An Election Prayer by Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ (Servant of God)
Lord Jesus Christ, You told us to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.
Enlighten the minds of our people in America. May we choose a President of the United States and other government officials according to Your Divine Will.
Give our citizens the courage to choose leaders of our nation who respect the sanctity of unborn human life, the sanctity of marriage, the sanctity of marital relations, the sanctity of the family and the sanctity of the aging.
Grant us the wisdom to give You what belongs to You, our God. If we do this as a nation, we are confident You will give us an abundance of Your blessings through our elected leaders. Amen.
Among the over 115+ bishops who have spoken out in this election in defense of Church teaching are 74 ordinaries (bishops who head dioceses). That's over one-third of the 197 dioceses and archdioceses in the United States.
There are also 5 cardinals and 13 archbishops on the list.
The regional dispersion is rather even: South 10, Southeast 7, Southwest 11, West 6, Northeast 21, Midwest 31, and Northwest 3.
The "red state, blue state" representation is close to even as well: Red 43, Blue 40.Here is what looks like the final list for the 2008 election. Thanks to all the readers who offered additions and corrections. (Please let me know if I have left any out.)
"A Catholic Mom in Hawaii" has listed these bishops by states and dioceses. Thanks Esther!1. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver
2. Bishop James Conley, auxiliary of Denver
3. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C.
4. Justin Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities
5. Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, chairman of the Committee on Doctrine
6. Edward Cardinal Egan of New York
7. Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo
8. Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh
9. Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs
10. Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio
11. Bishop Oscar Cantu, auxiliary of San Antonio
12. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre
13. Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa
14. Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas
15. Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin
16. Sean Cardinal O'Malley of Boston
17. Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando
18. Archbishop John Nienstedt of Saint Paul/Minneapolis
19. Francis Cardinal George of Chicago, President of the USCCB
20. Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker
21. Bishop Jerome Listecki of La Crosse
22. Bishop Richard Lennon of Cleveland
23. Bishop Ralph Nickless of Sioux City
24. Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco
25. Bishop Glen Provost of Lake Charles, LA
26. Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn
27. Bishop Joseph F. Martino of Scranton
28. Archbishop Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura
30. Bishop Peter J. Jugis of Charlotte
31. Bishop Michael F. Burbidge of Raleigh
32. Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, KS
33. Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph, MO
34. Bishop Robert C. Morlino of Madison, WS35. Bishop Ronald Gilmore of Dodge City, KS36. Bishop Paul Coakley of Salina, KS37. Bishop Michael Jackels of Wichita38. Bishop Gerald M. Barbarito of Palm Beach39. Bishop Kevin W. Vann of Fort Worth
40. Bishop Rene H. Gracida, retired, of Corpus Christi
41. Daniel Cardinal DiNardo of Houston
42. Bishop Paul S. Loverde of Arlington
43. Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo of Richmond
44. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Center
45. Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester
46. Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Patterson
47. Bishop Robert Herrmann of St. Louis
48. Archbishop Edwin O'Brien of Baltimore
49. Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix
50. Bishop Thomas D. Doran of Rockford
51. Bishop Joseph A. Galante of Camden
52. Bishop Robert J. Baker of Birmingham
53. Archbishop Alexander J. Brunett of Seattle
54. Bishop J. Peter Sartain of Joliet
55. Bishop John M. Smith of Trenton
56. Bishop Earl Boyea of Lansing
57. Bishop Leonard R. Blair of Toledo
58. Bishop Francis J. Dewane of Venice
59. Bishop W. Frances Malooly of Wilmington
60. Bishop John Yanta, retired, of Amarillo
61. Bishop James V. Johnston of Springfield-Cape Girardeau
62. Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland
63. Bishop Blase J. Cupich of Rapid City
64. Bishop Lawrence Brandt of Greensburg
65. Bishop Dennis M. Schnurr of Cincinatti
66. Bishop Larry Silva of Honolulu
67. Bishop Paul Swain of Sioux Falls
68. Bishop Michael J. Sheehan of Santa Fe
69. Bishop Eusebius Beltran of Oklahoma City
70. Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Harrisburg
71. Archbishop Daniel Buechlein of Indianapolis
72. Bishop Alexander Sample of Marquette
73. Bishop Timothy McDonnell of Springfield, MA
74. Archbishop Timothy Dolan of Milwaukee
75. Bishop David Ricken of Green Bay
76. Bishop William Higi of Lafayette
77. Bishop Patrick Zurek of Amarillo
78. Archbishop Alfred Hughes of New Orleans
79. Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence80. Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory of Atlanta
81. Archbishop John F. Donoghue, retired, of Atlanta
82. Bishop George W. Coleman of Fall River, MA
83. Bishop Peter Christensen of Superior, WI
84. Archbishop Elden F. Curtiss of Omaha
85. Bishop Ron Ganier of Louisville
86. Joint Statement by the bishops of New York State (22 bishops)
87. Joint Statement by the bishops of Pennsylvania (16 bishops)
88. Joint Statement by the bishops of Kansas (4 bishops)89. Joint Statement by the bishops of Florida (9 bishops)
Te Deum Laudamus! Home
Plundering the Plumber's Records
by Michelle Malkin
If Joe the Plumber were Jawad the Suspected Terrorist, civil liberties activists would stampede the halls of Congress on his behalf. Liberal columnists would hyperventilate over the outrageous invasions of his privacy by Ohio state and local employees. The ACLU would demand the Big Brother snoopers' heads. And Democratic leaders would convene immediate hearings and parade him around the Beltway as the new poster boy/victim of unlawful domestic spying.
But because peaceful American citizen Joe Wurzelbacher is an outspoken enemy of socialism, rather than an enemy of America, the defenders of privacy have responded to his plight with an impenetrable cone of silence.
After the last presidential debate, during which John McCain invoked Joe the Plumber's anti-socialism shot heard 'round the world, several taxpayer-subsidized employees in Ohio immediately rifled through government databases in search of damning information. The Columbus Dispatch identified Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, as one of the dirt-diggers. She also happens to support Barack Obama and contributed the maximum amount to his presidential campaign.
On Wednesday, Jones-Kelley admitted that the records checks on Wurzelbacher that she approved were far more extensive than she first acknowledged. In addition to pawing through his child-support papers, the agency "also checked Wurzelbacher in its computer systems to determine whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes."
