Statements by Bishops -
on Catholics and Political Responsibility
Updated June 27, 2013
"To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom..." [Pope John Paul II - Evangelium Vitae 20]
Bishops in the United States have individually expressed concern about Catholics who publicly oppose fundamental Catholic doctrine -- especially politicians. This section includes excerpts from published statements or columns by the bishops, or interviews, with links. (Unless otherwise indicated, click title to go to the complete version on this site, or to access on the site where it originally appeared.)
The items on this page are arranged chronologically, beginning with the latest. This section is updated regularly.
This page are statements between October 2008 and December 2008
Statements between 1990-2004 | Statements between 2005-2007 | Statements between January 2008- September 2008 | Statements between October 2008-December 2008 | Statements between 2009 - Present
Bishop Statements on President Barack Obama and Notre Dame, May, 2009
|
Chronological Order |
Alphabetical Order |
|
Statements between Oct 2008-Dec 2008 Bishop Earl Boyea - October 2008 Statements between January 2009 - Present Archbishop Charles Chaput - January 21, 2009 Statements between Jan 2008- Sept 2008 Bishop William E. Lori - ?-2008 Bishop Edward U. Kmiec - January 28, 2005 Statements between 1990 and 2004 Archbishop John Myers - June 1990 |
Bishop Joseph V. Adamec - May 3, 2004 Bishop Kenneth A. Angell - October 23, 2004 Bishop Samuel Aquila - April 25, 2004 Bishop Samuel Aquila - May 23-29, 2004 Bishop Samuel Aquila - November 30, 2004 Bishop Samuel Aquila - August 26, 2008 Bishop Samuel Aquila - November 3, 2008 Bishop Samuel Aquila - November 14, 2008 Bishop Samuel Aquila - March 18, 2011 Cardinal Francis Arinze - April 23, 2004 Cardinal Francis Arinze - May 26, 2004 Arizona Catholic Conference - September 2006 Arizona Catholic Conference - October 2006 Bishop Gregory Aymond - June 11, 2004 Bishop Gregory Aymond - September 2004 Bishop Gregory Aymond - September 2008 Bishop Robert Baker - June 2004 Bishop Robert Baker - August 4, 2004 Bishop Victor Balke - June 24, 2004 Bishop Gerald Barbarito - August 5, 2004 Bishop Leonard Blair - September 2, 3, 2004 Bishop Raymond Boland - October 7, 2004 Bishop Earl Boyea - October 2008 Bishop Earl Boyea - October 27, 2008 Bishop Lawrence E. Brandt- August 10, 2004 Bishop Edward K. Braxton - October 11, 2004 Archbishop Alexander Brunett - July 19, 2004 Archbishop Raymond Burke - November 23, 2003 Archbishop Raymond Burke - June 21-28, 2004 Archbishop Raymond Burke - September 24, 2004 Archbishop Raymond Burke - October 1, 2004 Archbishop Raymond Burke - October 5, 2004 Archbishop Raymond Burke - August 2008 Archbishop Raymond Burke - November 3, 2008 Bishop Oscar Cantu - August 2008 Bishop Robert Carlson - August 2004 Bishop Robert J. Carlson - October 28, 2008 Archbishop Charles Chaput - April 14, 2004 Archbishop Charles Chaput - May 26, 2004 Archbishop Charles Chaput - September 22, 2004 Archbishop Charles Chaput - October 22, 2004 Archbishop Charles Chaput - January 16, 2008 Archbishop Charles Chaput - May 19, 2008 Archbishop Charles Chaput - August 2008 Archbishop Charles J. Chaput - September 8, 2008 Archbishop Charles Chaput - January 21, 2009 Archbishop Charles Chaput - January 28, 2009 Archbishop Charles Chaput - February 23, 2009 Archbishop Charles Chaput - March 4, 2009 Archbishop Charles J. Chaput - January 22, 2012 Bishop Paul S. Coakley - August 15, 2006 Bishop Paul S. Coakley - January 31, 2007 Bishop Paul S. Coakley - October 16, 2008 Bishop George Coleman - October 29, 2004 Bishop James D. Conley - August 2008 Bishop James D. Conley - September 8, 2008 Bishop Blase Cupich - October 27, 2008 Archbishop Elden Curtiss - May 7, 2004 Bishop Elden F. Curtiss - November 1, 2008 Bishop John M. D'Arcy - April 28, 2004 Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - March 6, 2004 Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - June 5, 2004 Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - July 3, 2004 Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - September 18, 2004 Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - October 23, 2004 Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - October 28, 2006 Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - October 27, 2007 Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - June 21, 2008 Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - September 6, 2008 Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - September 19, 2008 Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - October 4, 2008 Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - November 1, 2008 Cardinal Daniel DiNardo - September 26, 2008 Archbishop Timothy Dolan - September 27, 2008 Archbishop John F. Donoghue - July 22, 2004 Archbishop John F. Donoghue - August 4, 2004 Archbishop John F. Donoghue - September 16, 2004 Cardinal Avery Dulles - June 29, 2004 Cardinal Edward Egan - April 28, 2008 Cardinal Edward Egan - August 26, 2008 Cardinal Edward Egan - October 23, 2008 Bishop Kevin F. Farrell - August 2008 Bishop Kevin J. Farrell - October 8, 2008 Bishop Robert Finn - October 7, 2004 Bishop Robert W. Finn - September 12, 2008 Bishop Robert Finn - October 3, 2008 Bishop Robert Finn - October 17, 2008 Bishop Robert Finn - October 24, 2008 Bishop Robert Finn - November 3, 2008 Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza - June 11, 2004 Florida Bishop's Conference - October 1, 2004 Archbishop Harry J. Flynn - September 9,2004 Bishop Ronald Gainer- January 18, 2004 Bishop Ronald Gainer - June 24, 2004 Bishop Ronald W. Gainer - October 28, 2008 Bishop Joseph Galante - April 29, 2004; May 5, 2004 Bishop Joseph A. Galante - October 27, 2006 Bishop Victor Galeone - July/August 2004 Cardinal Francis George - October 10, 2004 Cardinal Francis George - September 3, 2008 Bishop Ronald M. Gilmore - August 15, 2006 Archbishop Jose Gomez - August 2008 Archbishop José H. Gomez - October 29, 2008 Bishop Joseph Gossman - July 8, 2004 Bishop Joseph Gossman - October 3, 2004 Bishop Rene H. Gracida - August 10, 2004 Bishop Rene H. Gracida - September 19, 2004 Bishop Rene H. Gracida - October 5, 2004 Bishop Charles Grahmann - July 2, 2004 Bishop Wilton Gregory - April 23, 2004 Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory - October 30, 2008 Bishop Thomas Gumbleton - October 20, 2004 Bishop Bernard Harrington - July 8, 2004 Bishop Robert Hermann - October 3, 10, 24, 31, 2008 Bishop Robert Hermann - November 7 & 14, 2008 Bishop Robert Hermann - January 23, 2009 Bishop Howard Hubbard - September-October 2004 Archbishop Alfred Hughes - January 14. 2004 Archbishop Alfred Hughes - September 20, 2004 Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes - October 11, 2008 Illinois Catholic Conference - October 2006 Catholic Conference of Illinois - September 22, 2008 Bishop Michael O. Jackels - August 15, 2006 Bishop Michael O. Jackels - October 17, 2008 Bishop James Vann Johnston - September 26, 2008 Bishop James Vann Johnston - October 3, 2008 Bishop Peter Jugis - August 4, 2004 Bishop Peter Jugis - August 14, 2004 Cardinal William H. Keeler - May 28, 2004 Catholic Conference of Kentucky - January 22, 2008 Bishop Gerald Kicanas - June 2, 2004 Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas - September 4, 2008 Bishop John Kinney - May 27, 2004 Bishop John F. Kinney - September 11, 2008 Bishop Edward U. Kmiec - January 28, 2005 Archbishop William Levada - June 13, 2004 Archbishop William Levada - July 31, 2004 Bishop Jerome E. Listecki - August 28, 2008 Bishop William Lori - July 2004 Bishop William Lori - October 2004 Bishop William E. Lori - ?-2008 Bishop Paul S. Loverde - October 31, 2004 Cardinal Roger Mahony - May 13, 2004 Bishop W. Francis Malooly - September 8, 2008 Bishop W. Francis Malooly - September 10, 2008 Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga - February 15, 2006 Bishop Joseph F. Martino - September 30, 2008 Massachusetts Bishops - October 29, 2004 Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - April 29, 2004 Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - May 13, 2004 Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - June 1, 2004 Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - July 6, 2004 Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - June 15, 2006 Bishop Timothy McDonnell - October 29, 2004 Bishop Robert McManus - April 27, 2004 Bishop Robert McManus - May 21, 2004 Bishop Robert McManus - June (?) 2004 Bishop Robert McManus - October 29, 2004 Bishop Carl Mengeling - May 2, 2004 Bishop Robert C. Morlino - January 22, 2004 Bishop Robert C. Morlino - September 7, 2008 Bishop Robert Mulvee - April 27, 2004 Bishop William F. Murphy - August 27, 2008 Bishop William Murphy - September 19, 2008 Archbishop John Myers - June 1990 Archbishop John Myers - May 5, 2004 Archbishop John Myers - September 17, 2004 Archbishop John Myers - October 29, 2008 Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann - August 15, 2006 Archbishop Joseph Naumann - May 9, 2008 Archbishop Joseph Naumann - May 23, 2008 Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann - September 12, 2008 Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann - March 6, 2009 Catholic Bishops of New York State - October 1, 2008 Bishop R. Walker Nickless - September 4, 2008 Archbishop George H. Niederauer - September 5, 2008 Archbishop John C. Nienstedt - August 26, 2008 Archbishop Nzeki of Kenya - May 30-31, 2004 Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - October 16, 2008 Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - October 23, 2008 Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - October 30, 2008 Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - November 11, 2008 Bishop Armando X. Ochoa - November 3, 2008 Bishop Thomas Olmsted - March 18, 2004 Bishop Thomas Olmsted - May 21 & 24, 2004 Bishop Thomas Olmsted - September 22, 2004 Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted - October 2006 Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted - September 4, 2008 Archbishop Sean O'Malley - October 29, 2004 Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley - August 29, 2008 Bishop Thomas Paprocki - December 1, 2010 Cardinal George Pell - June 12, 2007 Bishop Raymundo J. Peña - June 2004 Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk - May 7, 2004 Bishop Anthony Pilla - July 2004 (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - July 4-9, 2004) Bishop Kevin Rhoades - October 25, 2008 Bishop John Ricard - November 4, 2008 Bishop David Ricken - August, 2004 Bishop David Ricken - October 2004 Cardinal Justin Rigali - October 28, 2004 Bishop Michael Saltarelli - July 5, 2004 Bishop Michael Saltarelli - September 30. 2004 Bishop Arthur Serratelli - October 13, 2008 Bishop Bernard Schmitt - July 13, 2004 Bishop Bernard Schmitt - August 11, 2004 Bishop Bernard W. Schmitt - October 20, 2004 Bishop Dennis M. Schnurr - July (?) 2004 Bishop Dennis M. Schnurr - October 2008 Archbishop Michael Sheehan - May 21, 2004 Bishop Michael Sheridan - May 1, 2004 Bishop Michael Sheridan - May 27 & 29, 2004 Bishop Michael Sheridan - June 2004 Bishop Michael Sheridan - August 26, 2008 Bishop Larry Silva - October 19, 2008 Bishop William Skylstad - June 10, 2004 Bishop Edward J. Slattery - September 9, 2008 Bishop John Smith - April 29, 2004 Bishop J. Terry Steib - October 23, 2008 Bishop John Steinbock - July 2004 Bishop Phillip F. Straling - October 2004 Bishop Paul Swain - September 26, 2008 Bishop Anthony B. Taylor - November 1, 2008 Bishop George L. Thomas - August 2004 Bishop George L. Thomas - October 2004 Bishop George L. Thomas - September 19, 2008 Bishop Thomas Tobin - May 31, 2007 Bishop Thomas J. Tobin - October 29, 2008 (USCCB - June Meeting 2004) (USCCB - November Meeting 2007) Bishop Kevin W. Vann - October 8, 2008 Bishop Robert Vasa - June 25, 2004 Bishop Robert Vasa - March 1, 2007 Bishop Robert Vasa - September 5, 2008 Virginia Catholic Conference - October 2007 Virginia Catholic Conference - October 2008 Archbishop John Vlazny - May 6, 2004 Archbishop John G. Vlazny - September 30, 2008 Bishop William Weigand - January 22, 2003 Bishop Thomas Wenski - May 3, 2004 Bishop Thomas Wenski - October 21 2004 Bishop Thomas G. Wenski - September 2008 Bishop Donald Wuerl - May 25, 2004 Bishop Donald Wuerl - August 18, 2005 Archbishop Donald Wuerl - April 30, 2008 Archbishop Donald Wuerl - August 25, 2008 Archbishop Donald Wuerl - September 9, 2008 Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl - October 15, 2008 Bishop David Zubik - October 29, 2004 Bishop David A. Zubik - August 2008 Bishop David A. Zubik - October 2008 Michigan Catholic Conference - June 15, 2010 |
| November 2008 |
When society abandons God’s law, it abandons humanity
Nov. 13, 2008
Baltimore Catholic Review - Nov 11, 2008
http://www.catholicreview.org/subpages/storyworldnew-new.aspx?action=4998
Baltimore Archbishop Edwin O'Brien on the proposed Freedom of Choice Act
The election last week of Senator Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States was, indeed, a historic day for our nation. His election as the first African-American to hold the office of president is a significant step forward for a country that continues to heal from the wounds inflicted by the sin of racism. And the response I have witnessed in the past week clearly indicates how meaningful this historic moment is for so many people--most especially our sisters and brothers in the African-American community.
