AmericanPapist Comments
WOW! A brand new bishop and he wastes no time showing that he is a true shepherd. Deo gratias!
St. Thomas More is, of course, an excellent model for politicians.
And for Bishops?
St. John Fisher, who shares a June 22 feast day with More.
Like the statesman More, Bishop John Fisher refused to go along with Henry VIII's attacks on the papacy.
And also Like More, Fisher died a martyr's death in 1535 at the headman's axe.
Both were canonized in 1935 and, in a bizarre irony, both are regarded as saints by Anglicans as well.
Would that all of our politicians emulated More, and all of our Bishops emulated Fisher!
If Biden missed Mass on Sunday I pray that he goes to reconciliation before the next time he receives the Lord.
My own 'Catholic' governor, Jennifer Granholm, wears a St. Thomas More medal according to a story in a Michigan diocesan paper. She vetoed yet again in June 2008 a ban on infanticide (partial birth abortion). St. Thomas More is again humbled and chagrined.
If I recall correctly, a few years ago Bishop Saltarelli asked his people to pray a "Litany of St. Thomas More" as a "Prayer for Virtuous Governance". I suspect this is what Bishop Malooly had in mind when he said "we will continue to seek the intercession of Saint Thomas More . . . .". Here's the link to the Litany, which is found on the Wilmington Diocese web site under the writings of the Bishop.
It is a sad state of affairs that all those professed Catholic politicians are so anti-life. But on the same note, I am so glad that our Bishop's and clergy have taken this opportunity to clarify the teachings of the Church. If one good thing is to come out of this is clarification of the pro-life message.
John V -- thanks for the link to the STM litany.
BLESSED BE GOD! My dear brothers and sisters in Christ, let us pray for our priests and most especially our bishops. Let us be united in prayer, sacrifice, penance, and reparation for them! We must be the footstool for our priests. The recent boldness of our bishops humbles me. Most of us nag and complain about our priests, pastors, and bishops. LET US BE THEIR FOOTSTOOL!
Name one Republican to whom any Catholic Bishop in the U.S. has refused or threatened to refuse Communion? Please!! Archbishop Burke, when asked by a reporter if he would refuse Communion to Guiliani (whose third marriage basically excommunicated him anyway) if he should be refused Communion, Burke equivocated. He said that a person would have to know he was doing evil, or something to that effect. He didn't know if Guiliani was sufficiently aware of his sin. Never mind that Guiliani was educated in Catholic schools, etc. Burke had to be pressed to the wall to admit that "if" Guiliani knew the evil of what he was espousing, he should not receive Communion. The press summarized his statement as if he had said he would refuse Communion, but that really wasn't accurate. Not a single Bishop has ever called out Governor Schwarzeneger, arguably the most famous Catholic, world wide, who agrees with none of the Bishops' positions on any issue. Bush actually accomplished the only practical and efficient way of dealing with Roe v. Wade by engineering a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court. I am waiting for the Bishops to threaten Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas (although he has the Guiliani problem) with excommunication if they don't overturn Roe v. Wade. The Bishops won't, because those guys are Republicans. Maybe some of your twenty-something Catholics, who must be more interested in condemning the moral choices of others than examining their own, could expend their energy making that happen, along with reducing the infant mortality rate in this country. Then the rest of us would be more inclined to identify with "Catholic" politics.
Deborah, I recall Cardinal Egan was pretty tough on Rudy Guiliani on this issue. Perhaps another reason is because Republicans don't market themselves as Catholics and don't go on talk shows giving theology lessons to the general public. They are idiots and got their commuppence. Tom
Awesome! I have been critical of American bishops in the past, but I have been delighted by their responses to Pelosi and Biden in the last two weeks. God bless them. This is the leadership we've been waiting and praying for all these years.
Great news re the Bishop!
Have you seen Cindy McCain on YouTube? Another weirdo on the abortion issue... interview with Katie Couric.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T...h?
v=TE69ajamamo
Wonderful! Can't wait to see what happens next!
I agree with Bishop Malooly but I think that some people might be interpreting his statement too narrowly. Doesn't the constant teaching of the Church that we should respect every human life from conception to natural death include other issues as well as abortion? I'm pro-life. I'm involved in the pro-life movement. I'm against abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty and unjust war. Respecting life includes feeding the hungry, giving money to the poor and clothing the naked.
