*His Eminence, Raymond Cardinal Burke on abortion and the duty of Catholic politicians

To decriminalise abortion is a contradiction of the most fundamental principle of the legal system

By Anthony Murphy

Catholic Voice (published with permission)

 In this interview, His Eminence, Raymond Cardinal Burke, Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, speaks on abortion and on the duty of Catholic politicians in this regard.

The 40th anniversary of Roe vs Wade has just passed which legalised abortion in America under the auspices of “health care”. Could you comment on the devastation and misery which this has brought to thousands of women and also why abortion is a crime which should never be decriminalised?

The celebration of the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade underlines for the United States of America the incalculable harm which has been done by the legalization of abortion. Abortion has nothing to do with healthcare, the infant in the womb is not a disease but a gift of new human life. Over 50 million lives have been taken since the handing down of Roe vs. Wade, a decision which practically permits the taking of the life of the infant in the womb up to the very moment of birth. It is not possible to comprehend all of the devastation worked by procured abortion on demand during these past forty years. There is, first of all, the devastation of the loss of innocent and defenceless human life in such staggering numbers. At the same time, there is the tremendous suffering of the women who have undergone an abortion and who have come to understand that they have violently taken a new human life conceived in their wombs. To commit abortion is contrary to the deepest being of a woman. The taking of an innocent and defenceless human life can never be right, can never be justified. Therefore, to decriminalize abortion is a contradiction of the most fundamental principle of the legal system, the principle that human life is to be safeguarded and defended at all times. It is clear that, in the United States of America, the decriminalization of abortion has resulted in millions of deaths, in the loss of respect for woman and in the ever greater violence which sadly marks American society today.

The tragic death of Savita Halappanavar has triggered a frenzy amongst abortion activists in a similar way to which deception and lies were used in the case of Norma Jean McCorvey’s pregnancy in 1973. What lessons can the Irish government learn from the McCorvey case to prevent the Savita Case becoming Ireland’s Roe vs Wade?

The death of Savita Halappanavar is indeed tragic. It is, however, contrary to right reason to hold that an innocent and defenceless human life can be justifiably destroyed in order to save the life of the mother. The Irish people, and especially the Irish government, should be very alert to the kind of argumentation which will be used by the secular media and by secular ideologues, in general, claiming that the destruction of the new human life in her womb could have saved the life of Savita Halappanavar and, therefore, would have been justified. Such an argument is absurd in itself. Even though, if the reports are correct, Savita Halappanavar requested an abortion, her request would not have made it right for the law to permit such an act which is always and everywhere wrong.

Catholic bishops have been criticised for saying that abortion introduces a “culture of death”, also some politicians have complained that Pro Life groups have sent them information including images detailing the horror of abortion. They appeal for what they call a “civilised” and calm debate. Is there anything civilised about abortion and does the use of graphic imagery help create awareness of the gravity of the evil which occurs when an abortion is committed?

With regard to the complaint of some about the language of “culture of death,” and also about certain images which portray the horror of abortion, one must observe that we have a habit in society today to use language which helps us to avoid the reality about which we are speaking. Blessed John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter The Gospel of Life, insisted that such evils as abortion and euthanasia must be called by their proper names and not by euphemisms which tend to keep from our consciousness the objective reality of the evil involved (cf. no. 58). Therefore, the use of the language of “culture of death,” is not only accurate, but it is also most helpful, for it draws our attention to the pervasive effect of abortion on demand on society in general. In other words, the practice of abortion on demand leads to multiple forms of violence in the family and also against our fellow citizens who have grown weak, either under advanced years or because of special needs which they have or because of a grave illness.

With regard to the use of graphic images, in the context of the plea for a civilized debate with regard to abortion, certainly one must be careful not to use graphic images for the sake of being graphic. On the other hand, our fellow citizens should know what an abortion actually is. Images of the act of abortion or the results of abortion, when carefully presented to the public, can help the public, in general, to recognize the grave evil which besets us and to take appropriate action.

What is the duty of a Catholic politician when faced with this type of legislation and can there ever be a situation where he may vote for abortion even if he believes it to be restricted?

The duty of a Catholic politician when he is faced with anti-life or anti-family legislation is to support all of those measures which will most reduce the evils which attack human life and the integrity of marriage. Sometimes it is not possible to eliminate at once completely the evil. The Catholic politician cannot vote for any legislation which would confirm the evil or even advance it, but, at the same time, if there is some legislation which will reduce the practice of the evil, he would be justified in supporting that legislation, as long as he also acknowledges the intrinsic evil of the practice involved and the need for his constituency to take appropriate action to eliminate the practice altogether.