Now that the extended and divisive campaign is over, we rejoice that the President-elect has accepted the challenge of unifying a country divided not in its desire for a better America, but in its belief in what will truly make America better. While early exit polling indicated that the economy was the paramount concern of six out of every 10 Americans, we must not lose sight of the ongoing struggle our country faces in achieving genuine respect for the freedom and dignity of every human life.
On the day after the election, the nation’s Catholic bishops issued a statement congratulating the president-elect and urging him to defend the weak and heal divisions.
“Our country is confronting many uncertainties,” we bishops said. “We pray that you will use the powers of your office to meet them with a special concern to defend the most vulnerable among us and heal the divisions in our country and our world. We stand ready to work with you in defense and support of the life and dignity of every human person.”
As faithful citizens, our duty to remain actively engaged in the political process does not end at the voting booth. It is equally important that we continue to claim our legitimate role in the public square by urging those whom we have elected as our leaders to uphold values we believe are fundamental to the common good. We pray there will be many issues upon which we can work in wholehearted unity with our country’s new administration and members of Congress. But today I urge all Catholics—those who voted for our president-elect and those who did not—to respond to President-elect Obama’s promise in his November 4 acceptance speech: “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.”
Of particular concern to Catholics and others seeking to promote a culture of life, is Senator Obama’s public commitment to passing the Freedom of Choice Act. It is critically important that we voice our early and grave concerns to our elected officials regarding this uncompromising legislation, which is currently pending before Congress. To do so, and to learn more information, I encourage you to visit the online Legislative Action Center of our Maryland Catholic Conference at www.mdcathcon.org.
The Freedom of Choice Act, or FOCA, eliminates even the most modest regulations on abortion and creates a “fundamental right” to abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Despite its misleading title claiming freedom of choice, FOCA, co-sponsored by Maryland Senators Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin and Representatives Dutch Ruppersberger and Chris Van Hollen...
• Removes the choice of medical providers to refuse in good conscience to provide morally offensive services.
• Removes the choice of taxpayers to decline to have their money pay for morally abhorrent procedures.
• Removes the choice of state legislatures to undertake reasonable and widely accepted regulations of abortions, including those that increase education and family involvement while reducing the number of abortions.
Not only does FOCA eliminate legitimate conscientious choice, it actually expands the scope of laws to enhance abortion on demand by…
• Making abortion a “fundamental” right: Thus, policies now in place by the will of the people and legislatures in many states would be overridden across the nation. (e.g. informed consent, parental notification, and restrictions on government funding of abortions).
• Requiring an expansion of government-assisted abortions through military and public hospitals.
• Requiring greater taxpayer subsidy of abortions.
A threat to all life, this legislation would also have a terrible impact on Catholic and other pro-life healthcare providers. Of particular note:
• FOCA trumps state laws that protect rights of providers (e.g. Catholic hospitals, pharmacists, etc.) to conscientiously object to performing abortions if such state laws are seen to in any way “interfere” with a woman’s decision to have an abortion.
• FOCA undermines the freedom of religion upon which our country was founded.
I pledge that we will join with other all law-abiding religious and public interest groups in taking every action necessary to resist this blatant attempt to stifle the consciences of those who continue to hold innocent human life sacred.
In his 1919 Pastoral Letter, Cardinal James Gibbons of Baltimore wrote: “In a special degree, the sense and performance of duty is required of those who are entrusted with public office. They are at once the servants of the people and the bearers of an authority whose original source is none other than God.”
I ask the faithful of this Archdiocese to pray for our President-elect and for all newly-elected leaders--that they will perform the duties entrusted to them with respect for the dignity of all human life and in complete faithfulness to the God we are all called to serve.
A Letter from Bishop John Ricard to Senator Joseph Biden
Senator Joseph Biden 4 November 2008
United States Senate
Dear Senator Biden,
I deeply appreciate the collaboration your office has extended to me and my brother bishops in advancing legislation which is beneficial to the poor and the destitute throughout the United States, and, indeed, the world. It is as a collaborator for the common good, and as pastor of the Church in Pensacola-Tallahassee that I write to you with similar urgency.
I learned recently of your visit to the diocese during the political campaign and that you attended the celebration of Sunday Mass in a local parish. The Church of Pensacola- Tallahassee welcomes all people of good will, all the baptized to pray with us. In particular, we welcome our fellow Catholics who seek to fulfill their Sunday obligation in a spirit of communion by participating in Sunday Mass.
Sunday Mass provides Catholics with the nourishment to live in the image of Jesus Christ whose mission is directed to the orphan and the widow, to the poor and the vulnerable. The principles of right reason, knowable to all even beyond the categories of faith, attest the common good is served only when the least of our brethren are accorded full rights correspondent to their inviolable dignity. Thus, human life is to be respected from the moment of conception until natural death. The Church has taught this from the beginning, and civilized societies live by this principle.
Our worship of God during Sunday Mass, which culminates in the reception of Holy Communion, is precisely the moment when we are nourished and strengthened by the Holy Spirit’s gift of courage to stand up in fortitude to protect the weakest among us. The Eucharist, as the real presence of Christ, is also the sign of our unity as a Church, which is built on sharing in the mission of Christ to protect the defenseless. While grateful for the effective collaboration you and your office have offered on so many worthy projects and concerns, I also observe, by your support for laws that fail to protect the unborn, a profound disconnection from your human and personal obligation to protect the weakest and most innocent among us: the child in the womb.
As the bishops said in their 2004 reflection on Catholics in Public Life, “The Eucharist is the source and summit of Catholic life. Therefore, like every Catholic generation before us, we must be guided by the words of St. Paul, ‘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’ (1 Cor 11:27). This means that all must examine their consciences as to their worthiness to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord. This examination includes fidelity to the moral teaching of the Church in personal and public life. . . Respect for the Holy Eucharist, in particular, demands that it be received worthily and that it be seen as the source for our common mission in the world.”
I pray that the Catholic faith you have been raised in, the faith by which you pray, and the life of virtue which flows from both may strengthen you so that you may have the strength needed to witness Jesus, even as the martyrs did, and live by the virtue of fortitude as you proclaim your support to the Person of Christ in the most vulnerable of his members: the pre-born child. You are, Senator, always welcome to nourish such a faith within the Diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee.
Source: http://www.ptdiocese.org/documents/Ricard%20to%20Biden%2011_04_08.pdf (broken link)
Catholic Diocese of Fargo
Office of Communications
Bishop Samuel Aquila on the fundamental right to life: “We will be judged”
Nov. 3, 2008
At a Nov. 2 Mass marking the completion of the 40 Days for Life North Dakota campaign of prayer and fasting to end abortion, Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, Bishop of Fargo, spoke of “the four last things…death, judgment, heaven and hell.”
“Judgment is real, just as heaven and hell are real,” Bishop Aquila said during his homily at the 11 p.m. Mass at the Cathedral of St. Mary in Fargo. “When the soul separates from the body and comes before God, we will be judged on how we lived. It’s important to understand the reality of that judgment.”
Bishop Aquila urged the nearly 200 people in attendance to reflect upon the four last things and how they apply to the 40 Days for Life effort. The 40 Days for Life North Dakota effort of prayer, fasting and peaceful, prayerful witness outside the state of North Dakota’s only abortion facility began Sept. 24, in conjunction with similar campaigns in more than 170 cities across the nation. During those 40 days, hundreds of volunteers, representing several faith backgrounds, prayed in one-hour shifts, 24-hours-a-day, on the sidewalk outside the Red River Womens Clinic at 512 1st Ave. N. in Fargo. An average of more than 20 unborn babies are killed by abortion each week at the clinic.
The bishop spoke of the Catholic Church’s teaching on intrinsic evils. “An intrinsic evil is anything that is always and at every time wrong – that can never be seen as a ‘good’.” He noted the intrinsic evils of abortion, contraception, premarital sex, same sex acts and the taking of innocent human life during war. “All of those are intrinsic evils, and no society, and no person if he is Catholic, can ever support an intrinsic evil nor can he or she ever vote for someone who supports intrinsic evil. It is important to understand that, and to understand that truth especially in the upcoming election. Because, yes, all of us will be judged by how we vote. And, yes, there are many Catholics with erroneous consciences who have made prudential judgments that are wrong and have consistently made prudential judgments that are wrong. Either they do not fully understand the teaching of the Church or they choose to ignore that teaching and they choose an evil, and an intrinsic evil.”
“For any society to be just, it must reflect the order of God,” Bishop Aquila said. “There are fundamental rights that no one can violate and those are the inalienable rights that our forefathers recognized so clearly -- and note the order -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” He said people must be concerned about the economy, the war in Iraq, the questions about immigration and other issues, but “we must recognize that first must come the fundamental right to life…the respect for human life from the moment of conception to natural death.”
“It is important for us to never give up the battle that is taking place within our country,” he said. “Even as we close these 40 days, I encourage each of you to continue to stand for the gift of life. I encourage you to continue to pray and fast in your own homes. I encourage you to pray in front of the abortion clinic, to pray for the conversion of all those who support a so-called right to abortion, because, by doing that, they are risking hell. When one looks at the Gospel, and looks at the teaching of Jesus, that is what they are risking.”
The Mass was the final event marking the end of 40 Days for Life North Dakota. Earlier that evening, more than 170 people participated in an ecumenical candlelight prayer service outside the Red River Womens Clinic, led by the Rev. Dave Motta, pastor of Calvary United Methodist Church, Fargo, and Father Charles LaCroix, chaplain of Shanley High School, the Catholic high school in Fargo.
The full homily is posted at: http://www.fargodiocese.org/bishop/homilies&messages.htm. (broken link)
Archbishop Raymond Burke
Interview
From an interview dated November 3 by Andrew Rabel - Inside the Vatican: http://insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2008/newsflash-nov03-08.htm
3. In your country an election is about to take place in a couple of days. Archbishop Chaput says Obama is the biggest supporter ever of abortion rights, in a presidential candidate. Should Americans be concerned if he becomes president?
My fellow citizens of the United States of America should be deeply concerned about any candidate for the presidency who supports legislation which permits the destruction of human life at its very beginning, the killing of babies in the womb, or legislation which violates the integrity of marriage and family life. The safeguarding and promoting of human life, from the moment of its inception, and of the integrity of marriage must be the fundamental planks of any political agenda. A good citizen must support and vote for the candidate who most supports the inalienable dignity of innocent and defenseless life, and the integrity of marriage. To do otherwise, is to participate, in some way, in the culture of death which pervades the life of the nation and has led to so much violence, even in the home and in educational institutions.
4. In a recent interview you were quoted saying the Democratic Party is fast becoming "the party of death". Is this a fair statement, when you consider that the Republican administration has become involved in an unpopular war?