Jones-Kelley argued that plumbing the plumber's information was no big deal because the agency always checks up on citizens who come into public light. Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland quickly pooh-poohed the civil liberties infringements and denied any nefarious political motives.
If that doesn't send a chill up your spine, you don't have a spine.
...continue reading Plundering the Plumber's Records
Te Deum Laudamus! Home
The Catholic Church and the Issues
In this election cycle, many public misrepresentations about Catholic teaching on the
life issues, particularly abortion, have surfaced.
Certain groups and individuals have used their own erroneous interpretations of Church documents,particularly the U.S. Bishops’ statement on Faithful Citizenship, to justify their political positions and to contradict the Church’s actual teaching on the centrality of abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research.
The faithful of the Diocese of Scranton are hereby reminded that partisan political groups such as Catholic United, Catholics in Alliancefor the Common Good, and other like-minded groups and individuals who make statements about Catholic teaching do not speak with the same authority or authenticity as their bishop.
This issue of The Catholic Light contains several articles that clarify what the Church actually teaches about the issues and the concept of the common good.
Warriors with Our Eyes Fixed on HeavenSource: Bishop Finn's Latest Column at the Catholic Key BlogLast Saturday I had the privilege of consecrating the restored church of Old St. Patrick. This is the oldest existing Catholic church in Kansas City. It will serve as the Oratory for the Latin Mass community which first began here under Bishop John Sullivan, and for many years has shared the parish of Our Lady of Sorrows.
One of the beauties of the Traditional Latin High Mass that I celebrated is that it highlights a most profound aspect of the Mass, namely our participation with the Communion of Saints. The high altar, multiple candles, incense and Gregorian chant, collectively give us a striking image of the Heavenly Jerusalem which is our ultimate home. Every Mass celebrates this reality, but I must admit that the traditional Mass captured this magnificent expression of the ultimate hope and goal of Christians in a powerful way. We should reflect on this often, because the ultimate goal of everything we do is to get ourselves to heaven and bring with us as many as we can.
The month of November begins with the two great celebrations: All Saints day (November 1) and the Commemoration of All Souls (November 2). These feasts celebrate our communion with the "Church triumphant" in heaven, and the "Church suffering" in purgatory. Today I would like to share a few brief comments about what we have sometimes called the "Church militant," the Church here on earth.
We, the Church on earth, have a very special challenge as participants in the grace and life of Jesus Christ to "fight" against the enemies of Christ's justice and truth and light and life. We must be attentive to the demands of this daily "battle" in a peaceable but serious manner.
I am sometimes amazed at the casual manner with which Christians, Catholics included, take up our life within what Pope John Paul II rightly called the "culture of death." The Church, by comparison, reminds us that we are engaged - by reason of our Baptism and Confirmation - in a battle, "not with flesh and blood, but with the principalities and powers, with the rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in heaven." (Eph 6:12) Jesus Christ has won the ultimate battle, but we, in the course of our human life must make our choice, determining on whose side we will live and die. Whose side will you choose?!
What is at stake in this battle is our immortal soul, our salvation. My responsibility as bishop is with the eternal destiny of those entrusted to my care. My total energies must be directed to the well being of those who otherwise may come under the spell of a radically flawed and fundamentally distorted moral sense, at odds with what our Mother the Church teaches. There are objective and transcendent truths. There is such a thing as right and wrong. There is a legitimate hierarchy of moral evils, and the direct willful destruction of human life can never be justified; it can never be supported. Do you believe this firm teaching of the Church?
Did you know that in Canada priests and Christian ministers have already been brought before tribunals for preaching and teaching in support of marriage? They are charged with "hate speech" against homosexuality. In light of the tyranny of choice growing each day in our own beloved country, we ought to be ready for similar attacks on religious freedom. We must not fail to preach the Gospel. We can not withhold the truth of our faith. That is why I will never be silent about human life. It is why I am proud of so many others - bishops, priests, deacons, religious and laity - who are not afraid to speak out about the values that matter most. What about you?!
Our Lord told His apostles that they would be hated by the world, just as He was. Nearly all of them died a martyr's death. As warriors in the Church militant, we must never resort to violence. But we must stand up fearlessly against the agents of death, the enemies of human life. Human beings are not Satan, but we know too well that they can come under his spell. They can become willing agents of death, numbed and poisoned in this culture of death. What about you?!
As we begin this month of November, the month of the Church, let us call upon the Saints to inspire us, befriend us, and pray for us. Let us offer many prayers and sacrifices for the poor souls who have gone before us. They need our meritorious suffrages to help them reach heaven.
And let us resolve to be warriors of the Church militant; warriors with our eyes fixed on heaven. Let us ask God's mercy and strength to persevere in our call - individual and collective - to holiness. Mary, Mother of the Church, Pray for us!
What: A bowling party hosted by the Knights of Columbus in efforts to raise money for the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross monastery in Brazil.
How Much: It will cost $15.00 per person during the day session and $25.00 per person during the night session. Each session includes two hours of bowling, shoes, two slices of pizza and a pop.
When: November 15th from 2:00pm to 4:30pm (Day session) and November 15th 8:30pm to 11pm (Night session).
Where: Universal Lanes, 2101 E 12 Mile Rd Warren, MI 48092 (on 12 Mile in-between Dequindre and Ryan).
Why: The proceeds will be donated to the Monastery of Santa Cruz (Mosteiro da Santa Cruz), a Canons Regular of the Holy Cross monastery in Brazil. Recently, Fr. Basil Nortz, the prior of this monastery, contacted Council 13419 asking us to adopt two seminarians of his order. The Council voted to organize this event in an effort to raise additional funds for the seminarians.
How Do You Sign Up: To reserve a spot, please send an email to rpc10@albion.edu by November 8th. We will need to give Universal Lanes an estimate of how many bowlers we will have. If you don’t reserve a spot, you can still come and bowl – Universal Lanes would like to have a rough estimate as to how many people will be attending.
Is It OK To Invite Family And Friends?: Yes, it would be great to have as many people as possible to raise money for this cause. This will be a great event for the youth of the parish and will give parishioners the opportunity to meet the men of the Knights of Columbus.
Any questions, please let me know.