It is clear from Canon 915 that abortion is a mortal sin and a collaboration with evil, can those who claim to be Catholic vote for it and remain full members of the Church? Also what is the role of the local bishop with regard to this matter?

With regard to Canon 915, it states that those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin should not be admitted to receive Holy Communion. There can be no question that the practice of abortion is among the gravest of manifest sins and therefore once a Catholic politician has been admonished that he should not come forward to receive Holy Communion, as long as he continues to support legislation which fosters abortion or other intrinsic evils, then he should be refused Holy Communion. In my own experience, when I have informed Catholic politicians who were supporting anti-life or anti-family legislation not to approach to receive Holy Communion, they have understood and have followed the discipline of the Church as it is set forth in Canon 915.

Depending on the situation, the Diocesan Bishop may be involved directly in admonishing the politician, but it is also within the pastoral care of the parish priest to admonish anyone in his congregation who is persisting obstinately in manifest grave sin not to approach to receive Holy Communion. The local Bishop should teach clearly in the matter and also encourage his priests to make sure that the Church’s discipline is observed, in order to avoid the grave sin of sacrilege on the part of the Catholic politician who approaches to receive Holy Communion when he is persisting obstinately in grave moral evil, and to prevent the scandal which is caused when such individuals receive Holy Communion, because their reception of Holy Communion gives the impression that the Church’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion is not firm.

In your book, Divine Love Made Flesh, you explain that Catholics who support abortion legislation should refrain from receiving Holy Communion not only because of the public scandal but also out of love for Our Lord. Could you explain?

In response to the last question, surely the consideration of public scandal must be in the mind of those who approach to receive Holy Communion unworthily. However, at a much deeper level of faith and of personal relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ, a person obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin will refrain from approaching to receive Holy Communion because of his love of our Lord and his sorrow for the grave sin which he is commiting against our Lord and His Holy Church. In fact, it is the recognition of the grave offense against the Lord which will most inspire a conversion of heart in the Catholic politician who publicly supports anti-life or anti-family legislation. One recalls here the words of Saint Paul in chapter 11 of the First Letter to the Corinthians, in which he addressed a situation of the sacrilegious receiving of Holy Communion among the faithful at Corinth, Saint Paul wrote that the person who receives Holy Communion unworthily sins against the Lord and therefore brings about his own condemnation. The passage from the First Letter to the Corinthians reads: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor. 11:27-29).

*Subscribe to this blog

Read Full Post »

*The President’s Speech; Why I Wasn’t Impressed

by Bishop Thomas J. Tobin 1/19/11

Once again our nation has been rocked by a terrible act of senseless violence – the shooting in Tucson, Arizona in which several were wounded, including a member of Congress, and several others were killed, including a federal judge and a beautiful little nine year-old girl.

Since that deadly day nearly two weeks ago, the story has dominated the news; we’ve learned many details about the deranged shooter and his innocent victims; we’ve debated the causes and consequences of the event; and we’ve prayed for all those who have suffered so much from the violence.

President Obama traveled to Tucson and did his level best to offer his sympathy and support, to encourage a city and a nation, and to invite us all to a better future marked especially by more civility in public discourse. In asking us to learn from and move beyond the terrible moment, the president appealed to Holy Scripture and to the better instincts of the human family. Noble sentiments all. As some have said, and I agree, it was his best moment as president.

As I watched Mr. Obama, though, and later reflected on his speech, I sensed there was something missing; there was something that left me cold, unimpressed and unmoved.

And suddenly it became clear. The problem, at least for me, is that President Obama’s persistent and willful promotion of abortion renders his compassionate gestures and soaring rhetoric completely disingenuous. “O come on, Bishop Tobin,” I hear you say. “Abortion’s not the only moral issue in the world.” Correct, I respond. Abortion’s not the only moral issue in the world but it is the most important. And, I confess, abortion policy is the prism through which I view everything this president says and does.

Is there any longer any doubt that Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion president we’ve ever had?

President Obama has enthusiastically supported the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade that has allowed virtually unrestricted access to abortion in our nation and has resulted in approximately 50 million deaths since 1973.

President Obama has consistently surrounded himself with pro-abortion advisors, and has appointed pro-abortion politicians to key positions in the federal government, including his two nominees for the Supreme Court.

