AmericanPapist Comments
Go, bishops go!
I was finally a first comment!
Way to go! Thanks for posting this. I've read your blog off and on since you covered the Papal visit. Good stuff. And I am so thrilled to the USCCB finally clarified things. I just hope all parish priests will do the same. As a teacher in a Catholic school with Catholic colleagues who are passionately voting Democrat this election, I am looking forward to discussing this over lunch... :)
"You who toil for the bread you eat while he pours gifts on his beloved while they slumber!" Psalm 127.
I just read this on Fr Trijilio's blog. Bravo Bishop Joseph Martino, Scranton, PA
http://blackbiretta.blogspot.com/
Anyone else hear a certain Martha & the Vandellas song in their heads now?
Unless I am mistaken (which I could be), Dr. Kmiec has never espoused error #1, namely that the Church should accept Roe v. Wade. His letter on prolifeproobama.com downplays Roe v. Wade, but it doesn't say that the Church should accept it. Thus it does not seem that the letter from the bishops has in any way refuted his position. Rather, the bishops are refuting two extreme positions, the one that abortion should be legal (held by many people, such as Obama), and the other that we should devote all our energy to overturning Roe v. Wade (an argument supported by no one in words but by many in fact). Thus, clearly, the liberal, pro-choice position (which Kmiec seemingly does not hold) is criticized (obviously!) as well as the de facto position of some conservatives.
Chrysologus,
Do you have any evidence to provide backing up your assertion that some conservatives assume, de facto, the position that the only goal of the pro-life movement is to provide legal rights for the unborn?
Because, frankly, there is greater evidence that it is precisely those involved in the pro-life movement, seeking an overturn of Roe v. Wade, who also actively support young woman if they choose not to have an abortion.
Do not confuse welfare Statism with Christian charity.
Is Spain our future? See:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.co...new.php?
n=14113
Because, you know, if abortion is a constitutional right, then the Church and pro-lifers generally are attempting to overthrow the Constitution. And that's treason. And so burning churches will be seen as patriotic.
and the other that we should devote all our energy to overturning Roe v. Wade (an argument supported by no one in words but by many in fact).
Who are these many? This doesn't apply to any pro-lifers that I know. From what I have seen in my limited first-hand experience in the pro-life movement, I would have to say that the focus on prayer and on material/spiritual assistance to moms is even greater than the focus on a political or legal solution.
Tom - I just want to let you know that I appreciate your hard work here. I can't keep up with the many things I want to post so I know it's eating up your time, but I'm sure it is pleasing to God how you are using your gift.
I was just sent an email about one of the lastest pro-life videos out there which reveals Obama's real stand. Check it out and lets circulate it - if you can.
America's Choice 2008
It's a well done video with clips going back to the Saddle back through to most recent.
I am not sure whether Dr. Kmiec advocated for abandoning the efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, but that is exactly what Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ advocated in his Washington Post editorial.
From some of the comments here, it sounds like the liberal side will be unphased by this official statement. It sounds like the bishops left some wiggle room for equivocation. To Vox Nova, where the grand masters of the liberal Catholic equivocation world are probably doing so right now.
Hierothee and Paul: Apparently the bishops believe that there are such people. Why else would they have condemned that?
No one would ever admit to being one of those people, I think, because it's not as if you explicitly profess that only Roe v. Wade. It's a matter of what people actually do and where their efforts actually fall. It's a hard thing to quantify and people disagree about how much attention should be placed on the legal question. My own personal experience has been that the topic of Roe v. Wade and the law dominates the pro-life movement, possibly to an excessive degree since our ultimate goal is to win over people's hearts and minds so that they won't choose to kill their own babies.
In any case, the substance of my comment was to exonerate Dr. Kmiec from the claim that he said that Roe v. Wade does not need to be overturned. From my point of view, Dr. Kmiec's position is an acceptable Catholic opinion, not necessarily correct, but not heretical or dissenting either. Thomas seemed to insinuate that the bishops' statement somehow rebuked him, but I don't see how that is true.
Just got back from the Bat (guano) Cave. Michael Iafrate, Michael Joseph's Sir Lancelot of the Democratic Dark Knights of the Round Table fulfilled my prediction.
Here is the first thing that popped out of his... keyboard... when given the link to the new statement:
I don’t see much there in terms of clarification, though. They articulate well the positions that Catholics should hold when it comes to Roe v. Wade and assistance for mothers. Nowhere do they directly address the issue of voting and they do not bind the consciences of u.s. Catholics in terms of who to vote for.
Like I said, the statement wasn't as explicit as it should have been. Sounds like it has the same dizzying effect as Faithful Citizenship.