It is not my intention to engage in partisan politics. I wish that both of the major political parties in the United States of America were more coherent regarding the right to life. The Democratic Party, however has, over the years, put forth and defended a political agenda which is grievously anti-life, favoring the right to procured abortion and "marriage" between persons of the same sex. One can legitimately question the wisdom of the decisions taken in the war in Iraq, but war in itself is not always and everywhere evil, as are, for example, procured abortion, human cloning, embryonic stem-cell research, and the so-called "marriage" of persons of the same sex. Engagement of the nation in a war cannot be placed on the same moral level as the nation making laws which permit the wholesale killing of the unborn or the artificial generation of human life or experimentation on embryonic human life or "marriage" between persons of the same sex.
5. By emphasizing the issue of abortion, are some of the US bishops taking single issue politics too far, when the world's economies are in financial meltdown, obviously a product in part of government policies?
Procured abortion is the fundamental moral issue in the safeguarding and fostering of human life. To make economics or the environment the fundamental political issue, when life itself, in its most innocent and defenseless form, remains unprotected is morally irresponsible. Yes, the government of the United States must address a number of critical issues, including the current and most serious economic crisis. But it must address first its duty to promote the common good by defending the life of every human being, from the moment of its inception, and by safeguarding the integrity of marriage and the family.
Homily for the Eve of the Election - November 3, 2008
Church teaches voting is both a privilege and responsibility
Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ:
As the November elections approach the Catholic Bishops of Texas encourage Catholics to exercise the important privilege and responsibility of citizenship by voting. The Catholic Church does not endorse specific candidates or political parties. However, we do uphold important principles outlined by the US Bishops conference in the document "Faithful Citizenship." Faithful Citizenship is reported on page 5 of this edition of the Rio Grande Catholic.
We ask you to use Christian principles to measure the various candidates and what they bring to the service of our government. We also ask that you consider the following rights and duties as a part of properly forming your conscience.
The Right and Duty To Vote. Catholics have the same rights and duties as other citizens, but are called to carry them out in light of the truth of faith and reason as taught by the Catholic Church. For example, they are called to respect human authority and obey those who govern society "for the Lord's sake" (1 Peter 2:13-17).
The Duty to Form and Follow one's Conscience. We bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote. Our purpose is to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with God's truth. We recognize that the responsibility to make choices in political life rests with each individual in light of a properly formed conscience, and that participation goes well beyond casting a vote in a particular election.
Avoiding Evil. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called "intrinsically evil" actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, "abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others" (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.
Prudential Judgment. Decisions about political life are complex and require the exercise of a well-formed conscience aided by prudence. This exercise of conscience begins with outright opposition to laws and other policies that violate human life or weaken its protection. Those who knowingly, willingly, and directly support public policies or legislation that undermine fundamental moral principles cooperate with evil In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate's commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.
As you prepare to exercise your freedom to vote, the Bishops encourage you to pray and reflect on these issues and duties presented in Faithful Citizenship. For more information, visit the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops web page on Faithful Citizenship at: www.FaithfulCitizenship.org .
Source: http://www.elpasodiocese.org/
http://www.riograndecatholic.org/
Your Candidate Represents You, November 1, 2008
Ask yourself Nov. 4: How would Jesus vote?
Published: November 01, 2008
Bishop Anthony B. Taylor
The United States is the first country in the world founded on the principle of separation of Church and state. At that time, every other country had an official state religion which had the good consequence of uniting those countries and transmitting shared values and beliefs, but which also legitimized the king, the status quo and thus the bad consequence of giving the king a great deal of control over the inner workings of the Church in his domain.
In Catholic countries there was talk of the "divine right of kings" and agreements with the pope called "concordats" that spelled out how this union of Church and state would function. In Protestant countries like England, the king himself was the head of both Church and state directly. And in both Catholic and Protestant countries, adherence to anything other than the official state religion was illegal and penalized, which led some to emigrate in search of a place where they could live their faith freely.
So dissenting Puritans founded Massachusetts, dissenting Quakers founded Pennsylvania and dissenting English Catholics founded Maryland, all as places of refuge far from the direct control of the king and Church of England. Of course, these dissidents were not especially tolerant themselves: The Puritans forced Massachusetts Baptists to move on to found Rhode Island because their dissent was viewed as a threat to the religious unity of Massachusetts.
In last Sunday's Gospel Jesus addressed this issue of the relationship between Church and state just in time for our national elections. When Jesus says, "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God," he's saying two things: (1) Caesar and God each have a legitimate claim on us, and (2) God's claim on us is greater. That's why we say we are "One nation UNDER God" even though we seldom act that way. Like the kings of old, what we really want is for God to legitimize whatever we think best serves our -- often selfish -- interests be it our military objectives even though they fail to meet the criteria for a just war, our economic policies, our tolerance of those who seek to redefine marriage as something other than the permanent union of one man and one woman, and above all our failure to protect human life and human rights from the first moment of conception to natural death.
In preparation for our upcoming elections, the USCCB has once again published a document titled "Faithful Citizenship," which is a brief summary of Catholic teaching to help us use the teaching of Jesus to form our consciences so that we can make sound moral judgments regarding the political issues of our day -- the claims of Caesar -- and thereby "Give to God what belongs to God" through our participation in the political life of our country. This document highlights four areas of special concern: (1) defending human life against the threat of abortion, (2) promoting family life, especially the sanctity of marriage, (3) pursuing social justice, especially the human rights of immigrants, and (4) practicing global solidarity, especially the obligation to avoid war and promote peace, to help alleviate global poverty and promote human rights.
Last Sunday's Gospel reminded us that Caesar and God do not have an equal claim on us; God's claim on us is greater, which we must mind as we decide how to vote. Today's First Reading applies this principle the issue of immigration: "You shall not molest or oppress an alien, for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt ..." to which we can add "for you yourselves descend from immigrants."
And this and all the other issues before us should be examined in the light of the twofold Great Commandment in today's Gospel: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind ... and your neighbor as yourself."
Another way of saying this is simply to ask yourself, "What would Jesus do?" Given his Gospel of Life and his preferential love for the poor and oppressed because their needs are greater, "How would Jesus vote?" And also, considering his dealing with the political leaders of his day, "How would Jesus have us hold our leaders to account once the election is over?"
Bishop Anthony B. Taylor delivered the following homily Oct. 26 at Subiaco Abbey
Source: http://www.arkansascatholic.org/columns/index.php - Broken Link
Office of the Archbishop
November 1, 2008
ELECTION DAY, NOVEMBER 4TH:
DECIDING THE VALUES THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO US
Tuesday, November 4th is Election Day in our nation. As followers of Christ and citizens of this nation we have a serious moral obligation to promote the common good by exercising our right to vote. "The Gospel of Life must be proclaimed, and human life defended, in all places and all times. The arena for moral responsibility includes not only the halls of government but the voting booth as well. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts ..." (USCCB, Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics, nos. 33-34).
As important as it is to vote, it is even more important that we vote according to a well-formed conscience, not self-interest or along party lines. "Catholics have a serious and lifelong obligation to form their consciences in accord with human reason and the teaching of the Church" (USCCB, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, no. 17). At the core of Catholic moral and social teaching is respect for the sacred dignity of every human life. This teaching flows from our faith but also comes to us through the gift of human reason.
In this election, like many before it, we are faced with a contlict of values in candidates. There are many serious issues at stake in this election, but none is more important than abortion. Almost 50 million babies have been aborted in the United States since 1973, an unfathomable loss of human life that increases by more than a million every year. Furthermore, as Mother Teresa once pointed out, "abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships ... It has portrayed the greatest of gifts-a child-as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience" (Letter to Us. Supreme Court, February, 1994).
Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has stated with clarity that Catholics who vote for a candidate precisely because he or she supports abortion and/or euthanasia would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil. It is also true that if a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, a vote for that candidate could be permitted "in the presence of proportionate reasons" (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles, no. 6). However, I cannot conceive of a proportionate reason that could outweigh thedeaths of nearly 50 million children killed by abortion.
We are surely not one-issue people because we have to be concerned about the well-being of everyone in our society, and especially those who are hurting and in need. We have to be concerned about women with unplanned pregnancies who are without the resources to give birth or to care for their babies. We are rightfully concerned about candidates for public office who do not seem to care about babies after they are born and their mothers, and their future welfare. But the very first right we must protect, if all human rights are to be protected, is the right to life for the unborn. Those who do not understand or accept this basic human right are unworthy of our trust.
The stakes are high for all of us in this coming general election. It is up to us as individual voters to study the issues, examine the position of the candidates, pray before we enter the voting booth, and then cast our ballot in accord with consciences that are formed by the values and principles of our Catholic faith. May the Lord bless you and our great nation.
Most Reverend Elden F. Curtiss
Archbishop of Omaha
Source: http://www.archomaha.com/newsandevents/pdf/ArchbishopsVotingStatement.pdf
Spanish Version: http://www.archomaha.com/newsandevents/pdf/ArchbishopsVotingStatementSpanish.pdf
Broken links
| October 2008 |
Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory,
Archbishop of Atlanta
What I Have Seen and Heard
Published: October 30, 2008
Thomas Jefferson tailored the famous phrase “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in his development of the Declaration of Independence, borrowing it from the writings of the English philosopher John Locke. Jefferson actually used many of Locke’s political principles throughout that document. He employed that particular well-known phrase in detailing some of the inalienable rights that we enjoy as human beings. They are inalienable because they depend not upon the largesse of any human institution or individual but because they flow from the very nature of our humanity—and therefore they belong to a natural law that predates every explicit or written human law. They are not subject to anyone’s choice or opinion because they arise from our very dignity as human beings.
I suspect that over the past 35 years many people in the United States might well have wished that Thomas Jefferson would have borrowed some other phrase from John Locke or at least reordered this particular phrase so that Life did not appear first or even at all in this listing of inalienable rights. But just as Pilate was quoted after the death of Jesus—what I have written, I have written (John 19:22)—Life itself is the very first principle whenever we decide to consider those rights that that are listed as inalienable in the Declaration of Independence.
I have been asked by a number of people to comment upon the issues that we now face as a nation during this particular general election, and a few people (representing both sides of the political aisle) have even clamored for me to propose a candidate for whom all Catholics ought to vote—or to designate one they certainly must not elect. The Church wisely offers only ethical principles and a moral framework for people to consider and to evaluate when you are about to make your crucially important decisions regarding whom to vote for in this election.
Throughout the centuries, the Church has discovered that it is often perilous to align herself to a particular political party or individual leader. Rather we choose to recommend Gospel-based principles and social teachings to our people and to allow you to make appropriately informed decisions. These principles were carefully and adequately detailed in the most recent edition of the Bishops’ quadrennial statement: Faithful Citizenship. For some people these values were too complex, too nuanced and too oblique. They would much have desired a simple option.
According to the principles of Faithful Citizenship, Catholics must support the just care of the poor, the rights of workers, the dignity of people who immigrate to a new nation, the conservation of the environment; we must assess the very complex economic issues, seek to provide affordable health care for people who do not enjoy that security, and foster the more humane treatment of those who are imprisoned, to list only some of the issues that we now face. However, before and prior to all of those vitally important concerns, Faithful Citizenship places the issue of Life itself. All of those other matters are of immense and lasting significance, yet they remain of no consequence for those who are not granted the first right—the right to be born. For this reason, I want to remind all of you, my brothers and sisters, to remember those famous Jeffersonian words borrowed from Locke—and especially remember the order that he gave them.
On November 5, the social and ethical doctrines of the Catholic Church will be the same as they were on November 3. The dignity of human life will still be the foundational issue that we face in our society and in our world. Whoever is elected will hear the same policies from the Catholic Church that we have promoted not only during this election year but consistently about the sacredness of human life and the issues of social justice that necessarily flow from that leading concern. We will continue to challenge and urge all of our elected officials to enact laws that respect human life at each stage of its existence. These are not principles that we promote only during the election season but every day in season and out of season. Our social teaching is not a platform that can be adjusted to fit the mood of the moment or the sentiments of the day. Far longer than the Declaration of Independence, the Catholic Church has placed life first among those rights that are therein described as inalienable—no matter what some people may have recently suggested regarding the Church’s teaching on human life. We will also speak up for the other concerns that cannot be ignored or dismissed because they flow from the very human dignity that we all enjoy as God’s children.
Like most of you, I have sometimes felt oppressed by much of the election rhetoric and I am glad that the end is near. This has been a long political season. I deliberately chose to save this column until the final weekend before our election so that I could speak with you about these issues in those closing moments before you cast your ballots. Quite often the last words that we might hear are those that we tend to remember. I am utterly convinced that our people are well prepared to make informed decisions based upon our Catholic faith and its moral framework and the wisdom that you have gained in living our faith each day.