President Obama has promulgated policies, including the overturn of the Mexico City Policy (within the first few hours of his presidency) that requires taxpayer monies to provide abortions around the world. Similarly he signed an executive order that forces taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research; he signed a bill that overturned the 13-year-long ban of abortion funding in the nation’s capital; and he directed the passage of health care legislation that opens the door to federal funding of abortions and could eventually limit the freedom of religion for individuals and institutions who find abortion morally repugnant.

President Obama has made abortion a key foreign policy issue, pressuring nations to accept abortion policies; he’s supported several pro-abortion initiatives of the United Nations; and he’s appointed Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State. Secretary Clinton has had a consistent pro-abortion record and in her international travels has promoted abortion as a human right.

The full accounting of President Obama’s track record on abortion goes on for eight typed pages, a very sad and discouraging litany. The net effect, though, is that President Obama’s shameful record on abortion leaves his touching tribute and appeal to goodness in Tucson – and other expressions of compassion – sterile and meaningless. As he stood on the stage in Tucson, he was a prophet without credentials; his speech, a song without a soul.

Perhaps the president’s most moving rhetoric was that about Christina Taylor Green, the precious nine-year-old slain in the barrage of bullets. As a father of two beautiful daughters himself, the president’s words were surely personal and sincere. Of this child he said: “In Christina we see all of our children. So curious, so trusting, so energetic and full of magic . . . So deserving of our love.”

But I can’t help but ask, respectfully, “Mr. President, why can’t you see our other children – so curious, so trusting, so energetic and full of magic, and so deserving of our love – in all of the unborn children who didn’t live because of our nation’s embrace of the abortion option?”

And in one of the most dramatic moments of his speech, Mr. Obama announced that the wounded congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, opened her eyes for the first time just after he’d completed his visit to her. “A miracle” some proclaimed, and certainly a welcome sign of recovery at which we all rejoice.

But I can’t help but wonder how many tiny eyes will never open, will never see the light of day, because of this president’s shortsighted and zealous promotion of abortion.

It’s truly tragic that our president – for whose safety and well-being we pray all the time and who has demonstrated an impressive ability to inspire other people – is unable to see the deadly consequences of his abortion agenda. Perhaps we need another miracle, to open his eyes, that he might see and understand how wrong abortion is, how sinful it is, how violent it is, and how it’s destroying the life of our nation.

(posted here with permission)

Read Full Post »

*Abortion Supporters Should Not Receive Communion Says Archbishop Robert Carlson

“People who are casual about the sin of abortion and who choose to view it as a political issue rather than the serious moral issue that it is are guilty of violating the Fifth Commandment. You cannot be “pro-choice” (pro-abortion) and remain a Catholic in good standing. That’s why the Church asks those who maintain this position not to receive holy Communion. We are not being mean or judgmental, we are simply acknowledging the fact that such a stance is objectively and seriously sinful and is radically inconsistent with the Christian way of life.”

Archbishop Carlson: Abortion Supporters are Excommunicated, Should not Receive Communion

By James Tillman

ST. LOUIS, Missouri, July 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a new column, Archbishop Robert Carlson takes to task those who argue that abortion is simply a political issue, pointing out that it is also a serious moral issue. He also makes clear that one cannot be a good Catholic and be “pro-choice.”

“People who are casual about the sin of abortion and who choose to view it as a political issue rather than the serious moral issue that it is are guilty of violating the Fifth Commandment,” he writes.

Human life is sacred, according to the archbishop, because “from its beginning until its natural end, it involves the creative action of God.”

“God alone is the Lord of life,” he states. “No one has the right to end arbitrarily what God has begun, and sustained, through the gift of His love.”

For this reason, he writes, “since the first century, the Church has addressed the moral evil of abortion and the killing of a defenseless baby in the womb.”

“You cannot be ‘pro-choice’ (pro-abortion) and remain a Catholic in good standing,” he says. ”That’s why the Church asks those who maintain this position not to receive holy Communion.

“We are not being mean or judgmental, we are simply acknowledging the fact that such a stance is objectively and seriously sinful and is radically inconsistent with the Christian way of life.”

Quoting the Second Vatican Council’s document Gaudium et Spes, he says that “abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.”

“That’s why formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.  The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.”

“In addition,” writes Archbishop Carlson, “euthanasia or deliberately taking of the life of someone who is sick, dying, disabled or mentally ill is morally unacceptable.”

