, has no interest or intention in reducing anything related to abortion, if one is to go on his record.

It's also a useful conversation to have, generally - the questions are important, even as we constantly remind ourselves that our job doesn't end with talking about it - it's only begun, and it really begins in earnest, when we've managed to actually meet pregnant women and girls where they are and offer them the help and support they need.

Kerry takes every opportunity to warn liberal voters that a Bush victory will jeopordize the "constitutional right" to abortion, but we should remember that the stakes in this election are more than the nomination of a few Justices to the Supreme Court. Besides Kerry's promise to revoke the Mexico City Policy as his first Executive Order, we should keep in mind that liberals are absolutely furious over the Bush Administration's generous financial support for crisis pregnancy centers, which assist pregnant women in finding alternatives to abortion and provide post-abortion counseling.

One can only guess what will happen to federal funding for CPC's under a militantly pro-choice, Planned-Parenthood and NARAL courting Kerry administration.

Archbishop Chaput: "Words are cheap. Actions matter."

2004-10-22T22:02:00.000-04:00

In an op-ed for the New York Times, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput gives a lesson in elementary logic and civics to those who, like Senator Kerry, criticize Catholics for "imposing their morals" on others ("Faith and Patriotism" Oct. 22, 2004):

Lawmaking inevitably involves some group imposing its beliefs on the rest of us. That's the nature of the democratic process. If we say that we "ought" to do something, we are making a moral judgment. When our legislators turn that judgment into law, somebody's ought becomes a "must" for the whole of society. This is not inherently dangerous; it's how pluralism works.

Democracy depends on people of conviction expressing their views, confidently and without embarrassment. This give-and-take is an American tradition, and religious believers play a vital role in it. We don't serve our country - in fact we weaken it intellectually - if we downplay our principles or fail to speak forcefully out of some misguided sense of good manners.

People who support permissive abortion laws have no qualms about imposing their views on society. Often working against popular opinion, they have tried to block any effort to change permissive abortion laws since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. That's fair. That's their right. But why should the rules of engagement be different for citizens who oppose those laws?

Catholics have an obligation to work for the common good and the dignity of every person. We see abortion as a matter of civil rights and human dignity, not simply as a matter of religious teaching. We are doubly unfaithful - both to our religious convictions and to our democratic responsibilities - if we fail to support the right to life of the unborn child. Our duties to social justice by no means end there. But they do always begin there, because the right to life is foundational.

The Archbishop closes with a not-too-subtle rebuke to John Kerry's citation of a passage from James in his bid to attract religious voters:

Words are cheap. Actions matter. If we believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, we need to prove that by our actions, including our political choices. Anything less leads to the corruption of our integrity. . . . As James 2:17 reminds us, in a passage quoted in the final presidential debate, "Faith without works is dead." It is a valid point. People should act on what they claim to believe. Otherwise they are violating their own conscience, and lying to themselves and the rest of us.

Denver Has a Bishop and a Mensch

2004-10-22T08:38:00.000-04:00

But those of us who have followed the career of Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver already knew that. After a botched interview, the New York Times gave Archbishop Chaput the opportunity to write an op-ed column on the election. He took the opportunity and ran with it. Seldom will you read a more forthright and common sense column in the pages of the Times.

This election is certainly not the election of 1960, with Catholics supporting the "Catholic" candidate overwhelmingly or with the hierarchy, beginning with Cardinal Cushing of Boston, walking hand in hand with the Kennedy family. Those days are over. Today, Bush probably leads among white Catholics and is probably tied among all Catholics.

Bishops and archbishops have spoken out against the scandal of Kerry's faux and heterodox Catholicism. The lesson is clear: heterodox Catholics like Kerry will not go unchallenged in their use of the Catholic label for political gain. In fact, these phony Catholic candidates will be vehemently challenged and exposed by both laity and bishops.

Chaput lays it on the line: pro-life Catholics will not be muzzled in the world's greatest democracy. We came to these shores for freedom, and that freedom certainly includes the freedom to proclaim the truth that infants, whether unborn, partially born, or fully born, should not be butchered. As Chaput points out, it's a matter of human rights in addition to being a religious truth. But no one, not even the secularist editors of the New York Times should be surprised at this argument. After all, the very concept of human rights was born of the Judeo-Christian religious belief in the dignity of every human person.

Religion is the source of the Western development of human rights. To muzzle religious believers in political debate is to destroy the goose that laid the golden egg. The liberals will realize this fact only when it is too late. Catholics and many others realize it today.

Catholics Publish "An Open Letter to John Kerry"

2004-10-22T01:21:00.000-04:00

The last few weeks before election day, more and more faithful Catholics from all walks of life -- clergy and laity -- are voicing their discontent with Senator Kerry's blatant misrepresentation and mockery of the Catholic faith.

My colleague Earl E. Appleby has drawn attention to Bishop Paul S. Loverde's correction of Kerry's claim that the Church's opposition to abortion is an "article of faith" that cannot be legislated. In so doing, Bishop Loverde joins a growing list of bishops who -- like the biblical prophets of old -- are speaking truth to political power and condemning the slaughter of innocents.

This past Tuesday, another impressive list of academics, legislators -- even a retired U.S. Army major general -- joined together to sign an An Open Letter From Fellow Catholics To John Kerry On Faith & Reason, addressing the moral incohrence of the Senator's "pro-choice" allegiance:

Innocent human life must always be protected. Senator John Kerry, you have said that "life begins at conception," but you have persistently supported abortion and oppose all sensible restrictions on the practice.

You have voted six times against banning the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. You voted to spend taxpayers' dollars to fund abortion at least 25 times.

You opposed Laci and Conner's Law, which protects pregnant women and their unborn babies from violent crimes.

In the most recent debate Senator Kerry, you said, "everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith" and that "everything is a gift from the Almighty." But apparently, when it comes to the issue of the right to life, you follow neither your own faith nor your own reason.

Senator Kerry, your stand contradicts both your faith and reason.

What is troubling to me is that the complete irrationality of John Kerry's support of abortion should be obvious to anybody with a little bit of common sense. You don't need a philosophy degree to realize that there's something more than a little wrong with a politician who recognizes that human life begins at conception but defends with every breath the "right" to murder that life. Who claims to be "personally opposed" to abortion but proudly claims militant defenders of abortion as allies. Who claims to have a "respect" for the Catholic faith but denigrates Christian opposition to abortion as a "rigid ideology". Who claims to "fight for equality and justice" but is all too willing to exclude the weakest among us.

* * *

In "Kerry and Abortion: A Look at Stark Reality Without Distractions" -- a response to Professor Cathleen Kaveny's diatribe against "Rambo Catholics" (and worth reading in full) -- Greg Sisk conveys what is on the mind of many a Catholic:

The plain fact is that John Kerry is not a "pro-choice" politician. Much worse, John Kerry is the candidate of the abortion industry itself.

It is for these reasons, principled reasons far beyond those flowing from ordinary partisan politics, that I and so many others genuinely tremble at the prospect of a President Kerry. It is difficult even to contemplate the appalling spectacle of a professing Catholic who knowingly and freely and energetically gives financial and legal aid and moral comfort to those who daily add to our national holocaust. Watching the most powerful man in the country throwing his arms in a warm embrace around those who kill unborn children, while banishing from government and judicial office those who would promote life, would be heart-rendingly painful. That this same man then could claim communion with the Church of Life is astounding. Such unavoidably would be an act of fundamental dishonesty and contempt for the Church's witness to life. The scandal that would be caused to the faithful and the injury to the Church's credibility and voice on issues of life might reverberate for years.

In words expressed by many other bishops as well, although not targeted at Kerry in particular, Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark has explained that "Catholics who publicly dissent from the Church's teaching on the right to life of all unborn" have thereby chosen to separate themselves from the Church and "in a significant way from the Catholic community." He asked that such people should "honestly admit in the public forum that they are not in full union with the Church," and that any attempt by such a person to "express 'communion' with Christ and His Church by the reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is objectively dishonest." To emphasize the fuller meaning and the powerful meaning of communion is not bullying; it is a matter of simple integrity.

A Particular Candidate's Mistaken Views—Setting the Record Straight

2004-10-21T21:44:00.000-04:00

"A recent response on the issue of abortion by a candidate for national office prompts me to offer these clarifications," Bishop Paul S. Loverde writes in today's Arlington, VA, Catholic Herald.

I feel it necessary to correct what I consider to be a misstatement by this particular candidate on what an article of faith is, and what the duties of the faithful are. In fact, there are others as well, including legislators, judges, and ordinary citizens, who espouse a similarly erroneous approach.

A short time ago, when asked about his position on abortion, this candidate said:

I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.

"Opposition to abortion does not depend on a foundation of religious faith," Bishop Loverde reminds us. "Many people, who profess a variety of religious beliefs or even no religion, oppose the direct taking of innocent human life by abortion. There is an error inherent in the assertion that abortion is just an article of faith."

The error is simply this: the wrongness of direct abortion is decidedly not just "an article of faith." Rather, it is rooted in the natural law. Citing legislators who say "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I cannot impose my religious beliefs on others," my predecessor, Bishop John Keating, spoke clearly in words which I echo today:

The fallacy in this reasoning is simply that the morality of abortion is not a religious belief, any more than the morality of slavery, apartheid, rape, larceny, murder or arson is a religious belief. These are norms of the natural law of mankind and can be legislated even in a completely religionless society (A Pastoral Letter on Morality and Conscience, 1994).

In this light, it is obvious why we bishops stated the following in Catholics in Political Life:

Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work towards correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and sinning against the common good.

As Pope John Paul II has said in Evangelium Vitae:

The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may 'lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way' (1 Tim. 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being (71).

As Bishop Loverde concludes:

To be a faithful Catholic necessarily means that one is pro-life and not pro-choice. To be pro-choice essentially means supporting the right of a woman to terminate the life of her baby, either preborn or partially born. No Catholic can claim to be a faithful member of the Church while advocating for, or actively supporting, direct attacks on innocent human life. In reality, protecting human life from conception to natural death is far more than a Catholic issue. It is an issue that cuts across denominational lines. It is an issue of fundamental morality, rooted in both the natural moral law and the divine law. Because of this, no other issue is objectively more important. Therefore, both as citizens and as Catholics, we can never give up our efforts to eliminate the killing of innocent, defenseless human beings. [emphases and hypertext links added]

DeFide Canon Law Suit Still on Target

2004-10-21T17:50:00.000-04:00

When a brave man steps up to the plate with truth on his side, the rest of us need to back him up. Los Angeles canon lawyer Marc Balestrieri is now well-known as the person who instituted a canon law action against Kerry for his "pro-choice" heresy. Recently, an unofficial communication sent at the direction of the Vatican confirmed that Balestrieri's contentions against Kerry are indeed correct.

But, in their customarily cautious manner, some Vatican officials are now emphasizing that this unofficial communication is not definitive. Canon lawyer Peter Vere gives an insightful analysis of the situation by noting that the Vatican works with a "two steps forward, one step backward" mentality. That mentality may be necessary and may even be prudent and responsible. To some of us on the ground here in the United States, that mentality may be a bit frustrating and lacking in needed urgency. Either way, as Peter Vere notes, Marc Balestrieri of DeFide.com has moved the ball down the field. He has brought long and scandalously ignored matters to a head. For that, we owe him our continued thanks and support.

Therefore, I am happy to reiterate and extend my earlier pledge to help Mr. Balestrieri. Any author royalties from purchases made, in the remaining months of 2004, of the Catholic Analysis book, Unpopular Catholic Truths will go to support the work of Mr. Balestrieri as described in DeFide.com.

Whether by words or by treasure, I urge readers of this site to encourage the efforts of this singularly courageous canon lawyer from Los Angeles. He decided to take a stand instead of remaining a spectator. We apparently have many canon lawyers willing to remain spectators. I'll put my money on the one who decided to be different.

Silence of the Shepherds Imperils Innocent Lambs

2004-10-21T01:36:00.000-04:00

As posted by my fellow resident pundit Barbara Kralis on Fidelis . . .

Will the silence of most U.S. Catholic bishops help elect a Presidential candidate who promotes procured abortion and supports same-sex marriage?

The Democrat Presidential candidate, John Kerry, proclaimed recently to all Americans that he is a "faithful Catholic" in good standing, yet promised that if elected:

I will not overturn Roe v Wade; I will not appoint judges hostile to "choice;" I will allow poor women to have free abortions; I will never outlaw abortion; I will increase American taxpayer's dollars on population control efforts around the world."[1]

In other words, this pro-abortion legislator has set himself outside of the Catholic faith and has incurred, according to Canon Law n. 1398, a common excommunication, latae sententiae, a censure incurred by the very fact of committing a crime.

Yet, ironically, a majority of U.S. Catholic Bishops is unwilling to discipline legislators who support procured abortion by banning them from the sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist in most of the nation's Catholic dioceses. The sixty-million U.S. Catholic laity is scandalized and confused by the refusal of most bishops to dutifully govern and correct.

The world media are reporting with amusement the reactions of individual bishops.

Currently, two archbishops and 10 bishops have stated publicly they would obey the Church's Divine Law and deny the Sacrament of the Eucharist to legislators who support procured abortion.[2]

The rest of the 365 U.S. bishops, 46 archbishops, and 12 cardinals, including the remaining 184 of the 196 diocesan bishop heads, have made no such statement.[3] In fact, many bishops have spoken wrongly against the denial of Holy Communion to anyone, at anytime, for any reason.

Is the silence of this majority of Bishops sending a loud, clear message to all Americans that being pro-abortion is not a grave offense against God?

The Code of Canon Law n. 1369 instructs all Bishops:

A person is to be punished with a just penalty who gravely harms public morals.

Who could refute the fact that for years Senator Kerry, Senator Kennedy and over 500 pro-abortion U.S. "Catholic" politicians have participated in abortion by writing, endorsing, encouraging, and passing pro abortion and pro sodomite legislation? Canon Law n. 915 specifically prohibits persons receiving the Eucharist who obstinately persist in their grave manifest sins. This is a no-brainer.

In fact, Senator Kerry's pro-abortion record is so strong that he is the first presidential candidate--including Clinton and Gore--to be endorsed by the evil Planned Parenthood abortion group.

Senator Kerry supports human cloning, favors the creation and destruction of human embryos for research, and has voted repeatedly against a federal ban on "partial birth abortion."

In an interview Kerry gave the Dubuque, IA, Telegraph Herald, as cited in a secondary report by the Washington Post,

I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist . . . who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America.

Does not the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's note Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life carry any authority with American bishops and clergy? It declared:

Lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life.[4]

Why, as recently revealed by Catholic World News, have three of the twelve prominent members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Review Board flagrantly and traitorously disobeyed Church teachings and financially supported pro-abortion Kerry's presidential campaign?[5]

Kerry travels throughout the United States in his presidential bid. This pro-abortion, heretical "Catholic" legislator receives sacrilegious Holy Communions wherever and whenever he attends the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Why?

Each Sunday, pro-abortion Senator Kerry enters a different parish, approaches the altar, receiving the Eucharist while obstinately refusing to obey the Church's clearly defined laws against his unlawful reception of Communion. Every parish receives advance notice of Kerry's clamorous arrival, yet, in parish after parish, both Ministers of Holy Communion (pastors, priests, deacons) and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (laymen) willfully give Kerry sacrilegious Communions.

The Catechism teaches that all clergy who administer the Sacrament of the Eucharist to manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners also participate in this grave cardinal sin of sacrilege (CCC, n.1755). Is it not clear they must deny these pro-abortion politicians the Eucharist?

In fact, Canon Law n. 915 places the responsibility on the minister--'ne admittantur'--who, in the opinion of some canonists, could be punished themselves according to Canon Law n. 1389 §2, should he unlawfully administer the sacrament with the consequent danger of scandal for the rest of the faithful. Canon Law n. 1339 prescribes the possibility of punishing any person who causes grave scandal by any violation of a divine or ecclesiastical law.

Some have suggested that the silence of most of the bishops is because U.S. clergy overwhelmingly vote as Democrats and do not want to offend their leaders. A recent poll suggested this was the case, at least, in the diocese of Chicago.

According to an exclusive Illinois Leader analysis[6] of the voting habits of the Chicago Archdiocese's voting Catholic priests, more than 75% of them sided with the Democrats in the March 2002 primary election. Consequently, many U.S. Catholics are receiving a message from many bishops and priests, however subtle, that the Church wishes them to vote for the Democrat Party, the official abortion party in America Is this why many of our pulpits are silent on the infallible Church teachings regarding morals and faith, teachings that definitely offend Democrats?

Could another reason be that U.S. bishops fear losing money donated in weekly offertory collections? Do some bishops fear offending powerful Democrat parishioners?

Dear Bishops, you are the leaders and shepherds of our church. We stand beside you in deepest prayer and respect. Please stop this scandal and sacrilege of the Eucharist, we pray!

Editor's Note: Endnotes may be accessed via the above links. An annotated edition of the above article, which has been slightly revised for Fidelis, can be found on Renew America.

Abortions Did Not Increase Under President Bush, Researcher's Study Flawed

2004-10-21T01:30:00.000-04:00

As part of their last-minute attempts to question President Bush's pro-life record, Democrats have cited a research report by Prof. Glen Harold Stassen of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary that claims Bush's economic policies have led to an increase in the number of abortions during his administration.

According to LifeNews.com, a leading pro-life expert on abortion statistics says the study is flawed and sometimes uses old data or wrong numbers to draw conclusions.

Dr. Randy O'Bannon, director of education at the National Right to Life Committee, reveals bad assumptions and false conclusions in the report:

Since the federal government stopped collecting national abortion figures in 2000, Stassen relies on data from 16 states to establish his claim that abortions have increased dramatically under President Bush.

Stassen found that abortions increased in 11 of those 16 states claims abortions must be on the rise nationwide.

"Stassen never demonstrates that his 16 states are representative of the 50 states," O'Bannon said. "Even worse for Stassen's case is that some of his statistics are just flat wrong, while others are of ambiguous origin."

As Prime Minister of England Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881) observed, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Cardinal Francis George on the necessity of admonishing wayward politicians

2004-10-20T23:59:00.000-04:00

. . . that abortion is intrinsically immoral is clear to many and is clearly taught to all Catholics. Some Catholics would argue, however, that not everything immoral need be illegal and that abortion, while always immoral, is so fundamentally ensconced in our American way of life that any attempt to outlaw it now would destroy social peace. It must therefore be tolerated precisely for the common good.

That argument makes its point, however, only if the one making it is working actively to change attitudes toward abortion with a view of eventually coming to protect in law every unborn child. Because it is hard to see how one can make the argument in good conscience while proclaiming abortion a “right” and vowing to protect it all costs, many Catholics have lost patience with politicians who claim to share their faith while piling up a completely “pro-choice” voting record. The U.S. Bishops last June, bringing once again the question of conscience to participation in political life, said that voting to protect legal abortion is a form of cooperating in the evil of abortion itself.

Do all Catholic politicians understand their obligations in conscience? Apparently not, which means that their pastors have to take the time to speak with them personally. A pastoral conversation about the formation of conscience is not an interference in the political process. It is an exercise in pastoral charity, motivated by a desire for a politician’s salvation. The politician will someday be asked by the Lord: "What did you do to the least of my brothers and sisters?” And the pastor will be asked by the same Lord: “What did you do to warn them? How did you help them form their conscience?" Like Lazarus, the poor man ignored by the rich man until it was too late for the rich man to be saved (Luke 16: 19-31), those killed in their mother’s womb will be at the gates of paradise but unable to come to the assistance of those condemned to hell because they killed unborn children or supported their being killed. . . .

"Catholic participation in political life, revisited" Catholic New World Oct. 10, 2004.