Thanks,
Ryan Cryderman
Over 80 bishops have said that abortion/life issues are defining matters.for the Election. They have not injected themselves into partisan politics; they were drawn in by Catholic politicians skewing the teachings of the Church in public ways. The bishops are the teaching authority on Catholic matters for their dioceses.Bishop Responds to Governor
The Most Reverend Earl Boyea, Bishop of Lansing, issued the following statement on October 27, 2008 in response to recent comments by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm:In a Sunday address in Grand Rapids, Governor Jennifer Granholm incredibly said of Proposal 2 "As a Catholic, I can say to be pro-cure is to be pro-life." Of course, Catholics and all other responsible citizens will continue to seek cures for disease and injury. But to imply that Proposal 2 is a valid expression of Catholic principles is shocking. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Proposal 2, which goes before Michigan voters in a week, would give an unrestricted license to those who perform destructive experiments on human embryos. While the Catholic Church strongly supports legitimate forms of stem cell research and all other proper forms of scientific inquiry, the Church also teaches that is it is always immoral to destroy a human embryo. For that reason, the Catholic Bishops of Michigan have taken a strong position in opposition to this well-funded assault on human life.
Saint Paul reminds us that we must preach the Truth in season and out of season. The Truth will never go unspoken. To be in favor of Proposal 2 is not to be pro-life. A well-formed Catholic conscience would never lead a person to support Proposal 2 "as a Catholic."
"The Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries
on to this day. The framers had that same blind spot ... the fundamental flaw of
this country."
In the news...
In the blogosphere....
Note: Many of comboxes are as interesting as the original posts.
No other issue, not all other issues taken together, can constitute a proportionate reason for voting for candidates that intend to preserve and defend this holocaust of innocent human life that is abortion.
I strongly urge every one of you to make a Novena and pray the Rosary to Our Lady of Victory between October 27th and Election Day, November 4th. Pray that God’s will be done and the most innocent and utterly vulnerable of our brothers and sisters will be protected from this barbaric and grossly sinful blight on society that is abortion. No woman, and no man, has the right to choose to murder an innocent human being.
Click here to download a PDF copy of Father's entire article (1 page) to email, link and distribute freely.
Just Look
The picture on this page is an untouched photograph of a being that has been within its mother for 20 weeks. Please do me the favor of looking at it carefully.
Have you any doubt that it is a human being?
If you do not have any such doubt, have you any doubt that it is an innocent human being?
If you have no doubt about this either, have you any doubt that the authorities in a civilized society are duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if anyone were to wish to kill it?
If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest—even insist—that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot—must not—be tolerated.
But you might protest that all of this is too easy. Why, you might inquire, have I not delved into the opinion of philosophers and theologians about the matter? And even worse: Why have I not raised the usual questions about what a "human being" is, what a "person" is, what it means to be "living," and such? People who write books and articles about abortion always concern themselves with these kinds of things. Even the justices of the Supreme Court who gave us "Roe v. Wade" address them. Why do I neglect philosophers and theologians? Why do I not get into defining "human being," defining "person," defining "living," and the rest? Because, I respond, I am sound of mind and endowed with a fine set of eyes, into which I do not believe it is well to cast sand. I looked at the photograph, and I have no doubt about what I saw and what are the duties of a civilized society if what I saw is in danger of being killed by someone who wishes to kill it or, if you prefer, someone who "chooses" to kill it. In brief: I looked, and I know what I saw.
But what about the being that has been in its mother for only 15 weeks or only 10? Have you photographs of that too? Yes, I do. However, I hardly think it necessary to show them. For if we agree that the being in the photograph printed on this page is an innocent human being, you have no choice but to admit that it may not be legitimately killed even before 20 weeks unless you can indicate with scientific proof the point in the development of the being before which it was other than an innocent human being and, therefore, available to be legitimately killed. Nor have Aristotle, Aquinas or even the most brilliant embryologists of our era or any other era been able to do so. If there is a time when something less than a human being in a mother morphs into a human being, it is not a time that anyone has ever been able to identify, though many have made guesses. However, guesses are of no help. A man with a shotgun who decides to shoot a being that he believes may be a human being is properly hauled before a judge. And hopefully, the judge in question knows what a "human being" is and what the implications of someone's wishing to kill it are. The word "incarceration" comes to mind.
However, we must not stop here. The matter becomes even clearer and simpler if you obtain from the National Geographic Society two extraordinary DVDs. One is entitled "In the Womb" and illustrates in color and in motion the development of one innocent human being within its mother. The other is entitled "In the Womb—Multiples" and in color and motion shows the development of two innocent human beings—twin boys—within their mother. If you have ever allowed yourself to wonder, for example, what "living" means, these two DVDs will be a great help. The one innocent human being squirms about, waves its arms, sucks its thumb, smiles broadly and even yawns; and the two innocent human beings do all of that and more: They fight each other. One gives his brother a kick, and the other responds with a sock to the jaw. If you can convince yourself that these beings are something other than living and innocent human beings, something, for example, such as "mere clusters of tissues," you have a problem far more basic than merely not appreciating the wrongness of abortion. And that problem is—forgive me—self-deceit in a most extreme form.
Adolf Hitler convinced himself and his subjects that Jews and homosexuals were other than human beings. Joseph Stalin did the same as regards Cossacks and Russian aristocrats. And this despite the fact that Hitler and his subjects had seen both Jews and homosexuals with their own eyes, and Stalin and his subjects had seen both Cossacks and Russian aristocrats with theirs. Happily, there are few today who would hesitate to condemn in the roundest terms the self-deceit of Hitler, Stalin or even their subjects to the extent that the subjects could have done something to end the madness and protect living, innocent human beings.
It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing—and approving—with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers. We know full well that to kill what is clearly seen to be an innocent human being or what cannot be proved to be other than an innocent human being is as wrong as wrong gets. Nor can we honorably cover our shame (1) by appealing to the thoughts of Aristotle or Aquinas on the subject, inasmuch as we are all well aware that their understanding of matters embryological was hopelessly mistaken, (2) by suggesting that "killing" and "choosing to kill" are somehow distinct ethically, morally or criminally, (3) by feigning ignorance of the meaning of "human being," "person," "living," and such, (4) by maintaining that among the acts covered by the right to privacy is the act of killing an innocent human being, and (5) by claiming that the being within the mother is "part" of the mother, so as to sustain the oft-repeated slogan that a mother may kill or authorize the killing of the being within her "because she is free to do as she wishes with her own body."