Source: http://www.georgiabulletin.org/local/2008/10/30/seenandheard/
Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien
October 30, 2008
An Appeal to Those Who Seek or Hold Office
Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien
The Catholic Review
In the midst of this protracted election season, a seeming division among the Catholic leadership in our country has emerged, representing different approaches to this year’s document of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” Despite these differences, the Catholic bishops of the United States remain totally and universally committed to the foundational principle advanced in the document: Disrespect for any human life diminishes respect for all human life.
This conviction, which reflects the constant teaching of our Church, has also notably been a guiding principle of our nation since its founding – a unique fact not lost on Pope John Paul II who, as he departed Baltimore-Washington Airport in October 1995, heralded:
“At the center of the moral vision of [the American] founding documents is the recognition of the rights of the human person.” The strength of the United States lies “especially [in its] respect for the dignity and sanctity of human life in all conditions and at all stages of development.”
And during his visit to the U.S. this year, Pope Benedict XVI spoke in similar fashion:
“Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.”
And so I pose this question to all public servants – and surely those who are Catholic – as civilized human beings, as Americans, as faithful Catholics: Can we not all “begin with a commitment never to intentionally kill, or collude in the killing of, any innocent human life, no matter how broken, unformed, disabled or desperate that life may seem”? (U.S. Bishops, 1998).
Some elected officials who are Catholic accept that life in the womb from its very conception is human, others muddle the issue, but from the dawn of Christianity until very recently Western civilization has treated every life as sacred, and modern science increasingly supports that with overwhelming evidence.
For one to claim to be a loyal, practicing Catholic and to actively support public policies that advance the cause of abortion is to embrace a moral contradiction. Our Catholic faith teaches unequivocally that abortion unjustly destroys innocent human life, and that to engage in activities that explicitly cooperate in this moral evil is objectively a grave and mortal sin. As with any other member of the Church whose actions stand in serious contradiction to our faith, we reach out to them in prayer, asking that they seek a change of heart and the restoring grace of the Sacrament of Reconciliation before approaching Holy Communion.
In his Encyclical on the Eucharist last year (“Sacramentum Caritatis”), Pope Benedict XVI specifically addressed “those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defense from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman …” He called these values “nonnegotiable” and continued:
“Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators … must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature.”
The Pope here appeals to “Eucharistic consistency,” suggesting an “objective connection” between the reception of the Eucharist and the obligation to publicly witness our faith. Receiving Holy Communion is not a private devotion but a public act. In doing so, Catholics proclaim and give witness to their oneness, their “communion” with Christ and His Church.
Consider St. Paul’s dire warning in pleading for respect and reverence toward the Eucharist: “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” (1 Cor. 11:27). The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of irreverence toward the Eucharist as a sacrilege, a particularly grave sin against the first commandment.
Our Conference of Catholic Bishops has agreed overwhelmingly that there can be differing pastoral approaches at this critically teachable moment. Some American bishops, after engaging public officeholders to no avail on this serious issue, have opted to forbid their reception of the Eucharist within their jurisdictions. In so doing they are within their rights, and I respect their decision. However, and upon soul-searching reflection and prayer, I have decided that I will not take this public step. Let me note the following points in support of what I pray is a prudent decision on my part:
1. In contrast to and in spite of the measured tones of several bishops who have made this decision, many of the letters I have received and advertisements I have seen calling for this penalty reflect an uncharitable anger and even a vindictiveness that undermine the healing intent of those bishops’ decrees.
2. At this stage, the divisive result of such an action in the Archdiocese of Baltimore both within and outside the Catholic community would, in my opinion, prove counterproductive to our evangelizing efforts and to our overall unity.
3. In this unique and highly charged atmosphere, it is likely inevitable that such a step, in spite of any appropriate attempts on our part to explain it, would be distorted as constituting an unwise and unwarranted intrusion of the Church in the political life of the community. It might even undermine pro-life politicians, suggesting that their position is simply a consequence of pressure from the institutional Church, rather than the result of the Church’s clear obligation to defend the dignity of every human life.
How grateful we must be to those public figures (a good many of whom are not Catholic) who often put their careers on the line in defense of innocent human life. As for those Catholics unwilling to defend life, I would hope that prayer and the graces that would accompany discussion and persuasion would help bring about a conversion of mind and heart. We ask no politician to do anything unconstitutional or immoral in pursuing legal steps to avoid the killing of innocent human life and in defending women too often victimized and traumatized by a powerful abortion industry.
We ask all our public servants to reflect upon the words of St. Thomas More, the patron saint of those who hold public office. From the gallows which would soon claim his life, he declared that he would die “the king’s good servant, but God’s first.” Whose servant, my admirable friends in public life, do you claim to be?
As a bishop of the Catholic Church, I must be authoritative in explaining the Church’s 2,000-year teaching on a matter as basic as life and death. I pledge not to be confrontational, however, and would welcome a private discussion of this message with those who seek or hold public office.
Finally, I ask for your prayer for me and our Conference of Bishops as we meet here in plenary session next month in efforts to provide just and effective moral guidance for our people and our leaders whom we seek to serve.
Source: http://www.catholicreview.org
WITHOUT A DOUBT
Okay, Here’s How You Should Vote
Posted Oct 29, 2008
BY BISHOP THOMAS J. TOBIN
“Those who believe that religion and politics aren’t connected don’t understand either.” Those words of Mahatma Gandhi, several decades old, certainly apply to the situation we find ourselves in today as we prepare for our national elections.
As true as Gandhi’s words are, though, they don’t provide much direction for Catholics who want to be faithful citizens of both the Kingdom of God and our nation.
Recently I received a letter from a concerned couple that said in part: “Dear Bishop Tobin . . . We are writing respectfully to ask you to take a more active role in communicating to us our responsibilities and directing our consciences in the upcoming presidential election . . . Unless our leadership leads, how are Catholics supposed to vote as Catholics? We cannot afford an ‘imprudent silence.’”
If you follow my ministry here in Rhode Island at all, you know that I haven’t been shy about speaking out on public affairs, especially when they have moral relevance. In reference to abortion, the specific concern of my letter writers, I’ve written and spoken repeatedly and clearly. Addressing the presidential campaign from a Catholic perspective, however, is a delicate affair, one that’s challenged episcopal brains a lot sharper than mine!
Nonetheless, a little context might help Catholic voters approach the election faithfully and intelligently.
The Bishops of the United States have explained the obligation Catholics have to participate in the political process. In the document Faithful Citizenship, the Bishops have written: “The Church’s obligation to participate in shaping the moral character of society is a requirement of our faith. It is a basic part of the mission we have received from Jesus Christ . . . The Catholic community brings moral assets to the political dialogue about our nation’s future.”
The Bishops go on to list “seven key themes” that serve as the framework of our political participation: The Right to Life; Family and Community; Rights and Responsibilities; Option for the Poor; the Dignity of Work and Workers; Solidarity with our Neighbors; and Caring for God’s Creation.
In their document the Bishops reject two very common approaches to the question of voting in good faith: moral equivalency (the belief that all moral issues carry the same weight) and single issue voting (the tendency to focus only on abortion). In other words, while there are many questions we should evaluate in deciding how to vote, the primary moral issue we face today is the right to life and particularly the need to fight against the terrible sin of abortion.
To underline their particular concern about abortion, the Bishops have forcefully stated that, “abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable and must always be opposed.” And as I’ve written previously in this space, while there are many issues the Catholic must consider in forming moral judgments, “Abortion is different. It is always intrinsically evil. There are no circumstances that justify abortion. Its victims are innocent and defenseless, and number in the millions. Abortion is the fallacious foundation upon which the culture of death builds its ugly edifice.” (October 27, 2005)
Cardinal Francis George of Chicago summarized the sad state of affairs this way: “Too many Americans have no recognition of the fact that children continue to be killed by abortion and we live, therefore, in a country drenched by blood. This can’t be something you start playing off pragmatically against other issues.”
Now, that leads us to the question of specific candidates. As has been pointed out many times, there are no perfect “Catholic candidates,” no candidates whose positions exactly reflect all the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. So, we have to consider all the options and make the best choice we can.
Is it possible for a faithful Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? (And by the way, don’t be misled by the nuanced language you often hear. Candidates who say they aren’t “pro-abortion” but rather “pro-choice” are in fact promoting abortion!) But to answer the question: In theory, yes! Faithful Catholics may in good conscience vote for a pro-abortion candidate if: they’re voting for the candidate for serious moral reasons other than their pro-abortion stance; and if, there are no other viable options.
It’s not my role or that of Church leadership to tell you for whom you must vote. In fact, the attempt to do so is sometimes counter-productive. There have been clear examples across the United States of certain candidates being elected precisely because Church leaders endorsed their opponents. That scenario is especially possible in a place like Rhode Island where party affiliation often trumps allegiance to faith.
Having said that, it is appropriate to remind you of how you must vote. You can never separate your faith from life (including political life) and so it follows closely that you much vote as a person of faith, taking your faith and your conscience with you into the voting booth. You need to support candidates who will promote the common good and uphold basic moral values – beginning with the right to life, especially for unborn children. In that way you can be a “faithful citizen” – of our great nation and of the Kingdom of God.
I don’t know about you, dear reader, but I could never vote for a candidate – of any party for any office – who supports laws that promote or allow the death of thousands of children in the hideous crime of abortion. I just don’t want that on my conscience.
Source: http://thericatholic.com/stories/1612.html - Broken link
For Release :
October 29, 2008
Statement of The Most Reverend John J. Myers,
Archbishop of Newark,
On Legal Protection for the Unborn and Support for Mothers
Since I was first called to serve as a bishop more than 20 years ago, I have taught plainly and forcefully on the primacy of protecting the sanctity and the dignity of life at all stages, and on the need to care and nurture pregnant women so they will choose to have their babies. I have also plainly and forcefully taught that it is the responsibility of all Catholics, whether in public life or not, to form our consciences according to authentic Catholic teaching and tradition, and not societal fashions and fads. Even more so, it is our responsibility to live our teaching and tradition every day, not just on Sundays.
Most recently, I joined with the Administrative Committee of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to endorse statements by Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Lori that point out that life begins at conception, and that from her very beginning the Church has taught the grave moral evil of abortion.
Today, I endorse the most recent statement of Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy - again speaking for the Bishops' Conference -- that our faith requires us to oppose abortion on demand and to provide help to mothers facing challenging pregnancies.
All too often, our political leaders look for a quick fix or a "simple solution" to the tough moral problems our country and world face. Our national experience has shown that such actions do not fix, and never solve, underlying problems. "Simple solutions" like the Freedom of Choice Act can never be considered, and it is our obligation as Catholics to oppose them."
Note to Editors: The full text of the Statement of Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy can be found at: http://old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2008/08-154.shtml
My San Antonio
Web Posted: 10/29/2008 12:00 CDT
Voters must know stances on 'life' issues
By Archbishop José H. Gomez - Special to the Express-News
With the economic crisis darkening the political horizon, the past month has left little room for other issues to penetrate the minds of Americans as we prepare to vote in the upcoming election. Certainly the economy deserves our serious consideration, along with such important issues as war, healthcare and immigration.
It is troubling, though, that there has also been a critical absence of issues central to the preservation of life and the family from the public arena. It would seem to imply that these issues have no impact on voter's selection process or that they are simply not important. Regardless which side of these issues a person falls, these are defining principles for any society.
Recently, the Express-News published its voter's guide. It was a comprehensive listing of races and candidates running for office in November. I'm sure it was a helpful tool for many. I recognize it is challenging to make any voter's guide comprehensive. However, the inclusion of the fundamental life issues for pursuit of the common good would have made the publication a more complete, accurate and useful tool at this critical time.
People need to know the positions of the candidates on the key issues that protect the right to life such as abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and capital punishment. Voters also would have been better served if they had been provided information about the candidates' positions on the definition of marriage, the basic cell of society as a union between a man and a woman.
The “culture of life” issues, and I include in that the preservation of the very foundational definition of the human family, often are dismissed as purely religious issues. This characterization is inaccurate. These issues deal with the most fundamental concerns of human civilization. The strong moral teaching at the foundation of these issues does not disqualify them from deserving serious public discussion, nor deny the impact they have on the common good.