Unless the USCCB comes out with some really substantial statements soon, we will be left in the pit of confusion we are in, and the Bidens of the world (most Catholics voting for Obama) will continue to think that they can happily receive Communion at Mass and trumpet their own Catholicity, like the Pharisee before the publican.
This is getting freakin' ridiculous now. The problem is, the liberals will not listen to individual bishops. They will wait for an official statement from the USCCB, because they are familiar with the lack of spine the conference has had in the last few decades. They also are familiar with the way the conference has enabled them to push their Futurechurch agenda by turning their backs. We know that there are courageous bishops in the U.S., let's hope they have a voice in November, even though the election would have come and gone and it will be too late to prevent many Catholics from selling their souls at the polls.
Our culture has adopted deconstructionism as the normal way of reading a text. Instead of trying to figure out what bishops are actually trying to say, Catholics just interpret it to mean what they want it to say. The bishops need to come out with very simple language explaining the gravity of the situation. You know, like the Dick and Jane type language Bishop Trautman advocates. We're a stiff-necked people.
Joseph: The bishops have not left us in a pit of confusion. Rather, they have articulated the Catholic moral principles involved and left the application of those principles to the complex question of voting and politics to the prudential judgment of individual Catholics since there is no single application that alone coincides with those principles. Rather, there is a diversity of possible opinions that Catholics can and do take. This is part of the Church's legitimate diversity. We do not need to be a monolith. There is one Lord, but many gifts and many services.
Brian: The bishops can't do that because there is no single legitimate Catholic opinion on the issue of whom to vote for or how best to pursue the prolife agenda. I think that the bishops have made the GRAVITY of the situation extremely clear, but it's up to the judgment of Catholics to decide what to do about it, in accord with sound Catholic moral principles.
Catholic Mom: Based on your blog post about it, it appears that Fr. Reese did not actually give up fighting the law, which he admitted was bad. He just said that he thinks that it's naive to think that overturning Roe. v. Wade will solve the problem of abortion, which, to me, seems consistent with the bishops' statement that we can't focus on Roe v. Wade exclusively. Certainly he doesn't say that Roe v. Wade shouldn't be overturned.
Good grief, people, what do you want the bishops to do? Come right out and say, "We, the bishops of the United States, hereby endorse John McCain for President?" I mean, they directly addressed the issue of FOCA and the central argument being spewed by these Catholic Democrat front groups, that a Catholic can support a vehemently pro-abortion candidate. So, beyond that, what in the world could they legitimately do?
You see... Case in point.
I'm with Chrysologus.
"...but Catholics in the democrat party must..."
it's the DEMOCRATIC party
Joseph, I get the impression from your post that I was misunderstood. Sorry if that's the case. I think you and I are in agreement on principle, but it's just that I'm proud of so many bishops finally speaking out, especially in their official capacities as officers and chairmen of the USCCB.
Perhaps they should be doing more as a conference, but I think many are doing what they should be doing.
Also, notice that there are no bishops speaking up defending these dissident voices. There was a time, not very long ago, where there almost certainly would have been.
Jason (at 10:24 p.m.) asks: " ... what in the world could they legitimately do?"
The problems is less what they "could do" than what they HAVE done. And the answer is that they have for decades intentionally undercut the pro-life political movement as much as they can possibly do, collegially of course.
Bernardin cut the pro-life movement off at the knees with his silly "seamless garment" and "Common Ground Initiative." And that was 28 year ago.
The "faithful citizenship" statements are typically long, ambiguous and utterly meaningless for most people, especially priests and chancery officials.
Pro-aborts are not the least bit threatened by the U.S. bishops. You'll recall that Bernard Nathanson has written that he never could have gotten abortion legalized without the abject cowardice of the bishops. Frank Pavone has agreed with this analysis.
The vast majority of bishops in the US are today decidedly opposed to the objectives of the right to life movement. This is known to virtually all pro-life activists.
The question is not so much what the "bishops" should do. IT is more appropriately, what should the Vatican and the pope should do. They are are appointing cowardly milqtoasts as bishops year in and year out, and watching civilization crumble in the process. They have no shame.
On some level, even conservative papist Catholics might question what in the world to they do all day and night in Rome. Are they playing video games? Doesn't that get boring, even for clerics?
They might read a newspaper now and then and notice that things are falling apart here in the real world.
At the very least, Jason, bishops are expected to teach the Catholic faith. Maybe half of them are bitterly opposed to such a task. Yet, the pope sits by watching, year in and year out.
Hierothee and Paul: Apparently the bishops believe that there are such people. Why else would they have condemned that?
I could be wrong, but I assume it is because in condemning one error, they also want to be careful not to let people fall into the opposite error.