Catholic Bloggers on Senator Kerry & the Election - A Roundup

2004-10-20T09:49:00.000-04:00

Catholic Kerry Watch would be certainly remiss if we didn't acknowledge the works of our blogging neighbors -- here is a roundup of recent posts that caught my attention:

Tom of Disputations posts his email correspondence with Archbishop Chaput on the difference between abortion and war as moral evils.
And, with a citation from Senator Kerry's speech at NARAL celebration honoring the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Tom of Disputations also shreds the KerryCatholic notion that Kerry is "personally opposed to abortion rights but is upholding the law of the land."
Mark Brumley, president of Ignatius Press, on why "Some Political Issues Should Be More Important Than Others for Catholics".
Faith is Always Private, Except When It Isn't, In Which Case Refer to JFK", Carl Olson fisks Kerry's third debate 'Cuomo Defense.' IgnatiusInsight, Oct. 14, 2004.
Fr. Rob Johansen criticizes Ohio Dominican University for "Giving The Platform To Your Enemies" by hosting anti-Catholic columnist Ellen Goodman as the premier event of it's 2004-2005 "Presidential Lecture Series".
Domenico Bettinelli critiques a new website called the "Catholic Voting Project" and why he disagrees with their tactic -- like that of the USCCB's presidential questionairre -- of "making all issues equal."
Thomas Galvin (The Galvin Opinion) notices the discrepancy between Christopher Reeve's admission that "embryonic stem cells are . . . not able to do much about chronic injuries" and John Edward's promise to a Newton High School audience that: "When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
Just Bein' Frank takes a look at Kerry "on abortion, litmus tests, and religious tests" and notes that Kerry's religious intolerance toward those who oppose Roe vs. Wade would "[effectively exclude] all serious Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims from the bench."
Christine at Laudem Gloriae responds to Notre Dame professor M. Cathleen Kaveny's Wall Street Journal op-ed diatribe against "rambo Catholics" who she accuses of "trying to bully their fellow American Catholics into voting for George Bush."
The Mighty Barrister critiques Rev. Lawrence Hummer's sermon at a specially arranged Mass which Senator Kerry recently attended, and notes Kerry's fondness from quoting from a Protestant version of the Bible.
And as this election focuses Catholics' attention on the "life issues", Fidelis posts a recent editorial by Father John Fongemie FSSP, chaplain to Canberra's Latin Mass community, addressing "two interrelated matters I have put on the backburner for too long: organ donation and so-called "brain death" -- a controversy "not only ignored by the anti-life media, it is hardly prominent among pro-lifers themselves, even though the secular definition of what constitutes death . . . should be a frontline issue for all upholders of the Fifth Commandment.").

Catholic College to host Rally for John Kerry

2004-10-20T03:15:00.000-04:00

Four months after American Catholic Bishops collectively decided that "the Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions," St. Catherine's, the largest Catholic women's college in the U.S., will host a rally for Senator Kerry in their auditorium. According to LifeNews.com:

According to an announcement by the event's organizers, Artists for Kerry will hold a rally at the O'Shaughnessy Auditorium at the College of St. Catherine on Thursday, October 21.

St. Catherine's is run by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, and is the largest Catholic college for women in the U.S. The event is meant "to inspire and mobilize Minnesotans to Get Out the Vote on November 2 and elect John Kerry President," according to the announcement.

According to the college's website, an appearance by Kerry has not been confirmed, although he is scheduled to be in Minneapolis at the time of the event.

Pro-life organizations are protesting the event, but the school's communications director is claiming they are powerless to do anything about a group "renting their facilities."

Leo LaLonde, president of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, expressed concern over the college's acceptance of the arrangement.

"It is sad irony that the college named for St. Catherine of Alexandria who was beheaded for refusing to renounce her faith, welcomes a man who has renounced his faith by voting repeatedly to continue the practice of abortion; an act that the Catholic Church holds to be a grave moral evil," said LaLonde. "Equally ironic, St. Catherine is the patron saint of lawyers."

Senator Kerry recently spoke with the Denver Post, requesting that Catholics "look at his entire record in public office, and not just his position on abortion rights."

. . . To bolster his case, the Democratic presidential nominee pointed to a recent letter received by the U.S. bishops from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's arbiter of matters of faith and doctrine, who said it is not necessarily sinful for Catholics to consider all aspects of a public official's record, and not just his or her stance on abortion, before casting their votes.

[Kerry] cited a Democratic Senate survey that tallied votes on all the social justice, environmental, anti-abortion and foreign policy issues listed as concerns by America's Catholic bishops. Kerry said he had the best record in the Senate when it came to Catholic issues.

Never mind the fact that the very same memorandum that Kerry cites also contains the following note from Cardinal Ratzinger:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. . . . There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

And people wonder why Catholics like Marc Balestrieri are outraged.

Thanks to Amy Welborn for the update.

Pass the Chips, Please!—Exposing CINO Kerry's Cell-Out

2004-10-19T22:44:00.000-04:00

"The death of actor Christopher Reeve, a prominent advocate of human cloning and embryonic-destructive stem cell research, could be politically beneficial for Democrat presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry," Culture and Cosmos reports. "But there are also signs that Catholic voters are increasingly turned off by Kerry's long litany of anti-life positions making it a possibility that Kerry would be hurt by trying to capitalize on the stem cell issue."

It is becoming increasingly clear that Kerry's positions on issues like abortion and stem cell research are having a negative effect among Catholic voters.

A front page story from [the October 12] New York Times addressed the growing number of Catholic bishops who are making the case that support for pro-abortion candidates is sinful because the fundamental nature of protecting life in Church teaching....

Equally significant, in Zogby's view, is the evidence that Catholic voters are responding to the messages of these pro-life bishops.

The Times story cites a Pew Research poll from this month that reports 42 percent of white Catholics favoring George Bush, 29 percent supporting Kerry and 27 percent as undecided.

A Zogby poll conducted in September revealed that Bush enjoyed significantly greater support among Catholics than he did among the general population in the battleground states of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

President Bush lost the Catholic vote four years ago to Al Gore 49-47 percent. Sources close to the Bush campaign are predicting a significantly higher count for Bush come November.

In an interview with the Catholic News Service, Zogby senior political writer Fritz Wenzel attributed the growing support of Catholics for Bush partly to the controversy that erupted this summer over whether or not Kerry ought to receive Communion.

According to Wenzel:

The media attention given to the issue advanced the pro-life cause. "Denying Communion is a whole different issue than abortion, but it made people aware of (the candidates') positions," Wenzel said. "It's like a potato chip that's the conveyor for the salt."

Pass the chips, please!

[Editor's Note: Hypertext links added.]

Kerry Acts--Literally--To Close "God Gap"

2004-10-18T21:10:00.000-04:00

As the 2004 presidential election heads towards the home stretch, the Catholic vote takes on added significance, particularly in such make-or-break swing states as Pennsylvania, where Catholics make up 35% of the electorate, as National Public Radio's Brian Naylor reports.added significance, particularly in such make-or-break swing states as Pennsylvania, where Catholics make up 35% of the electorate, as National Public Radio's Brian Naylor reports.

The Catholic factor does not necessarily accrue to the benefit of President Bush, however, as polling indicates that centrist Catholics outnumber conservative Catholics nearly 2 to 1 and are heavily concentrated in such competive states as Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

On the other hand, Prof. John Green, the political scientist who conducted that polling, believes that while statements by orthodox bishops such as Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput and Colorado Springs' Bishop Michael Sheridan vex liberal Catholics, they rally conservative Catholics, who may truimph in the end. As Green concludes:

Many liberal Catholics are not regular Mass attenders, The conservative Catholics, they attend Mass, they take their institutions and leaders very seriously, and they're simply easier to mobilize.

This is one reason why Senator Kerry is going through yet another make-over as he scrambles to reduce what pundits have dubbed the "God gap."

In today's Washington Post, Jim VandeHei reports:

John F. Kerry is evolving from a reserved Catholic reluctant to discuss faith in the public square into a Democratic preacher of sorts who speaks freely and sometimes forcefully about religion on the hustings.

"It wasn't always this way," VandeHei acknowledges. "For much of the campaign, Kerry resisted pressure from some Democrats, including aides, to discuss his faith more widely."

Why the about face?

Friends say that Kerry also has gained a deeper appreciation of how voters in many of the battleground states—from Hispanic Catholics in New Mexico to evangelical Christians in rural Ohio—seek candidates of faith, or at least desire reassurance that their president shares most of their values.

In other words, it's the same reason that lies behind most of Kerry's trademark flip-flops: old-fashioned political opportunism.

Just what America needs in a Commander in Chief.

Major Development in Kerry Heresy Case

2004-10-17T23:27:00.000-04:00

EWTN's 'The World Over Live' featured an interview w/ Marc Balestrieri, J.C.L. of De Fide, who made headlines this past July for filing charges of heresy against Senator Kerry. After months of silence, Mr. Balestrieri was able to break major developments in the case. Here's a brief summary from Mr Balestrieri -- and an official press release with all the details is forthcoming and will be posted to De Fide's website.

The denunciation and complaint is pending before Archbishop O'Malley of Boston, according to the head of the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Boston. The case was delayed due to the Tribunal being massively overwhelmed by the thousands upon thousands of individual denunciations and complaints. The Tribunal has sent the case upwards to O'Malley.
In late August, Mr. Balestrieri went to Rome to discuss the "unprecedented nature and scope" of the case with 10 experts. He "decided in conscience" to consult with the Vatican. He submitted two questions in Latin to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
1. Whether or not the Church's teaching condemning any and every direct abortion is a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith, and if the denial and doubt of the same constitutes heresy.
2. Whether or not the Church's teaching condemning any and every right to abortion is a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith, and if the denial and doubt of the same constitutes heresy.
According to Marc, "Less than ten days later, the Rev. Basil Cole, O.P., an expert theologian was delegated by the Very Rev. Augustine di Noia, O.P., Undersecretary of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, to fulfill the task of responding to the question. He studied the matter carefully, and has responded "Affirmative" on both counts."
The four-page response is posted in full .pdf format at www.defide.com/. It is an excellent letter, and must be read in its entirety to get a real sense of the complexity of the issues involved and the sound and meticulous judgement of the church as to what constitutes heresy. I would also advise all readers to do so because, if the treatment of Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum was any indication, there is an even greater capacity here for misleading and altogether botched reporting by the mainstream press -- best to familiarize yourself with the actual document(s) in question.
The Congregation affirms that the teaching against abortion as a grave sin is "of divine and Catholic faith." Although this teaching has not been solemnly defined by the Roman Pontiff (as in, for example, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception), it was held by "ordinary and universal magisterium" of the Church since the beginning of Christianity, constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and her Pastors and Doctors. For 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has not wavered in its moral condemnation of abortion.
As a teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium, "all Catholics are bound to believe in it with the firm and irrevocable assent of faith, admitting of no exceptions whatsoever. In public or in private, they can never deny this doctrine." Consequently, to claim that the Church's teaching on abortion is not definitive, that it does not warrant obedience and can in fact be dissented from, "would be erroneous and theologically heretical."
The Congregation concludes:
. . . Consequently, if a Catholic publicly and obstinately supports the civil right to abortion, knowing that the Church teaches officially against that legislation, he or she commits that heresy envisioned by Can. 751 of the Code.
In light of this clarification by Rev. Basil Cole, O.P., Mr. Balestrieri is in the process of "filing an amended Denunciation and Complaint against Senator Kerry, as well as four new Denunciations and Complaints against Sen. Ted Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts; Sen. Tom Harkin (D) [of Iowa]; Mr. Mario Cuomo (D), former Governor of New York; and Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine."

CatholicKerryWatch encourages its readers to lend your support -- spiritual as well as financial -- to Marc Balestrieri and De Fide. Peter Vere reported back in July 2004 that Mr. Balestrieri had lost his job as a canon lawyer with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Here is someone who literally put his job on the line in order to combat the scandal perpetuated by pro-abortion "Catholic" politicans.

Please stay tuned to defide.com for regular updates on this important case.

Repeats of the show will be shown at the following times: Sunday 17 October: 2 PM PST/ 5 PM EST; Monday 18 Oct: 4 AM PST/ 7 AM EST and 5 PM PST/ 8 PM EST.

Related coverage by our fellow bloggers:

Vivificat.Org
Domenico Bettinelli, Jr.
Catholic Light
De Fide.com & The Canonical Action Against Sen. John Kerry - Chronological summary from The Catholic Legate.

Related coverage by the press:

"Lawyer buoyed on Kerry 'heresy'", by Joanne Dunne. Washington Times Oct. 18, 2004.
"Letter Supports Anti-Kerry Bid Over Abortion", by Pam Belluck. New York Times Oct. 19, 2004.

UPDATES

10-18-04 - De Fide has posted the formal press release to their website: Senator Kerry "Excommunicated" According to Vatican Response: Kennedy, Harkin, Cuomo, Collins Denounced for Heresy Monday, 18 October 2004.
10-18-04 - Canon Law professor Dr. Edward Peters responded with a critique of the release on his blog, and takes the cautious position that:
"Obviously, and despite some pretty dramatic press descriptions to the contrary, Cole's excellent letter is not and plainly does not purport to be an official statement by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, let alone is it an authentic interpretation (1983 CIC 16 § 1) of the canons in question (incl. 1983 CIC 750, 1321, 1331, 1364, and 1398) or an endorsement of the canonical case prompting the letter. Cole's letter is several steps removed from any kind of official Vatican decision in this case."
Dr. Peters has also posted a note by Fr. Basil Cole stating that the letter was a personal and private opinion, and "in no way is authoritative from the Congregation nor was I representing the Congregation. It's only weight is that of a priest and a theologian who appeals to sacred sources. I was helping out Fr. DiNoia who asked me to do this for him."
Excommunication Tactic Used Against John Kerry Washington Dispatch, Oct. 19, 2004.:
Mr. Balestrieri was contacted regarding this article and quickly responded in length stating, "the response is unofficial in that I, as a layman, am not entitled to receive an 'official' response, because the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not give out official responses to laymen like myself, only Bishops." Balestrieri went on to write, ". . . the theologian [Fr. Cole] writes that this truth is 'manifest.' Now, no theologian worth his salt ever throws such a thorny term around lightly. It was for that reason I received a response in the affirmative so quickly: The content of the teaching is not just official, but infallible. Any Bishop will tell you that."
10-19-04 - Blogger Kevin Miller ("Heart, Mind and Strength") offers his own analysis of Fr. Coles' letter, expressing reservations about the charge of heresy.
10-19-04 - According to Catholic News, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith claims that Balestrieri misrepresented his contact with the Vatican office:
"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has had no contact with Mr. (Marc) Balestrieri," said Dominican Father Augustine DiNoia, undersecretary of the congregation.
10-19-04: Domenico Bettinelli asked Marc Balestrieri to respond to the disavowals of Fr. Cole's and Fr. DiNoia and posts his reply in full to his blog.
10-20-04 "A Series of Unfortunate Events" - Marc Balestrieri, JCL describes the distancing by DiNoia and Coles as "A series of unfortunate events . . . which some have attempted to use to avoid a thorough and honest discussion of the true issue at hand: The continuing attack against the Faith and Sacraments by those who publicly support the proposition advocating either Abortive Murder or the Right to Murder. . . .")
10-20-04 "Tunc et Nunc", response by Jimmy Akin. Dr. Edward N. Peters has further reactions on his blog.

That's the news to date. We'll keep you updated via this blog as events develop.

National Review on Kerry's distortion of Catholic teaching

2004-10-17T23:01:00.000-04:00

One of the various bastions of conservative politics on the net, the National Review, has been taking aim at the glaring discrepancies of Senator Kerry's "Catholic" faith:

Not In Good Conscience (National Review Online, Oct. 12, 2004) -- Prof. Robert P. George of Princeton University and Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame respond to the recent endorsement of Senator Kerry by Mark W. Roche, dean of the College of Arts and Letters at the University of Notre Dame (New York Times Oct. 11, 2004). Roche tried to make the case why Catholics could vote for Kerry in good conscience.
Mark Brumley ponders what Senator Kerry means by his description of Catholic morality on abortion as an "article of faith" (NRO, Oct. 14, 2004):
What article of faith was Kerry talking about? That abortion kills an innocent human being? That's not a peculiarly Catholic belief or "article of faith." Plenty of people who aren't Catholics think abortion entails taking an innocent human life. President Bush does, and he's a Methodist, not a Catholic. So too many Lutherans, Baptists, Nazarenes, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians agree with faithful Catholics and President Bush. Then there are non-Christians, including many Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, for whom abortion is the killing an innocent human being. Indeed, some people with no religion at all or who deny God's existence take the same position.
How, then, can opposition to abortion rights be "an article of faith"? Or if it is, why should that preclude opposing abortion on other grounds held in common with people who don't necessarily share one's faith?
Rich Lowrey lays into Kerry's "respect" for Catholic critics (Kerry’s 'Catholic' Calculations" NRO, Oct. 15, 2004):
. . . Indeed, if Kerry had a proper Catholic upbringing, he wasn't taught -- as he puts it -- to "respect" the view that life is sacred; he was taught to accept it as truth. It's not as though Catholics are instructed to respect fundamental tenets of the church as if they are the exotic beliefs of Zen Buddhism due a polite and inoffensive tolerance.

Senator Kerry has a "deep respect for life?"

2004-10-14T11:41:00.000-04:00

Amy Welborn: "Do the Kerry Pretzel"

2004-10-14T01:34:00.000-04:00

Amy Welborn ("Open Book") has some thoughts on Kerry's remarks during the third debate as well:

New drinking game: Every time Kerry mentions that he was an altar boy, we all do a shot. Or better yet, throw one at the TV.

And then we eat some pretzels because, you see what Kerry has done in this answer is twist himself into a good imitation of one. He can't impose his faith on anyone, but then...his faith affects everything he does. It's why he fights for equality and justice, and for the poor, the environment. His faith.

So if an impoverished fetus lived in timberland threatened by forestry companies...he'd be moved to try to save it? By his faith?

Got it. What a...oh, I can't say that, can I, now?

James Akin on Senator Kerry's Claim to Faith

2004-10-14T01:10:00.000-04:00

James Akin did a little liveblogging of the third presidential debate between Senator Kerry and President Bush, noting Kerry's citation from the book of James ("What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? . . . faith without deeds is dead" Jas. 2:14, 20):

Kerry has professed--as a matter of his personal faith--a belief in the humanity of the unborn and his personal opposition to abortion, yet he has REFUSED TO UNDERTAKE ANY DEEDS TO PROTECT THE UNBORN.

Senator, faith without works IS dead. Your faith on this point INCLUDED.

It is not enough to say to the unborn "Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body" (Jas. 2:16).

One of the things that is "needful to the body" for the unborn is the legal protection NOT TO HAVE THEIR BODIES RIPPED APART BY AN ABORTIONIST.

Senator, YOUR faith, without YOUR deeds on this point, is DEAD.

What a shame, then, that it is left to a Texas Methodist (Sen. Kerry's opponent in the debate) to repeatedly quote John Paul II's phrase in saying that he supports "a culture of life."

Political Potluck

2004-10-12T23:33:00.000-04:00

The Kerry campaign in trying to reduce the God gap has launched a web page named Kerry Shares Our Values

Part of it includes information so that you can hold your own People of Faith Potluck with information in this packet.

John Kerry' faith. A life-long Catholic, John Kerry attends Mass regularly. He is a former altar boy who describes himself as a "believing and practicing Catholic." More importantly, his strong personal faith informs his values and has guided him in a life of service. In speaking about his faith, he has often quoted the apostle James: "be doers of the word, and not merely earers . . . " Earlier this year, John Kerry elaborated, "The Scriptures say: 'It is not enough, my brother, to say you have faith, when there are no deeds.' We look at what is happening in America today and we say: Where are the deeds?“

The Sanctity of Life. John Kerry believes strongly in the sanctity of human life. He is personally opposed to abortion, and will work for a nation where abortion is safe, legal and as rare as possible. John Kerry and John Edwards will work together across our differences to provide the support to women and families needed to make abortion rare; including strong support for child and maternal health, adoption, and teen pregnancy prevention. Support for programs like these helped reduce abortions to their lowest level in 25 years under President Clinton. Belief in the sanctity of human life means committing ourselves to care more fully for the health and well being of women, children and their families -- investments in health care, childcare, and education are imperative.

Marriage. John Kerry firmly believes that marriage exists only between a man and a woman. He does not agree that there needs to be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to defend marriage. John Kerry will work to uphold the civil rights of all Americans, including gays and lesbians. As many have observed, Republicans have tried to twist John Kerry's position on this issue. In an interview, Sen. Richard Durbin said that Republicans are simply trying to "change the subject" of the election away from the war in Iraq and the economy.

Faith-Based Initiatives. John Kerry strongly supports churches and faith-based groups that partner with government to provide important and needed services to their communities. As President, John Kerry will invite churches and faith-based institutions to continue to play the role they have always played -- as leaders, teachers, and guides in our communities. A Kerry-Edwards administration will value the role of faith in inspiring countless acts of justice and mercy across our land by offering financial support for faith-based organizations, in a way that supports our Constitution and upholds civil rights.