I find it unfortunate that often, when an individual raises abortion as a critical issue, there is a fear that they will be quickly labeled a “one-issue” voter. While this characterization might protect one from confronting the moral gravity of taking an innocent, defenseless, human life, it also avoids the reality that abortion is an issue that affects all segments of our society. It represents the primary right guaranteed in our Declaration of Independence — the right to life. Unless we protect this fundamental right of each human person, at all stages of life, no other issue or right matters.
Surely, many form their conclusions on these and other issues through a process guided by faith. However, society should not insist that people of faith be silent in the face of grave evil. We live in a society that would like to privatize religion, to take it out of the public square. Privatizing religion would be, for all people of faith, an unholy compromise. We who profess to believe in God cannot allow him to be banished from the public square.
It is never my purpose, nor the proper role of the church, to tell people how or for whom to vote. However, we have a responsibility to be a voice for the innocent, the helpless, for life itself at this time of political clutter. We cannot ignore these issues, many of which we believe are “non-negotiable.” If our nation loses respect for life and true “family values,” it will have lost its moral authority to lead the world.
America is founded upon a belief in the existence of truth; in the dignity of the human person; in justice; and in the common good that flows from loving our neighbor and ourselves. All Catholics and people of faith will be praying for God's guidance and wisdom as we celebrate our democracy.
Source:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/Voters_must_know_stances_on_life_issues.html (Broken link)
Bishop Robert J. Carlson - October 28, 2008
http://www.saginaw.org/images/election-statement_carlson_102808.pdf (broken link)
Bishop Robert J. Carlson
5800 Weiss St.
Saginaw, MI 48603-2799
Preparing for the Nov. 4 General Election
I. On Abortion and Catholic Voters
As the presidential election approaches, I want to respond to a few questions that many Catholics are asking themselves, and each other.
“Isn’t abortion the only issue in this election?” No. Any serious Catholic voter must be concerned about a great many issues in this election: the right to life, education, war and peace, how we treat the poor and the vulnerable, the economy.
“Isn’t abortion just one issue among others in this election?” No. Any serious Catholic voter must recognize abortion as the premier threat to human rights and dignity in our day. The right to life is the right through which all others flow.
“So, how’s a Catholic to vote?” Let me put the matter as simply as I can: Abortion results in the killing of approximately 1 million children in the womb every year. A Catholic can, in good conscience, vote for a pro-choice candidate only if other issues outweigh this one in number and in kind.
What do I mean by “in number and in kind”? Let’s take an example. The Church is opposed to the use of the death penalty. But the death penalty does not outweigh abortion because: 1) they differ in number: over 1 million abortions per year vs. less than 100 executions per year, and 2) they differ in kind: the directly willed death of the innocent vs. the directly willed death of those found guilty in a court of law.
Aren’t there other issues to be considered? Absolutely. Immigration, the economy, the use of military force, the care of the poor, the use of renewable energy. These are all important issues in the life of the country. In good conscience, a Catholic voter must weigh them all.
But there is also a scale of values. In good conscience, a Catholic needs to recognize that all issues do not have the same weight. The directly willed death of over a million innocent children each year certainly places a special burden on the conscience.
Can any other issue, or combination of issues, attain sufficient gravity to outweigh the directly willed destruction of 1 million children every year? That’s the question we must ask ourselves and each other as we weigh our election choices.
II. Finding Cures and Protecting Life
Proposal 2 asks us to amend the state constitution to expand the use of human embryos for the purposes of embryonic stem cell research.
Regarding the presidential election, there is the potential for Catholics to reach different conclusions in good conscience. Regarding Proposal 2, however, the duties of every Catholic voter are clear.
In the first place, Proposal 2 is scientifically unnecessary for following reasons. 1) The use of adult stem cells has already played a role in the treatment and cure of over 70 types of diseases, including sickle-cell anemia and various types of leukemia. The use of embryonic stem cells has resulted in 0 treatments or cures. (For more information, go to www.stemcellresearch.org) 2) Researchers prized embryonic stem cells because of their capacity to become any other cell in the body. (In scientific language, they are “pluri-potent” stem cells.) Scientific breakthroughs in the last year have made it possible to take ordinary skin cells from any adult and transform them into pluri-potent stem cells. (In scientific language, these are called “induced pluri-potent stem cells” or iPS cells.) The technique has already been used to cure sickle-cell anemia in mice.
In other words, there are other and better avenues for finding cures. In fact Dr. Field, the Director of the Field Neurosciences Institute (FNI), has made a statement that the FNI “will not be using human embryonic stem cells in its clinical or preclinical research projects. We believe that stem cell therapy has tremendous potential for treating brain and spinal cord damage due to trauma or disease, but that either adult-derived stem cells or inducible pluri-potent stem cells have the potential to provide therapeutic efficacy in this regard.”
In the second place, Proposal 2 goes too far as a piece of legislation. Proposal 2 would not only authorize the destruction of human embryos to obtain pluri-potent stem cells, it would take the drastic step of prohibiting any state or local law that would discourage such research. Even a regulation that required researchers to pursue all other options before turning to embryonic stem cells would be unconstitutional. In this respect, Proposal 2 is not only scientifically unnecessary, it simply goes too far.
In the third place, and most importantly, Proposal 2 is based on principles that are morally reprehensible, namely:
1) Things like size, age, and location matter in determining whether a human life is to be accorded legal protection. If those who are very small, very young, and dependent on others for their existence are not to be accorded legal protection, it is hard to see why those who are very old, very infirm, and equally dependent on others for their existence should be accorded legal protection.
2) One group of human beings can be used to advance the well-being of another group of human beings. This is the same principle that justified slavery.
3) We can sacrifice the lives of some individuals for the sake of research “because they are going to die anyway.” Those with advanced dementia are also going to die. That hardly justifies using them for research.
The reasoning behind Proposal 2 establishes dangerous moral precedents. In the words of one commentator, “If a principle is established by which some indisputably human lives do not warrant the protections traditionally associated with the dignity of the human person — because of their size, location, dependency, level of development, burdensomeness to others — it would seem that there are numerous other candidates for the application of the principle, beginning with the radically handicapped, both physically and mentally, not to mention millions of the aged and severely debilitated in our nation’s nursing homes.”
Finding cures for diseases is surely a great good. And science and technology are needed to show the way to those cures. But: 1) there are other avenues for research that protect life rather than destroying it, and have a better scientific track record in finding cures, and 2) there are some things we must never do, like sacrificing our children’s lives to extend our own health and well-being.
Because it is scientifically unnecessary, because it goes too far, and because it is based on reprehensible moral principles, I call on all Catholics in the Diocese of Saginaw to oppose Proposal 2.
For more information on Stem Cells and Proposal 2, visit the following websites:
www.2goes2far.com, www.micause.org, www.stemcellresearch.org, and
www.ncbcenter.org/10Myths.pdf (broken Links)
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Robert J. Carlson
Bishop of Saginaw
Faithful Citizenship statement
October 28, 2008
Feast of Saints Simon and Jude
Apostles and Martyrs
My Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
In the months preceding Election Day, we have witnessed several elected officials who are Catholics publicly address the Church’s teaching on the grave matters of conscience formation, the inviolability of innocent human life and voting. Several of these Catholic politicians have cited the document of our United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, entitled “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” in a way that misrepresents the intent of the document and the authentic teaching of our Catholic Church – misrepresentations that warrant clarification.
For many people in our increasingly secularized culture, conscience is erroneously reduced to a collection of personal preferences that are thoroughly subjective and relative. In this wrong understanding of conscience, every individual opinion is assigned moral correctness and the existence of objective truth is denied. Yet, the very mission of the Church as a teacher of right and wrong rests on the existence of objective truth and the conviction that this truth can be known by us.
In our Catholic moral tradition, conscience is not an inclination inside of us that allows us to justify doing whatever we want. It is not a mere feeling about what we should or should not do. Conscience is the voice of God in the human heart, revealing the truth to us and calling us to do what is good while shunning what is evil.
Before following our conscience, we are obliged to form our conscience. A well-formed conscience requires that we have a sincere openness to embrace goodness and truth. We must be students and learners, shaped and challenged by the Word of God and the teachings of the Church, rather than embracing a partisan position and then stretching for ways to justify it.
Conscience formation requires that we examine the facts and the background information on issues. Conscience formation requires that we evaluate each candidate’s past record on issues and the general direction each candidate would give to the issues. In forming our conscience then it is critical that we see beyond party affiliation, analyze campaign rhetoric carefully and choose according to moral principles rather than self-interest.
Finally, since a well-formed conscience seeks always and everywhere to discern the will of God in some matter, prayerful reflection is essential.
In summary, rigorous study, moral reflection and prayerful consideration are the primary elements in forming one’s conscience. When our Church takes a position on some moral issue, you can absolutely trust that these three elements have been vigorously involved.
Catholic moral teaching is not a hodge-podge of competing and equally valid opinions.
Granted that there are many and complex issues that are in our hearts and on our minds as we go to the polls on November 4th. For that matter, Catholics and all people of good will can arrive at different opinions and various solutions for such issues as the delivery of health care, the revitalization of the economy, the use of military force, taxation policies, and the many other issues that face voters in the upcoming election.
However, we must be aware that not all political issues carry the same moral weight and that there is a serious moral obligation on all of us to oppose in conscience and in action those issues that are intrinsically evil. We are not free to choose whether or not we shall oppose those things which in and of themselves are always and everywhere morally evil.
From this, it is clear that the defense of the sacredness of human life from the very moment of conception to natural death is THE paramount issue of our time. Abortion, euthanasia, human cloning and embryonic stem cell research are intrinsic evils – actions that are always and everywhere wrong and no circumstance can justify their use. Each is a direct attack on innocent human life. The fact is that since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, every medical and genetic discovery has underscored the human personhood of the unborn from conception.
We have all heard fellow Catholics say that “I can not be a single issue voter.” Fair enough – there are many issues on all of our minds. But consider this. If someone were to break into your home – your place of security and well-being – and hold a scalpel to your throat with the intent to kill you, I suspect that you would in that moment become a single issue person. In that instant, everything would focus on the one question: What must I do to survive?” Everything else immediately becomes secondary. Many of the unborn are precisely in that situation. They cannot act in their own defense. You and I must.
Throughout the United States Catholic parishes have been praying The Novena for the Election, seeking God’s direction for our nation as Election Day approaches. In these final hours study, read, pray. As a faithful citizen, cast your vote. May the Holy Spirit guide all of us to act on consciences conformed to the will of God.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Ronald W. Gainer
Bishop of Lexington
Source: http://www.cdlex.org/index.cfm/NewsItem?id=248356&From=Home (broken link)
Bishop Earl Boyea
October 27, 2008
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."
SEE RELATED STATEMENT BY BISHOP BOYEA
Bishop Blase Cupich of Rapid City, S.D., is an occasional contributor to America magazine. (The 1979 statement on racism he mentions was a result of the “Call to Action” conference. The link to it below is the web site of the Office of Social Justice of the Diocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis.)
“As we draw near an election day on which one of the major party candidates for president is for the first time a person of African-American ancestry, we should be able to do so with a sense that whatever the outcome, America has crossed another threshold in healing the wounds that racism has inflicted on our nation’s body politic for our entire history. However, in view of recent media reports regarding race-based voting, this potentially healing moment could turn into the infliction of one more wound if racism appears to determine the outcome. Because of that menacing possibility, it is worth recalling for Catholics and all Americans the central affirmation of Brothers and Sisters to Us: racism is a sin.”
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11161&o=33483 (Broken Link)
Racism and the Election
By Blase Cupich | OCTOBER 27, 2008
In their 1979 statement Brothers and Sisters to Us <http://www.osjspm.org/majordoc_us_bishops_statements_brothers_and_sisters.aspx> (Broken Link), the Catholic bishops of the United States did not hesitate to label racism “a sin” and a violation of “the fundamental human dignity of those called to be children of the same Father.”
Racism can be called our nation’s own specific “original sin.” The existence of slavery cast the shadow of hypocrisy over the otherwise noble proclamation of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in our Declaration of Independence. The greatest number of Americans killed in war to this day was during the Civil War, which had the conflict over slavery at its roots. For generations our political life was distorted by the influence of public officials whose foremost goal was to preserve the essence if not the form of slavery in a segregated and discriminatory social system.
For complete article click here.
Bishop Kevin Rhoades
Harrisburg
PRO-LIFE MASS DURING FORTY DAYS FOR LIFE
Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament Church, Harrisburg
October 25, 2008
I wish to begin this homily with a word of sincere gratitude to those who have organized the 40 Days for Life here in our diocese. I thank also all those who have participated in these 40 days with your prayers and sacrifices and all of you who are here today to pray and bear witness to the Gospel of life.