No one would ever admit to being one of those people, I think, because it's not as if you explicitly profess that only Roe v. Wade. It's a matter of what people actually do and where their efforts actually fall.
Exactly, and my experience has been that those efforts go far beyond the legal and political realm for most people who are active in the pro-life movement.
It's a hard thing to quantify and people disagree about how much attention should be placed on the legal question. My own personal experience has been that the topic of Roe v. Wade and the law dominates the pro-life movement, possibly to an excessive degree since our ultimate goal is to win over people's hearts and minds so that they won't choose to kill their own babies.
Your experience is different than mine, and of course it's hard to say objectively which of our experiences is closer to the truth. For all we know, either one of our experiences could be atypical.
But I will say that the existence of crisis pregnancy centers in practically every medium-to-large city in the U.S. (e.g., search at www.pregnancycenters.org), with most of them funded by donations and staffed largely by volunteers, leads me to believe that there is a lot more going on in the pro-life movement than legal and political battles. For example, I live in the middle of nowhere. The nearest abortion clinic is at least 100 miles from my house, maybe even 150 miles or more (thanks be to God!). Yet there are eight crisis pregnancy centers within just 60 miles of me, including one in my small town of only 6,000 people.
to answer the rhetorical question above:
I would like the USCCB to come out and say, "abortion kills a living, innocent human being and is murder. a catholic may never vote for a pro-abortion politician when a serious alternative is available. Supporting pro-abortion politicians is on par with supporting Pol-Pot, Hitler, Stalin and other genocidial maniacs."
If they wish to insert obama's name, that too would be fine. They can't tell the faithful who to vote for, but they can inform the faithful who to vote against.
"Brian: The bishops can't do that because there is no single legitimate Catholic opinion on the issue of whom to vote for or how best to pursue the prolife agenda."
Yes there is: It's evil to choose the greater of two evils. Catholics are free to debate whether they think it's better to choose the less evil of the two tickets or to vote for a third candidate with no realistic shot of winning. But it's basic moral theology that we can't vote for the most evil candidate.
Rigali and Murphy's document is great for people who are trying to read it with the mind of the church; it needs to, however, reach those who aren't. I applaud the bishops for delving into the nuances involved in voting, but given our current culture of dissent - it's way to easy to twist this new document (as well as Faithful Citizenship) to mean anything a person wants it to mean.
Church teaching is not reaching the average Catholics in the pew. My parents, for example, pretty much represent the Catholic median. They go to Mass every Sunday, but except for that one hour you probably wouldn't notice anything particularly Catholic about them. They have no idea that bishops have been speaking out on abortion for the past few months.
The bishops are actually trying to do their job after years of watering down the faith and for some strange reason the laity after being told to question everything about their faith for decades aren't listening.
Thank you. I am a fairly regular reader of your blog and find it a wonderful way to stay informed on current events in Catholic way.
With regard this statement, I wish the Conference would have been more to the point and spoken with clarity on the issue. While this is good, it could have been better. But it does give more local bishops some framework for formal teaching in the matter.
spellcheck, no, it's actually the Abortion Party. I believe in truth in advertising. Tom
"Church teaching is not reaching the average Catholics in the pew." Bingo!
And watch National Catholic Reporter slam them for this (especially in their comment section).
If you want to overturn Roe v. Wade, tell the bishops to lean on their conservative Republican Catholic majority on the Supreme Court. At "worst" Obama could replace a couple of the minority liberals. McCain expressly rejected using a Roe test for his own appointments. Anyway, stop trying to pretend this whole controversy isn't just a Democrat v. Republican rift among the hierarchy and the "laity" or possibly an excuse for racism over common sense.
McCain expressly rejected using a Roe test for his own appointments.
Actually, Deborah, what he said was he would not apply a litmus test on any judge he plans to appoint and would choose the most qualified. I hope that sounds familiar. If it doesn't, let me remind you who said it first. George W. Bush during the 2000 and 2004 campaigns. We all know what Georgy did.
Not only that a judge's job is to uphold justice. It is never just to kill innocent children. Therefore, interpreting the Constitution to legalize the murder of innocent children is unjust. A judge who does so is failing to do his job and is unfit to be a judge. This does not require a litmus test. That is a matter of qualification.