One day, please God, when the stranglehold on public opinion in the United States has been released by the extremists for whom abortion is the center of their political and moral life, our nation will, in my judgment, look back on what we have been doing to innocent human beings within their mothers as a crime no less heinous than what was approved by the Supreme Court in the "Dred Scott Case" in the 19th century, and no less heinous than what was perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin in the 20th. There is nothing at all complicated about the utter wrongness of abortion, and making it all seem complicated mitigates that wrongness not at all. On the contrary, it intensifies it.
Do me a favor. Look at the photograph again. Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of "legalized" abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act.
Edward Cardinal Egan
Archbishop of New York
"State and local officials are investigating if state and law-enforcement computer systems were illegally accessed when they were tapped for personal information about "Joe the Plumber."
Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher became part of the national political lexicon Oct. 15 when Republican presidential candidate John McCain mentioned him frequently during his final debate with Democrat Barack Obama.
The 34-year-old from the Toledo suburb of Holland is held out by McCain as an example of an American who would be harmed by Obama's tax proposals.
Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate.
Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.
It has not been determined who checked on Wurzelbacher, or why. Direct access to driver's license and vehicle registration information from BMV computers is restricted to legitimate law enforcement and government business.
Consider that if someone with the kind of past associations as Barack Obama applied for a job with the federal government he would not pass the background check. Forget the government - most of the mainstream media has spent more time investigating the private life of Joe the Plumber than they have on Barack Obama.
Te Deum Laudamus! Home
Writing a Friday post on the Jesuits’ America magazine group blog “In All Things,” Stricherz responded to fellow blogger Michael Sean Winters’ description of the prelate as the nation’s “second most vocal supporter of the GOP.”Go read more at CNA: Archbishop Chaput’s pro-life remarks ‘not Republican or Democratic,’ pro-life Democrat says
Calling the description a “mischaracterization,” Stricherz, a pro-life Democrat, said he thinks it reflects “a larger misunderstanding that progressive Catholics have about their co-religionist opponents.”
He then referenced Archbishop Chaput’s August remarks in which the prelate acknowledged many important issues are relevant to the election, but also asserted that the right to life is “foundational” and all other rights depend on it.
“We can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children,” Archbishop Chaput commented, continuing:
“Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent ‘pro-choice’ Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.”
Stricherz said the archbishop’s stance should not be interpreted in a partisan spirit.
“This position is not, strictly speaking, Republican or Democratic,” he noted, saying it was the same position of the late Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey, Sr.
Good news: Bishop Schneider's book, "Dominus Est," on the distribution of Holy Communion, just rolled off the presses yesterday. The retail price is eight dollars, but a 50% discount is being offered for the first month for orders of five copies or more to the same address (shipping & handling billed accordingly).Orders may be sent to: Newman House Press, 601 Buhler Court, Pine Beach, NJ 08741.An order form and further information may also be obtained by going to: jhcnewman.org; then click on "Newman House Press."
Priests and other Catholics are speaking up, as well:
And, don't miss this: Gotta Watch Video: American's Choice 2008
WASHINGTON—"Our faith requires us to oppose abortion on demand and to provide help to mothers facing challenging pregnancies," Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia and Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., said in an October 21 statement. The bishops urged Catholics to study the teaching of the Church, rather than rely on statements and materials from outside groups and individuals.
Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy made the joint statement in response to arguments that the Church should accept the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision on abortion as a "permanent fixture of constitutional law" and should concede that the only way to reduce abortions is to provide more government support for pregnant women. At the same time the two bishops also responded to those who argue that the Church's efforts against abortion should focus solely on restoring recognition for unborn children's human rights and that proposals to provide social and economic support for pregnant women distract from that effort.
Cardinal Rigali chairs of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities. Bishop Murphy chairs the bishops' Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development.
"Providing support for pregnant women so they choose to have their babies is a necessary but not sufficient response to abortion. Similarly, reversal of Roe is a necessary but not sufficient condition for restoring an order of justice in our society's treatment of defenseless human life," they said.
The bishops also noted that "in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision knocked down laws against abortion in all 50 states, fabricating a constitutional 'right' to abortion that continues to haunt and divide our society....Roe v. Wade is a clear case of an 'intrinsically unjust law' we are morally obliged to oppose. Reversing it is not a mere political tactic, but a moral imperative for Catholics and others who respect human life," they said.
The bishops added that legalizing abortion had greatly increased annual abortions in the United States. "The law is a teacher, and Roe taught many women, physicians and others that abortion is an acceptable answer to a wide range of problems."
The bishops noted strides made in modifying Roe v. Wade's unjust legal precedent and drew attention to the many lives saved by the modest laws and regulations allowed under Roe. They voiced concern that the pending pro-abortion "Freedom of Choice Act" (S. 1173, H.R. 1964) in Congress would threaten strides made in limiting abortions.
"Bans on public funding [of abortion], laws requiring informed consent for women and parental involvement for minors, and other modest and widely supported laws have saved millions of lives. Laws made possible by reversing Roe would save many more," they said.
"On the other hand, this progress could be lost through a key pro-abortion proposal, the 'Freedom of Choice Act,' which supporters say would knock down hundreds of current pro-life laws and forbid any public program to 'discriminate' against abortion in providing services to women," Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy said.
"By protecting the child's life to the maximum degree possible, improving life-affirming support for pregnant women, and changing the attitudes and prejudices imposed on many women to make them see abortion as an acceptable or necessary solution, we will truly help build a culture of life," they said.
The full text of the joint statement may be found at www.usccb.org/prolife/Rigali-Murphy-Joint-Statement.pdf.
[snip]We've always believed from the outset that abortion is wrong. But throughout the years, debated the degree to which it is wrong. There are always cases where it is never a first choice. It is always viewed as a dire decision. But throughout the church's history, we've argued between whether or not it is wrong in every circumstance and the degree of wrong. Catholics have this notion, it's almost a gradation.
We have mortal sins, venial sins, well, up until Pius IX, there were times when we said, 'Look, there are circumstances in which it's wrong but it is not damnation. Along came Pius IX in the 1860s and declared in fine doctrine, this was the first time that it occurred that it was absolute human life and being at the moment of conception.
It's always been a debate. I take my religion very seriously.
I think it's going to be an issue for everybody. Anyone who's a Catholic, a practicing Catholic, this is a dilemma for. There's an expression in law school: hard cases make bad law. These are just very, very, very difficult moral, social and societal choices.