So again we have the information that Kerry believes that abortion is wrong but will not do anything legistatively to change it. That marriage is only between a man and a women, but won't do anything legislatively to change it. Instead we have the Clinton statement about safe, legal, and rare abortions. That will certainly please the unborn that the abortion perfomed on them is safe and legal. So where exactly does "be doers of the word" come in?

Democrat Raymond Flynn challenges Kerry's support of abortion

2004-10-12T09:26:00.000-04:00

The Boston Globe reports:

Raymond L. Flynn, the former mayor of Boston and US ambassador to the Vatican, injected himself into the presidential race yesterday with a pointed letter to John F. Kerry, his home-state senator and fellow Democrat.

Flynn, in an ad spreading across nearly an entire page of The New York Times, chided Kerry for insisting that, if elected president, he would appoint only people who support abortion rights to be justices on the Supreme Court.

"Removing political correctness from that statement, Senator Kerry, you have announced that you will only support people to the federal judiciary who support killing unborn children," Flynn wrote in an open letter funded by an organization of lay Catholics he heads, Liberty, Life and Family Inc. of Washington. The group, which bills itself as a nonpartisan entity, says its primary concern is preserving the civil rights of unborn children.

"This letter is not on behalf of or in opposition to your candidacy, but I am asking you to announce today that you will not impose any abortion litmus test on candidates for the federal judiciary -- especially those who are faithful Catholics," Flynn wrote to Kerry, listing Harvard Law School Professor Mary Ann Glendon as the type of potential jurist who would be excluded under Kerry's standard.

Flynn letter scolds Kerry on abortion, by Glen Johnson. Boston Globe Oct. 11, 2004.

According to the Globe, Flynn and Kerry had been "partisan allies," assisting each other in their political races for mayor and senator. Flynn and his family were even guests at the Democratic National Convention. But since his service as ambassador to the Vatican from 1993-1997, "Flynn has not held public office and instead spent time as a radio host and media commentator, almost exclusively focusing on his faith-based opposition to abortion and commitment to helping the poor."

Raymond Flynn has worked with Fr. Pavone of Priests for Life and recently assisted Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston in a campaign "to encourage Catholics to become more informed and actively involved in the civic life of their community and Church." He spoke at a gathering of Democrats for Life in January, 2003, saying "I'm pro-life; I'm pro-family; and I'm pro-poor. . . . That was the Democratic Party that I grew up in." He is not the first Democrat to question his party's total abandonment of the unborn.

It's good to see Kerry's fellow Democrats -- even if only a few -- express their concern over the questionable morality of their Senator. Let's hope it continues.

Is Kerry a CINO - "Catholic In Name Only"?

2004-10-11T01:56:00.000-04:00

Marvin Olasky, Presbyterian, editor of World magazine and ""father of compassionate conservatism", examines various statements by Senator Kerry on religion and spirituality and asks: "Is Kerry a CINO, a Catholic in name only?"

. . . He goes to Mass but windsurfs theologically: He has "always been fascinated by the Transcendentalists and the Pantheists and others who found these great connections just in nature, in trees, the ponds, the ripples of the wind on the pond, the great feast of nature itself."

Does Kerry speak about sin? Can't find that anywhere in his published speeches, but he did tell American Windsurfer: "So much of the conflict on the face of this planet is rooted in religions and the belief systems they give rise to. The fundamentalism of one entity or another." He does have ardent praise for the Dalai Lama, who "is certainly telling us there is life from enlightenment -- here and hereafter, but I think, whether or not we're going to be (enlightened) is the great test that all of us are struggling with."

Is this Catholicism? Doesn't sound like it, but these mixed messages are apparently common at Sen. Kerry's home church, the very liberal Paulist Center in Boston. Jonathan Last of The Weekly Standard attended a Center service and observed a reciting of an edited version of the Nicene Creed, with the section on believing in only "one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," dropped out.

Senator Kerry is a living example of the lack of proper catechesis in the Catholic Church in America. And it's rather troubling, when you think about it, that a Protestant feels compelled to point out that Kerry's theological positions fail to sound even remotely Catholic.

No wonder, then, that Mr. Olasky notes:

Once the theological ball is dropped, other balls -- marriage, sanctity of life and so on -- also hit the floor. The noise of all those balls dropping is mixed with the sound of most Catholics fleeing the Kerry campaign -- and also backing Bush because of a common social vision.

Special thanks to Domenico Bettinelli, Jr..

See also: "Catholicism Lite? - John Kerry's Religion", by Joseph Sobran. September 28, 2004.

Politics Without Character: A National Disease

2004-10-10T19:56:00.000-04:00

To separate faith from public life is to deny America's history and national identity, Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput recently declared at a workshop addressing church-state relations, Catholic Online reports.

In his October 7 keynote address on Religious Insititutions Law Day, Bishop Chaput reminded all Americans that:

When the "separation of church and state" begins to mean separating religious faith from public life, we begin to separate government from morality and citizens from their consciences, and that leads to politics without character, which is now a national disease.

The plain-speaking bishop concluded:

For Catholics, all of our actions and all of our choices should be rooted in our Catholic identity and in our relationship with God. That means our choices at work; at play; within our families; and also the choices we make in living out our citizenship.

To which CKW would simply add, including the critical decisions we make at the ballot box on November 2.

If politics without character is a national disease, CINO Kerry is its Typhoid Mary.

Kerry Lied about Embryonic Stem Cell Research

2004-10-10T19:13:00.000-04:00

During the second round of presidential debates, Elizabeth Long challenged Senator Kerry about his support of further research using embroyonic stem cells:

LONG: Senator Kerry, thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells.

Wouldn't it be wide to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?

KERRY: You know, Elizabeth, I really respect your -- the feeling that's in your question. I understand it. I know the morality that's prompting that question, and I respect it enormously.

Notice how every time Kerry encounters a position hinting at a religious or moral conviction, he prefaces his response with "I respect you" -- before demonstrating his utter disregard for your position?

Kerry proceeded to name a few celebrities who support his backing of embryonic stem cell research (Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeves, etc.), and then stated his position:

I think we can do ethically guided embryonic stem-cell research.

We have 100,000 to 200,000 embryos that are frozen in nitrogen today from fertility clinics. These weren't taken from abortion or something like that. They're from a fertility clinic. And they're either going to be destroyed or left frozen.

And I believe if we have the option, which scientists tell us we do, of curing Parkinson's, curing diabetes, curing, you know, some kind of a, you know, paraplegic or quadriplegic or, you know, a spinal cord injury, anything, that's the nature of the human spirit. I think it is respecting life to reach for that cure. I think it is respecting life to do it in an ethical way.

As President Bush proceeded to explain to the audience that the ethical dilemma involved in stem cell research lies in the fact that embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) necessarily involves the destruction of those embryos. Consequently, for one who opposes the destruction of human life on principle, there is simply no way one can go about "ethically" engaging in such research.

Furthermore, according to Robert P. George, Kerry lied about embryonic stem cell research:

. . . Every reporter covering the election should . . . be demanding of Kerry an answer to the following question: Who are the scientists who told you that "we have the option" of curing Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal-cord injuries, or any other disease using embryonic stem cells? If they won't ask him, the Bush campaign should defy him to name the names. He won't be able to do it. No scientists -- even those most pro-Kerry and aggressively in favor of the federal funding of embryo-destructive research -- ever told Kerry any such thing.

What Kerry has done here is told the big lie about embryonic stem cells. The claim that "we have the option" of curing Parkinson's disease, diabetes, etc. with embryonic stem cells is outrageous. No one knows when -- or even whether or not -- human embryonic stem cells will be therapeutically useful in treating any major disease or injury. There are profound -- perhaps insuperable -- problems with the therapeutic use of these cells. So, despite the fact that there is no federal ban on embryonic-stem-cell research, and that such research can be funded with state money and is being publicly funded in various places abroad, no embryonic-stem-cell-based therapy is even in clinical trials.

For months now, the Kerry campaign and its surrogates, such as Ron Reagan Jr., have cruelly led suffering people to believe that cures for their diseases are just around the corner. All we have to do is replace Bush with Kerry, open the federal funding spigot, and presto! The blind see and the lame walk! The Kerry campaign's hyping of embryo-destructive research for political gain is the cruelest and most shameful episode in the story of the 2004 election.

For the sake of new readers who may be joining us, here's a recap of why Kerry's wrong on embroyonic stem cells:

"The Stem-Cell Cover Up", August 18, 2004. A look at the stem-cell cover up and the numerous and phenomenal advances in adult stem-cell research and application, courtesy of Michael Fumento, author of BioEvolution: How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World.
Out of Touch, Michael Fumento rebuts Kerry's support of embryonic stem cells. Citizen Magazine August 2004.
Stem-Cell Defection, by Ramesh Ponnuru. National Review August 16, 2004. "The meeting with [Indiana Congressman] Mark Souder did not go exactly as planned. They didn't persuade Souder to support the funding [for embroyonic stem-cell research]. Instead, he persuaded them to oppose it."
The Wrong Tree: Embryonic stem cells are not all that, by Wesley J. Smith. (NRO May 13, 2004).
John Kerry's Medicine Show - satirical humor from The Curt Jester.

Update: Supplementary links, courtesy of Insight Scoop:

Stem Cell Research: Fact Sheets, Letters to Congress and Articles from the USCCB.
Testimony of Richard M. Doerflinger on behalf of the USCCB, on Ethical and Policy Concerns regarding ESCR. Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, September 29, 2004.

Faith without works is dead, but .........

2004-10-10T15:42:00.000-04:00

Again John Kerry has gone to a black church and has touted the same bible verse that he has cited previously from the Book of James -that faith without works is dead. Since this is the only one he ever seems to cite maybe it is what Protestants call a life verse that speaks to him. If it is I find it pretty ironic that he continuously uses this verse especially considering his position that abortion is wrong and is a article of faith, but he can't do anything about it in public life. Maybe he should modify it to "Faith without works is dead unless you represent people of different faiths or no faiths at all. In this case faith without works is politically expedient." And why is it that he only brings up a Bible verse is when speaking in front of predominantly black audiences like at churches and at the NAACP? This seems to me to be pandering.

Catholics Need Not Apply!— Kerry Know Nothings Bar Seminarians From Death Party Rally

2004-10-10T09:23:00.000-04:00

This is a follow-up to my CKW colleague Jeff Miller's earlier report.

From the pages of Times Against Humanity...

The latest addition to Time Against Humanity's links is The Meandering Mind of a Seminarian. When you read and see Rev. Mr. Dana Christensen's two-part report on the Catholic pro-life witness of St. Louis seminarians at a recent Death Party rally for CINO Senator John Kerry and the latter's predictably anti-Catholic response, you'll know why. In fact, you may wish to start at the beginning—although it would be hard to go wrong anywhere on this blog, as far as we can see.

Here are a few highlights that don't begin to do justice to Mr. Christensen's must-read, first-hand account:

Last evening a group of [about 25] seminarians dressed in clerical attire... and laity gathered to offer a pro-life witness at the Kerry/Edwards Debate Watch Party and Rally held at the America's Center downtown St. Louis.

...A young lady claiming to be a staff member of the Kerry/Edwards campaign approached. She asked to see the signs, so we showed them to her. As soon as she realized that the signs said things such as "You CAN'T be Catholic and pro-choice. She said that we would be unable to enter with the signs. I produced a document from the ACLU that said otherwise. At this point we began to be accosted by various Kerry supporters. They were right up in my face, screaming and yelling. With their arms flailing they informed me that I was not welcome there....We remained calm and prayerful.

...I told her that we would leave our signs outside. She said no. I told her that we would say nothing, and that we were not there to cause a disruption or harm to the Senator, and that if we did cause a disruption they could remove us. She said no. I asked her what evidence they had that we were going to cause a disruption, at which time she fell silent because there was no evidence. Up until this time the only disruptions were those cause by the Kerry supporters themselves, all we did was stand silently in prayer. I pressed her on this issue, but she could not give an adequate answer. They had no grounds for expelling us other than the fact that we were wearing roman collars. They knew our very presence would challenge Senator Kerry's position on Life issues and the wanted to avoid that, even if it meant squelching our freedom of speech and freedom of expression. So much for the Democratic Party being a party of understanding and diversity.

Again, you'll want to read every word of both parts of this eye-opening report—and if you don't, you should!

Editor's Note: As a Catholic husband and father (and former seminarian), I am encouraged to see future priests stand up for our Holy Catholic Faith as did the saints of old. My prayers, as I am sure yours, are with them. Why not let them know?

When Scandal Is Shameless, Silence Is Shameful

2004-10-10T01:01:00.000-04:00

In his analysis below, my CKW confrere Christopher Blosser ably dissects Senator Kerry's scandalous apologia for the murder of unborn babies, concluding with President Bush's straight-forward rejection of forcing taxpayers to fund America's abortion holocaust.

As many readers of this blog, I share the conviction cogently conveyed by Ipissima Verba in the folowing commentary that the real answer to CINO Kerry's betrayal of the babies and, above all, of his Catholic faith must come—at long last—from more than a mere handful of Catholic bishops, however commendable their defense of the faith.

As Brian writes:

Last night, John Kerry stood before America and suggested that one could be Catholic and supportive of abortion "rights." There is a name for what he did; it's called giving scandal to the Church.

It is, in a way, fitting that he made his scandalous stand in St. Louis, home to one of the few bishops with the courage to stand up to pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians.

His act of defiance, though, was not merely to Archbishop Burke; it was to all the bishops, the Holy Father, and Holy Mother Church. And in so doing, he gave great scandal to the Church by communicating to the American public on national television, that one can be both Catholic, and pro-abortion.

It is long past time for the bishops, as a body, to respond to this in a forceful manner, by denouncing Kerry's hideous implication. Will it cause some outrage in political circles? Perhaps. But, they have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the public image of the Church. [Editor's Note: And, may we add, what is more important, the integrity of the Catholic faith.]

This farcical game has gone on for far too long, and certain bishops have been enabling it. The bishops who know better need to take the bull by the horns, and speak out loudly, and soon. [Emphasis added.]

Kerry demonstrates his utter disrespect for Catholic morality

2004-10-09T22:20:00.000-04:00

One of the most interesting parts of the second debate was when both candidates spoke on the issue of abortion (Catholics for Bush has the transcript). Sarah Degenhart asked what most people might think was a fairly straightforward and understandable question: "Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?"

Senator Kerry gave a long and convoluted answer, which I wanted to unpack:

Kerry: First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

Isn't it interesting that immediately upon being challenged on abortion Kerry feels compelled to defend his credibility as a Catholic? -- I suspect that Ms. Degenhart probably wasn't the slightest bit interested in the fact that Kerry was an alter boy.

Kerry: But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

We've already been over this so many times already (Weigel Weighs In", April 2004). The Church's moral teaching on abortion is not a religious article of faith -- it appeals to the basic scientific, biological fact that an unborn life is a human life, and to the natural law which it proposes is available by reason to all citizens, independent of divine revelation, that human beings simply have no right to murder the most weak and innocent among us, for any reason.

Kerry: But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.

This statement not only flies in the face of Senator Kerry's vocal support of abortion rights at every possible opportunity, it is blatantly contradicted by his vehement opposition to President Bush's funding of abstinence programs and crisis pregnancy centers, which in fact make a point to counsel pregnant mothers that there are other choices and options available besides abortion.

Kerry: But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment. Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

That is to say, Kerry defends a mother's "constitutional right" to kill her offspring, even at the cost of funding such with taxpayer dollars of those who find the practice morally abhorrent.

Kerry: That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning. . . .

Isn't it great when you expess your religious opposition to abortion during a Q&A session and the self-proclaimed "Catholic alter boy" candidate refers to your moral stance as a "rigid ideological restriction"?

Kerry: . . . You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies. You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.

To summarize: Sarah Degenhart voices her moral opposition to having her taxpayer dollars fund abortion, and Senator Kerry expresses his "respect" for her position by convincing her that it would be "morally responsible" of her to take the opposite position by supporting the murder of "unwanted children."

It's no wonder that President Bush responded to Kerry's remark: "I'm still trying to decipher that."

Here is President Bush's response to Ms. Degenhart:

President Bush: My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion.

Was that so difficult?

Kenrick-Glennon seminarians provide prayerful witness to the sanctity of life at Kerry's October 8 America's Center rally.

2004-10-09T13:40:00.000-04:00

Many have seen the cover story of the September 19-25 issue of the National Catholic Register. It describes how a group of 500 students from Franciscan University of Steubenville showed up as a peaceful, prayerful pro-life witness at a campaign event held in Steubenville for presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry.

As you may know, the senator will be having a similar event here at America's Center after his Friday night, October 8 debate. A number of Kenrick-Glennon seminarians felt that it would not be right to let this go by without representatives from our seminary offering a similar witness to the sanctity of life and the incongruity of the position which Senator Kerry represents. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke was informed of the seminarians' idea on the evening of October 6, and gave his blessing on the undertaking.

Seminarians will be meeting at the Old Cathedral at 5:30 p.m. and walking as a group to America's Center.

Even if you cannot join us, please pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance for this event, and for the conversion of hearts in our nation, including our leaders.

If you want to join the seminarians of Kenrick-Glennon in this prayerful witness, you must bring your own ticket to get into America’s Center. Tickets are free and can be accessed by going to www.JohnKerry.com (go to the "get local" link and scroll to "Missouri") or by calling the Democratic Party offices at 314/645-1449. Please bring your own signs (without sticks) if you will be attending.

Via The Meandering Mind of a Seminarian

Snapshot of a Voter: A Texas Doc for Life

2004-10-09T01:15:00.000-04:00

As the shrinking but critical band of undecided voters make their decisions in the 2004 presidential race—and make no mistake, no decision is ultimately a decision, too—it is worth taking time to examine some of the thoughts that are crossing their minds.

On Kill as Few Patients as Possible, Dr. Bradley, a family physician from Texas, writes:

I hope you know how I feel about Terri Schiavo, but this quote from Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE) is particularly satisfying to me:
As for CURE, lest there be any confusion in a matter in which clarity is critical, we simply reaffirm that starving a man to death was murder long before Moses received the Ten Commandments and it will remain so until the last human dies.
I'm so sad sometimes these days. Terri's situation is clear to me, but I can at least wrap some part of my brain around the arguments that many make in defense of her husband, I really can.

But with an election on the horizon, abortion is not ever far from my active consciousness, and I can honestly say that I am dumbfounded that supposedly rational people actually think that killing a fetus is okay. I don't get it. Surely no one is persisting in an argument that this is not a life, so it simply comes down to this; the value of an adult female is greater than the value of a fetus. Is that it? I know there are some pro-choice readers out there. Help me understand.

I despise capital punishment, and current events in Texas make it obvious that it should be stopped. And if I actually believed John Kerry was opposed to capital punishment that might tickle my vote meter.

I hate that lives are still being lost in Iraq (although I am nearly positive that already and even more so over the long run, the balance will be far outweighed by lives saved), and if I actually believed John Kerry had a clue as to how to make things better, that might register on my voting consciousness a bit as well.

But all of that pales in comparison to the fact that we've slaughtered 45 million Americans in the last three decades for no reason other than that we want absolute freedom of sexual whateverness.

How could anyone possibly even consider putting someone in office who will do everything in his power to continue that slaughter? Help me understand. [Emphasis added.]

Inside the Vatican Features Catholic Vote

2004-10-08T15:41:00.000-04:00

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

The October issue of Inside the Vatican carries a special dossier on the Catholic vote compiled by Contributing Editor John Mallon—our good friend and able Brother Blogger.

The timely issue features contributions from Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput; Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life; Austin Ruse, Culture of Life Foundation; and Judie Brown, American Life League, as well as interviews with the Population Research Institute's Steven Mosher and Your Catholic Voice's Ambassador Ray Flynn.

We'll try to bring you additional appetizers, as available, but to savor the whole, you'll have to visit Inside the Vatican for ordering information.

Douglas Johnson on Kerry's abortionist "blood brothers"

2004-10-05T23:58:00.000-04:00

The Weekly Standard (Volume 010, Issue 05), Douglas Johnson is legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, profiles MARTIN HASKELL, George Tiller, and Warren Hern, three partial-birth abortionists who made financial contributions to John Kerry's presidential campaign:

Haskell and Kerry both have a knack for compartmentalization. In 1993, Cincinnati Medicine asked Haskell, "Does it bother you that a second trimester fetus so closely resembles a baby?" Haskell replied, "I really don't think about it. . . . Many of our patients have ethical dilemmas about abortion. I don't feel it's my role as a physician to tell her she should not have an abortion because of her ethical feelings. . . . I'm not to tell them what's right or wrong."