In his encyclical, The Gospel of Life, the great Pope John Paul II wrote that “a great prayer for life in urgently needed, a prayer which will rise up throughout the world.” He wrote that great encyclical 13 years ago. It is as relevant now as it was then. And still, a great prayer for life is urgently needed. That is what these forty days have been about. But our prayer for life must continue when these forty days end, daily prayer so that “the power from on high will break down the walls of lies and deceit” of the culture of death. A civilization of life and love will only become a reality by the grace of God, as a fruit of prayer. “Jesus himself has shown us by his own example that prayer and fasting are the first and most effective weapons against the forces of evil.” Those promoting the culture of death have some powerful resources – just think of the financial strength of Planned Parenthood. But we have a more powerful force: the help of God, for whom nothing is impossible. We must not lose hope or become discouraged by the power of those who engage in evil practices or who promote and support laws which are hostile to life. We must pray and work for their conversion.
In the wonderful reading today from Saint Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, the holy apostle writes about how we are to live the truth in love. In so doing, we grow into him who is the head of the Body, Christ Jesus. In so doing, we are not “tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery.” Sadly, in our nation today, many are tossed by the waves of false teaching and deceptive propaganda against life. We have heard Catholic politicians who misrepresent the Church’s teaching on abortion. Some even preposterously claim that the Church through the centuries has not been in agreement on the sanctity of life from the moment of conception. We must proclaim the truth in charity, as Saint Paul said. And the truth is that the Church has always affirmed the moral evil of abortion. The teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. We have heard other Catholic politicians say “OK, I believe what the Catholic Church teaches, that human life begins at the moment of conception, but this is a personal and private matter of my faith, and I cannot impose my religious faith on others. I’m sorry, but this is not just a matter of religious faith. It is first a biological question and the scientific truth is that a new human being, distinct from the mother and father, comes into existence at the moment of conception. This is an objective fact! This is also a moral issue, an issue of human rights. It is part of the natural law, not just a Catholic teaching. Those who signed the Declaration of Independence knew this when they proclaimed the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We are to speak the truth in charity, Saint Paul says. The truth is clear. Abortion is an unspeakable crime because it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. The protection of the unborn child is a demand of justice! Pro-choice propagandists try to hide the true nature of abortion, using ambiguous language, calling abortion “an interruption or termination of pregnancy.” We, instead, must teach the truth clearly and unambiguously: Human life is sacred. Abortion is the killing of an innocent child in the womb. The unborn child needs and deserves our respect and protection. The scourge of abortion in our land has diminished our nation’s moral integrity.
Saint Paul urged the Ephesians to speak and live the truth in love, in charity. Truthfulness and charity!! I have spoken of the truth, something we are challenged to defend in the midst of a culture of relativism. Now, the other half of Paul’s counsel: charity. In the face of error, we must confront and correct, but always with charity, with love for the other, even when they are perpetrating error. We must present the truth in a way that shines with the love of Christ. The conversion of others is more likely to occur when they encounter in us the power of Christ’s love and His mercy. How do we love our pro-choice opponents, our enemies, and those who attack or malign us? How do we love those who advance the killing of the innocent? It is only with the help of God’s grace, which is why we need prayer and the strength of the Holy Eucharist. Jesus commanded us: “Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Do not return evil for evil.” In another place, Saint Paul says: “overcome evil with good.” In our prayer, we should always remember those who promote the culture of death, including abortionists, and pray for their conversion. Such prayer is a spiritual work of mercy.
Our service of the Gospel of life also and always includes help for women who are facing crisis pregnancies. And it always includes outreach with love and mercy to women who have had abortions. We pray that they will repent and experience the wondrous mercy of God our Father. Society tends to ignore or dismiss the suffering experienced by so many women who have had abortions. We cannot and will not do so. The Church reaches out with the love and mercy of our Savior to women who have been harmed by the sin of abortion.
My brothers and sisters, these are challenging times. Let us heed the words of the apostle Paul and proclaim the truth in love! May the Blessed Virgin Mary, who accepted Life in the name of us all and for the sake of us all, assist us with her prayers. As we continue in these forty days for life, let us intensify our prayers. And let us ask our Blessed Mother to look down upon us and upon our nation. To her we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. She is our most gracious advocate. May she turn her eyes of mercy toward us!
Source: http://www.hbgdiocese.org/Admin/Uploads/Bishop/Documents/Homilies/102508%20Pro-life%20Mass.pdf - Broken link
Week of Prayer for Our Country, October 24, 2008
Cardinal Edward Egan
In the Holiness of Truth - October 23, 2008
Catholic New York
Just Look
The picture on this page is an untouched photograph (broken link to photo) 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
Source: http://www.cny.org/archive/eg/eg102308.htm (broken link)
Archbishop Edwin O'Brien
October 23, 2008
Thoughts on our Church
20 Questions for Catholic Voters
Last November the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops overwhelmingly approved the document, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States."
The lengthy title speaks for itself and its 90 paragraphs sought out some elementary and clarifying principles that should be helpful as we go to the polls on November 4.
The full text of the document can be found at www.faithfulcitizenship.org.
The following questions with paragraph citations will hopefully help in carrying out our obligation to vote and to do so responsibly.
Some of the following are direct quotes from the document.
1) Should Catholics expect to hear, receive and act upon Church teaching in forming their consciences in matters affecting national public policy? (5)
2) Is it appropriate for religious groups and people of faith to bring their convictions and concerns to public life? (11)
3) Are Catholics morally obliged to participate in the political life of our nation? (13)
4) Should Catholics attempt to transform their political institutions to represent their moral convictions? (14)
5) Do you as a Catholic feel politically disenfranchised sensing that no party and too few candidates fully share our Church's comprehensive commitment to the dignity of life of every human being from conception to natural death? (16)
6) To what degree are individuals bound to follow their consciences? (17)
7) Do you see it as your serious and life-long obligation to form your conscience in accord with human reason and the teaching of the Church? (17)
8) Are you convinced that as conscientious Catholics in serious matters of morality you can know the truth with certainty? (22)
9) Why are abortion, euthanasia and racism "intrinsically evil" and therefore always and everywhere morally wrong? (22)
10) How strong is your determination to outlaw intrinsically evil acts? (23)
11) Is our pursuit of the rights to health, to home, to work and to family false and illusory if we do not defend the right to life with maximum determination? (26)
12) Is the Church perceived as defending the right to life so strongly as to neglect other basic rights, such as those related to torture, health care, immigration and poverty? (29)
13) Is it true that it could be rarely morally permissible to favor a law that permits abortion, euthanasia or racism? (32)
14) Is it true that there are some truly grave, moral reasons that might justify voting for a candidate who takes a position in favor of abortion, euthanasia or racism? (35)
15) What options are open to the voter when all candidates favor these intrinsic evils? (36)
16) How persuasive and relevant is Pope Benedict's call for "eucharistic consistency" -- that there is an objective connection between receiving the Eucharist and promoting basic human values? (38)
17) How has the "consistent ethic of life" principle sometimes been distorted? (40)
18) While Catholics should not be "single issue voters," might not candidates' promotion of an intrinsic moral evil disqualify them from receiving support? (42)
19) Will not the redefinition of marriage -- by permitting same-sex unions -- undermine marriage between a man and a woman as the first fundamental unit of society? (46, 70)
20) Does not the state's refusal to assist financially taxpayers who send their children to parochial school violate the fundamental parental right to choose the education best suited for their children's needs? (72)
Source: http://www.catholicreview.org
October 23, 2008
Voting as a Faithful Citizen
By Most Rev. J. Terry Steib, S.V.D.
As a nation we are currently involved in the process that will lead to the election of the next President of the United States. The debates between the presidential candidates and the vice-presidential candidates have been aired. Sides are being taken based on party lines, or on issues of particular interest. Within the past few weeks, some denominations have taken on the task of challenging the policy of the IRS concerning the Church and politics. They are deliberately endorsing candidates and urging people in their congregations to vote for those persons in order to force the IRS to determine if the current policy of forbidding such endorsements is proper. (I disagree with this approach because of my deep respect for the non establishment of religion clause in the First Amendment to our Constitution.) A number of Catholics have been asking their bishops to endorse candidates. In the past two weeks, I have received letters from well-meaning people telling me for whom I should vote and how I should inform parishioners regarding the candidates for whom they should or should not cast their ballot. However well-intended the writers are, it is not my duty nor is it my role to tell the members of the community of faith in the Diocese of Memphis how to vote. My ministry is to proclaim the truth of Jesus Christ as announced in Scripture and articulated by the Church so that our people can make good and wise decisions in their lives. My ministry is to make certain that all Catholics in the Diocese of Memphis cast their vote using a well-informed conscience as a guide.
We Catholics are vested into the very fabric of our society. Within the fabric of society, we participate in the public life and we vote because it is part and parcel of being baptized. Our faith teaches us that participating in the public life of our city, state and nation is a moral obligation. If we are going to bear witness to Christ in all that we do, then we must bear Christian witness. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states boldly: "As far as possible, citizens should take an active part in public life."
In the letter, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the bishops said, "We Bishops have the … responsibility … to provide moral guidance on the moral dimensions of public decisions, and to encourage the faithful to carry out their responsibilities in political life. In fulfilling these responsibilities, the Church's leaders are to avoid endorsing or opposing candidates or telling people how to vote." I am in agreement with this statement which was issued last November. Pope Benedict XVI, in his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, said, "The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must nor remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice."
According to our Holy Father, we disciples of Jesus cannot remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice; this means that we must be part of the game. However, politics is not just a game; it is instead a part of the commonwealth of our lives. Just as we cannot avoid drinking water in order to live, so also, as faithful Christians we cannot avoid being involved in the political process and remain good Christians. But if we are to be involved in the political process by voting, then we must have formed our consciences well.
How do we do that? First of all, we must have a desire to embrace goodness and truth. That means basically that we must study and understand the scriptures and the teachings of the Church as her teachings relate to the many issues we face as a nation. Secondly, we must carefully examine the facts and the background information that are available to us about the various candidates. Thirdly, we must prayerfully reflect on what is the will of God for us in this particular set of circumstances.
Voting with a good conscience is not an easy task. It is much easier to give in to the sound bites and the catchy phrases. It is much easier to go the party line blindly and mindlessly. It is much easier to choose because of personality rather than the content of character. It is easier to say "I just like him or her; he or she is one of us" rather than to ponder, reflect, and pray for our choice prudently.
As we form our conscience, we must be aware of the need for prudence. Prudence is not easy to define, but according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, prudence helps us to "discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it."
So, when we are presented with candidates whose views do not reflect the full teachings of the Church, what are we to do? The spiritual writer, Father Ronald Rolheiser, OMI, has written in his book Secularity and the Gospel: "In an age of increasing violence, fundamentalism, and the myth that God wishes to cleanse the planet of its sin and immorality by force, perhaps the first witness we must give to our world is a witness to God's non-violence, a witness to the God revealed by Jesus Christ who opposes violence of all kinds, from war, to revenge, to capital punishment, to abortion, to euthanasia, to the attempt to use force to bring about justice and God's will in any way." What Father Rolheiser says here, as I understand it, is that we cannot be a one issue people. We must recognize that God, through the Church, is calling us to be prophetic in our own day. If our conscience is well formed, then we will make the right choices about candidates who may not support the Church's position in every case. The Bishops of the United States have written, "There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil."
A person might choose not to vote, but voting is a necessary part of our witness to Jesus Christ and a witness to our Baptism. So, sometimes hard choices will have to be made. Being Catholic has never been known to be an easy path to salvation. Jesus never promised us a rose garden devoid of hard choices. He did, in fact, tell us that if we were to be his followers, we must pick up the cross daily and follow him. Part of the cross in the upcoming election may well be in realizing that different people may in good conscience arrive at different decisions about how they will vote.
I pray that we will take the time to reflect prayerfully and carefully on the words that have been written at greater length in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. Then with well-informed consciences, and with our hands firmly in God's hands we will be able to vote in a way that is prudent and that will give us the peace of which St. Paul speaks, "..the peace of God which is beyond all understanding." (Phil. 4,7)
Source: http://www.cdom.org/wtc/wtc_archives/wtc102308/wtc_pages/feature_article1.htm (broken link)
Pastoral Letter from Bishop Larry Silva
October 19, 2008
Dear Brothers and Sisters of the Diocese of Honolulu:
Peace be with you!