And for me, I am prepared as a senator to say that the framework of Roe v. Wade based upon this imperfect trimester notion captures the gravity of how you should approach this most serious of decisions relating to life and death. First trimester, the state should stay out of it completely because it's a matter of faith, basically, there. Second trimester, there are competing interests, but they're both legitimate to look at. Third trimester, there's an overwhelming burden to say, there isn't a good reason to abort unless it relates to the mother's health. I'm as comfortable as I can be on a really difficult moral dilemma.
To sum it up, as a Catholic, I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy.
Benediction took place around 5:00pm following the Day of Recollection offered by Fr. Basil Nortz, ORC, who was visiting from Brazil. 
To suggest -- as some Catholics do -- that Senator Obama is this year’s “real” pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred “pro-life” option is to subvert what the word “pro-life” means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert George’s essay of earlier this week, “Obama’s Abortion Extremism,” at thepublicdiscourse.com. It says everything that needs to be said.
Adoration * Oct 29-30
For the love of Our Country and for the election of a Pro-Life President and Pro-Life Congress,we will have “Around-the-Clock Adoration” on October 29-30.
Adoration will begin after the 9:00AM Holy Mass on Wednesday, October 29, and continue all night in the Chapel. Specific details are outlined on the poster in the vestibule.
It is necessary to sign-up for specific hours so please sign-up on the sheet in the vestibule if you are interested in committing at least one hour of Adoration before the Blessed Sacrament to beg Our Lord to bless us with Pro-Life Leaders in these perilous times.
Editorial (10/15/08)Now for the words of Fr. John Bustamante:
Open Letter to Christians Voting for Obama
Guest Column
Today I am happy to present a letter written by Fr. John Bustamante. It was presented as a private e-mail, and I have obtained his consent to show his letter on my web site. But allow me three little comments only tangentially related, which I’d rather not wait until next week to write:
1. Before the letter, I wish to provide a link to this important video and article, documenting the ferociously violent hatred pro-abortion and pro-homosexual activists have for the Catholic Church: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13854.
2. Second, some of you know about the Freedom of Choice Act. With typical hypocrisy, the pro-abortionists include “freedom of choice,” but the fact is, your tax dollars would provide endless abortions, mountains of aborted babies, and you would not be free to do anything about it. Several bishops have expressed objections about it, as the elections draw near, for example, Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City, Mo., and Cardinal Justin Regali, Archbishop of Philadelphia (link opens .pdf).
3. Third, recently I mused so: if you give power to men who abort babies, then why will they stop the killing once it comes to you? Voters can be amazingly superficial.
These introductory comments bring abortion to mind, but now let us consider Fr. Bustamante’s Open Letter, (emphases in original.), as I sign off to you, Gentle Reader,
- Fr. Paul Ward
Open Letter to Christians Voting for Obama
By Fr. John Bustamante
I would like to ask you a question: if you were a Supreme Court Justice sitting on the bench in 1973 and your vote was one of the nine votes for or against abortion-on-demand, how would you have voted? Would you have voted for abortion-on-demand or against it? Since we are speaking hypothetically, you needn’t concern yourself with any other issues of the interpretation of the Constitution. Or the right to privacy—an argument that was acknowledged to be false in the personal diaries of the very Supreme Court Chief Justice who had handed the abortion-on-demand decision down just months before. Just base your answer on the one thing that isn’t hypothetical—your Catholic or Christian faith. Your belief in Jesus Christ. Your full knowledge that you will one day stand before him and render an accounting for what you did in the body—whether good or evil (2 Cor 5:10). How would you have voted?
The answer to that question will tell you whether you are Catholic or not. It will tell you whether you are Christian or not. It will tell you whether you believe in God—the Giver of life—or not. It will tell you whether you believe in the Fifth Commandment or not. Are you—hypothetically—going to condemn millions of unborn children to a horrific death in their mothers wombs? But more importantly—and more certainly—are you willing to stand before God as one who supported such an intrinsically evil act?
Six months ago, I was convinced that the Republican Party and Democratic Party had colluded to eliminate abortion from the November ballot. I was certain that we would have to choose between two pro-abortion presidential candidates on the November ballot. I was wrong. In fact, I was so wrong that the November ballot is exactly the opposite. The November election is nothing short of a national referendum on abortion.
In 1973, the Supreme Court short-circuited the democratic process and took the abortion issue out of the hands of voters and put it into the hands of abortionists, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and others who have, time and time again, shown that they treat human life like any other political issue. This year, for the first time since 1973, the American people will have the opportunity to vote on whether they agree with Roe vs. Wade or not.
John McCain has thrown down the gauntlet to America. His pro-life voting record and his naming of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential candidate has completely eliminated any doubt about where he stands on abortion and even what he is willing to do as President of the United States to back up his stance. Conversely, the same can be said of Barak Obama and Joe Biden. Their stand on expanding and extending abortion goes beyond what even the most virulent pro-abortion organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood require to give a candidate a 100% voting record.
You need not pretend you are one of the nine Justices handing down a decision in 1973. If you vote—and even if you don’t—you will be, more importantly, casting your vote before God. By voting for the Political Party of Death, you are voting for the continuation and expansion of abortion, euthanasia, the destruction of human embryos, the undermining of marriage and all the consequences that entails, the stripping of the rights of parents to educate and protect their children, and countless other immoral and even unlawful consequences. These aren’t possibilities. They are simply the track record of Democrats over the past 30 years and, moreover, they are the campaign promises made by Barak Obama and Joseph Biden.
The mortal sin of voting for the two pro-abortion candidates and further empowering their Political Party is not hypothetical. It is something for which you will answer to God.
Voting for pro-abortion candidates and further empowering their Political Party means that you will have exercised the fullest expression of participation in government that our political system gives its citizens to contribute to the deaths of even more unborn children. There is little more that you can do politically to be accountable for continuing and expanding abortion—except support the campaigns of pro-abortion candidates with lawn signs and bumper stickers and campaign contributions. Think about it: you are going to stand before God and tell Him that your conscience told you that gas prices were more important than life? That higher taxes to fund bigger government was more important than life? That the class warfare that is being incessantly waged is more important than life? I don’t think that a single pro-abortion legislator has ever performed an abortion, but they have directly enabled tens of thousands of abortionists to commit tens of millions of abortions.