Kerry explained in 1972: "On abortion, I myself, by belief and upbringing, am opposed to abortion, but as a legislator, as one who is called on to pass a law, I would find it very difficult to legislate on something God himself has not seen fit to make clear to all the people on this earth."

You can read the rest of the story here.

An Appeal on Behalf of Terri's Defenders

2004-10-04T04:06:00.000-04:00

I ask the kind indulgence of my CKW colleagues for crossposting this life-or-death appeal on behalf of Terri Schiavo in this venue. I believe its urgency is sufficient justification. –Earl

From the pages of Life Matters! . . .

The following appeal is crossposted here courtesy of one of Mark Shea's many readers.

Regardless of your assessment of the relative merits of this defense or its philosophical premises, we urge any of our readers who can assist Terri's defenders in this matter to respond as indicated below. and to spread news of this appeal to appropriate friends and allies.

As for CURE, lest there be any confusion in a matter in which clarity is critical, we simply reaffirm that starving a man to death was murder long before Moses received the Ten Commandments and it will remain so until the last human dies.

Whatever Terri was, the essential point is that she is. Terris is a living human being, a member of the human family, and for that reason alone, her life should be defended without compromise from all who would murder her under the guise of unjust law, which is no law at all.

Yesterday, Doug and I talked with Debi Vinnedge of the Children of God for Life in Clearwater, FL. Last Thursday she was present during the latest hearing to reconsider the court's decision in the Terri Schiavo case.

The argument being presented was essentially this: Terri was a devout Catholic. The Holy Father's March 20th statement spoke clearly that withdrawing her feeding and nutrition was gravely wrong—sinful. As a faithful Catholic therefore, Terri would not be saying "it would be okay to remove my tube" which is just the opposite of what her husband has been presenting to the Court as "her wishes." Any court ruling that permitted removal of her feeding would violate Terri's Constitutionally protected right to practice her religion.

Debi told us that the Judge said from the bench that the attorneys had a week to get him any further case law on the point and that he would rule within 2 weeks whether he would hold a full blown evidentiary hearing to determine whether to vacate the previous orders entered in the case which have favored her husband's position that the tube should be withdrawn.

In order to be prepared for such a hearing, they are seeking evidence that actual Catholics have changed their advance directives or otherwise acted in response to the Holy Father's March 20th statement. Most obvious would be affidavits from individuals who have in fact changed the text of their directives or who have executed directives specifically following the mandate in his statement.

Doug has had two clients who just recently executed will and health care directive packages which quite specifically included directives that feeding and nutrition not be withdrawn unless their bodies could no longer assimilate it.

If you know of such people, can you put Doug in touch with them so he can work to get their evidence passed on to the attorneys who are now litigating on Terri's behalf.

Please respond either to Doug or myself as soon as you can. You can email us at lifetree@lifetree.org. Doug will be contacting the attorneys in Florida within the next couple of days and would like to lay out for them what can be provided from interested people...

Bishop Rene Gracida: "Denying Holy Communion: A Case History"

2004-09-29T23:42:00.000-04:00

To each and every bishop that has raised objections to the implementation of Canon 915 against those engaging in public, Bishop Rene Henry Gracida offers a clear and instructive step-by-step example of how to go about doing so, presenting Case History on Denying Holy Commmunion [PDF format].

According to Gracida:

There can be no doubting that most of the major political figures who are on record publicly as favoring abortion-on-demand, euthanasia, cloning or fetal experimentation qualify under those three conditions ["grave sin, understood objectively"; "obstinate persistence"; "manifest character"] for censure. They qualify for being denied Holy Communion because they have a direct impact on the moral or immoral structure of a government, inasmuch as they are the direct agents in matters pertaining to legislation which forms a structure of sin, or a structure of goodness.

However, adds Gracida citing the Pontifical Council, pastoral prudence suggests the avoidance of instances of public denial of Holy Communion." Thus:

There is no need for public denial of Holy Communion. There is no need to reduce the need for public denial of Holy Communion to the worst case scenario: the minister of Holy Communion loudly refusing to give the Host to a loudly protesting pro-abortion politician in front of a church full of people. The implementation of Canon 915 can be carried out in complete privacy and confidentiality.

Bishop Emeritus Gracida proceeds to present a case history of one public official (a State Representative of the Texas Legislature) he had disciplined in his own diocese. Bishop Gracida confronted the Catholic representative's public advocac of "abortion rights" in a clearly worded and direct letter, presenting the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter.

There was no response to the letter, and so after a period of time -- and with no change in the individual's stance on abortion -- the Bishop was obliged to send another, this time offering the formal warning:

I regret that now I am compelled by the pastoral good of the local Church and for the salvation of souls to take the followings actions. I am attaching to this letter a copy of the teaching letter I wrote to you on June 3, 1993. Secondly, I am writing to inform you that your public position for abortion is in violation of Canon 1371 which forbids any Catholic to teach a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff or by an ecumenical council. Both Pope John Paul II and the Second Vatican Council have condemned abortion as a grievous offense against the law of God. Thirdly, I am by this letter giving you a formal warning according to Church law that unless you repent of your position, I will have no other choice for the good of the Catholic Church and for the salvation of souls to impose the penalty of forbidding you from receiving the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick.

As Bishop of this Diocese and the Shepherd of the souls entrusted to my care by the Lord and by the successor of Saint Peter, I have the responsibility to resolve this serious scandal which your public position on abortion has created.

I pray that God will give you the grace to repent and retract your advocacy of abortion. I do want to hear from you about this matter. Please call my office (XXX-XXX-XXXX) and ask for an appointment to meet with me.

Again, there was no response from the State Representative. Consequently, says Bishop Gracida, he signed and mailed to the State Representative a decree of Interdiction, barring the individual from the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and Annointing of the Sick, concluding with the request that if the individual experienced a change of heart to meet with him immediately.

Says Bishop Gracida:

I never heard from the individual, who died in 2001, while still under Interdiction. I never publicized the Decree of Interdiction. It was a matter between me, the individual and God. Whether or not the individual ever received Holy Communion after having been Interdicted, I do not know, and it is not important that I should have known since it was a matter of the internal forum. If the individual did receive Holy Communion while under a Decree of Interdiction it would have been a further sacrilege.

Some will argue that the Decree of Interdiction should have been made public at the time it was issued. I disagree. The Corpus Christi CallerTimes would have exploited the news just as they had exploited the three Decrees of Excommunication I had earlier issued against three abortionists in Corpus Christi who chose to make their excommunication known publicly. If it had been reported to me that the individual was receiving Holy Communion after receiving the Decree of Interdiction I would have published the decree in the Diocesan Newspaper.

In summary, every bishop has the duty and obligation to implement the provisions of Canon Law in accordance with the Declaration by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. There is no need for confrontation at the altar rail during the distribution of Holy Communion. The Canons can be implemented without public confrontation at the time Holy Communion is being distributed.

Bishop Gracida stands as a model of courage, respect, and charity in dealing with issues of this nature. I say "charity" because just as a father's discipline is motivated by love for his children, so was Bishop Gracida's implementation of the Interdict in this case motivated by "the pastoral good of the local Church and for the salvation of souls" -- the soul of the individual in question as well as those of his diocese.

Let's hope that Bishop Gracida's excellent "Case History on Denying Holy Communion" has been presented to the USCCB Commmittee headed by Cardinal McCarrick, which if I understand correctly is still in the process of determining how to do so themselves without "disruption at the communion rail."

Thanks to Bill Cork for the tip.

The Rage of Anti-Catholic "Catholics"

2004-09-28T13:25:00.000-04:00

The anti-Catholic "Catholics"--those so-called Catholics who reject fundamental dogmas of the Church, her moral teaching on controversial issues, and who seek a fantasy Third Vatican Council to implement their destruction of the Church--are enraged about the progress the Bush campaign has made among Catholic voters.

A recent Pew Center poll gave Bush a seven point margin among Catholic voters. This fact sparks rage and panic among liberal Catholics when compared to the last election in which the Catholic vote split about evenly between the two major parties.

It is not only the Pew poll that has sparked panic. The Republican National Committee has made no secret of its aggressive outreach to Catholics, including a new website called KerryWrongForCatholics.com. In my view, the liberal and radical internal opponents of the Church are sensing that they are losing the political battle.

All of which brings me to a Boston Globe column appearing today by James Carroll. In the column, Carroll attacks the Republicans for questioning the Catholicism of Kerry. The problem is that, like Carroll himself, Kerry embraces anti-Catholic views and stands. Kerry of course favors abortion and unlimited embryonic stem cell research.

In addition, you would also have to be extremely naive to believe that Kerry really opposes the legalization of gay marriage. Kerry will do whatever he can politically to assist the gay activists, and the activists know it. That is why the gay activists are fervent Kerry supporters.

Who is James Carroll? He has recently published a collection of his Boston Globe columns focused on attacking Bush's War on Terror. From the editorial review at Amazon.com for this particular book, you can safely conclude that Carroll is a classic Bush hater. You can also see telltale signs of that obsessive Bush hating in the column published today.

But who really is James Carroll? James Carroll is probably most famous for his book attacking the Church: Constantine's Sword, whose central thesis is that Christianity is anti-Semitic. Let's let Philip Jenkins, a non-Catholic scholar of religion from Penn State University, describe Carroll more fully:

Carroll is simply wrong about anti-Semitism being integral to Catholic Christianity: no direct historical highway leads from the evangelists to Auschwitz. Just as suspect, therefore is Carroll's attempt to discredit traditional Christianity by contextualizing it together with the dreadful crimes of anti-Semitism. He is overpresenting his case in order to justify a "reform agenda" that amounts to a blueprint for the annihilation of the Catholic Church. Much of Carroll's book is devoted to his agenda for a proposed Third Vatican Council, which would cure the Catholic Church of the dreadful faults that have made it a "failed and sinful Church." For all its excellent intentions, its moral fervor, Carroll's book is a frontal attack on Catholic Christianity, and this agenda shapes its interpretations on every page.

Philip Jenkins, The New Anti-Catholicism (Oxford Univ. Press, 2003), p. 190 (emphasis added).

James Carroll is a professional anti-Catholic. As Professor Jenkins, again a non-Catholic, has pointed out, the most prominent anti-Catholics today in the United States claim to be Catholics (see Jenkins, p. 156). Carroll is a prominent leader of that pack.

But Carroll's column serves a good purpose for it proves what I have sensed since Kerry emerged as a prominent Democratic primary candidate. Kerry as a liberal Catholic espousing anti-Catholic stands on crucial issues would harm the Church not only because of his positions on the issues but also as a powerful embodiment of those forces seeking the radical revision of Catholicism.

People would look to a President Kerry and see a quintessential Cafeteria Catholic thumbing his nose at fundamental Catholic teaching and bolstering the sagging internal fortunes of the liberal Catholics.

There has always been a strong connection between what is happening in secular culture and politics and the internal agenda of liberal Catholics. The on-going sexual revolution was and is the most prominent example. So much of the liberal Catholic agenda is merely revising Catholic teaching to match the secular sexual revolution.

So as the results of our presidential elections center more and more on the cultural war gripping this nation, the liberal Catholics have a lot at stake on the outcome. They want a secular culture of unabashed liberalism as the wind at their back as they seek to dismantle Catholicism from within.

The latest polls and the efforts of many faithful Catholics in this election are raising their fears that the wind is dying. And so we see James Carroll striking back, just as we see reckless media efforts to mislead Catholic voters into thinking that a pro-abortion vote is morally permissible in this election. The panic of the liberals is a sign that they fear losing the cultural war.

Pro-choice Catholic politician awarded papal knighthood

2004-09-28T01:12:00.000-04:00

In his column Word from Rome (Sept. 24, '04), John Allen, Jr. reports that

. . . Julian Hunte, a pro-choice Catholic politician in the West Indies who was awarded a papal knighthood Sept. 19. Hunte was made a Knight of the Grand Cross Pian Order. Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano bestowed the honor in a New York ceremony.

As the [Catholic Herald] notes, the award is especially interesting in light of the debate currently swirling in the United States over the eligibility of pro-choice Catholic politicians for the Eucharist.

Hunte, the Minister for External Affairs of Santa Lucia, recently concluded his term as president of the United Nations General Assembly. The Vatican recognized him for his role in a resolution regarding the work of the Holy See in the United Nations.

Hunte was also, however, the deciding vote last year on a bill in the upper chamber of the St. Lucian parliament that decriminalized abortion in that Caribbean nation. In December, that measure passed by five votes to four, with Hunte in favor.

"I think every woman must have a choice. I am a pro-choice man," Hunte said during a parliamentary debate before votes were cast.

According to Allen, "the Vatican's classic approach to political forces with which it disagrees might be dubbed 'constructive engagement.' The idea is that it's better to keep lines of communication open than to burn bridges." A priest by the name of Fr. Linus Clovis calls it a mockery, however, and is appealing the Pope to overturn the decision. Read the rest of the story.

Even the USCCB, despite all their waffling on the issue of communion, came to the decision that:

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

(Catholics in Political Life June 7, 2004.

So it is to be expected that some Catholics might be compelled to voice their discontent with this award, which is clearly an act of extremely poor judgement on the part of Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Secretary of State of the Holy See.

Related Links:

Anti-abortion sisters petition Pope Stop Hunte Award, by Nicole Mc Donald. The St. Lucia Star Sept. 17, 2004.

Headed toward Schism?

2004-09-28T01:10:00.000-04:00

Fifth Column blogger Steven Kellmeyer offers an interesting reflection on the transitory nature of pro-choice "Catholic" politicians in the United States:

Florida hurricanes have delivered two body blows, an uppercut and a vicious right hook, transforming the Sunshine State into an awesome example of what a whirlwind can do. Catholics in America should take careful note.

It has long been the contention of pro-life supporters that geographical location cannot define personhood. A child is a child no matter where that child is located. It cannot be the case that the individual in question becomes a child when she is outside the womb, but remains only a tissue-mass when she is inside the womb.

The USCCB, however, finds the geographical argument compelling in another context, however. Apparently, geographical location does define heresy. For example, John Kerry, Frances Kissling, Ted Kennedy and all the rest may be Catholics in good standing when they step on a plane in Boston, but they are not Catholics in good standing when they step off that same plane in St. Louis. Heresy is diocese-specific. . . .

As Steve develops his line of thought, he arrives at the conclusion that the USCCB is on the verge of schism, or at least balanced precariously on the edge, awaiting that moment when one bishop decides that another's decision to continue giving communion to obstinate sinners in a state of public, even defiant, disobedience to the Church, is tantamount to profaning the Eucharist.

. . . You cannot publicly and vociferously support legal abortion and be in communion with the Church. Now, the bishop who first announces that he cannot give Jesus to his fellow bishops because they profane the Eucharist will hardly be looked on with great love by Rome. Formal schisms are terrible things. But, on the other hand, Rome can hardly disagree with such a bishop by arguing that the USCCB's ruling is (theo)logically coherent. It manifestly isn't. Worse, Rome has no other basis upon which to dispute the justice of such a decision. She would have to go along with the formal break. The Catholic Church in America is hanging by the merest thread, dependent upon the willingness of every single bishop to remain quiet, to refrain from pronouncing the final, damning words that severs the erring bishops from communion with the Church. Once those words are pronounced, we will have created another Protestant Church.

Undoubtedly, the USCCB is praying the whole issue will just curl up and die after the campaign. That's why certain bishops have insisted on refraining from judgment until after the elections. Contrary to popular belief, it may very well be the case that these bishops do not give a damn about the elections. They are undoubtedly much more worried about the impending schism the elections have forced out into the open.

It's certainly an interesting theory. But could it be true? Have things really come this close? -- Read his post, then please, discuss. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Update: Jamie Blosser has a thoughtful response to Steven's concerns in a post to his blog ("Ad Limina Apostolorum"): "A New Donatism?".

Archbishop Chaput on the 'Kennedy-Cuomo' Legacy

2004-09-24T01:21:00.000-04:00

Next month, October, is Respect Life month. It's a good time to reflect on the meaning of the Kennedy-Cuomo legacy. In brief, it's OK to be Catholic in public service as long as you're willing to jettison what's inconveniently "Catholic."

That's not a compromise. That's a deal with the devil, and it has a balloon payment no nation, no public servant and no voter can afford.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, telling it like it is in his column for the Denver Catholic Register ("Let's make a deal: Catholic conscience and compromise" Sept. 22, 2004).

George Weigel explains why he's voting for President Bush.

2004-09-23T23:48:00.000-04:00

It's difficult for me to picture 'neocon' George Weigel, just war scholar, theologian and Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, as a Democrat.

But in A Catholic Votes for George W. Bush" America Vol. 191, no. 8 (Sept. 27, 2004), he reveals his past history, his break from his former party, "the maturation of Catholic social doctrine" under the pontificate of John Paul II, and why he'll cast his vote for George W. Bush in November:

The Republican Party is not a perfect home for Catholics. Its libertarian wing is a cause for concern on the life issues; its corporate wing seems too frequently interested in federal protection and too infrequently attentive to worker re-training. But no political party is ever really "home" to those who take Catholic social doctrine seriously. And the fact of the matter is that, for Catholics like me, the party of Lincoln is a far more comfortable place today than could be imagined forty years ago; moreover, it is an immeasurably more comfortable platform from which to work on the great issues of the day than Michael Moore's party.

Republicans now have a real chance of fashioning a long-term governing majority, built in part on the "new ecumenism" of Catholics and evangelical Protestants. Catholic social doctrine - including those priority life issues - could become an even more important factor in shaping the political philosophy of that new majority than it already is in a Bush White House where staffers and speechwriters already take Catholic social thought seriously. There is no chance of doing this in today's Democratic Party, because the party's leadership and the overwhelmingly majority of its activists are unalterably committed to the pro-abortion agenda, to embryo research (which Senator Kerry has tried to demagogue in a singularly ill-informed and cynical way), and to the utterly un-Catholic concepts of human dignity and freedom that the abortion license and embryo research exemplify.

Catholics struggling today with their "genetic" Democratic political loyalties should remember this: Americans don't just elect a president; we elect a party and its people, who will fill the federal government for years - and the appellate bench for decades. A second Bush Administration will give Catholics an unprecedented opportunity to help create a new governing majority informed by the riches of Catholic social doctrine. That can't be done in the Democratic Party. And that's yet another reason to vote for a good, decent, and brave man, George W. Bush, the Methodist who gets the Catholic vision more than his Catholic opponent.

I can already predict the skeptical response of certain Catholic factions -- Catholic Workers, for example -- to Weigel's claims about the compatibility of the economic and foreign policies of the Bush administration with Catholic social doctrine.

And yet, it is impossible to contest Weigel's chief point: so long as the Democratic Party remains formally committed to the enforcement of abortion-on-demand, advancing embroyo stem-cell research, suppressing recognition of the humanity of the unborn, and endorsing a platform that enthrones the autonomous "right" of an individual to murder a child in the womb, its promise to be a party "to all Americans who seek a better future for themselves, for their loved ones, and for our country" is severely compromised. It is no wonder, then, that many Catholics see better hope in working with the Republican party to establish the "culture of life."

Thanks to CatholicsForBush for the tip -- an excellent article.

Faith Factor Is Fear Factor in Political Roadshow

2004-09-22T22:46:00.000-04:00

From the pages of Times Against Humanity ...

Today, MSNBC airs the Hardball/Newsweek Special Report "Under God: Bush, Kerry, and the Faith Factor." "There is no argument over the importance of religion in the election," Jill Lawrence reports in USA Today.

Frequency of worship is a prime predictor of how people vote. Surveys of voters leaving the polls in the 2000 election showed that 63% of people who attended church more than once a week voted for [Republican George] Bush, compared with 36% for Democrat Al Gore. Weekly churchgoers broke 57%-40% for Bush.

Protestants made up over half the 2000 electorate, and Bush won 55% of that vote, beating Gore nearly 2 to 1 among white Protestants. That support was critical to capturing the Oval Office since Gore bested Bush among virtually every other religious group, from black Protestants to Catholics to Jews, as well as nonbelievers.