He concludes by saying that taking “proper care of our health, respecting others and showing respect for the dead are all matters covered by the Fifth Commandment’s demand that we reverence God’s most precious gift — human life.”

The column is part of a series the archbishop has been writing on the Ten Commandments in his “Before the Cross” column.

Carlson is well known for taking a strong stand on life issues. In 2003 then-Bishop Carlson ordered strong abortion advocate Tom Daschle to cease calling himself Catholic. He has also told Catholics to vote according to the “special burden on the conscience” posed by the abortion issue.

Archbishop Robert Carlson’s column

Read Full Post »

*Bart Stupak’s Health Care Bill Vote – Indefensible!

STUPAK: “The Pope and the Catholic faith does not control Catholic legislators. We must vote reflective of our districts and our beliefs.”

For the record, that (and his vote) is not my idea of faithful Catholicism or heroism.

More Stupak here: http://www.ccgaction.org/node/787

and here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/mar/24/stupak-pope-doesnt-control-catholic-lawmakers/

I beg everyone to cease making excuses for people who are not 100 percent prolife in thought, word and deed!

We can’t defend the teachings of Christ and his Church and also defend those who oppose them. We can’t contribute to the confusion and claim to be faithful Catholics.

Read Untangling the confusion about the Church by Bishop Morlino.

I obviously do not agree with the opinion piece below and, for obvious reasons, feel it necessary to state so.

Health Care Bill: Bart Stupak ‘Limits the Harm’

By Deacon Keith Fournier
3/21/2010

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=35879

Read Full Post »

*Defend the truth against those who lie about the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church

Speaker Pelosi’s Bishop Corrects Her Once Again. Call to Catholic Action.

By Deacon Keith Fournier

Catholic Online

[The social ordering principles contained within Catholic Social teaching of the Church are not simply “private” religious matters. They are profoundly public. They outline the parameters of civilized behaviour. They help to explain what is good about the experiment in ordered liberty called the United States of America. The subterfuge of the Speaker of the House of Representatives concerning the Foundational and Fundamental first right, the Right to Life, and the first freedom, the freedom to be born, is dangerous to the future of our Republic.]

One of the great scandals of our age is the leadership of some of our fellow Catholics in public life who are unfaithful to the teaching of our Church and betray their public trust. Sadly, they demonstrate the danger warned of in the last great ecumenical council of our Church, Vatican II.

The Council Fathers in their document on the Christian mission - Lumen Gentium, “Light to the Nations – used a phrase which has been repeated many times since then in numerous teachings from the contemporary Popes and is a favorite of our own U.S. Bishops. They warned of the “separation between faith and life.” They called it one of the “greatest errors of our age”. And, so it truly is… advanced with the help of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and some other Catholics in public life.

In his prophetic Encyclical Letter entitled “The Gospel of Life” John Paul II wrote concerning a “perverse idea of freedom” as a raw power over others. He reaffirmed the “essential link” between freedom and truth. This connection is the beating heart of morality and common sense. In “The Splendor of Truth” he proclaimed that “freedom itself needs to be set free” from the lie of the current age. He exposed the counterfeit notions of freedom, the rotted fruit of the new paganism, materialism and nihilism which calls itself “progressivism” when it it is actually regressivism.

Authentic faithful Christians – and especially Catholic Christians who have the wealth of the teaching office of the “Social Magisterium” of the Church – must now become the champions of freedom in this age. Millions are depending upon our courage to resist the lies of this current deluded age and rebuild the Western vision of a free society.

We must insist upon the essential connection between freedom, truth and responsibility to prevent the continued descent of the West into a new paganism masquerading as “freedom.” The horrors which will be unleashed in the name of a “freedom” which is a lie are evident in the blood of all those killed through procured abortions since Roe. Let’s cut to the chase, killing our first neighbors in the womb in the name of “choice” is evil, sick and unlawful.

It also violates the Natural Law even if the current positive law allows it. It is barbarism. As Christians we agree that humans are “free” to choose. However we insist that some choices are always wrong. Perhaps the most obvious example is the lie that a nation can treat an entire class of human persons as property to be used – and killed- rather than a gift to be received and recognized as our neighbors, and still claim to be free and just.

As Catholic Christians who are citizens in this experiment in ordered liberty called the United States of America, we have been able to flourish. That is because the founding documents of this Nation, (even if it took centuries to understand their implications in certain areas), articulated truths derived from the classical Natural Law thinking of Western Christendom.