Blessed Teresa of Calcutta said it is a poverty that a child must die that you may live as you wish. It is a poverty that so many Christians are voting as if there is no God. If we daily entrust the souls of the infants who were murdered by abortion to God’s Mercy, then to whom do we entrust those who took their lives? Jesus said, “Blessed are those who show mercy, mercy shall be theirs” (Matthew 5:7). May your vote in November be a vote of mercy for the unborn.
Dr. Peter Kreeft is a philosophy professor at Boston College and King's College. He has written 45 books, many of which are well known in Catholic circles. 
Assumption Grotto is holding all night Adoration into Election Day morning. It ends with the 6:30am daily Traditional Latin Mass (typically a low Mass). Security will be provided and we have gotten permission to have coffee and donuts in the back vestibule for those who will be staying long hours overnight (and some have vowed to stay all night!)
The USCCB has asked all Catholics to pray the Election Novena.
Fr. Corapi has encouraged a Rosary Novena:
No other issue, not all other issues taken together, can constitute a proportionate reason for voting for candidates that intend to preserve and defend this holocaust of innocent human life that is abortion.I strongly urge every one of you to make a Novena and pray the Rosary to Our Lady of Victory between October 27th and Election Day, November 4th. Pray that God’s will be done and the most innocent and utterly vulnerable of our brothers and sisters will be protected from this barbaric and grossly sinful blight on society that is abortion. No woman, and no man, has the right to choose to murder an innocent human being.
Click here to download a PDF copy of Father's entire article (1 page) to email, link and distribute freely.
Any of you who are moved by the subject matter in this article, you may want to check out this week's "Weekly Wisdom" Click here to see the schedule.
WHAT IS YOUR PARISH DOING?
Is there something special going on in your parish such as all night Adoration, special prayers leading up to the election, or other? Please list them in the combox. Let's get a list going so that others can see where they can catch something, or get ideas for things they can initiate in their own parish.
IS IT MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TO VOTE FOR McCAIN?
There is a very good blogpost out there on the blog of Jimmy Akin by one of his co-writers on morality and voting. It addresses the seldomly discussed topic on Catholics who don't feel they can vote for McCain on the basis of his support of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. I had a lead-in commentary about the stakes in this election for the US Supreme Court and Federal Court system ast large. All comments on this topic need to be directed to the blogpost below to keep this combox open for a list of devotions and prayers for th election.
Go read: Pro-life Voters: Is it wrong to Vote for McCain because he is not 100% Pro-life?
EDIT: One sidenote - please keep in mind that tomorrow, Fr. Basil Nortz, ORC will be holding a Day of Recollection at Assumption Grotto.
Te Deum Laudamus! Home
Some interesting headlines:
Recent Posts on Te Deum:
Recent Photo Posts on Te Deum:
Continues to treat of mortification and explains how one must renounce the world's standards of wisdom in order to attain to true wisdom.
The Abortion Albatross
by Carl Anderson
c. 2008 Religion News Service
Abortion has been an albatross around the Democratic Party's neck since at least 1980, helping to keep it out of the White House for all but eight of the last 28 years.
Will 2008 be any different?
Once again, the Democrats have tied their fortunes to abortion rights, hoping to compensate with a historic outreach effort to Catholic voters. But this may simply lend empirical support to Einstein's adage that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Let's start at the end of the 1970s, when the abortion lobby's influence over the Democratic Party grew quickly in the decade following Roe v. Wade. That influence doomed the candidacy of a strongly pro-life Sargent Shriver in 1976, and produced a platform plank that year that opposed any effort to overturn Roe.
When it became clear that pro-life candidates would lose financial support and even become targets in Democratic primaries unless they switched sides, most of them did. But the party paid a heavy price.
Catholics, once among the most reliable members of the Democratic coalition, took a hike in 1980 and gave Jimmy Carter only 42 percent of their votes. Putting pro-choice Catholic Geraldine Ferraro on the 1984 ticket only accelerated the erosion, leaving Democrats with just 39 percent of Catholics.
Painting depicting the Battle of Lepanto. It is by Paolo Veronese, 1571, Venice, Gallerie dell'Accademia. Saints Peter, Roch, Justine and Mark ask Our Lady to help the Catholic fleetPray for Our Nation and Our World
The economy is strained, a presidential debate tonight, and the election in less than 30 days away.
We have an urgent request for you and it does not involve money. We need you to pray... today.
October 7th marks the anniversary of the naval victory won by the Christian fleet at Lepanto, Greece, in 1571. The Christian fleet was vastly outnumbered and was expected to be destroyed, but they invoked the help of the holy Mother of God through the Rosary. Their prayers were answered and they prevented the Ottoman Turks from invading Europe.
Western Civilization today is also in turmoil. Now, more than ever, it is important for Christians to pray to God for help, especially as we are close to deciding who will lead our nation for the next four years.
If you are Catholic, please join with us and Bishop Baker of Birmingham, AL, and pray the Rosary, today. Like the Christians in 1571, we are perhaps outnumbered, but it is important that we place our trust in Divine Providence.
For a good tutorial on the Rosary, visit ewtn.com.
If you are not Catholic, you can still join with us in prayer. All Christians have the Lord's Prayer that Jesus gave to us all in the Garden of Gestheme. For additional prayer resources, visit CatholicVote.com.
Bishop Baker asked Catholics to pray the Rosary today "for our Nation and Our World."
Here are his prayer intentions, which we think can be echoed by Catholics and all Christians alike:
"That the Holy Spirit may guide our government leaders as they address the current problems facing our nation’s economy and as they seek proper paths to peace in our world, we pray to the Lord…"
"For the guidance of the Holy Spirit as voters choose the best possible candidates as leaders for local, state, and national offices, people who will protect the least vulnerable among us, especially the unborn, and promote the cause of life in all its forms and family life, we pray to the Lord…"
N.Y. Times mentions Catholic Vote video
The CatholicVote video was highlighted Sunday in a New York Times article about Catholics and the 2008 elections.
Here's an excerpt of the article, in case you missed it:The Cathedral of St. Peter in Wilmington, Del., where Mr. Biden lives, is promoting a video produced by the conservative Catholic group Fidelis that is intended to persuade Catholic voters to put opposition to abortion rights and same-sex marriage above all other issues when they go to the polls.