"Church attendance itself, regardless of one's brand of faith, seems to be part of what divides America about Bush," Dane Smith and Eric Black write in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. "In a recent national poll by Time magazine, those who attended church once a week or more favored Bush over Kerry 59 percent to 35 percent."

As MSNBC's Alex Johnson reports:

For the president, paying close attention to his religious base doesn't just make sense--it is imperative. Opinion polling shows that Americans' votes most closely track their religious attendance. Voters who say they go to church every week vote Republican, by overwhelming margins. Those who go to church less frequently vote Democratic, by nearly similar proportions.

Persuading religiously observant citizens to register and vote is key to President Bush's reelection strategy, but is not the easy sell that many political believers--or rather believers in politics--might think.

Constantly subjected to stereotypical slanders from the secular elite that dominates America's increasingly indistinguishable news and entertainment media, indifference and discrimination from government, and neglect and betrayal by soi-disant "conservatives," millions of Christians remain skeptical, even leery, of political involvement. Indeed, an estimated 4 million white evangelical Christians did not vote in the last presidential election.

If President Bush's nightmare is evangelical Protestants staying home, Senator John F. Kerry's is faithful Catholics going to the polls and this despite the fact that Catholic voters gave Gore 50 percent of their votes in 2000, a 4 point margin over Bush.

"As a Catholic himself, Kerry would hope to do even better," Johnson notes.

But the Catholic Church isn't exactly cooperating. Kerry disagrees with church doctrine on abortion, and the controversy has occasionally slowed his campaign....[In fact,] his candidacy has become a test case for...developing guidelines for how U.S. bishops should approach Catholic lawmakers who promote policies opposed by the church.

It is a test that many bishops seem determined to flunk.

The faith factor is the fear factor in the reality show that is the 2004 elections. It is likely to determine the survivor.

Supplemental Reading:

Brandi Dean examines how politicians use religion to gain power in "Election 2004--Religion and Politics: Name in Vain?" Amarillo Globe News, September 19, 2004.
Dane Smith and Eric Black debunk "The Myth of Red-Blue Faith-based Politics," Minneapolis Star Tribune, September 19, 2004.
Alex Johnson reveals how religion is a "powerful but tricky factor" for Bush and Kerry in "God on the Ballot," MSNBC, September 15, 2004.
Alan Cooperman reviews the president's religious beliefs in "Bush Is Openly Religious--to a Point," The Seattle Star, September 20, 2004.
Jill Lawrence describes how "Kerry Wears Faith Prominently, If Not on His Sleeve," USA Today, September 19, 2004.
"For Many in Missouri, Picking a President Is More a Matter of Values Than Policy," reports the Wilmington Star-News, September 19, 2004.

Kenneth Woodward's "Argument with Mario Cuomo"

2004-09-22T01:34:00.000-04:00

This month's issue of Commonweal features a good article by the former Newsweek religion editor Kenneth Woodward ("Catholics, Politics & Abortion: My Argument with Mario Cuomo" Sept. 24, 2004), taking issue with former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo. Mario Cuomo was famous for his 1984 speech at the University of Notre Dame ("Religious Belief and Public Morality", in which he laid the groundwork for future liberal Catholic politicians (such as Senator John Kerry) to proclaim themselves "personally opposed" to abortion and yet endorse a "pro-choice" stance in opposition to any legal restrictions.

Robert P. George recalls the event in the article (The Failure of Catholic Political Leadership" Crisis 18, no. 4. 2000):

Noting that the Church does not insist that every immoral action be prohibited by law, Cuomo depicted the question of abortion's legal treatment as a matter of prudence akin to the range of questions with which the seamless garment was concerned. It was a question on which, he suggested, reasonable people, including reasonable Catholics, could disagree. According to Cuomo, what made a politician truly pro-life and truly someone prepared to act in the spirit of the Catholic teaching was not his opposition to legal abortion or its public funding. Though Cuomo acknowledged the bishops' clear teaching on those issues, it was, rather, the politician's stance on the whole range of sanctity and quality of life issues. And here, he implied, liberal Democrats, such as himself, who shared the bishops' stated positions on capital punishment, welfare, housing, taxation, defense spending, and international human rights policy had records far superior to those of pro-life conservatives whose only specific areas of policy agreement with the bishops had to do with abortion and related issues. . . .

Cuomo's Notre Dame speech provided a virtual playbook for pro-abortion Catholic politicians who wished to claim that their public support for "the right to choose" abortion was not inconsistent with their personal moral opposition to deliberate feticide. It taught liberal politicians of every religious persuasion how to explain to Catholic constituents that their differences with the bishops over the particular issue of abortion are overshadowed by their broad agreement with the bishops across the wide range of "quality of life" issues. It relieved much of the internal and external tension experienced by public men and women, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who wanted to be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time.

Mr. Woodward points out a glaring omission in Cuomo's speech:

. . . At this point it is worth noting what Cuomo did not say, as well as what he did. Never once did he say that abortion was evil, intrinsically or otherwise. Never once did he say -- as the bishops had, as he himself could have -- that opposition to abortion as a matter of public morality is a defense of the human rights of the unborn. Never once did he say the abortion dispute is a disagreement over the scope of social justice. He did not say these things, and never has, I believe, because doing so would make his position difficult if not impossible to defend. He did not say these things, and never has, because, as I think his record makes clear, he does not believe them to be true.

As I have argued in an earlier article, it is because John Courtney Murray would have recognized the humanity of the unborn that he would have rejected its defense as an issue of "private morality"; to recognize the humanity of the unborn is to implicitly acknowledge that it is not just the autonomous choice of the mother that is at stake, but the very life of another. Senator Kerry illustrated Woodward's point this past July when he opened up a pandora's box of philosophical issues, and scandalized many of his supporters, by acknowledging in his distinctive convoluted ramble, that the life of the fetus may very well be human.

Cuomo revisits his argument (and tangles with Princeton Professor of Jurisprudence Robert P. George) in a report on religion and American politics published by the Brookings Institute (One Electorate under God?), in which Cuomo appeals to a lack of "public consensus" on abortion -- a statement which Woodward challenges:

I take it he meant-and still means-that there is no political majority to support any restrictions on public access to abortion, not to mention recriminalization. Politically, he may be right. But how would Cuomo know since he has never mustered the political courage to test his own assumptions?

Woodward points out that the moral consensus seems to be tilting towards the pro-life position, supported by numerous polls (as far back as 1987) showing that many Americans, contrary to the illusions of Planned Parenthood, are morally uncomfortable with "abortion on demand," preferring that it "should be restricted to the rare and so-called hard cases of rape, incest, and immediate physical harm to the mother."

It is on this point that Woodward challenges Cuomo:

Given his celebrated intellect and powers of persuasion, Cuomo might have nurtured this emerging moral consensus into political expression. In his Notre Dame speech he conceded as much: "And surely, I can, if so inclined, demand some kind of law against abortion not because my bishops say it is wrong but because I think that the whole community, regardless of its religious beliefs, should agree on the importance of protecting life-including life in the womb, which is at the very least potentially human and should not be extinguished casually."

This teasing way of letting his listeners know that he was aware that this argument and option were open to him was, in fact, Cuomo's way of telling them the option was merely private-a "prudential" judgment that no one could make for him. But his words led not a few in his audience to assume that he would use his influence to modify his party's embrace of abortion on demand, should the opportunity arise. God knows, he had his chances.

Much as critics of Senator Kerry point to his persistent and militant defense of abortion-rights, Woodward proceeds to illustrate with several examples Cuomo's increasing support of "abortion on demand" (and concurrently, opposition to any religious criticism of the issue) over the course of the Clinton years, and challenges Cuomo on his hypocrisy:

Then I spoke by phone with Cuomo in June, I asked him why he did not deploy the same passion on behalf of abortion that he used in fighting the consensus-even in New York State-supporting capital punishment. "The argument I made against capital punishment," he said in quick reply, "was not a moral argument" (emphasis his). But the truth is that Cuomo never gave a speech that did not glisten with the sweat of moral conviction, and his campaign against capital punishment was no exception. In One Electorate under God?, he explains his opposition to state-sanctioned capital punishment: "I am against the death penalty because I think it is bad and unfair. It is debasing. It is degenerate. It kills innocent people." That is exactly the kind of moral argument prolife people make against abortion and its funding by government.

Neither logic nor consistency has been the hallmark of our foremost "philosopher-politician." He has convinced himself, it seems to me, that "moral" arguments can proceed only from what he calls religious "dogmas," and thus cannot be used in making arguments in the public square. And this is precisely the kind of reasoning that sustains the pro-choice position of this year's most prominent Catholic politician, John Kerry.

It is a tired refrain of Catholics for Kerry that their cherished Senator really doesn't support abortion, that as a Catholic he is truly "personally opposed." And yet, just as Woodward challenges Cuomo's zealous support of abortion-on-demand and omission of criticism when the opportunity presents itself, many Catholics are challenging the moral inconsistency in the rhetoric of Senator Kerry's adoption of the "Cuomo Defense."

If anything, it is most reassuring to see Mr. Woodward join us in taking a stand. Perhaps he will convince other Commonweal readers to follow suite.

Special thanks to Amy Welborn.

The Vatican Replies

2004-09-17T15:22:00.000-04:00

The postcript of the famous (or infamous) 'Ratzinger memo' sent this June by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger of the CDF to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick has been the subject of endless media spin in the last two weeks, eventually plunging to the nadir of Fr. Andrew Greeley's "Catholics Can Vote for Kerry!" article in the New York Daily News. Catholic Kerry Watch has managed to keep up, more or less, with the train of events thus far.

A new wrinkle in the story occurred today, when the CDF itself - Ratzinger's office - made a statement on the letter and its media fallout. Fr. Augustine T. DiNoia, undersecretary to Cardinal Ratzinger, spoke to representatives of CNS news, in an article published this morning:

"The memo was certainly not intended to clear the way for Catholics to vote for candidates who are in favor of laws permitting abortion or euthanasia, but rather to clarify that the simple act of voting for such candidates might not per se justify one's exclusion from Holy Communion," said [DiNoia].

After a helpful discussion of the theological principles of cooperation with evil - material and formal - Fr. DiNoia spoke directly to the situation of 'proportionate reasons':

The recent doctrinal memo's mention of "proportionate reasons" has led some people to suggest a set of reasons that could justify voting for pro-abortion politicians -- or to argue that no "proportionate reason" can exist in such a case. Father DiNoia said one obvious proportionate reason would be when, as often occurs, Catholic voters must choose between two candidates who support legalized abortion but to widely differing degrees. In that situation, not to vote at all would seem to go against a Christian's responsibility to participate politically.

While this statement certainly does not allow an absolute prohibition against voting for 'pro-choice' politicians, neither does it grant unrestricted liberty to do so, with apologies to Father Greeley. DiNoia rightly points back to the contents of the memo itself, forbidding us to take its postscript in isolation. The memo clearly states that the issues of abortion and euthanasia carry greater 'weight' than other moral issues, and that there can be no 'legitimate diversity' regarding them. To unjustly 'flatten' the spectrum of moral issues involved, as Father Greely would have us do, does not do justice to the very question of proportionality which he would have us respect. It is telling, I think, that the only scenario Fr. DiNoia proposes is one in which a pro-choice politician is contrasted with another pro-choice politician. As Jimmy Akin proposes,

"[A] pro-abort president would be responsible for extending the abortion holocaust to include approximately nine million Americans. No other issue involves numbers that high. Nothing short of a full-scale nuclear or biological war between well-armed nation states would kill that many people, and we aren’t in imminent danger of having one of those."

It is difficult to imagine another issue or scenario which could successfully stand up to the death of nine million Americans through legal abortion. Except, perhaps, the death of eight million Americans due to a slightly less pro-abort president. This is not to say, of course, that other scenarios, which might collectively carry this much 'weight' are de facto impossible. Even Fr. DiNoia admits defining these scenarios is 'extremely difficult.' is An active imagination could come up with plenty of scenarios, especially with some help from some hyper-paranoid documentaries in our theatres. But when it comes time to approach the polls, it's time to put a clamp on your imagination and deal with real life.

Barbara Kralis on 'Proportionate Reasons'

2004-09-17T14:42:00.000-04:00

With recourse to the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II and Pope Paul VI, and the instructions of various bishops who have spoken up on the matter, Barbara Kralis addresses the recent errors of interpretation of "proportionate reasons," and how faithful Catholics can "limit the damage".

Ms. Kralis also corrects the mistaken notion that Bush is "100% pro-life", informing her readers that:

Since Bush is trying to 'limit the harm' more than his opponent, here is where we realize the apparent value of Cardinal Ratzinger's timely teaching of 'proportionate reason.' In fact, it is possible that if Bush were l00% pro life, Cardinal Ratzinger would not have had to introduce the teaching of 'proportionate reason' and we would not be having this discussion today.

This is the circumstance where one could apply a 'proportionate reason' to vote for President Bush because Bush would limit the harm. The good that Bush would do would far outweigh any evil that Kerry would do.

Archbishop Myers on 'Proportionate Reasons'

2004-09-17T13:26:00.000-04:00

Archbishop John J. Meyers of Newark on the correct interpretation of Cardinal Ratzinger's statement and "proportionate reasons" ("A Voter's Guide" Wall Street Journal Sept. 17, 2004):

. . . Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on "just war," he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it.

Abortion and embryo-destructive research are different. They are intrinsic and grave evils; no Catholic may legitimately support them. In the context of contemporary American social life, abortion and embryo-destructive research are disproportionate evils. They are the gravest human rights abuses of our domestic politics and what slavery was to the time of Lincoln. Catholics are called by the Gospel of Life to protect the victims of these human rights abuses. They may not legitimately abandon the victims by supporting those who would further their victimization.

(Thanks to Catholic legal theory blog Mirror of Justice).

The Catholic presidential questionnaire is dead -- thank God.

2004-09-16T09:55:00.000-04:00

Austin Ruse, President of the Washington D.C. based Culture of Life Foundation, on the "death" of the USCCB's presidential questionaire:

The good news is that something is going on. The dreadful questionnaire has been pulled. In the past few years more and more of the bishops have begun speaking out against the scandal of pro-abortion Catholic politicians. The bishops as a body overwhelmingly voted in June that pro-abortion politicians must not present themselves for communion.

Cracks are appearing in the Soviet-like façade of the lay bureaucracy at the bishops' conference. Some bishops are getting uppity. Like peasants revolting against their masters, a growing number of mostly young, energetic, and orthodox bishops have begun to scale the walls.

And the Kerry candidacy has given them an unexpected toehold. The Kerry candidacy is a gift from God to the Catholic Church. A bad Catholic running for president has brought into high relief the internal contradictions of the USCCB Lefties who support pro-abortion Democrats who happen to be good on gun control.

"Holy Democrats!", National Review Online. Sept. 15, 2004.

More Distortions from the Detroit Free Press

2004-09-16T09:47:00.000-04:00

The Detroit Free Press reports that:

At the meeting of Catholics for the Common Good, Tony Kosnik, a theologian and former Catholic priest, said Catholics must ask: "Will voting for Bush bring an end to all abortions?" Abortion remains legal, he noted, even though Republicans control Congress and the White House.

Can you recognize the spin? -- The 'Catholics for Bush' blog quickly dismantles the "argument".

Laity Voices Discontent with Bishop's Complacency

2004-09-12T18:22:00.000-04:00

From the Portland Press Herald (Maine):

AUGUSTA -- When the highest-ranking Catholic priest in Maine spoke at an anti-abortion luncheon Saturday, he drew criticism from an audience member who said the bishop is "talking the talk" but not "walking the walk" in opposing abortion. Speaking to a crowd of about 100, Bishop Richard J. Malone of the Diocese of Portland faced a University of Maine professor who said priests should not give communion to politicians who support a woman's right to choose.

The man criticized Malone for telling the audience that opposition to abortion was one of the most important facets of modern-day Catholicism, while opposing a push to take communion away from politicians who support the right to choose.

"The action you took is in direct contrast to the words you share with us today," Terence J. Hughes, an earth sciences professor, told Malone. "I am not going to dishonor my Lord Jesus Christ by giving communion to politicians whose policies cater to (those in favor of) killing babies."

Hughes' comments, which followed Malone's keynote address at the 30th annual Pro Life Education Association awards luncheon, prompted other complaints from the audience, many of whom said they are having trouble winning an audience with Catholic politicians in Maine who support the right to choose.

Source: "Bishop hears criticism at anti-abortion luncheon", by Elbert Aull, Blethen Maine News Service.

Photographs from the Pro-Life/Anti-Kerry Steubenville Demonstration

2004-09-11T15:43:00.000-04:00

Regarding that pro-life/anti-Kerry protestors who attended the Kerry campaign rally at Steubenville last week, involving "several dozen Bush supporters" [Associated Press] or several hundred demonstrators (according to eyewitness reports) . . . a reader of my blog who attended the rally with her daughter was kind enough to send some photographs.

Clear case for "liberal bias" in the media?

Update: More photographs here.

Comparing the Candidates--Boldly

2004-09-11T01:09:00.000-04:00

There's an ongoing presidential campaign. U.S. bishops as a whole urge us to participate as voters and do our civic duty. They urge us to inform ourselves as to the issues. So it is perfectly appropriate for parishes across the country to make available to Catholics the positions of each candidate on major issues.

For decades, the Church and the Popes have written about, preached about, and urged Catholics to oppose the grave instrinsic evil of procured abortion. John Paul II has even called us to fight the Culture of Death in democratic countries that have legalized abortion and other acts against innocent life. So it is even more appropriate to inform Catholic voters about the position of each candidate on the highly significant issue of abortion.

Right to Life of Michigan makes available such a comparison of the two major candidates on abortion and other life issues for free at its website, in both English and Spanish (scroll down to "Stark Contrast"). The organization urges that people copy and freely distribute this comparison sheet.

The actual flyer is in PDF format at this link. It is a one-page flyer, with nine bullet points comparing George W. Bush and John Kerry on the Life issues. It is concise and purely comparative. It reports the facts and lets the voter decide whom to vote for. The flyer itself does not endorse one candidate over another, although it does mention the fact that Bush is endorsed by numerous prolife organzations including Right to Life of Michigan. This factual disclosure is necessary so that no one can allege that the source of the flyer is trying to somehow misrepresent itself as neutral on the Life issues.

The fact of such pro-life endorsements is presented as the true fact that it is-- a fact that voters are entitled to know about and consider. But remember that the flyer itself is not an endorsement. It is not a partisan flyer. It is non-partisan and educational. Education on the issues is not partisan political activity.

So the challenge for us is to take this non-partisan, factual information and make it available to our fellow Catholics. Let the voters make an informed decision. No one can argue with that. All we need is the boldness to spread the truth at the grassroots level. The major media and the unions with which many Catholics are still associated won't do it. We have to do it.

Jimmy Akin on "what Ratzinger said"

2004-09-10T02:24:00.000-04:00

If I tried to make a point in the previous post, Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin does so a dozen times better in his explanation of what Ratzinger meant by "proportionate reasons". Definitely a "must-read" and worth passing along. Here's his conclusion:

Consider: A million and a half new Americans are murdered every year by abortion.

While particular historical circumstances increase or decrease the number of Supreme Court appointments a president gets to make (some presidents get many and some get none), if we average out the differences then it turns out that a pro-abort president on average could extend the abortion holocaust by four years equivalent to the four year term he spends in office.

At a million and a half kids killed per year, that means that a pro-abort president would be responsible for extending the abortion holocaust to include six million additional murders.

When one takes into account the fact that about half of the recent presidents have had second terms, that would mean a pro-abort president would be responsible for extending the abortion holocaust to include approximately nine million Americans.

No other issue involves numbers that high. Nothing short of a full-scale nuclear or biological war between well-armed nation states would kill that many people, and we aren't in imminent danger of having one of those. . . . Jobs? The economy? Taxes? Education? The environment? Immigration? Forget it. We do not have nine million people dying in a typical president’s term of office due to bad job programs, bad economic policies, bad taxes, bad education, bad environmental law, bad immigration rules -- or even all of these combined. All of them together cannot provide a reason proportionate to the need to end abortion.

Make no mistake: Abortion is the preeminent moral issue of our time. It is the black hole that out-masses every other issue. Presenting any other issues as if they were proportionate to it is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Cardinal Ratzinger, Bishop Burke and "Proportionate Reasons"

2004-09-08T09:21:00.000-04:00

A commentator posted a link to this article this morning. Since the commentator attempted to post the entire content of the article and did so anonymously (that is to say, lacking the courage to associate the opinion with himself), I was obliged to remove it. However, I'll take the liberty of responding to it here.