I don't know of any committed prolifers who focus exclusively on the politics of overturnign Roe vs. Wade. as a veteran pro-life activist, my fellow pro-life activists are jack-of all-trades when it comes to the prolife apostolate, organizing meetings, speakers, fundraisers for crisis pregnancy centers, rt. to life groups, advertising campaigns, essay contests, demonstrations, sidewalk counseling, prayer at the killing centers, malpractice lawsuits, rescues,going to jail for non-cooperation or unplugging suction machines,speaking up for the Davis frozen embryo babies, speaking with the press, debating abortionists on TV and radio, asking Derek Humphrey some embarrassing questions at his talks, leafleting and picketting at abortionists' homes and offices and pro abortion feminists' talks, setting up educational stands at fairs, gathering signatures,demanding accountability from Al Gore for his votes,collecting clothes and baby items for moms in a crisis, writing and speaking with politicians, helping elect prolife candidates, boycotting abortion supporting businesses, writing prolife newsletters, and the list goes on and on.
When President Bush came into office, he pushed for the inclusion of unborn children in the S-CHIP children's health Insurance programm. This gave coverage for the prenatal visits of poor women. Under Pelosi's reign, this real aid to unborn children and their mothers was deleted. President Bush's veto forced them to keep the coverage for these children. This is the Republican plan, to include unborn children in insurance!
"possibly an excuse for racism over common sense."
Thanks for that chuckle!
Glad to hear generalized propaganda is part of your pro-life agenda, most of us look to positive support for families as well as expressing our horror over the deaths of innocent Iraqis, considered collateral damage, apparently, and not an inherent evil. George W did the very best he could as President. He gave us Catholics. Pelosi is not a Supreme Court Justice and the States, not the U.S. Congress need to be in charge of regulating abortions. McCain hasn't held a consistent position on anything in the last five days, much less five years and he is still determined to use Iraq to win the Vietnam War. I take my responsibilities as a voter seriously and hope all Catholics do the same.
"... the States, not the U.S. Congress need to be in charge of regulating abortions." I agree with that, but the democratic candidate for president does not. I don't understand the comment about "racism over common sense", however.
Obama wants to preserve a woman's "right to choose," in the first trimester under Roe as a civil rights matter, but recognizes that Roe really requires States to regulate third term abortions, because of the State's interest in the life of the unborn child. Catholic doctrine states otherwise, of course. My point really is that it is the Supreme Court and the States, not the President or the U.S. Congress (under Roe presently and even if overruled) who can do something about the state of the law as it has been for the last 30 years and in this election cycle neither could affect the most favorable majority (for conservative Catholics anyway regarding abortion) in decades by the appointment of new justices. Electing McCain has many more deleterious consequences in terms of what the President and Congress really can do, and if anything would inhibit some of the abortion "reduction" measures suggested by Obama. I don't agree with his personal position on abortion but I definitely think he is a better candidate in all other respects and think racism among some Catholics is a factor. African Americans are definitely a minority in the American Catholic Church and have certainly been subjected to discrimination. Louisiana still had "white" and "black" Catholic parishes within hollering distance of each other in the seventies.
2008 is a far cry from the '70s.The racist argument is so ethereal. By that I mean there is no way to measure it. I could call you anti-Catholic for stating that you think some Catholics are racist, but that would not make sense, any more than stating the fact that African-Americans are a minority in the Catholic church somehow relates to discrimination against them in the church.Frankly, I don't follow your argument that the appointment of Supreme Court judges is not an important consideration in this election either. I have seen and heard the democratic candidate for president state that his 1st act as president would be to enshrine unlimited abortion into federal law. If you are stating he can't possibly deliver on that promise, then he is a liar.
Too Little, Too late !! There should be no doubt in a practising Catholic's
mind to vote for the party whose platform is solidly pro-life.
Archbishop Raymond Burke, in the Vatican, said that the Democratic Party is increasingly becoming the party of death.
The number one issue is abortion - think of the approximately 50 million babies that have been murdered since 1973 !!. End of discussion.
Anytime someone says "end of discussion," you can be sure it's not.
Deborah Duggan:
Again, moral equivalency is your problem.
You equate "collateral damage" (what a sterile term) with abortion, which is incorrect because of intent.
In a (proper) court of law, the difference between murder and manslaughter is intent. When one intends to kill an innocent, that is murder. If one accidentally kills an innocent, that is manslaughter.
They cannot be equated.
Moral equivalency is your problem, as it is with all Karl Rove Catholics not mine. George Bush did the best he could to promote your agenda if you really believe Republicans are pro-life, by his adding two Catholics to form a majority on the Supreme Court. Every one of them is already a Republican and I can't for the life of me figure out why they aren't the persons in our political system who are being targeted, lobbied, threatened, whatever, by you and the Bishops.
Deborah:
I see you suffer from RDS: Republican Derangement Syndrome.
And yes, I am channeling Karl Rove as I write this. I hope you are wearing your tin foil cap to protect you from the evil vibes I am sending you this very moment.
Yikes.
Commenting by HaloScan