Should Catholics who support the death penalty be barred from communion? Should Catholics that cut programs that support the poor be barred from communion? Maybe.
These aren't questions that I claim to know the answer to. I'm just jumping in as an advocate for consistency. We should hold all people (politicians included) to the same standard in upholding a consistent life ethic.
We should probably also refrain from throwing stones (or flaming e-mails!).
"Should Catholics who support the death penalty be barred from communion?" No. Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil.
"Should Catholics that cut programs that support the poor be barred from communion?" No. Supporting or not supporting a particular government program is not intrinsically evil.
Is murder intrinsically evil? Is the death penalty actually murder when there isn't a need for it?
The role of the Church and hierarchy is to persuade first, members of the communion of the Church, on an individual and/or basis, that abortion is the wrong moral choice. Seriously, I can't understand why anyone doesn't get the obviously partisan effort to denigrate Catholic Democrats, unless most of the bloggers on this site are Republicans. The argument that abortion is "intrinsically evil," whereas apparently killing innocent Iraqi children or denying healthcare to pregnant illegal immigrants might not be, does not advance the Catholic "message," much less help Catholics or anyone to be intelligent, responsible voters or legislators. Roe v. Wade is a creature of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. It will not be "overturned" with a Constitutional Amendment even if one could possibly be drafted. I would be interested to see anyone take a stab at that. I would also like to see consistency across party lines when it comes to excommunication, both from the hierarchy and from one issue Catholics.
John, you need to brush up on some basic distinctions. Listen to bill912.
John,
I agree with Dr. Peters. To brush up, read then-Cardinal Ratzinger's Letter on the Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. He explains the distinctions you're looking for. See here:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/...pr/
050419a.html
Deborah Duggan, it's pretty clear you haven't read the Catholic Catechism on these issues, or if you have, you are willfully ignoring the distinctions it makes with regard to an extrinsic evil like abortion in contrast to the death penalty. I left the Democratic Party over this issue, because as a practicing Catholic, I did not "choose" to be associated in any way with a Party that as a matter of its platform endorses an intrinsic evil. It's also obvious you do not understand the US Constitution. Of course a Constitutional Amendment would over-ride Roe v Wade. So you've failed the test as a Catholic and a US citizen. Congratulations! Tom
Thanks for the link Boethius. It was informative and I didn't feel attacked.
Apparently, you didn't pay attention to high school civics and likely have never read Roe v. Wade. What constitutional amendment would you suggest? My point is that we really shouldn't need a constitutional amendment when we have a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court. Plessy v. Ferguson was overruled in Brown v. Board of Education. For legal purposes, segregation was deemed "unconstitutional." Roe was in part based on the medical/scientific thinking of 30 years ago. Justice Kennedy may or may not be the one hold-out on overruling Roe, even given a proper case, and there seem to be several winding their way through the courts. The truly influential public officials are the Justices on the Supreme Court. Seems to me if the Bishops want to interfere in our political system, they should go there. Some of these bloggers must not have noticed that Catholic Republican Governor Arnold of California actually drafted and pushed, and got the majority of voters to go along with the country's biggest embryonic stem cell research project yet. So why is Biden being targeted on that one? Again, however, I don't hear self-described "true Catholic" spokespersons insisting that fertility clinics, the actual source of the embryos, be shut down. In the context of responsible citizenship for Catholics distinguishing between "extrinsic evils" and "intrinsic evils" appears to be a way to avoid personal moral choices, in favor of condemning the moral choices of others. I do believe the Jesus of the Gospels had quite a bit to say about that. Maybe he wasn't conversant with the latest version of the catechism either. I personally learned by catechism from Baltimore.