These truths were set forth in the great philosophical tradition of the Latin Church in St. Thomas Aquinas, but they find their origin in the teachings of the early Fathers of the “Patristic” age of the Church. They are the fruit of the tree of real liberty whose roots are sunk deeply in the Biblical texts, Old and New Testament.

For example, the American founders insistence upon the existence of “unalienable rights” which are “endowed by a Creator” on every human person was inspired. The Declaration is the Birth Certificate of the American Republic. Our acceptance of the existence of universally recognized rights, truths and obligations has informed the foundation for the Western understanding of the Rule of Law. It is also the source of of our true liberties.

The insistence that fundamental human rights are not conferred by Civil Government but endowed by God is what made Western Civilization flourish. It still serves as a beacon of hope for the entire world. There is a “Natural Law” which is written on our conscience. That Natural Law is a participation in God’s law. It is knowable through the exercise of reason by all men and women, whether they acknowledge God’s existence or not. It is that Natural Law which is the measuring stick for any truly just “positive” or “civil” law. When we fail to recognize this we lose our way and we lose our freedom. Our history attests to this.

The substitution of license for liberty is what John Paul II had in mind when he warned of “a notion of freedom, which exalts the isolated individual in an absolute way, and gives no place to solidarity, to openness to others and service of them.” As he prophetically cautioned, it results from the “eclipse of the sense of God and of man typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism.” That is what has infected our beloved Nation. …

The Catechism of the Catholic Church in its section on “Man’s Freedom” articulates the classical Jewish and Christian vision of the human person created in the Image of God. We have a capacity for freedom which is modeled on God’s freedom and must be exercised in relationship to truth and with a mind toward our neighbors to whom we owe an obligation in solidarity. In other words, we must always choose what is good and true.

The words of Section 1733 of the Catholic Catechism hit the “nail on the head” to use a colloquialism: “ There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom….” A little later in this profound text, the Catechism reminds us that “From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom.”

Senator Nancy Pelosi has been corrected so many times by her Bishop it is beginning to irritate many. Yet, she persists in a flagrant disregard for the teaching of the Church she professes to be a member of. She also evidences an intention to mislead her fellow Catholics about the unquestionably clear teaching of that Church. Faithful Catholics profess that this teaching concerning the responsibilities of of human freedom, such as not killing one another, is not simply a matter for only Catholics but constitute an absolute obligation for any just society.

The social ordering principles contained within Catholic Social teaching of the Church are not simply “private” religious matters. They are profoundly public. They outline the parameters of civilized behaviour. They help to explain what is good about the experiment in ordered liberty called the United States of America. The subterfuge of the Speaker of the House of Representatives concerning the Foundational and Fundamental first right, the Right to Life, and the first freedom, the freedom to be born, is dangerous to the future of our Republic.

It strikes at the core of what constitutes human freedom. It is a refutation of the truth concerning solidarity – our responsibilities to one another as neighbors. It denies the very existence of a “Natural Law” which can be known by all men and women through the exercise of reason and which is the foundation of Civil Law itself. Yet, she persistsin her deceit. She has the arrogance to pretend that in so doing she is acting as a faithful Catholic. This was recently shown in her shameful interview with Eleanor Clift in Newsweek magazine. (Dec. 21, 2009)

Archbishop George H. Niederauer in a well written piece entitled “Free Will, Conscience and Moral Choice: What Catholics believe” has once again corrected the Speaker, a member of his flock. I believe that he did so out of pastoral concern and Christian love. We publish his entire column below as our first related story. His article is a lesson in Morality. We ask all of our readers to please read it carefully. Then go to the Sacred Scriptures and to the Catholic Catechism. There you find the truth concerning what constitutes the real Catholic Christian faith. Not the errors and the false public witness of the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Do not let Speaker Nancy Pelosi or any unfaithful Catholics in public life continue to confuse you. Yes, continue to pray for the Speaker but resist her lies and oppose their evil effects. Do not be intimidated, Set Freedom free. Defend the truth against those who lie about the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church. That includes some Catholics in public life. This proper correction by the Bishop of the Speaker is another Call to a new Catholic Action!

Archbishop Corrects Nancy Pelosi: Free Will, Conscience and Moral Choice

Read Full Post »

*Excommunication may be the only responsible and charitable thing to do

Excommunication is a declaration of acts that severs ties

By Bishop Robert Vasa

During the course of this past year there have been a number of occasions when bishops have hinted to laity that being Catholic involves a bit more than claiming the title. This has been done, in particular, with regard to politicians who may, in their own way, love Jesus, who may attend Sunday Mass and who do identify themselves as “faithful” Catholics. The press usually hints at the big “E” word, excommunication. The question of when a Catholic should be excommunicated has even been asked quite frequently and very seriously. While bishops are extremely reluctant to take the seemingly dramatic step of excommunication, I think there is very good reason for us to explore more thoroughly what excommunication really means and why it might be considered in certain circumstances.