According to Ms. Montemurri of the Detroit Free Press ("Catholics allowed pro-choice vote" Sept. 7, 2004):

In essence, a vote for a pro-choice politician is not necessarily sinful if a Catholic, who is also against abortion, believes the candidate's other positions outweigh the politician's support for abortion rights, Ratzinger said. He heads the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The Rev. Thomas Reese, a longtime Vatican observer and Jesuit priest who edits America magazine, said:

"If the voter says 'I like this candidate only because he or she is pro-abortion,' that's clearly a no-no. If, on the other hand, the voter says, 'and I like this candidate because he or she supports everything I like, but is wrong on abortion, and I've decided to vote for the person on these other issues,' that's alright."

This is the typical liberal spin that has been put on the last paragraph of the Ratzinger memorandum that "when a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons." It is also the kind of spin that is placed on the recent clarification by Bishop Burke, which has been characterized as a "softening" of his previous stance, or an entirely new one altogether).

It is understandable that Democrats and supporters of Senator Kerry's presidential campaign are spinning this for all its worth -- after letting his battle with the Swift Boat Veterans dominate the headlines (culminating in a call from President Clinton to Kerry requesting he simply shut up about Vietnam) and evidence of increasing resistence by faithful Catholics challenging Kerry's stance on abortion, the Kerry campaign is desparately clawing for support.

Consequently, the spin of Ms. Montemurri of the Detroit Free Press is similar, or identical to, that of Fr. Andrew Greeley, Ono Ekeh, and self-described "progressive Catholic" blogger JCecil3: Catholics may freely choose between President Bush and Senator Kerry, and the moral crime of abortion is not -- or should not be -- the chief issue in influencing such a choice.

However, it must be questioned whether their interpretation of Cardinal Ratzinger and Bishop Burke's commments are accurate. Following are some articles which might cause one to differ in their understanding of the circumstances that permit Catholics to vote for a pro-choice candidate:

In late August, Barbara Kralis published an interview with three bishops who challenged the underlying theological premises of Fr. Greeley's assertion that Catholics should have no qualms about voting for Kerry. According to Bishop Robert Francis Vasa, M.Div., J.C.L.:

"While it is an interesting intellectual exercise to debate whether Catholics, under certain very limited circumstances, may or may not vote for candidates who favor procured abortion, the more important practical question is whether practicing Catholics should, in fact, vote for a candidate who openly, consistently and even aggressively defends the killing of pre-born children when there are Pro-Life alternatives."

Bishop Michael J. Sheridan of Colorado Springs asked "How do we balance out the murder of more than one million babies each year with any good or series of goods?" and noted that Greeley's reading of Ratzinger stood in contradiction to other magisterial teachings.
And Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D. criticized Greeley's "tragic indifference to abortion," dismissing his "shallowness of mind akin to a harlequin."
Writing for MichiganNews.com, Michael J. Gaynor compares Cardinal McCarrick's lukewarm assurance in an interview with Zenit that "it is always important to continue supporting the principles that define Catholic morality" and that a "respect for life . . . [is not] the only value of reference," but must be considered with "a responsible policy in regard to peace, social justice and aid to the poor" with the astute observations of Bishop James T. McHugh and Bishop Emeritus Rene Henry Gracida of Corpus Christi, TX, on what does (and more importantly, does not) constitute "proportionate reasons".
According to Bishop McHugh:

In many cases Catholics will have to make hard choices, not for the clearly acceptable candidate but for the lesser evil. When faced with two candidates, one of whom is unalterably pro-abortion and the other who does not support a pro-life agenda without exception, the voter can (a) vote for the pro-abortion candidate; (b) vote for neither; or (c) vote for the candidate who does not support a full pro-life agenda. Clearly, the choice should be (c), the lesser evil.

Bishop Gracida elaborates:

Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.
Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: Candidate A, who is completely for abortion-on-demand, Candidate B, who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion, and Candidate C, a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable. The Catholic voter cannot vote for Candidate A because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation which would remove restrictions on abortion-on-demand. The Catholic can vote for Candidate C but that will probably only help ensure the election of Candidate A. Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for Candidate B, since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of Candidate A and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if Candidate B is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.
And LifeSite.net informs us that Bishop Burke Has Remained Consistent on Voting Pro-Life Despite Media Misrepresentation, taking the Associated Press to task for omitting Bishop Burke's reference to "proportionate reasons" in claiming that he had "softened his stance":

"If the reasons are really proportionate, and the person remains clear about his or her opposition to abortion, that can be done," Burke said. The Archbishop was at pains to point out that in reality the question is not one of the fine points of moral theology, but of immediate reality. "What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? That's the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason?" He said that the difficulty of these nuanced ideas is the reason he did not discuss the problem of proportionality in his earlier statements in June. "It is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be," he said.

According to the report, the St. Louis diocese intends to release a document clarifying its position on Catholics supporting pro-abortion politicians, and will include Burke's qualifying remarks. At this point, however, the question is whether the damage has already been done . . . and so the spin continues.

There are many ways of addressing poverty, homelessness, employment, and the rest of society's ills, and in spite of the claims of compatibility of Catholic social doctrine with both sides of the political spectrum (whether liberal Democrats, 'neocons' or Republicans), the Church has never formally aligned itself with a particular political platform -- and in fact, has specifically declined to do so.

At the same time, it cannot be doubted that the Church has spoken quite clearly in its condemnation of the abominable crime of abortion and euthanasia, and the practices of embryonic stem-cell research and human cloning which violate the sanctity of life from conception until death. This is precisely why when a politician proclaims his support of a woman's "right to choose", takes every opportunity to deny legislative restriction on abortion ("The Partial Birth Abortion Ban") or the recognition of the humanity of unborn ("The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act"; "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act"), endorses experimental research and destruction of human embroyos -- and defiantly proclaims his "right" to do so as a Catholic, his fellow Catholics are compelled to raise their voices in protest.

It is up to Catholics to decide what constitutes "proportionate reasons" for voting -- pray that we make the right choice.

Good place for a rally?

2004-09-05T14:45:00.000-04:00

Amy Welborn's commenters have some interesting news on John Kerry's rally in Steubenville where they say half the people present were protesters. One of the signs present was "Pontius Pilate was also personally opposed."

SecretAgentMan also has some great t-shirts suggestion for the rally on his site.

Kathy Jean Lopez at The Corner shares an email with further details of the rally

Father Wilson of CWN also share some more information on the Rally.

Update: The AP in their usual bias understates "Several dozen Bush supporters greeted Kerry in Steubenville with signs favoring a second Bush term and opposing the Catholic Kerry's support for abortion rights."

Fellow CKW Christopher at Against the Grain has a roundup of posts and articles on the rallly.

The Candidate of Catholic Values

2004-09-04T23:03:00.000-04:00

My good friend and CKW colleague Christopher Blosser kindly mentioned my daily coverage of the Republican National Convention on Times Against Humanity [scroll down]. As pro-life, pro-family readers who heard President Bush speak know, his most signficant affirmation was the following:

Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child. Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges. And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law.

As for the president's opponent, CINO Senator John Kerry, the Death Party's standard bearer was aptly described in these words:

My opponent recently announced that he is the candidate of "conservative values," which must have come as a surprise to a lot of his supporters. Now, there are some problems with this claim. If you say the heart and soul of America is found in Hollywood, I'm afraid you are not the candidate of conservative values. If you voted against the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed, you are not the candidate of conservative values.

Nor are you the candidate of Catholic values or, more important, Catholic moral doctrines, most especially, those defending the inviolability of innocent life and the sanctity of marriage, both of which are under relentless siege by an increasingly dominant Culture of Death.

Bush, Kerry and the future of Partial Birth Abortion Ban

2004-09-04T21:45:00.000-04:00

Patrick Sweeney ("Extreme Catholic") has done the favor of explaining to his readers "the Catholic teaching on abortion, the position of George Bush on abortion [...] and the reconciliation of the two."

On the issue of the President's stance on abortion, Mr. Sweeney points out:

He is opposed to abortion but makes the pragmatic exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

This puts him in some opposition to both Catholic teaching and the position of Republican party -- both do not provide for exceptions for rape and incest. Senator John McCain in 2000 unsuccessfully accused George Bush of "contradicting" his own party platform. It was a strange accusation for McCain to make because the two of them share the same position.

. . . In this life we don't get perfection. I would say that among electable individuals, we have no better candidate than George Bush."

During his first term, President Bush made a strong effort to stop the evil of partial-birth abortion. He succeeded to some extent, by signing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban in November 2003, finally obtaining support of the House and the Senate and culminating an eight-year struggle by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and congressional pro-life leaders. The bill was a historic moment in the pro-life cause, representing the first direct national restriction on any method of abortion since the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand in 1973.

The Partial Birth Abortion ban still faces stiff opposition in the courts, and recently a New York Federal Judge struck down the ban as unconstitutional. According to LifeNews.com:

Pro-life groups reacted to the decision of a federal judge on Thursday striking down the ban on partial-birth abortions by saying that the next president will have the power to determine whether the gruesome abortion procedure remains legal. . . . The next president could have the power to appoint as many as four Supreme Court justices. With federal judges in lower courts relying on the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in favor partial-birth abortions, a change of one vote could cause the high court to reverse itself.

Senator Kerry voted against passing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act every chance he got -- six times. As president, he will continue to oppose it. Clearly, the future of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, as well as a number of other issues, such as the continued funding of abstinence programs and crisis pregnancy centers; opposition to human cloning and embroyonic stem-cell research, and the Mexico City policy opposing funding and promotion of abortion by NGO's (which Senator Kerry has promised to overturn as his first act in office), will be determined by our election of the next President of the United States.

Related Links:

President Bush's Pro-Life Record Against The Grain. August 3, 2004.

A political roundup of sorts . . .

2004-09-03T01:15:00.000-04:00

Earl E. Appleby's busy Times Against Humanity covering the Republican National Convention. Now that President Bush has accepted the nomination, I expect Earl will give an excellent summary of events and grace us once again with is contributions. =)

In the meantime. here's a brief roundup of some GOP related stories that might be of interest to our readers:

CKW co-editor Oswald Sobrino has taken the time to review the Republican Party Platform, and declares it "Catholic-friendly."
Over at Curt Jester, CKW co-editor Jeff Miller reflects on the first Republican speaker to speak on abortion and same-sex marriage.
In 1992, a pro-abortion Zell Miller offered the nomination address for presidential candidate Bill Clinton -- who eventually became the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history. Today's Zell Miller is a different man, though still a Democrat. He says he has lost faith in his party though he and many other pro-life Democrats remain members of it." LifeNews.com has the story of Zell's "conversion."
P.S. If you hadn't heard about Zell Miller's justified smackdown of obnoxious television pundit Chris Matthews, the transcript is worth reading.
Chris Matthews, no friend to pro-lifers, caused something of a scandal last year by giving the commmencement address at (Jesuit) Holy Cross University, in a move that was vehemently opposed by the Cardinal Newman society.
Needless to say, it was a pleasure to see the Senator from Georgia stand up to Matthew's "attack-dog" journalism and defend a woman's honor.
I had the impression that Michael Reagan was going to address the issue of stem cell research at the 2004 Republican National Convention (so reported CNSNews.com back in August). Unfortunately, it seems he was simply called to present a video biography of his father. While he did have the opportunity to remind his audience that My mother, father and birth-mother were pro-life, and pro-adoption," nary a mention was made about the issue of stem-cells.
As CKW pointed out last month ("Reagan vs. Reagan and The Stem-Cell Cover-Up" August 14, 2004), science is actually on the side of the Republicans, and it would only be to their benefit to counter the "junk science" and illusive promises made by Ron Reagan and others. So long as as they neglect to do so, I believe Senator Kerry and the Democrats will have the upper hand in their appeal for public support of embroyonic stem cell research.
Patrick Sweeney ("Extreme Catholic") blogs about his experience attending The Republican Catholic Outreach Event, and the amazing people who are working to keep the GOP faithful to its traditional pro-life roots.
"Serenity in Storms", by Fr. George Rutler. National Review, Sept. 2, 2004. Sermon preached before the President of the United States and guests assembled in the Church of our Saviour in New York City for a prayer service on September 2, 2004. It is based on Mark 4:41.

Bishop Lawrence E. Brandt: pro-abort pols "bear false witness" to Catholic Faith

2004-09-02T14:12:00.000-04:00

As CKW is in the habit of recognizing courageous bishops, Lawrence E. Brandt (Bishop of Greensburg, PA, deserves favorable mention for his pastoral letter (presented on August 10, 2004).

Brandt declines to mention any pro-abortion pol by name and maintains that it has not been his policy "to endorse or oppose individual political candidates for public elective office." Nevertheless, on the matter of "pro-choice Catholics," the bishop could not be more explicit in where the Church stands on legislators who bring public scandal to the Church by adopting a pro-choice/pro-abortion stance. Here are some choice excerpts:

In view of the well-articulated, well-publicized, and consistent position of the Catholic Church on abortion for 2,000 years, and on the basis of dialogues which may have taken place concerning public officials' advocating questionable positions from the point of view of Church teaching, it is difficult to imagine that Catholic public officials or aspirants for public office could be ignorant of the fact that voting in favor of abortion legislation is gravely wrong and is a rejection of a core doctrinal holding of the Catholic Church concerning the sanctity of human life from the moment of fertilization.

An established pattern of voting in favor of abortion legislation and an established pattern of public rejection of a core teaching of the Church amount to being a person who is engaged in public cooperation with a grave moral evil. It means, furthermore, also having separated oneself in a fundamental way from the Catholic Church because one is no longer sharing the covenant of core beliefs and values which identify a person as Catholic.

Any public official who says, "I can vote for abortion and still be a Catholic in good standing," is being intellectually condescending to every Catholic by making himself or herself the sole judge of what "Catholic" means. For a public official or a person campaigning for public office to say, "I can be in favor of abortion and still be a good Catholic," is asking us to believe that his or her position is just as valid as the position of the Catholic Church, which is diametrically opposed to it. This must be viewed as intellectual sleight of hand! This is also demeaning to the intelligence of any informed Catholic. When such candidates or public officials renew publicly and in church, during the Easter season, their baptismal vows, by affirming that they "believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church," then such a declaration, in the minds of very many, is bearing false witness to the Catholic faith. . . .

A public pattern of cooperation in a grave evil, which affects the lives of millions of people, and a public pattern of rejection of a core doctrinal holding of the Catholic Church, have a direct bearing on one's proper dispositions for receiving Holy Communion. A pattern of public cooperation in grave evil inevitably calls into extreme question one's worthiness to receive Holy Communion. To do so nonetheless, as Saint Paul says, profanes the Body and Blood of Christ (1 Cor. 11:27). A pattern of public rejection of a core doctrinal holding of the Catholic Church separates one in a fundamental way from the communion of faith which is the Catholic Church. What sense then does receiving the effective sign of that oneness in a communion of faith, which is the Eucharist, have in such a situation? None, because it is a contradiction in terms. The Eucharist is aptly called Holy Communion because, of its nature, it reflects a communion or unity of belief on the part of those receiving it. Here the words of the second-century martyr Saint Justin are appropriate: "No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes 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." The reception of the Eucharist by those who enable grave evil and publicly support it is offensive to every committed Catholic in the Church because such individuals have proven that they have repudiated what we are because of what they do. To receive Holy Communion under these circumstances is not only offensive to committed Catholics, but it is also offensive to pro-life Catholic public officials who often risk their public careers to fight for the pro-life cause. It is also offensive to those Catholic public officials who voluntarily refrain from receiving the Eucharist because of their recognition of their compromised status. . . .

On the matter of whether individuals guilty of "obstinent persistence" in grave sin and the source of public scandal ought to be denied communion, the Bishop is hesitant, and takes a different approach:

I think the decision about the reception of Holy Communion should be put where it belongs -- on the person contemplating receiving Holy Communion. It should not be imposed on the bishop, on the priest, on the deacon, nor on the Eucharistic minister. That is "passing the buck!" It should be placed exactly where it belongs, which is on the conscience of the individual contemplating receiving communion. . . . I think the moral responsibility for the decision to receive Holy Communion should be put where it belongs, so that it is the potential recipient who bears the full weight of the consequences of his action before God, the Catholic Church and "society itself." I say society itself because this is not just a Catholic problem about Holy Communion. It is a problem with much deeper and wider implications. It is a cause of very serious concern for all the citizenry about a matter of integrity. It is a very serious concern about placing public trust in a person who has demonstrated public misrepresentation. Any individual who says he can advocate for and enable the practice of abortion and claims that he can still be a Catholic in good standing, has a very serious problem with integrity which any community can ignore only at its own peril.

It is true that my colleagues and I at Catholic Kerry Watch might question whether "placing the burden on the sinner" is truly enough, in light of the clear instructions by Cardinal Ratzinger which call for the active denial of communion when "precautionary measures" have failed to achieve any kind of resolution (Worthiness to Recieve Communion: General Principles", par. 6).

Nevertheless, Bishop Brandt takes a firm and commendable stand in informing his diocese not to recognize or honor those who bring public scandal to the faith:

In view of the seriousness of this situation, as well as the false witness and the misunderstanding it can cause, it is pastorally appropriate that the Catholic community, its organizations, and institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of the fundamental tenets of our faith and the moral requirements which follow from them by giving such public officials or candidates for office any awards or honors or platforms, which might be interpreted as support for their positions or actions.

And in informing public officials themselves:

Furthermore, as with the reception of Holy Communion, such public officials should voluntarily refrain from presenting themselves as candidates for the positions of lector, extraordinary minister of Holy Communion or other public functions in the life of the Church, including being a godparent at baptism or a sponsor at confirmation. All of these roles require that a person live a life of faith in conformity with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

You can express your thanks by contacting the Bishop's office at 724-837-0901.

Bishop Carlson on "Faith and Political Life"

2004-09-01T21:32:00.000-04:00

Chris Burgwald from "Veritas" is Director of Adult Faith Formation in the Diocese of Sioux Falls, and one of our programs is Theology on Tap. Last Friday, he invited his bishop, Bishop Robert Carlson, to speak on "Faith and Politics". Bishop Carlson spoke for about 40 minutes, and then answered some questions for another 15 minutes or so. Bishop Carlson made the Episcopal Spine Alert back in July with an excellent article instructing his diocese on the gospel of life.

According to Chris, Bishop Carlson's presentation is available via streaming audio at the Diocesan website, www.sfcatholic.org -- you can listen to bishop Carlson here. (He has also mentioned that they have begun taping the Theology on Tap presentations and making them available for check-out on DVD and VHS).

2004-08-31T08:39:00.000-04:00

Two Catholic organizations are calling attention to the scandal created by "pro-choice" Catholics this week, and another is educating the public on what it means to "vote Catholic":

Catholics Against Kerry is launching a major radio advertising campaign in Pennsylvania this week. Michael V. Pearce, Public Relations coordinator for the group, said in a press release Sunday, "Pennsylvania is a key battleground state, and the fact that one-third of its population is Catholic makes it an essential audience for our message." Newsmax.com has the full details, as well as a transcript of the advertisement.
Today, American Life League's Crusade for the Defense of Our Catholic Church launches another round of newspaper ads identifying pro-abortion public figures who identify themselves as "Catholic." Rather than confine its criticism to Senator Kerry, the advertisement draws attention to the scandal of Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and New York Gov. George Pataki, reminding us that "the defense of innocent human life is not a partisan issue." Townhall.com has the details.
Today as well, the apologetics organization Catholic Answers is taking out a full-page advertisement, the content of which is derived from their "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics". The Voter's Guide identifies 5 issues involving "non-negotiable" moral principles which Catholics must consider when voting. The guide is nonpartisan and does not identify any politician by name, but simply maintains that Catholics cannot in good conscience vote for candidates who support, endorse, or condone the moral evils of abortion, euthanasia, embroyonic stem-cell research, human cloning and homosexual "marriage." Catholic World News has the details.

You can read the full text of the voter's guide here; you can order a free print copy for yourself here. Bulk copies are also available for distribution.