“Many issues are at stake,” a caption reads as the video displays a fetus and choral music swells. “Some are more important than others.”
Brian Burch, president of Fidelis, said the group had created the video as “a voter guide for the 21st century.” Many Catholic churches across the country have put it on their Web sites, and Mr. Burch said some statewide advocacy groups had been distributing it to their members.
A new post up at Catholic Vote: "Unholy Messaging": Today's Must Read
Here again is the powerful Catholic Vote video:
Te Deum Laudamus! Home
In the last forty years, the Church has undergone one of her greatest crises of all times. We all know that the dramatic situation of consecrated life has not been marginal in this state of affairs. In practically all Western countries, observers note that most religious communities are entering the end-game of a prolonged crisis whose outcome, they say, is already determined by the statistics.
In many of these Western countries, religious have lost hope....
Under the umbrella of “consecrated life” and behind the statistics there lies a variety of situations.
First, there are many new communities, some better known than others, many of which are thriving and whose individual statistics are the reverse of the general trends.
Second, we have older communities that have taken action to preserve and reform genuine religious life in their own charism; they are also in a growth mode, contrary to the general trend, and their median age is lower than the overall average for religious.
Neither of these two groups sees “the writing on the wall” in the sense that observers of the general trends use it; on the contrary, the future looks promising if they continue to be what they are and as they are.
Third, there are those who accept the present situation of decline as, in their words, the sign of the Spirit on the Church, a sign of a new direction to be followed. Among this group there those who have simply acquiesced to the disappearance of religious life or at least of their community, and seek to do so in the most peaceful manner possible, thanking God for past benefits.
Then, we must admit too, that there are those who have opted for ways that take them outside communion with Christ in the Catholic Church, although they themselves may have opted to “stay” in the Church physically. These may be individuals or groups in institutes that have a different view, or they may be entire communities.
Finally, I would distinguish those who fervently believe in their own personal vocation and the charism of their community, and are seeking ways to reverse the trend. In other words, how to achieve authentic renewal. These may be whole institutes, or individuals, pockets of individuals or even communities within institutes....
Operating at the root of this “pseudo-aggiornamento” was what can best be described as “naturalism”. It supposed the radical centering of man on himself, the rejection of the supernatural, and operated in a climate of radical subjectivism.
It showed itself in multiple ways: In talk about holiness that is totally divorced from fulfillment of Christ’s law and the concept of grace. In minimizing sin. In the acceptance of the world as it is, with no need of conversion. In taking the world as the criterion according to which the Church ought to be reformed. In a notion of apostolate or ministry that consists in being at ease in the world rather than changing it. In rejection of authority, and especially divinely constituted authority, hence the rejection of the magisterium and all canonical and disciplinary ordering in the Church....
Towards the end of the Second Vatican Council, I was in Paris finishing my doctoral thesis on “miracles of the modernist controversy.” At that time in France there was a pervasive atmosphere of enthusiasm for the Council as the press and other media presented it, which was a partial image of the Council as a “victory of the liberals over the conservatives.”
When I returned to Slovenia I found that the communist regime was isolating the Catholic faithful, suffocating public expression of the faith and reducing it to a merely private affair. I found a faithful people within a society shaped by the ideology of materialism. I soon realized that what I brought with me from my studies in Paris was of very little use for my pastoral work. I needed to be close to the people and to respect the traditional ways of expressing of their faith. I learned so much from the Christian faithful! They taught me to love the Church, to respect the Pope and the bishops in communion with him.
The great lesson I learned from that experience was this: The religious who secularized consecrated life were not doing so for the sake of the faith of the people of God. It was not the good of God’s people that they were seeking. Rather than God’s will, what they were seeking was their own.
Religious life, being a gift from the Holy Spirit to the individual religious and the Church, depends especially on fidelity to its origins, fidelity to the founder, fidelity to the particular charism. Fidelity to that charism is essential, for God blesses fidelity while he “opposes the proud.” The complete rupture of some with the past, then, goes against the nature of a religious congregation, and essentially it provokes God’s rejection.
"All you have to do is to go down Union Street with me in Wilmington and go
to Katie's restaurant..."
As Catholics, we should not be surprised by these developments. Forty years ago, Pope Paul VI predicted that widespread use of artificial contraceptives would lead to increased marital infidelity, lessened regard for women, and a general lowering of moral standards especially among the young. Forty years later, social scientists, not necessarily Catholics, attest to the accuracy of his predictions. As if following some bizarre script, the sexual revolution has produced widespread marital breakdown, weakened family ties, legalized abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, pornography, same-sex unions, euthanasia, destruction of human embryos for research purposes and a host of other ills.Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign. Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God’s commands. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate.
The failure to protect life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as ‘the temple of the Holy Spirit’ – the living house of God – then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundation [emphasis in the original]. These directly and immediately violate the human person’s most fundamental right – the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand. Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics, 23.
“Thou shalt not kill!” God wrote this commandment in the conscience of man long before any penal code laid down the penalty for murder, long before there was any prosecutor or any court to investigate and avenge a murder. Cain, who killed his brother Abel, was a murderer long before there were any states or any courts or law. And he confessed his deed, driven by his accusing conscience: “My punishment is greater than I can bear. . . and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me the murderer shall slay me” (Genesis 4:13-14)”
Fr. Perrone incenses the altar on September 14, 20073 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; 4 and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.
Freedom of Choice Act Would Remove All Limitations on Abortions
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), was first introduced in November of 1989 by Representative Don Edwards (D- Calif) and Senator Alan Cranston (D-Calif). It was proposed to “codify Roe v. Wade,” and was, at that time, opposed by Senator Carol Moseley Braun (D-Ill), who argued that it did not go far enough to unleash – on a national level – a complete and unrestricted access to abortion. The first version, according to the Senator, dangerously allowed some conscience protection to health care professionals and did not require states to fund abortions.
The more recent wording of FOCA, introduced last year, is as follows:
“A government may not (1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose – (A) to bear a child; (B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or (C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or (2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
This act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, penalty, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before or after the date of enactment of this act.” Text of H.R. 1964 and S. 1173, introduced on April 19, 2007.