The press would undoubtedly accuse Bishops who talk or even think about excommunication as being tyrannical power mongers but this is unfair. Excommunication is a declaration, based on solid evidence, that the actions or public teachings of a particular Catholic are categorically incompatible with the teachings of the Church. It is intended primarily as a means of getting the person who is in grave error to recognize the depth of his error and repent. A second reason, while somewhat secondary but no less important, is to assure the faithful who truly are faithful that what they believe to be the teaching of the Church is true and correct. Allowing their faith to be shaken or allowing them to be confused when Catholics publicly affirm something contrary to faith or morals, seemingly without consequences, scandalizes and confuses the faithful. This is no small matter. The Church, and particularly bishops, have an obligation to defend the faith but they also have an obligation to protect the faithful. We do not generally see the dissidence of public figures as something that harms the faithful but it has a deleterious effect upon them.

I find, very frequently, when I speak a bit more boldly on matters of morality or discipline, there are a significant number of the faithful who send messages of gratitude and support. It is their gratitude which stirs my heart for it makes me realize how much there is a need to support and affirm the clear and consistent teachings of our Catholic faith for the sake of the faithful. While the press may caricature such bishops in rather uncharitable fashion, I trust that they are men devoted to true compassion and to the truth itself. Their compassion extends to those who are misled and to those who, while not misled, are discouraged when their faith is attacked without rebuttal. This discouragement of the faithful is not insignificant. When we look at the word itself we see that its root is “courage” and allowing someone’s courage to be dissipated, or “dissed” as the young might say, is harmful to the person. En-couragement, by contrast, builds up the courage of the faithful and increases their strength for doing good. It is life giving and revitalizing. Allowing error, publicly expressed, to stand without comment or contradiction is discouraging.

When that moral error is espoused publicly by a Catholic who, by the likewise public and external act of receiving Holy Communion, appears to be in “good standing” then the faithful are doubly confused and doubly discouraged. In that case, the error is certainly not refuted. Furthermore, the impression is given that the error is positively condoned by the bishop and the Church. This is very dis-couraging to the faithful. In such a case, private “dialogue” is certainly appropriate but a public statement is also needed. In extreme cases, excommunication may be deemed necessary.

It seems to me that even if a decree of excommunication would be issued, the bishop would really not excommunicate anyone. He only declares that the person is excommunicated by virtue of the person’s own actions. The actions and words, contrary to faith and morals, are what excommunicate (i.e. break communion with the Church). When matters are serious and public, the Bishop may deem it necessary to declare that lack of communion explicitly. This declaration no more causes the excommunication than a doctor who diagnoses diabetes causes the diabetes he finds in his patient. The doctor recognizes the symptoms and writes the necessary prescription. Accusing the doctor of being a tyrannical power monger would never cross anyone’s mind. Even when the doctor tells the patient that they are “excommunicated” from sugar it is clear that his desire is solely the health of his patient. In fact, a doctor who told his diabetic patient that he could keep ingesting all the sugar he wanted without fear would be found grossly negligent and guilty of malpractice.

In the same way, bishops who recognize a serious spiritual malady and seek a prescription to remedy the error, after discussion and warning, may be required to simply state, “What you do and say is gravely wrong and puts you out of communion with the faith you claim to hold.” In serious cases, and the cases of misled Catholic public officials are often very serious, a declaration of the fact that the person is de facto out of communion may be the only responsible and charitable thing to do.

Failing to name error because of some kind of fear of offending the person in error is neither compassion nor charity. Confronting or challenging the error or evil of another is never easy yet it must be done.

The adage usually attributed to Edmund Burke was correct: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

The Lord has called bishops to be shepherds. That shepherding entails both leading and protecting. In an era when error runs rampant and false teachings abound, the voice of the Holy Father rings clear and true. The teachings of the Church are well documented and consistent. Bishops and the pastors who serve in their Dioceses have an obligation both to lead their people to the truth and protect them from error.

Source

More from Bishop Vasa here and here

Read Full Post »

*What does it mean to be a Catholic?