Deborah, I am a constitutional lawyer. Apparently you didn't follow your civics lessons too avidly or you would know things like, that the Supreme Court once upon a time declared the federal income tax unconstitutional but a subsequent Constitutional Amendment over-rode that decision? You really need to get your facts straight before posting here. This is not the Daily Kos or Moveon.org where one can make wild, unsubstantiated assertions and get away with it. I assume you are a Democrat grasping at straws to avoid knowing or acknowledging what the Church teaches on moral issues like abortion because they conflict with your "feelings" or unvarnished opinions. Tom
Have to wonder what you mean by Constitutional lawyer or where you practice, but if you are one, how would you propose to draft an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Would you overturn the idea that a woman's right to reproductive choices, emanates from the Constitutional right to privacy? Would you say that the unborn have a constitutional right to life? (That would have far-reaching implications, including our Constitutional obligation to address infant mortality due to the unavailability of health care for poor women.) Would you say that promulgating laws about abortion laws should be "up to" each State? (Perhaps you would have preferred the analogy of the Supreme Court's having retracted its ruling on the unconstitutionality of the death penalty.) Justice Kennedy has signaled his unwillingness to challenge Roe and also drafted the opinion in the Texas sodomy case, essentially opening the door to the current gay marriage movement. I am actually curious about how you or anyone would draft an appropriate Amendment and then how would you get it passed in Congress and ratified by each of the States? Wouldn't that be more cumbersome than petitioning the Supreme Court, or, as the Bishops (some) seem to prefer, telling Justice Kennedy he should not receive Communion and telling the rest of the Catholics on the Court that they have an obligation as Catholics to overturn Roe? How should they respond, in the spirit of Thomas More, of course? I hardly think I should be ashamed to be a Democrat. Is that inherently un-Catholic?
Deborah, yes, you should be ashamed because the day is likely coming when American Catholic Churchman (because of loons like Pelosi and Biden) will pull the pin on the Abortion Party aka Democratic Party. The Nazis were big-time proponents of abortion as well. I threw that in because Democrats love to call Republicans Nazis. Sounds like what they are doing is engaging in "projection".
Drafting the constitutional amendment would be simple. Return the matter to the states to regulate as they see fit. In legal jargon, "status quo ante."
Surprisingly Prohibition got through the constitional amendment process. Ultimately it was undone by another constitutional process. Tom
Well, currently, Roe v. Wade isn't an amendment to the Constitution, it's an interpretation of rights protected by the Constitution, balancing (or attempting to balance) a woman's right to privacy with the State's interest in protecting the life of an unborn child (third term). So, it seems to me, overruling Roe v. Wade, which would have the effect of returning the abortion decision to the States would have exactly the same effect as your amendment, but be easier to "pull off," so to speak.
Deborah, what's your point? You go from the laughable assertion that you can't change Roe v Wade by a constitutional amendment to saying it would be easy to over-rule it by judicial fiat. Make up your mind, which side you're arguing from. Really, please go back to Moveon.org or the Daily Kos your true spiritual home. It aint' the Catholic Church. Tom
Well, apart from trying to understand your position as a "constitutional lawyer," I guess I have to conclude that you're a lot more interested in diatribe, based on ad hominem arguments, than action. Roe v. Wade was judicial fiat, so what is YOUR point?
Deborah, it's pointless to carry on this "discussion" because you simply do not care to understand the law, including the US Constitution and how it works and how it may be amended. I pointed out to you early on that you were profoundly mistaken that Roe v Wade could not be reversed by a constitional amendment and from that point on you have been bobbing and weaving in an illogical manner to avoid acknowledging your initial error. By the way, you started the ad hominem when you asserted that I did for not understand my civics classes. But I understand. Only conservatives engage in ad hominem. Liberals never do. Enjoy voting for your pro-abortion candidate. And then make a good confession. Tom
I never said it couldn't be reversed with a constitutional amendment, my point is that we do not need an amendment to the constitution simply to refer the abortion matter back to the States, if that is all you want to accomplish. It seems more likely, in all seriousness, that it should be possible to persuade the Catholics on the Supreme Court (really just one probably) to do the right thing, if that's how you feel, than to try to muster the votes to amend the Constitution. Tactically, wouldn't it make more sense to file an amicus brief or two on the cases coming up to the Supreme Court than spending time attacking the theological opinions of Democratic legislators?
Mr. Peters,
I laud your good work.
However, I must correct your (mis)quotation of St. Thomas More's famous last words.
In his authoritative Thomas More Source Book (see: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Mor.../dp/0813213762)
. the acclaimed More scholar, Dr. Gerald Wegemer (who taught me in grad school) presents firsthand evidence that More actually said, "I die the King's Good Servant, AND God's first."
See the National Review article linked on my nascent blog: http://saintthomasmoremarquette....arch/label/
King
Pax et Bonum,
Peter Heyne
President, St. Thomas More Society,
Marquette University Law School
Commenting by HaloScan