We are all probably very weary of the Presidential campaigns by now. We have heard debates and speeches, seen blogs, read newspaper articles, and seen opinion polls. No matter what the polls may have said at any given moment, there is only one opinion poll that matters, and that is the vote itself. One of the candidates will emerge victorious because of the people who supported him with their votes.
I urge all of you to cast your vote on November 4. It is our civic responsibility. But I ask you in these final days before the election to pray over the choices, to reflect upon the values of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to make an informed choice.
There are many issues to consider: war, the economy, ecology, the stability of the family, health care, education, the elimination of poverty at home and abroad. Among the many issues to be weighed, however, one issue alone far outweighs all others: the right to life. Without life, all other issues do not matter. It is the right to life that is fundamental. Abortion in a special way is an issue that we need to focus on, since it is a violation of the human rights of human beings who are so vulnerable they cannot speak for or defend themselves. It is the most widespread – and the only legal – form of domestic violence. It is a cancer that erodes our respect for one another in many different ways. It is a hidden source of anger, depression and denial for those who cannot admit what they know in their heart of hearts, that it is the deliberate taking of the life of a real human girl or boy.
I have often heard the slogan, “You cannot legislate morality.” It is meant to say that there are different opinions and no law can make people do what is right. However, I think the slogan is false. If we cannot legislate morality, then what is it we do legislate? Why is there a need for government at all, if not to articulate and guide society in doing what is right and just? Is that not what morality is? Respect for one another, and the most fundamental respect for life are the bases of all morality and all law. All government officials must serve not by doing what is convenient or popular, but by insisting on higher values for the good of all in society, especially the most vulnerable.
I urge all to vote. But before you do, please pray about what the Lord wants us to do in our society, about what the gospel of Jesus demands. Pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Pray for the strength to do what is right not only in the election but in the years that will follow it, so that we can all remain citizens who are faithful to the Lord and Giver of Life.
What was said or not said during this long campaign matters only now in how it leads us to vote for our new President and other leaders of government. May the Lord enlighten and guide you!
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Larry Silva
Bishop of Honolulu
Source: http://www.catholichawaii.org/article.php/20081020215331864 - Broken link
Can a Catholic Vote in Support of Abortion?, 10/17/2008
Bishop Michael O. Jackels
October 17, 2008
Bishop: Think of life when you vote
By Bishop Jackels
As we prepare to vote on election day, candidates vie for our vote with promises on issues like the economy, the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the environment, just to name a few.
Among all the issues and the candidates’ related positions, the sacredness of human life and the dignity of the human person trump all others in terms of importance. Let me explain.
As Christians, we believe that God created humanity in his image and likeness. This is the high point of the work of creation and the basis for the highest regard owed to the sacredness of human life and the dignity of the human person.
We also believe that God created everything else to serve the needs of humanity, subjecting creation to the dominion or authority of men and women. Do not think that this gives us a license to abuse; on the contrary, we are morally obliged to exercise responsible stewardship of creation.
Christians believe too that we are responsible to provide for and protect not only our own life, health and dignity, but others as well, in particular those unable to provide for or protect themselves. In fact, our responsibility for others is greatest when their ability is least.
The responsibility we have to provide for and protect others begins and is greatest at the moment of conception until birth. Our duty towards others lessens (but never entirely) as they grow into adulthood, and then increases again as they age or become sick. Of course, our responsibility remains great towards adults who are mentally or physically disabled, or unable to secure for themselves the basics of a dignified life.
As a consequence of our belief, whether or not a candidate gets our vote should depend on their positions on issues related to the sacredness of human life and the dignity of the human person. A candidate can make attractive promises on the economy or the environment, but those should take second place to a candidate’s positions related to the sacredness of human life and the dignity of the human person. A candidate who is indifferent to or worse yet antagonistic to these preeminent positions is not worthy of consideration.
So, when election day comes, vote for the candidate who acknowledges the fundamental importance of the sacredness of human life and the dignity of the human person, and who recognizes our responsibility for each other.
Second, vote for the candidate who pledges to provide for and protect others, especially when they are most in need, starting with the unborn child, but including infants and youth at risk, aged or sick people, people who are disabled, and those who can’t provide for or protect themselves.
Third, when neither candidate promises much in this regard, choose the one who promises the most good or threatens the least harm. And how do we know that? Look at the candidate’s voting record or the organizations that offer endorsements.
Finally, do not abstain from voting. Every right has a corresponding duty, so we have a moral duty to exercise our right to vote. In the gospels, the people who were sure to win a rebuke from Jesus are those who did nothing when the situation called for action, like now.
Source: http://www.cdowk.org/advance/bishop.html
THE MORAL DUTIES OF CATHOLIC CITIZENSHIP
A PASTORAL LETTER
Most Reverend Paul S. Coakley
Bishop of Salina
October 16, 2008
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
With the general election quickly approaching it is time for all citizens to prepare to exercise their civic and moral duty to vote in a conscientious and informed manner. It is our right and our responsibility. We Catholics take this responsibility very seriously. Responsible citizenship is a virtue and participation in political life is a moral obligation.
Through our various pastoral statements the Catholic bishops of the United States and of Kansas have recently reaffirmed the Church’s role in public life and our responsibility to participate in shaping the moral and ethical character of the society in which we live. We do not do this in a partisan manner. In fact, Catholics may often feel politically disenfranchised since no political party, and few candidates fully share our comprehensive commitment to human life and dignity from conception to natural death.
Nevertheless both clergy and laity have important complementary roles in public life. As bishops and priests it is our duty to hand on the Church’s moral and social teaching. It is neither our role nor our intention, to tell Catholics how to vote regarding a particular candidate or office. Rather it is our responsibility as teachers of the faith, to assist Catholics to properly form their consciences so that they may cast their vote in light of fundamental moral principles rooted in the truth as discerned through reason and enlightened by Catholic faith.
Pope Benedict XVI writes in his encyclical letter, Deus Caritas Est, concerning the specific responsibility of the laity in public life. He says, “The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society is proper to the lay faithful”. This duty of the laity calls for a serious engagement and real participation in public life. Our faith calls for a political engagement that goes beyond sound bytes, partisan politics and narrow self-interest. Rather Catholics ought to engage in this process based on the moral convictions of a well-formed conscience and focused on promoting the dignity of every human being, the pursuit of the common good, and the protection of the weak and vulnerable.
When we Catholics cast our ballot and make political choices we ought to be guided by moral convictions rooted in both our faith and reason, rather than by our mere attachment to a political party. When necessary, we ought to work to transform the party to which we belong, rather than allow the party to transform us in such a way that we ignore fundamental moral truths, such as the right to life.
Our Catholic faith, as revealed through the Word of God and interpreted by the teaching authority of the Church, gives us a vision of what is true and good for the individual person and for society. It is the vision that Christ the Teacher has revealed to be in accord with our human nature as created in the image and likeness of God, and endowed by God with dignity, rights and responsibilities.
THE ROLE OF A WELL-FORMED CONSCIENCE
Responsible participation in public life demands that we cast our ballot according to the exercise of a properly formed conscience.
Conscience is often misunderstood. It is not merely a “hunch” or feeling about what is right or wrong. Conscience is certainly not something we can legitimately invoke in a self-serving attempt to justify our personal preferences. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.” (CCC 1778) It is the very voice of God resounding in the human heart. Because we have a serious obligation to obey the judgment of our conscience about what is right and just, we have an equally serious moral responsibility to form our conscience properly. Without proper formation based on universal moral principles and the truths of our faith, our conscience is likely to make erroneous judgments about the right course of action in particular instances. It becomes a blind guide.
The proper formation of our conscience involves several elements. First, it requires a genuine desire to seek the truth. We have to search the Sacred Scriptures and the teaching of the Church as presented, for example, by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Next, it involves a careful examination of the facts and background about the action under consideration. Finally, it involves prayer and reflection to help us discern the will of God in this particular instance.
PRUDENTIAL JUDGMENTS ARE NECESSARY
The exercise of a properly formed conscience is greatly assisted by the virtue of prudence. This cardinal virtue enables us to “discern the good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it.” (CCC 1806) Sometimes there are various ways to achieve the good purpose we are seeking. Prudence assists us to choose the best means available.
Catholic citizens are rightly concerned about a wide variety of issues. Like other citizens we are concerned about promoting and securing a just and lasting peace in our world. We are concerned about access to affordable health care. We are concerned about the strength of the economy, securing our borders and averting terrorism. We are concerned about parents’ right to choose the kind of education they wish for their children. We are concerned about a proper stewardship of the resources of the earth which God has entrusted to us. We are concerned about many other issues as well.
In pursuit of these goods Catholics with well-formed consciences may differ legitimately in their prudential judgments about the best means to achieve these desired results. For example, we may differ in our prudential judgments on the best public policies for addressing the challenges of poverty or ensuring access to health care.
REJECTING EVIL AND CHOOSING GOOD
Even though we may differ in our prudential judgments about the best means to achieve a good end, there are some things we must never do, either as individuals or as a society. These “intrinsically evil” acts are always wrong because they are always incompatible with the love of God and neighbor. They are always opposed to the authentgood of persons. An intrinsically evil action can never be chosen even to achieve a good end, such as finding the cure for a terrible disease. Preeminent among these intrinsic moral evils is the direct and intentional taof innocent human life.
In a pastoral statement called “Living the Gospel of Life”, the U.S. bishops write that in our time “abortion and euthanasia have become the preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others.” Other actions that always involve doing evil include human cloning and embryo-destructive stem cell research, promotion of same sex unions and ‘marriages’, torture, racial discrimination and directly targeting non-combatants in acts of war or terrorism.
As Catholic voters we have a moral obligation to always oppose these evils and those candidates who would promote them. But in addition to always opposing intrinsically evil acts, we have a positive duty to contribute to the common good. Both opposing evil and doing good are essential obligations. We have not exhausted our responsibility merely by being passionately committed to one aspect of the Church’s moral or social teaching.
WEIGHING THE ISSUES
In seeking to build a more just society we recognize that not all issues have equal priority nor are they morally equivalent. Pope John Paul II cautioned that concern for the “right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination” (Christifideles Laici, 38).
In Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the U.S. bishops stated: “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion, or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.”
In our personal and public lives we have an obligation to pursue the good as well as to oppose evil. While Catholics in good conscience may differ legitimately on the best policies that would secure certain goods, there are some matters about which we cannot disagree without abandoning the core teachings of the Gospel and the Catholic Church. As Catholics we can never choose something which is intrinsically evil, even as a means to a good end. Chief among these intrinsic evils is the destruction of innocent human life. The “exercise of conscience begins always with opposing policies that violate human life or weaken its protection. Those who knowingly, willingly, and directly support public policies or legislation that undermine fundamental moral principles cooperate with evil.” (Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, USCCB, 2007)
LIMITING THE HARM OF UNJUST LAWS
We live in an imperfect world. Not all existing laws are just laws. Think of the most obvious: the legal protection which allows the destruction of innocent human life through abortion or embryonic stem cell research. When morally flawed laws already exist, legislators and all who participate in public life have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting those morally defective laws. We have an obligation to seek even incremental improvements in view of the eventual elimination of the unjust law or policy.
Similarly, a Catholic cannot rightly vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. This would be a formal cooperation in grave evil and would be gravely sinful. A candidate may appear attractive because his or her positions on a number of issues are consistent with our Catholic values and principles. But what if he or she takes positions in support of certain intrinsic evils as well? We cannot ignore those more fundamental issues. Even before promoting certain goods, there is a prior claim on our conscience to oppose acts which are always evil. To vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil, such as abortion, would require the presence of proportionate moral reasons for ignoring such a flaw. When considering the death of 45 million children destroyed by abortion since 1973, this may be easier to conceive in theory than to discover in actual practice.
Finally, if all of the candidates hold positions in favor of some intrinsic evil, conscientious Catholic voters face a dilemma. Because we have a serious moral obligation to vote, choosing not to vote is not ordinarily an acceptable solution. After careful deliberation we may correctly decide to vote for the candidate less likely to advance the morally flawed position and do the least harm, while promoting other authentic goods.