Bishop Tobin to Congressman Patrick Kennedy: ‘What does it mean to be a Catholic?’
by Deacon Keith Fournier
Catholic Online

Among those Catholics in public life who openly defy the clear teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the inviolable dignity of every human life from conception to natural death is Representative Patrick Kennedy. The son of the late Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy, he represents Rhode Island’s First Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives. The Congressman was to have had a meeting with his Bishop Thomas J. Tobin concerning his very public defiance on this matter, but that meeting has now been postponed at Kennedy’s request.

We bring to our readers the full text of a letter which Congressman Kennedy received from his Bishop, Thomas J. Tobin. This letter was in response to Kennedy’s public defiance against the truth revealed in the Natural Law, confirmed by science, affirmed in Scripture and the Tradition and taught infallibly by theMagisterium (teaching office) of the Catholic Church concerning the fundamental Human Right to Life. This matter recently surfaced when Kennedy publicly contended with the Church over the US Bishops’ heroic insistence that the proposed “Health Care Reform” which recently cleared the House not provide funding for abortion.

It passed only after the Pro-Life Amendment named after a faithful Catholic Democrat, Bart Stupak, corrected the lethal nature of its impact on our youngest neighbors in the womb. Kennedy and other Catholics such as Speaker Pelosi had simply lied when they said the legislation, prior to this essential Amendment, would not have had the effect of funding the killing of children in the womb with our tax dollars. The battle on this front is far from over.

As Catholics called to stand in solidarity with all the poor, including those whom Mother Teresa called the “poorest of the poor”, our youngest neighbors, we have had to contend with the lies of these Catholics for far too long. Patrick Kennedy is only one of too many. Kennedy told reporters on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 that he has postponed the meeting with his Bishop. He indicated he finds it “very disconcerting” that Bishop Tobin will not keep the content of their discussion “private”. This is, of course, one of the great subterfuges used by Catholics like Congressman Kennedy and others who openly defy the Church, cause scandal and confuse many in their perfidy.

What is different in this instance is the clear, courageous and commendable response of his Bishop, Thomas J. Tobin. He is using this as an opportunity to not only assist the Congressman by exposing his dangerous error and thereby assisting him to embrace the truth, but he is using it as an opportunity to stop this subterfuge before it continues to lead others astray. He published his letter to the Congressman in the ”Rhode Island Catholic” in his regular column entitled “Without a Doubt” which can be found on the website of the“Rhode Island Catholic” .

******

WITHOUT A DOUBT

BY BISHOP THOMAS J. TOBIN

Dear Congressman Kennedy:

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” (Congressman Patrick Kenned)

Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.

For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.”

Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.

For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of  Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)

Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)

There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”

But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?

Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.

Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?

In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?

Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.

Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance.

It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas J. Tobin

Bishop of Providence

******

We thank Bishop Thomas Tobin for his clarity, courage and the genuine pastoral concern shown toward Congressman Kennedy. We also thank the Bishop for his uncompromising defense of those whose lives are threatened by the continued rebellion of too many Catholics in public life who openly reject the truth,confusing many in the process and causing serious scandal.

We ask our readers to pray that Congressman Kennedy would prayerfully receive this loving and needed correction and then reschedule his meeting with this good Shepherd. We also ask our readers to increase their prayer for all of our Bishops as they continue to contend for the truth about life and pastor the flock of God entrusted to them.

******

Also see: Being Catholic

Read Full Post »

*Bishop Wenski: “We Catholics have become too complacent about the legal killing of unborn children in America and elsewhere.”

Excerpt from Bishop Wenski’s sermon at a Mass of Reparation for the sins and transgressions committed against the dignity and sacredness of human life in our world today.

We live in a nation where abortion laws are among the most liberal among the Western democracies. We Catholics have become too complacent about the legal killing of unborn children in America and elsewhere.  This complacency contributed to the climate that led Notre-Dame’s president to think that it would be no big deal to defy the bishops in granting this honorary degree to President Obama. And, as the world’s lone superpower, with President Obama’s setting aside the Mexico City policy, we as a nation are once again using our wealth and influence to export abortion to nation’s weaker and poorer than ourselves.  Before the completion of his first 100 days in office, President Obama has already expanded federal funding for abortion, directed tax payer funded support for embryonic stem cell research which requires the destruction of living human beings, and has challenged conscience protection provisions that allow health care workers and institutions to refuse to participate in abortions and other procedures that violate their ethical or religious views.

I hope you will read the entire sermon here. 