It is clear that FOCA would immediately make null and void every current restriction on abortion in all jurisdictions. According to a recent article by Tom McCloskey, “FOCA Would Harm Women and Remove Freedoms,” and reported by the Family Research Council, if FOCA was passed it would automatically overturn:
- State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states
- Forty-four states’ laws concerning parental involvement
- Forty states’ laws on restricting later-term abortions
- Forty-six states’ conscience protection laws for individual health care providers
- Twenty-seven states’ conscience protection laws for institutions
- Thirty-eight states’ bans on partial-birth abortions
- Thirty-three states’ laws on requiring counseling before an abortion
- Sixteen states’ laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion
There is evidence of a very significant reduction of reported abortions, particularly among teens, through the passage of parental involvement laws and the use of ultrasounds. The August, 2008, report of the Alan Guttmacher Institute notes the greatest decline in abortions over the last 30 years is among teens, attributable in large part to the above restrictions, as well as a later initiation of sexual activity. It must be concluded that chastity formation or abstinence education has a positive effect on lowering these rates, as well as enriching the lives of our young men and women.
I was recently asked to comment on claims by a group calling itself Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which says that electing candidates who have permissive or clearly pro-choice stances in support of abortion, but are determined to provide more assistance to poor and vulnerable women and families would actually help to reduce abortions in the United States. This group, I believe has its priorities backwards. It seems unlikely that candidates advocating full access to abortion – which attacks the most vulnerable poor, the unborn - will at the same time have a consistent or principle-based plan for helping other poor people.
It should be noted that the Catholic Church worldwide provides more help in assisting the needy than any other single private agency – religious or secular. At the same time, she operates from the principle that the measure of our charity is first defined by what we do to and for the most vulnerable.
When a candidate pledges to provide “comprehensive sex education” to school children and promises to promote – or to “sign immediately upon taking office” - the Freedom of Choice Act, Catholics and all people of good will have cause to question the sincerity of the candidate’s determination to reduce abortions, when these already existing limits have caused a decrease of more than 100,000 abortions each year. (cf. Michael New-Matthew Bowman, Combined Reductions in Abortions, with data supplied by NARAL Pro-Choice America)
As Archbishop Naumann and I stressed in our recent Pastoral Letter, “Our Moral Responsibility as Catholic Citizens,” we can never vote for a candidate because of his or permissive stand on abortion. At the same time, if we are inclined to vote for someone despite their pro-abortion stance, it seems we are morally obliged to establish a proportionate reason sufficient to justify the destruction of 45 million human persons through abortion. If we learn that our “candidate of choice” further pledges – through an instrument such as FOCA - to eliminate all existing limitations against abortion, it is that much more doubtful whether voting for him or her can ever be morally justified under any circumstance.
I urge you to learn more about the Freedom of Choice Act and its advocates so that you can make informed decisions in the voting booth.
The Medjugorje story begins early in 1976 when a Franciscan monk in the former Yugoslavia, Father Tomislav Vlasic, starts an affair with a nun who becomes pregnant. Frightened he will be exposed as the child’s father, Father Vlasic persuades her to move away to Germany. She hopes he will honour his promise to leave the ministry and marry her. She writes a sequence of increasingly anxious letters when this does not happen, telling her former lover she is so miserable that she is praying she will die in childbirth. But he piously orders her to ‘be like Mary’ and accept her destiny in a foreign land — and never to tell a soul who the father really is.
Unfortunately for him, some of his letters fall into the hands of the woman’s landlord who, scandalised, copies them and sends them to a friend [read carefully now] in the Vatican.
Six years later Father Vlasic is ‘spiritual leader’ of six children who say the Virgin Mary appears to them daily in Medjugorje, Bosnia-Herzegovina. But the local bishop is having none of it. The priest writes to Pope John Paul II to say that Satan is working through the bishop and to request direct intervention against him. But, worse luck, the Vatican official with copies of his love letters takes an interest in the case and sends them to the bishop in question.
Disgraced, the priest then heads for Italy where, with a new mistress, he sets up a mixed-sex religious community devoted to the apparitions and continues to party like a bad dog for the next 17 years until the Vatican official who ruined everything for him becomes Pope Benedict XVI.
Three years into Benedict’s pontificate, Father Vlasic today finds himself severely and publicly disciplined in a way which is rare for a person linked so closely to a movement as popular as Medjugorje, which has attracted 30 million pilgrims in 27 years. He is in big trouble, accused of heresy, schism and sexual immorality ‘aggravated by mystical motivations’, as well as ‘the diffusion of dubious doctrine, manipulation of consciences, suspect mysticism and disobedience towards legitimately issued orders’. He has refused to co-operate with the Vatican and is under an interdict confining him to a monastery on the pain of excommunication.
I remember an act of charity with which God inspired me while I was still a novice, and this act, though seemingly small, has been rewarded even in this life by Our Heavenly Father, "Who seeth in secret."
Shortly before Sister St. Peter became quite bedridden, it was necessary every evening, at ten minutes to six, for someone to leave meditation and take her to the refectory. It cost me a good deal to offer my services, for I knew the difficulty, or I should say the impossibility, of pleasing the poor invalid. But I did not want to lose such a good opportunity, for I recalled Our Lord's words: "As long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to Me." I therefore humbly offered my aid. It was not without difficulty I induced her to accept it, but after considerable persuasion I succeeded. Every evening, when I saw her shake her sand-glass, I understood that she meant: "Let us go!" Summoning up all my courage I rose, and the ceremony began. First of all, her stool had to be moved and carried in a particular way, and on no account must there be any hurry. The solemn procession ensued. I had to follow the good Sister, supporting her by her girdle; I did it as gently as possible, but if by some mischance she stumbled, she imagined I had not a firm hold, and that she was going to fall. "You are going too fast," she would say, "I shall fall and hurt myself!" Then when I tried to lead her more quietly: "Come quicker . . . I cannot feel you . . . you are letting me go! I was right when I said you were too young to take care of me."
When we reached the refectory without further mishap, more troubles were in store. I had to settle my poor invalid in her place, taking great pains not to hurt her. Then I had to turn back her sleeves, always according to her own special rubric, and after that I was allowed to go.
But I soon noticed that she found it very difficult to cut her bread, so I did not leave her till I had performed this last service. She was much touched by this attention on my part, for she had not expressed any wish on the subject; it was by this unsought-for kindness that I gained her entire confidence, and chiefly because--as I learnt later-- at the end of my humble task I bestowed upon her my sweetest smile.