Unfortunately, according to EWTN:
A parishioner in the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis asked archdiocesan officials if he could distribute the "Voter's Guide" on church property. The archdiocese sought guidance from the USCCB, according to William Fallon, the archdiocese's chancellor, and was told they preferred that only the USCCB guide, "Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility", be distributed. "Faithful Citizenship," a document issued by the lay staff of the USCCB, has been criticized even within the Church for placing the paramount issue of abortion on a level playing field with other lesser issues like promoting "social justice" and "global solidarity." Bob Laird, director of the Family Life Office of the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, said, "It equates abortion with debt relief. They are not equal." Critics charge that the document has had the effect of minimizing the importance of abortion in Catholic social teaching. The USCCB is also set to release its staff-produced presidential questionnaire which has faced similar charges.

John Courtney Murray and the 'Liberal Catholic' Justification of Abortion

2004-08-30T01:07:00.000-04:00

John Courtney Murray was America's leading Catholic theoligian during Vatican II, and as a peritus [theological advisor] at the council was a great influence on the document "Declaration on Religious Freedom" (Dignitate Humanae).

Murray was also well known for his book We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition, in which he meditated on the compatability of Catholic doctrine with the thought of America's Founding Fathers, particularly with respect to the First Amendment.

In the discussion of the relationship between church and state, he made the Thomistic observation that there existed a necessary distinction between morality and civil law; that the latter is limited in its capacity in cultivating moral character through criminal prohibitions, and that it "it is not the function of civil law to prescribe everything that is morally right and to forbid everything that is morally wrong." As we shall see, he was influential in bringing this line of thought to bear on the issue of contraception.

It comes as no suprise, then, that the thought of John Courtney Murray has recently been marshalled by numerous liberal Catholic politicians to justify a "pro-choice" stance in the current debate over abortion.

Consequently, in spite of the fact that I have little knowledge of Murray beyond my reading of We Hold These Truths or of Catholic political philosophy in general, I would like (with no small amount of trepidation) to present my findings on Murray's thought on contraception and the contemporary Catholic use of John Courtney Murray by "pro-choice Catholics" to support a liberal view of abortion and civil law. . . . READ MORE

National Review: Kerry should "Follow McGreevey's Lead"

2004-08-25T09:53:00.000-04:00

Writing for the National Review, political science professor Paul Kengor suggests that pro-abortion Senator Kerry should follow N.J. Governor McGreevey's lead:

Governor McGreevey is a pro-choice Catholic, in stark opposition to Church teaching. In June, Archbishop John J. Myers of the Newark diocese released a five-page statement titled "A Time for Honesty," in which he wrote that Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should not seek Communion. In response, New Jersey's pro-choice governor said that he would respect the archbishop's request and not seek the Eucharist at Mass. Oddly, McGreevey said he would accept Communion in private (whatever that means) but not in public, even though Myers made no distinction. Still, unlike most pro-choice politicians, he was willing to accept Church authority on an issue the Church understands as a matter of life and death.

McGreevey's response begged the question, or at least should have begged the question, if anyone at The CBS Evening News or the New York Times had cared to ask: Would John Kerry do the same?

Kerry, also a Catholic, is not just passively pro-choice; he is a champion of the cause. At the 2003 NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner, where he described pro-lifers as "the forces of intolerance," Kerry boasted that his maiden speech as a freshman senator had been in support of Roe v. Wade. On the floor of the U.S. Senate on August 2, 1994, he staked a frightening position: "The right thing to do is to treat abortions as exactly what they are -- a medical procedure that any doctor is free to provide and any pregnant woman free to obtain. Consequently, abortions should not have to be performed in tightly guarded clinics on the edge of town; they should be performed and obtained in the same locations as any other medical procedure.... [A]bortions need to be moved out of the fringes of medicine and into the mainstream of medical practice."

. . . a number of Catholic bishops have suggested or stated that if John Kerry presents himself for Communion in their dioceses, he will be turned away. These include Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis, Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes of New Orleans, and even Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston -- Kerry's home diocese. Bishop Michael J. Sheridan of Colorado Springs went further, issuing a stern pastoral letter saying that Catholics who vote for politicians who advocate legal abortion should be denied Communion.

That brings us full circle to McGreevey. Around the same time as Sheridan's bold letter, Archbishop Myers of Newark released "A Time for Honesty," with which McGreevey complied. This makes one inquire: Could just one person in the national media ask John Kerry if he will follow McGreevey's example? At the very least, it's an interesting question that seems newsworthy — surely, worth a single headline. Please? Someone?

One might add that a good number of our bishops ought to "follow the lead" establishd by Bishop Sheridan, Archbishop Burke, Archbishop Hughes, Archbishop John F. Donahue (Atlanta), Bishop Peter Jugis (Charlotte NC) & Bishop Robert J. Baker (Charleston, SC), emulating their faithful teaching and application of Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum and canon 915.

How about it?

Bishops Refute Flawed Theology

2004-08-22T03:14:00.000-04:00

From the pages of Fidelis, as posted by my fellow resident pundit Barbara Kralis . . .

No other Vatican memorandum has caused as much controversy in recent times as that written by the head of the Vatican's second most important dicastery of the Roman Curia. Moreover, one cardinal and one priest are at the forefront of this controversy, namely, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, DC, and retired sociologist Father Andrew M. Greeley, Ph.D.

First Controversy

The first controversy, perpetuated by Cardinal McCarrick, took place at the plenary meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which took place June 14–19, 2004, in Denver, CO.

Knowing well the U.S. bishops' need to correct the scandal of over 500 "Catholic" politicians who promote procured abortion, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, had sent a memorandum in English expressly to the attention of Cardinal McCarrick and Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the USCCB. The directive was to be shared with the bishops as a guideline representing firmly defined Church teaching and law.

In his memorandum Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion—General Principles, Cardinal Ratzinger said without ambiguity:

"The minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" when warning and counsel given the manifest sinner "have not had their effect."[1]

As chair of the USCCB Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, Cardinal McCarrick presented the remaining 189 U.S. bishops with his own recommendations regarding Catholic politicians who promote procured abortion. Not unexpectedly, they departed from clearly defined Church teachings and Canon Law. The "Task Force does not advocate the denial of Communion from Catholic politicians or Catholic voters," Cardinal McCarrick proclaimed."[2]

Unfortunately, Cardinal McCarrick did not share the contents of Cardinal Ratzinger's directive with neither the Bishops Conference nor the committee[3] tasked with composing the ensuing controversial statement, Catholics in Political Life.[4] Because Cardinal McCarrick withheld Vatican directives, the bishops were led to believe that Cardinal Ratzinger was recommending them to take action contrary to Vatican documents and laws,[5] some written by Cardinal Ratzinger himself. Confusion reigned and the bishops remain divided to this day.

Second Controversy

Fr. Andrew Greeley perpetuated the second controversy regarding the same memorandum from Cardinal Ratzinger.

None would dispute that Fr. Greeley is the "Catholic" darling of the secular media. Whenever the major news marketers require an interview on Catholic issues, they invariably call on the ubiquitous Fr. Greeley. Author of numerous nigh on pornographic novels, Fr. Greeley is under the authority of Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago. It is not known if Cardinal George has imposed any disciplines upon the aging hippy, Fr. Greeley, whose behavior is inconsistent with the ordained priesthood.

True to form, in the August 10, 2004 issue of the New York Daily News, Fr. Greeley crafted a column that disparaged faithful bishops under the deceitful headline "Catholics can vote for Kerry." In his column, Fr. Greeley dishonestly states that His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said that Catholics could vote for Presidential candidate John Kerry who promotes procured abortion.

Fr. Greeley was fraudulently referring to the Cardinal Ratzinger memorandum. A scandalous excerpt from Fr. Greeley's column reads as follows:

It is as close to an official statement on the subject as one is likely to get. It says that Catholics are not obliged to vote on one issue, no matter how important the issue might be. They may vote for Kerry "for other reasons" so long as they are not supporting him merely for his pro-choice stance. That ought to settle the matter. Catholics who have been confused by the insistence of a few bishops, some priests and some pro-life laity that they must vote against Kerry now know that they are free to make their choice balancing all issues—just as they always have been. The theory of "indirect material cooperation" is traditional Catholic moral teaching. Apparently, the few bishops who threaten to exclude Catholics from Communion if they vote for Kerry don't know much traditional moral theology, which shows what the qualifications are for the bishopric these days.

That disparaging excerpt is malicious, but not surprising coming from a priest who makes a living writing steamy, enticing novels that are either an "occasion of sin" or "blatantly sinful to read."

Bishops Refute Fr. Greeley's Theology

According to three U.S. bishops, Fr. Greeley has distorted the words of Cardinal Ratzinger. The bishops—Bishop Robert Francis Vasa, M.Div., J.C.L., Baker, OR; Bishop Michael J. Sheridan, Colorado Springs, CO; and Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D., Lincoln, NE—have granted this writer exclusive statements that strongly disagree with Fr. Greeley. The bishops were asked if they agreed with Fr. Greeley's assessment of Cardinal Ratzinger's statement. Their responses follow:

Bishop Robert Francis Vasa, M.Div., J.C.L.

I see little sense in entering into a debate about the theological merits of Fr. Andrew Greeley's statement in the New York Daily News article of August 10, 2004. I do believe his interpretation of Cardinal Ratzinger's June statement is erroneous.

While it is an interesting intellectual exercise to debate whether Catholics, under certain very limited circumstances, may or may not vote for candidates who favor procured abortion, the more important practical question is whether practicing Catholics should, in fact, vote for a candidate who openly, consistently and even aggressively defends the killing of preborn children when there are pro-life alternatives.

Whether a Catholic may or may not vote for a candidate who favors procured abortion, when there are pro-life alternatives available, can be debated. Whether he should or should not, in my mind, is very clear. Preborn human life in our country is under consistent and vicious attack and those lives must be defended. As I have said elsewhere, these little ones have no vote but mine and I will use it for them at every opportunity.

Bishop Michael J. Sheridan

It is my opinion that Fr. Andrew Greeley's reading of Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum is very incorrect. Nowhere does Fr. Greeley even attempt to deal with the qualifying phrase "...in the presence of proportionate reasons."

I would ask Fr. Greeley to provide those reasons that could even begin to justify voting for an avowedly pro-abortion candidate. Put another way, how do we balance out the murder of more than one million babies each year with any good or series of goods?

Also, if Fr. Greeley's reading of the memo is correct, we would have to throw out other magisterial teachings, for example, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's own statement Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life.[6]

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D.

Bishop Bruskewitz conveyed his response through his Vicar General, Msgr. Timothy J. Thorburn, J.C.L.

No Catholics of any sense will take any pastoral advice from Fr. Andrew Greeley, a superficial writer who appears to spend his time promoting himself to various elements in the secular media.

It is often said by priests and people in his native region of Chicago that he long ago published all his thoughts, and in the last decades has been publishing his fantasies.

In his article in the New York Daily News, fostering a pro-abortion vote ("so long as it is not merely for that..."), he seems to strongly indicate not only a tragic indifference to abortion, which the Second Vatican Council called "an abominable crime," but a shallowness of mind akin to a harlequin.

In his self-important buffoonery, he has appointed himself as instructor to bishops and to Catholics nationwide. In doing this, he merely announces to every thoughtful Catholic that his views are totally self serving and undeserving of any serious consideration.

Fr. Greeley even appointed himself to be an interpreter and spokesman for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, to the great amusement of all who really know the Cardinal.

My advice to any Catholics who would ask me about that Greeley article would be to give it the same view as you would the words and acts of a clown.

Labra lege! Catholics cannot follow Fr. Greeley's bad advice and vote for John Kerry.

If you would like to express your gratitude to these courageous bishops, contact them as follows:

E-mail Bishop Vasa at Chancellor@DioceseofBaker.org

E-mail Bishop Sheridan at Info@Diocs.org

E-mail Bishop Bruskewitz at Sr.Collette@cdoLinc.net

Editor's Note: I urge you to do so!

In the meantime . . .

2004-08-20T02:16:00.000-04:00

Not a whole lot to report on Kerry right now, hence the lack of blogging on my part -- Beliefnet.com's keeping tabs on his latest round of media-fueled appearances at local parishes. My thanks as well to Earl for his analysis of the USCCB's "2004 Presidential Questionnaire" and to Jeff for exposing the fawning coverage of the media.

In the meantime, according to LifeSiteNews.com:

Deal Hudson, publisher of the acclaimed U.S. Catholic magazine Crisis and since 2000 the advisor to President George W. Bush on Catholics, has resigned his post as presidential advisor. The move came in anticipation of a smear campaign on Hudson in a just released article by the National Catholic Reporter (NCR), a weekly publication that features prominent dissidents in the Catholic Church in America.

Since it's only tangentially-related to Kerry, I've reserved my response to my own blog -- suffice to say I believe the liberal Reporter's taking revenge for Hudson's outing of Ono Ekeh as a vocal supporter of Catholics for Kerry (and for that reason, a liability as an employee of the USCCB); moreover, they have effectively removed him as a voice of Catholic influence on the Bush administration, striking a blow for "progressive Catholics" in the culture wars. Keep Mr. Hudson, his family and all involved in your prayers.

Readers may be interested in this article from Christianity Today on "Pro-Abortion Madness" by Ted Olson, offering a good round-up of news and recent gains made by pro-lifers:

For Kerry, the basis for keeping abortion legal isn't based in science but in the "separation of church and state." The change of rationale could be great news. It's no Herculean task to explain why banning abortion doesn't establish a government religion.

But abortion advocates aren't rallying to Kerry's view of conception, so they're not arguing church-state separation, either. In summary, they have lost ground on science, emotional appeals, constitutional law . . . What's left?

Insanity.

And another of our co-editers here at CKW (Oswald Sobrino) reviews the book Unfit For Command that's been making headlines recently, and sees a pattern of behavior in Kerry's actions:

From a specifically Catholic perspective, there is also a strong religious parallel with the book's portrayal of Kerry's assiduous pursuit of medals while at the same time voicing anti-war opinions in Vietnam. Many of us Catholics are as deeply offended, as these veterans are about Vietnam, by Kerry's public displays of receiving the Eucharist even though he rejects Catholic teaching on abortion and on embryonic stem cell research. Kerry also refuses to support a federal amendment to protect marriage, even though the highest court in his own state is radically changing the legal landscape by embracing gay marriage. At the same time that Kerry takes anti-Catholic stands, he is, strangely enough, eager to be seen as a devout Catholic communicant.

This pursuit of the badges of Catholic devotion--receiving Communion, publicly making the sign of the cross--while at the same time taking stridently anti-Catholic political positions parallels Kerry's pursuit of military decorations while at the same time attacking the war before, during, and after his Vietnam service . . . What is the common motivation for this strange approach to reality? Political power.

Debating 'Catholics for Kerry'

2004-08-17T22:45:00.000-04:00

Frank, ("Just Being Frank") has brought to my attention his blog, in which he mentions:

. . . I had the opportunity to have some discussions with some of the good folks at the Yahoo! Group, Catholics for Kerry, whose sister site accuses Bush of being the Anti-Christ. Unfortunately, they banned me from the group because, alas, I am not a Catholic for Kerry. But I had a few revealing conversations with several of the members via e-mail.

Church teachings forbid any Catholic from voting for politicians that threaten the most basic of natural laws. (Indeed, universal morality forbids any individual from voting for those politicians.) So the first question facing every voter is, which candidates, if any, threaten the most basic of natural laws?

The Church wisely leaves Catholics to determine the answer to that question. As Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan wrote, "when Catholics go to the polls to vote, they take their consciences with them". When we vote, we better make sure that our votes are moral.

I am almost certain that both Ralph Nader and John Kerry threaten the most basic of natural laws and that voting for either is therefore wrong. I am slightly less certain -- but believe nonetheless -- that George W. Bush is the morally best choice for president. In the article linked below, I lay out my case.

Frank does take some time arguing in defense of the U.S. war on Iraq -- what some readers might consider tangential to a discussion of Kerry and abortion, but is evidently necessary in countering a common tactic of Kerry Catholics: bringing up the war (or capital punishment) as a means of diverting attention from Kerry's abominable record on abortion, or the 'casualty rate' of abortion itself (1.3 million annually).

However, one needn't agree with the Bush Administration's action on Iraq to find that Frank makes a very compelling case as to why Catholics should not -- indeed, cannot -- vote for Kerry.

Furthermore, his display of courtesy and charity in engaging the opposition in debate (I use the term loosely, since the other side has a tendency to dodge the issues, and offers little in the way of coherent arguments) is truly commendable and a model for emulation.

All in all a good read and a welcome addition to our growing list of "Kerry Critics."

Communion Watch

2004-08-17T18:56:00.000-04:00

Beliefnet has the lowdown on the media coverage of John Kerry going to Mass here. In one of the articles linked I saw this story from his July 4 visit to the Church of the Resurrection in Dubuque, Iowa.

The Democratic presidential candidate on Sunday attended mass at the Church of the Resurrection in Dubuque, sat in the fourth pew, donated a crisp $20 bill to the church during collection, and received Communion.
But several churchgoers separately quizzed Kerry about his legislative support for abortion rights after Mass on Sunday when Kerry was signing autographs and posing for pictures with congregation members.

"It's hard," Kerry told parishioner Frank Ward, a father of five and an abortion opponent. "It's a difficult line to walk."

Kerry told another man in the lobby of the church that "I'm against partial birth abortion," even though he voted against banning the procedure six times in the Senate. Kerry said he would have voted for the ban if it included an exception to allow the procedure if it was necessary to protect the health of the mother.

"They did it for a political reason," Kerry said of Republicans who backed the measure, which passed last fall in the Senate 64-34 with support from several Democrats after years of debate. "They tried to drive home the politics of it."

It's hard, it's a difficult line to walk? I guess it is difficult to walk when your feet are on both sides of the fence. The protect the life of the mother dodge is totally phony and medically untrue. How is delivering the baby backwards so that you can vacuum the brains out less safe for the mother than delivering the child normally?

Authority Does Not Trump Responsibility

2004-08-16T21:56:00.000-04:00

Writing on Catholic Online, attorney Michael Gaynor analyzes the deficiencies in the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' statement on Catholics in Political Life.

The authority of each bishop over his diocese, Gaynor rightly reminds us, does not absolve him of the sacred duty to uphold and to apply canon law. Nor we would add to defend the Body and Blood of Christ from sarilegious profanation.

While we scarcely see the spinally deficient episcopacy as "warlords," we appreciate Gaynor's observation that:

The Roman Catholic Church is supposed to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, according to the Nicene Creed. Bishops are not to be independent warlords, doing whatever they want within their territory, because they can. Each bishop must follow canon law, not his personal preference.

No doubt this includes Canon 915, the most discussed and most neglected in the code. As Archbishop Raymond Burke, St. Louis, MO, affirms:

Canon 915 must be applied. It does not give an option. Canon 915 says that those persons who obstinately persist in grave manifest sin must be denied the Eucharist. I strongly believe that if a bishop has spoken to someone who obstinately persists in grave manifest sin and he still presents himself for Holy Communion, he should be refused.

As Gaynor concludes:

It is for those who dispense Holy Communion to follow the mandate of Canon 915. Bishops who are reluctant to embarrass prominent politicians need to recall that Jesus had no patience for those moneychangers in the Temple. Protecting the sanctity of the Temple was His paramount consideration then. The protection of the Holy Eucharist must be the bishops' paramount consideration today.

[courtesy of Vivificat!]

The clear choice for non-practicing Catholics

2004-08-14T20:43:00.000-04:00

Eleanor Clift write in a column that excuses Kerry's new found support of the Iraq war and this being perceived as a flip-flop with:

"It was classic Kerry, full of subtleties that get lost in translation."

Full of something, but I thinks not subtleties. Funny what use to be known as being disingenuous is now known as nuance. Eleanor Clift ends by writing about the Catholic vote.

What moves voters is as much art as science. No candidate has won the popular vote without carrying Roman Catholics, and both Bush and Kerry are wooing the Catholic vote. A recent poll shows Catholics evenly divided, with 40 percent committed to each candidate, and 18 percent undecided -- a high number in this polarized electorate. Bush appealed to the pope when he visited the Vatican earlier this year to encourage the bishops to get more involved in the U.S. election by pushing their opposition to gay marriage. Bush did Kerry a favor by activating the bishops because now everybody knows Kerry is a practicing Catholic, and that's a benefit when one out of four voters is Catholic -- and they're congregated in the battleground states.