Read Full Post »

*Cardinal Rigali Urges Support for ‘Pregnant Women Support Act’

[TFS Ed: Click here to contact your elected officials to voice your support.]

by Deacon Keith Fournier

The Pregnant Women Support Act reaches out to women with a helping hand when they are most vulnerable.

Catholic Online

In the encyclical letter “The Gospel of Life”, the Servant of God John Paul II not only set forth the definitive reaffirmation of the Christian rejection of every act against the fundamental Right to Life as being intrinsically evil, but also presented important directions regarding the pragmatic application of this clear teaching by those charged with governance. At the end of Paragraph 73 we read the following words:

“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favoring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter.

“In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”

Justin Cardinal Rigali, though not in elective office, recently demonstrated the application of this essential direction for those who are. He issued a letter encouraging support for the Pregnant Women Support Act. In it he gives every Catholic in elective office a good example of how to apply the absolute commitment to the Right to Life as infallibly taught in that same Encyclical letter. Sadly, currently in the United States, a majority of those in Public Office continue to reject the inalienable, fundamental and preeminent Right to Life as revealed in the Natural Law, confirmed by medical science, affirmed in the Sacred Scripture and taught infallibly by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.Truly Pro-Life political leaders must not compromise but can find ways to limit the evil effects of the current law.

We offer the good Cardinal’s letter to encourage support for the Pregnant Women Support Act. as well as to demonstrate to all Catholics, other Christians, and all people of good will in public office how to proceed while they work without compromise to bring an end to the reign of the Culture of Death in the current positive law in the United States:

April 24, 2009

Dear Representative:

In a society where disagreements on abortion and the rights of the unborn child seem persistent and intractable, there are some statements that almost everyone can endorse. First, the fact that over a million abortions take place every year in this country is a tragedy, and we should at least take steps to reduce abortions. Second, no woman should ever have to undergo an abortion because she feels she has no other choice or because alternatives were unavailable or not made known to her. An abortion performed under such social and economic duress meets no one’s standard for “freedom of choice.”

If you agree with these statements, I hope you will support and co-sponsor the Pregnant Women Support Act recently reintroduced by Representative Lincoln Davis (D- TN).

This Act will provide many kinds of life-affirming support for pregnant women and their unborn children. These include: Eliminating pregnancy as a “preexisting condition” that can be used to deny health coverage for women; grants to support centers providing alternatives to abortion; assistance encouraging colleges and universities to provide support for pregnant and parenting students; increased support for the WIC program, and for adoption programs; allowing states to cover unborn children and their mothers under the Children’s Health Insurance Program, providing prenatal care for especially needy pregnant women who may not otherwise be eligible; and improving services for pregnant women who are at risk from domestic violence. The bill also improves the means for informing women about supportive services available to them during and after pregnancy, through a public awareness program as well as a basic requirement that abortion facilities provide informed consent (including information about alternatives to abortion).

The Pregnant Women Support Act reaches out to women with a helping hand when they are most vulnerable, and most engaged in making a decision about life or death for their unborn children. It provides an authentic common ground, an approach that people can embrace regardless of their position on other issues. For example, it does not raise the entirely separate issue of seeking to reduce pregnancies through government promotion of contraceptives, which recently created so much controversy when it was inappropriately proposed for inclusion in an economic stimulus package. That issue raises serious questions regarding priorities in health care as well as the conscience rights of patients and health care providers, which demand a serious debate of their own. In any case, low-income women already have guaranteed coverage for family planning through Medicaid, with the Federal government assuring States that it will pay 90% of this coverage – yet it is precisely among these women that abortion rates are highest. Many studies have concluded that programs for ensuring access to contraception do not reduce abortion rates (see www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/index.shtml).    

Discussion of pregnancy prevention and related issues will surely continue inside and outside Congress. In the meantime, pregnant women need our assistance now so that abortion is not promoted to them as their only choice. Regardless of your stance on other issues related to abortion or family planning, I hope you will join Representative Davis in ensuring that the Pregnant Women Support Act will be considered and enacted by this Congress.        

Cardinal Justin Rigali

Archbishop of Philadelphia
Chairman, Committee for Pro-Life Activities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

[TFS Ed: Click here to contact your elected officials to voice your support.]

Read Full Post »

*Warriors for the Victory of Life

Most Reverend Robert W. Finn 

Bishop of the Diocese of Kansas City ~ St. Joseph

Keynote Address for the 2009 Gospel of Life Convention

Continue reading here.

Read Full Post »