As for Bush doing Kerry a favor, I wouldn't go that far. But prior to the President's visit to the Vatican in June of this year there had already been months and months of news about the Communion debate and the various opinions of the Bishops. With the constant barrage of editorials crying against the separation of church and state and complaining taht the Bishop's were stepping out of line and being political -I wouldn't think that there were many if any Catholics who had not already informed that John Kerry was a Catholic. This view that Catholics would then vote for someone because they were Catholic is also not very credible. Maybe there are some of those creatures left, but they are basically extinct.

The poll she was referring to must have been the latest one from Gallup that showed that among those Catholics who went to Mass weekly - supported President Bush 52 percent compared to Kerry with 42 percent. For those Catholics who seldom or never went to Church Kerry lead by 57 percent compared to Bush's 39 percent. The overall sample that included both groups Kerry led Bush by 51 percent to a 45 percent margin. This sample of 545 self-described Catholic registered voters must have included more non-practicing Catholics and this is probably accurate that out of the 25 percent of the electorate that identifies itself as Catholic, there are more non-practicing ones.

Reagan vs. Reagan and The Stem-Cell Cover-Up

2004-08-14T15:50:00.000-04:00

LifeNews.com reports that pro-life advocate Michael Reagan has been invited to address the Republican National Convention, in which he will counter the misleading claims of Ron Reagan's speech to the Democratic National Convention, in which he called for federal funding of embroyonic stem-cell research and legalization of human cloning (a position endorsed by Senator Kerry):

Last month, Ron Reagan told Democratic Party loyalists to "vote for embryonic stem cell research" in a speech that touted the unproven research.

After President Reagan passed away, advocates of embryonic stem cell research piggybacked their message onto his death, saying that such research could benefit others who suffer from diseases such as Alzheimer's.

However, Michael Reagan, a board member of the John Douglas French Alzheimer's Foundation in California, said his father would have opposed the research and paying for it with taxpayer funds. He accused the media of making it seem that wasn't the case.

"The media continues to report that the Reagan 'family' is in favor of [embryonic] stem cell research, when the truth is that two members of the family have been long time foes of this process of manufacturing human beings -- my dad, Ronald Reagan during his lifetime, and I," Michael Reagan wrote in an editorial ("I'm With My Dad on Stem-Cell Research" July 30, 2004).

"Moreover, using the widely promoted and thoroughly discredited argument that stem cell research can lead to a cure of Alzheimer's disease, the media and proponents of stem cell research have suggested that had the research been done a long time ago, my dad might have avoided the ordeal he endured," Michael Reagan explained. "This is junk science at its worst."

On a related note, here is an excellent article I discovered today on the stem cell cover-up by Michael Fumento, author of BioEvolution: How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World, in which he discusses the numerous and phenomenal advances in adult stem-cell research and application:

More than 30 anticancer uses for stem cells have been tested on humans, with many already in routine therapeutical use.
By some accounts, the area in which stem-cell applications are moving fastest is autoimmune disease, in which the body's own protective system turns on itself. Diseases for which stem cells currently are being tested on humans include diabetes, lupus, multiple sclerosis, Evans syndrome, rheumatic disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease), among many others.
Just last February, two different human-autopsy studies demonstrated that stem cells transfused into the marrow work their way into the brain, where they can repair neurons and other vital cells. Other studies have shown that when injected into animals with severed spinal cords, stem cells rush to the injury site effecting repairs. "I think the stem cells may act as a repair squad," says the leader of one of the two studies, Helen Blau of the Stanford University Brain Research Institute. "They travel through the bloodstream, respond to stress, and contribute to brain cells. They clearly repair damage in muscle and other tissues."
At a conference in late 2002, French researchers reported that during the last 14 years they had performed 69 stem-cell transplants with an 85 percent disease-free survival rate. Since improving their procedure in 1992, all 30 of the last transplants have been successful.
Stem cells have been injected into damaged hearts and become functional muscle. This destroyed the dogma that heart muscle cannot be repaired, just as stem-cell research also wrecked the firmly held belief that brain tissue cannot regenerate.

. . . here's what you may have missed. While the overwhelming majority of favorable media coverage of stem cells concerns those pulled from human embryos, called embryonic stem cells (ESCs), not a single treatment listed above has used that kind of cell.

Why such gains has been persistently and deliberately neglected in favor of the current ethical controversy over embroyonic stem-cells? -- Mr. Fumento responds:

. . . here's a huge ESC industry out there, with countless labs packed with innumerable scientists desperately seeking research funds. Private investors avoid them because they don't want to wait perhaps 10 years for commercial products that very well may not materialize and because they're spooked by the ethical concerns. That leaves essentially only Uncle Sam's piggy bank, primarily grants from the National Institutes of Health, to keep these labs open. This, in brief, explains the "stem-cells wars," the perceived overwhelming need grossly to exaggerate petri-dish advances with ESCs, while life-saving new applications of ASCs are downplayed or ignored.

Read the article, judge for yourself, and let's hope that more citizens will challenge Ron Reagan and Senator Kerry on their endorsement of embryonic stem cell research as a 'cure-all.'

No Response, Best Response to Sham Survey

2004-08-13T21:17:00.000-04:00

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

The Most Reverend Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, TX, has studied the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' 2004 survey of presidential candidates and has concluded, as have other orthodox Catholic analysts, that it falls considerably short of what is required. His statement should be read and widely disseminated in its entirety:

I have had the opportunity to review a copy of the 2004 Presidential Questionnaire submitted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to President George Bush and Senator John Kerry. I am disappointed that the Questionnaire is so broad and covers so many issues that are before the American public today that its value in helping to show the differences between the positions of the two candidates on the really important issues will be minimal.

While certainly there could be and should be a "Catholic" position on most, if not all, of the issues covered by the Questionnaire, from the perspective of the Church's teaching some issues far outweigh others in importance. For instance, there is no moral equivalence between the issue of abortion-on-demand and farm subsidies. The Questionnaire should have been much shorter and should have been limited to questions on those issues on which there is a clear unequivocal teaching of the Church, e.g., abortion, cloning, assisted suicide, embryonic stem-cell research and marriage.

There is no clear unequivocal position of the Church on such issues as the minimum wage, immigration, farm subsidies, etc. The inclusion of questions in the Questionnaire can only result in confusion in the minds of Catholic voters who do not understand that there is no moral equivalence between these two groups of issues. I can only hope that both presidential candidates will refuse to reply to the Questionnaire, or, if they do reply, that the leadership of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will recognize the danger to Catholic voters and will publish those replies with a clear teaching on the greater importance which should be attached to the replies to the first group of questions I have listed above that have far greater moral implications for the Nation. (Courtesy of Crisis via Thrown Back.)

Editor's Note: Given the sorry track record of the bishops' bureaucracy and the fact that they engineered this seamless garment cover up in the first place, I would recommend that President Bush not respond to this Sanhedrin-style tribunal, whose implied verdict arises not so much from the answers as from the questions. In sum, this sham survey tells us far more about its creators than its respondents.

Bishops' Bureaucracy: Selling Short or Selling Out?

2004-08-13T01:01:00.000-04:00

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

"An issues questionnaire sent to the presidential candidates by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is being criticized as a partisan misrepresentation of Church teachings," Victor Morton reports in Wednesday's Washington Times.

The survey devotes more than twice as many questions to immigration than to abortion and more than four times as many questions to poverty than to euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research. each of which is relegated by the bishops' bureaucracy to equal footing with federal broadcast licensing requirements.

The Times' article features cogent observations from two of St. Blog's best: Fr. Rob Johansen (Thrown Back) and Fr. Bryce Sibley (A Saintly Salmagundi):

"They've basically taken a 'throw-everything-but-the-kitchen-sink' approach to this," said the Rev. Rob Johansen of St. Joseph Catholic Church in St. Joseph, Michigan. "There is no indication that any of these items are of greater or lesser gravity than any other." To put broadcast regulation and human cloning "side by side is absurd."...

The Rev. Bryce Sibley of Parks, La., said "issues of life" such as abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and euthanasia "have far greater weight" than anything else. "Any economic or social teaching, from both the perspective of common sense and church teaching, will be outweighed."

But not it seems in the false scales of the bishops' bureaucracy, today's equivalent of the temple's money changers.

Supplemental Reading:

On Thrown Back, Fr. Johansen offers further cogent observations on this bureaucratic betrayal of the Gospel of Life. You'll want to read every word.

Back With a Vengeance?

2004-08-11T21:41:00.000-04:00

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

In the Toronto Globe and Mail, Michael Valpy explores the resurgence of religion in American politics. According to Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life:

Religion has become a systemic, hard-wired feature of U.S. presidential elections, driven by a new coalition of conservative Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants and fueled by fear that American culture is being taken over by militant secularism.

In fact, despite the significant advances of secularism over the past half century, research describes the United States as increasingly alone among advanced industrial democracies as "a deeply religious country."

The key electoral constituencies of both the Republican and Democratic parties are now the two most highly religious segments of the U.S. public—black Americans on the Democratic side and white evangelical Protestants on the Republican side, together representing more than a quarter of the electorate.

When we add "conservative, observant Catholics" to the camp of faith-based voters, we approach 40 percent of the American electorate.

Addressing a conference provocatively entitled "God's Back With a Vengeance: Religion, Pluralism, and the Secular State," Lugo described the emerging alliance between traditional Catholics and evangelical Protestants as "one of the huge stories in U.S. politics...a political realignment of major proportions."

"The tussle between Kerry and the bishops" takes on huge significance, he said, because conservative Catholics are divided between the two parties and because many of them are concentrated in important swing states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Driven by "a fear that a very militant secularism is driving religion from public life and increasingly besieging faithful believers":

In overwhelming numbers, Americans approve of politicians talking publicly about their religious beliefs and welcome the presence of religious discourse in public-policy debate...

Three-quarters of Americans think there's nothing wrong with President George W. Bush saying he relies on his religious beliefs to make decisions. Half of Americans say they would not vote for an atheist. Nearly 60 per cent believe journalists should question politicians about how their religious beliefs might affect their decisions.

If God indeed is "coming back with a vengeance," let us pray that His people give witness to it next November.

Supplemental Reading:

For the latest on how the Catholic vote is shaping up for the presidential race, read Catholic World News.

Senator Kerry dismisses religious convictions as "ideology"

2004-08-09T23:01:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post ran a story yesterday on Kerry's push for federal funding of embroyonic stem cell research ("Kerry Takes On Issue of Embryo Research" August 8, 2004), vowing upon election to "stand up for science," and remove the restrictions the Bush administration has placed.

"Here in America, we don't sacrifice science for ideology," Kerry said in his radio address. "Every day that we wait, more than 3,000 Americans lose their lives to diseases that may someday be treatable because of stem cell research."

Blogger Conor Dugan ("TriCoastal Commission") responds:

. . . what really bothers me about this quotation is that Kerry seems to think that science has no moral limits. He thinks that Bush's policy is a mere kowtowing to ideology. But why can't he assume the best? Why can't he read what his own deeply held faith argues is at stake here (these are publicly accessible arguments based on reason by the way)? Why can't he at least assume that Bush made his decision in good faith and that those of us who oppose embryonic stem-cell research do so based on good reasons that are more than mere "ideology"? And, moreover, why can't he admit that he doesn't even believe science should be wholly unregulated and without moral limits? Can't he at least admit that he and Bush both are making their decisions based on a moral analysis? Kerry believes the potential good (and let us admit that there is much good that could come from embryonic stem-cell research) of such research justifies the destruction of innocent human life. I and those who join me in opposing such research do not believe such potential and likely elusive ends (though even if they were guaranteed I would still oppose such research) justify the actual and present destruction of innocent human life. Both positions are harnessing science for a moral purpose.

And shouldn't the burden be on Kerry to make the case for the intentional destruction of what even he believes to be human life?

I don't have the statistics on hand, but I would venture a guess that the majority of those who oppose embroyonic stem cell research do so on specifically religious grounds, motivated by a genuine respect for human life, from conception to death, and a belief that life is sacred. If Senator Kerry wants a real discussion on this issue he is going to have to confront the objections of those who oppose it.

Likewise, if Senator Kerry is truly interested in establishing connnections with those of religious faith (a weakness which the Democratic Party has been trying to alleviate as of late), he could do a lot better than casually dismiss the religious belief of thousands of American citizens as mere "ideology."

Welcome to AmChurch

2004-08-08T16:31:00.000-04:00

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John
Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., and his wife,
Teresa Heinz Kerry, leave San Felipe de Neri
Catholic Church in Albuquerque on Sunday,
Aug. 8, 2004. (AP Photo/Laura Rauch)

God Is Waiting

2004-08-07T17:05:00.000-04:00

From the pages of Fidelis, as posted by my fellow pundit, Barbara Kralis . . .

Recently, Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke, D. D., J.C.L., of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, "the new John Fisher for our times,"i granted this writer and Catholic Online an exclusive interview.

You may remember that on January 8, 2004, Archbishop Burke, then Bishop of the La Crosse, WI, diocese, promulgated a "canonical notification" based on Canon Law 915.ii In other words, Bishop Burke, a doctor of Canon Law,iii imposed sacramental disciplines or regulations concerning the unworthy reception of the Holy Eucharist. He did not need a filibustering Bishops' Task Force on the Doctrinal Note on the Participation of Catholics in Political Life to decide how to admonish manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners. Archbishop Burke knew he must stop the sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist and the scandal to his faithful flock. 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.iv

Granting this interview while away on vacation, Archbishop Burke very kindly answered six questions. These questions addressed the confusion and misinformation caused by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, DC, and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) President, Bishop Wilton Gregory, during the June 2004 USCCB meeting in Denver, CO. In particular, these six questions were asked Archbishop Burke regarding a memorandum addressed by Cardinal Joseph Ratinger to Cardinal McCarrick, chair of the USCCB's Task Force, and to Bishop Gregory.

It is well for us to remember that in his memorandum Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion—General Principles, Cardinal Ratzinger said without ambiguity:

"The minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it"v when warning and counsel given to the manifest sinner "have not had their effect."

Dear Archbishop Burke, regarding Cardinal Ratzinger's June 2004 memorandum, were the contents of the memo made known to you and the other bishops at the Denver meeting?

It certainly was not made known to me, and I do not believe it was given to the other bishops. Cardinal McCarrick referred to the memorandum. We were told that, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, the application of the Canon 915 was up to the prudent judgment of each bishop. The text of the memorandum would have been very helpful at the meeting in Denver. Knowing now about the memo, I am disappointed it was not given to us at the meeting of the Bishops' Conference.

The Bishops' Denver Statement reads, "Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action." Does this mean that one Bishop could deny Senator Kerry Communion and another Bishop can give Kerry Communion and both Bishops are correct?

No, in fact, Canon 915 must be applied. It does not give an option. Canon 915 says that those persons who obstinately persist in grave manifest sin must be denied the Eucharist. I strongly believe that if a bishop has spoken to someone who obstinately persists in grave manifest sin and he still presents himself for Holy Communion, he should be refused.

Cardinal McCarrick received a letter dated July 9, 2004, from Cardinal Ratzinger saying:

The Statement is very much in harmony with the memorandum's general principles, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, sent as a fraternal service—to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue—in order to assist the American Bishops in their related discussion and determinations.

Is it your understanding that Cardinal Ratzinger agreed that some ministers of Holy Communion should admit John Kerry and that some should not admit him?

That is not my understanding.vi

In the Denver Statement, the fifth paragraph read, "Our obligation as bishops at this time is to teach clearly." Can one bishop admit and another bishop not admit? Is this teaching clearly? Is it not a contradiction of Canon 915, for one bishop to refuse John Kerry the Eucharist in one diocese and for another bishop to give John Kerry the Eucharist in another diocese?

Yes, it would be a source of confusion. I have refused to talk about individual candidates, but when a "Catholic" pro-abortion politician knows the actions he has taken are gravely sinful in a public matter like supporting abortion, the only way to uphold church teaching is to withhold Holy Communion. It is not right for one "minister of Holy Communion" to give the Eucharist and another not.

Is it your understanding that the Task Force's work is completed? Cardinal Ratzinger's July 9 letter assumed that the Task Force has not decided yet.vii

I understood from the meeting that the work of the Task Force was not completed and we would be given another report at our November 2004 meeting. I do not know if there will be another vote. Normally there is a vote to accept and not to accept.

What can you tell us now about the Note Bene statement of Cardinal Ratzinger at the end of his June memorandum? In it, he states that "proportionalism" or voting for "the lesser of two evils" is acceptable. Do you think it is possible to end abortion by always voting for the lesser evil candidate? How would this apply to Pope Paul VI who stated:

Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it viii—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.ix

It is clear that the Catholic voter has to be opposed to procured abortion. Anybody who votes for a candidate who supports or favors procured abortion because the candidate favors procured abortion cooperates in evil.x

A host of considerations enter in the decision to vote for a particular candidate. The voter must be opposed to procured abortion and do everything as a voter to decrease the evil of abortion and eliminate it. If the Catholic voter votes for a candidate who is in favor of procured abortion, while the voter is clearly opposed to it, there must be some serious reason to justify such a vote.

As Cardinal Ratzinger said, in his June memorandum, such a vote is "remote material cooperation," which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
His position is not proportionalism, for the voter remains steadfastly opposed to procured abortion and works to eliminate abortion in society and its protection by the law.

Thank you very much for granting this interview.

You are welcome, and please pray for me.

It is important to note that not only does the canonical discipline Canon 915 include the estimated 500 so-called "Catholic" pro-abortion politicians—Democrat as well as Republican—in the United States, but other manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners.

A short list would include homosexual couples approaching the Eucharist arm-in-arm or with sodomite, rainbow banners over their shoulders, as well as those divorced and "remarried" without benefit of annulment.xi Also, included would be employees 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.)

Earlier, Archbishop Burke said:

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.xii

For a bishop or any pastor to exclude someone from Communion is always a source of great sorrow. The sorrow is caused by the care that a pastor naturally has for a soul who rejects the teaching of Christ and His Church.

What would be profoundly more sorrowful would be the failure of a bishop to call a soul to conversion, the failure to protect the flock from scandal and the failure to safeguard the worthy reception of Communion.xiii

In late 2002, a Vatican office issued a paper on The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, which quoted Pope John Paul II as saying lawmakers have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose" any law that "attacks human life."

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz's Vicar General, Monsignor Timothy J. Thorburn, J.C.L., said it is best to err on the side of reverence of the Eucharist:

If I had denied Holy Communion to someone who is known to be manifest, persistent, and obstinate in his sin and he later demonstrates that he had, in fact, publicly denied his promotion of, say, abortion, I then would publicly apologize to him.

If anyone is keeping score—and I am—the tally goes as thus for denying manifest, obstinate, persistent persons in grave sin: Six diocesan heads for denying the Eucharist, 189 diocesan heads against denying. The six good men are: Bishops Burke, St. Louis, MO; Bruskewitz, Lincoln, NE; Robert Vasa, Baker, OR; John Donohue, Atlanta, GA; Robert Baker, Charleston, SC; and Peter Jugis, Charlotte, NC.

Other bishops have strongly warned manifest sinners, but have refused to declare that they would deny them Communion nor have they taken diocesan wide disciplinary measures. New Jersey bishops Joseph Galante and John Smith have said they would deny Governor James E. McGreevey, but have not promulgated diocesan disciplines against other manifest persons.

The holy recourse is for each bishop to warn and then counsel the manifest sinners to the healing love of God. Without delay, the bishop should promulgate diocesan discipline until such time as the manifest sinner publicly repents of his evil actions, receives the Sacrament of Penance, makes a firm purpose of amendment, and makes reparation for the harm he has done. God is waiting for their return with a loving Heart.

Editor's Note: Endnotes may be accessed via the above links. An annotated edition of the above article, which has been slightly revised for Fidelis, can be found on Catholic Online. You may convey your support and encouragement to Archbishop Burke here.

The Stigmatization of 'Democrats for Life'

2004-08-05T23:16:00.000-04:00

Irish Elk has a good roundup on Democrats for Life at the Democratic National Convention, and reactions by fellow party-members.

According to Lifenews.com:

despite Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe's promise that a pro-life speaker would be allowed at the convention, the only speaker to oppose abortion, Rhode Island Congressman Jim Langevin, promoted embryonic stem cell research by introducing Ron Reagan for a speech on an issue pro-life groups oppose.

On the Kerry/Edwards forum, someone inquires Why Won't DNC link Democrats for Life?, is there no room in the tent?"