A TIME TO CHOOSE
Voting is not just a civic or political action. As we Kansas bishops have said, “Voting is a moral act. It involves duties and responsibilities.” (Moral Principles for Catholic Voters, KCC, 2006). As we prepare to exercise our moral and civic duty to vote, let us pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance for ourselves, for the electorate, and for the public officials who will govern our great nation.
For more information and complete documentation visit www.kscathconf.org or www.faithfulcitizenship.org
Source: http://www.salinadiocese.org/WhatsNew/BishopsArticles/Archive_2008/Pastoral%20on%20Faithful%20Citizenship.pdf (broken link)
Archbishop O’Brien
The Catholic Review
October 16, 2008
Permit me to expand on my homily from Respect Life Sunday, as reported in last week’s account of that Mass in these pages.
It was just a year ago this month when, through the mysterious, inscrutable providence of God, I stood in the pulpit of the Cathedral of Mary Our Queen for the first time. On that joyful installation afternoon I struck several sobering themes, one of which is a central focus of our Church throughout the year, but most especially for Catholics here in the United States during this Respect Life Month.
In my installation homily last year, I said: “I shall make every possible effort to continue and intensify the defense of the right to life that has been waged by my predecessors. And I pledge more. No one has to have an abortion. To all of those in crisis pregnancies, I pledge our support and our financial help. Come to the Catholic Church. Let us walk with you through your time of trouble. Let us help you affirm life. Let us help you find a new life with your child, or let us help you place that child in a loving home. But please, I beg you: let us help you affirm life. Abortion need not be an ‘answer’ in this Archdiocese.”
I don’t know what difference those words have made, if any, in the lives of the oft-times young women in crisis pregnancies. But I repeat and reaffirm those words today in this column, for I am much more knowledgeable than I was a year ago of the thousands of individuals and dozens of agencies that stand ready throughout the Archdiocese to help a woman safely through the birth of her baby, to help her care for her newborn, or to find a loving adoptive family for her child.
The theme of this year’s Respect Life Month is “Hope and Trust in Life,” centered upon Pope Benedict XVI’s message during his April visit to the United States. During his visit, the Holy Father emphasized that the Church and all its members “are called to proclaim the gift of life, to serve life, and to promote a culture of life. The proclamation of life, life in abundance, must be the heart of the new evangelization. For true life – our salvation – can only be found in the reconciliation, freedom and love which are God’s gracious gifts. This is the message of hope we are called to proclaim and embody.”
To those volunteers in the pro-life movement who proclaim the gift of life through efforts like 40 Days for Life, I offer heartfelt thanks for their boundless energy in bringing to life and keeping alive the creed at the heart of our nation’s identity – that all of us are created equal and endowed by our creator with the inalienable right to life.
How unfortunate it is that the pro-life movement comes across to some as angry, reproachful, or excessively judgmental. Unfortunate, too, that the clear and unchanged teaching of our Church from its earliest days has been so distorted in political debate and commentary.
The earliest book of Christian instruction, very possibly written as the New Testament was being formed, is called the Didache, or the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. It speaks of the two Ways of Life and Death and admonishes: “Thou shalt not procure an abortion, nor commit infanticide.” This solemn teaching has never been in doubt since those earliest days.
The Church then, as do so many of good will of every religious persuasion and of no religious belief, because she sees the right to life as the basis of all other rights, has no choice, but with love and compassion for all, to speak out in defense of innocent human life.
To our elected officials who value innocent human life in the womb, a reminder and a plea: there are any number of ways within our Constitution to advance the protection of innocent human life. Is it not reasonable and honorable to take some steps, however small, to pursue that goal?
As disciples of Christ, we are but fruit in God’s vineyard and thus are called – each of us – to cherish the divine within every human being made to the image and likeness of God from the first moment of conception to the last moment of natural death.
Those who claim we have a “right” to take innocent life usurp God’s dominant claim on every human being. But in and through Christ and His Church, the vineyard owner will never give up. Nor must we as we sing of the beauty of His creation and of all those little ones in the vineyard, made to His image and likeness.
Ancient spiritual writers suggest that the owner of the new vineyard is pleased to share with his Church the rich fruit of the new vine, the work of human hands, which will become the life-giving Eucharistic blood of His Son. We thank the Lord for the gift of His life, streaming through His Body, the Church – a precious gift, divine evidence of His boundless love for us all.
10/15/2008
THE TEACHING OF CHRIST
By Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl
" The pastors of the Church, the Pope and bishops, have been explicitly
charged to guide the faithful in the way of salvation. In any difference
between personal speculation and authoritative Church teaching, it is the
latter that is the sure norm that guides us along Christ's way to eternal
life."
Click title for complete article.
A Politician's Promise: No Right to Life! No Freedom!
– column October 13, 2008
After committing a murder in Rome, the famous 17th century Italian painter Caravaggio went to Malta to avoid the death penalty. While there, the Great Master of the Order of the Knights of Malta commissioned him to do a painting for the chapel of the Co-Cathedral of St. John in Valletta. Caravaggio chose as his theme the martyrdom of John the Baptist. He produced The Beheading of St. John, his largest work, the only one he ever signed. No doubt the scene touched him personally.
Herod was married to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. Because John the Baptist preached against this sin, he incurred the hatred of Herod’s wife. The day her daughter Salome delighted Herod with her seductive dance, Herodias had her make Herod promise to kill John the Baptist. Within the severe architecture of a 16th century prison, Caravaggio vividly depicts the grisly moment when Herod kept his promise.
Caravaggio’s work, considered his greatest masterpiece, immortalizes the misguided fidelity of a ruler to his gruesome promise. With the stroke of the soldier’s sword, John dies and so does freedom. Freedom is based on the truth of the human person as created by God and protected by his law.
When a ruler can decide against God’s law, true freedom is sentenced to death.
Recently, a politician made a promise. Politicians usually do. If this politician fulfills his promise, not only will many of our freedoms as Americans be taken from us, but the innocent and vulnerable will spill their blood.
On April 18, 2007, in Gonzales v. Carhart, The Supreme Court upheldthe Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. The very next day prominent Democratic members of Congress reintroduced the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). The bill is misleadingly packaged as a freedom bill. It is not! It is a clear act of unreasoned bias to end abruptly and brutally the debate on the pressing and fundamental moral issue of the right to life.
For thirty-five years, Americans have been wrestling with The Supreme Court’s decision legalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade. Most Americans now favor some kind of a ban on abortion. Most who allow abortion would do so only in very rare cases. In fact, in January, 2008, the Guttmacher Institute published its 14th census of abortion providers in the country. Its statistics showed that the abortion rate continues to decline. Abortions have reached their lowest level since 1974. There is truly a deep sensitivity to life in the soul of America.
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would mortally wound this sensitivity. In effect, it would dismantle the freedom of choice to do all that is necessary to respect and protect human life at its most vulnerable stage. FOCA goes far beyond guaranteeing the right to an abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy. It arrogantly prohibits any law or policy interfering with that right. While advocates trumpet this law as the triumph of the freedom of choice, they hide the dark reality that the law would actually inhibit choice.
Laws protecting the rights of nurses, doctors and hospitals with moral objections to abortion would no longer stand. Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics would also vanish. Gone the freedom of health care professionals to be faithful to the Hippocratic Oath “to prescribe regimens for the good of …patients…and never do harm to anyone, to please no one [by prescribing] a deadly drug nor [by giving] advice which may cause his death.” Gone the freedom of conscience so essential for a civil society!
If a minority of avid abortionists succeed to impose this law because of the ignorance or apathy of the majority, the law would force taxpayers to fund abortions. Gone the freedom of taxation with representation!
In its 1992 Casey decision, The Supreme Court ruled as constitutional state laws requiring that women and young girls who seek an abortion receive information on the development of the child in the womb as well as alternatives to abortion. The ruling also determined that a period of waiting, usually 24 or 48 hours before making a decision about an abortion is not an undue burden. The Freedom of Choice Act would nullify these laws immediately. Gone the freedom of women and young girls to have all the information they need to make their own choices!
In about half of the States, there are parental notification or consent laws in effect for minors seeking an abortion. The Supreme Court has ruled that these laws are permitted under Roe v. Wade. With the stroke of a pen, these laws would be abolished. Gone the freedom of parents to care for and protect their children and grandchildren!
Advocates of FOCA redefine a woman’s “health” so as to expressly permit post-viability abortions. Thus, a child who survives an abortion can be left to die for the health of the mother. No politically correct word can mask this reality for what it is. This is infanticide. Gone the freedom for a baby, once born, to live!
Science does not dispute that the child in the womb already has all the characteristics that he or she will develop after birth. Notwithstanding, abortionists obstinately refuse the right of the child within the womb to live as a fundamental human right. They are not happy that Americans have not swallowed their distorted propaganda that denies the dignity of the human person from the first moment of conception.
Pro-abortion advocates close their eyes to the fact that abortion even hurts women as it undermines the very fabric of our society. Their zeal for the Freedom of Choice Act sounds the alarm for decent Americans to wake up! The more the right to life is denied, the more we lose our freedoms. The “pro-choice” movement is not pro-choice. It stands against the freedom to choose what is right according to the truth of the human person.
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, the present democratic candidate voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act. This law was meant to protect a baby that survived a late-term abortion. When the same legislation came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served, he held to his opposition. First, he voted “present.” Next, he voted “no.”
Along with 108 members of Congress, the present democratic candidate for President continues his strong support for the Freedom of Choice Act. In aspeech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year, he made the promise that the first thing he would do as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. What a choice for a new President!
At the time when Herod murdered John the Baptist because of his promise, Rome practiced the principle "one man, one vote." Whoever the emperor in Rome placed in authority over a subject people, ruled. Today we live in a democracy. We choose our leaders who make our laws. Every vote counts. Today, either we choose to respect and protect life, especially the life of the child in the womb of the mother or we sanction the loss of our most basic freedoms. At this point, we are still free to choose!
Source: Paterson diocesan web site: http://patersondiocese.org/page.cfm?Web_ID=2752
Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes
October 11, 2008
Forming consciences for Faithful Citizenship
Most of you are aware that the bishops have released a document entitled "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizen." It is intended to help Catholics to form a responsible conscience, informed by the Church's teaching and related to the practical issues that face us in our society today. It is not intended to be a voter's guide. The Catholic Church eschews a partisan stance. There is no party today and one would be hard put to find a candidate who embraces all of the positions that a well-formed conscience should espouse.
The Catholic Church teaches that it is important for every Catholic to become involved in elections, including registering and voting. This obligation also extends to participation in the political process. We need to inform our elected officials and those who are running for office about the positions that are important to us.
Most of all, we have a responsibility to ensure that we have well-informed consciences. The conscience is that practical judgment which God has given to us to help us come to know the truth and to help make decisions about how best to apply truth in the circumstances of life.
Some acts are always wrong. We call them intrinsically evil. They directly and intentionally violate fundamental laws of human nature. For instance, it is not legitimate to participate and/or support attacks on innocent human life. The obvious case is abortion, which ends the lives of more than a million children each year. But it also includes human cloning and the destruction of human embryos in scientific research. Other attacks on human life include torture, genocide, terrorism, the targeting of non-combatants in acts of war, and even the violation of human dignity in racism. These are always wrong. We cannot lend our support to them.
The issue of war is always very difficult. There is a moral decision involved in engaging in war. There are further moral decisions regarding the way in which a war is prosecuted. The United States Catholic Bishops raised serious moral questions about the decision to go to war in Iraq.
We also must be deeply concerned about the undermining of marriage and family at work in our society. This is no time to redefine the institution of marriage or to devalue it. Marriage is not simply a relationship of convenience nor is it a way to legalize immoral behavior.
The bishops of the U.S. have joined the Holy Father in recommending the abolition of the death penalty. The Church teaches that the state has the authority to put a particularly heinous criminal to death who continues to be a serious threat to society from further harm. Since in the U.S. and in most developed countries there is the alternate means of life imprisonment without parole, we recommend the abolition of the death penalty.
The bishops have also taken a great interest in the immigration challenge we face today. We recognize that every nation has a responsibility to control its own borders and to protect citizens from people who want to do harm to a country. It is also important that the laws enacted regarding the regulation of immigration are appropriately enforced. But much of the immigration policy that guided us in the past has been severely reinterpreted in this post-September 11, 2001 period. We need a broad-based and fair reform of our immigration policy. We need a policy that provides a way for a temporary worker program with worker protections because of our need for immigrant workers; is family-friendly; offers adequate provision for due process; and welcomes refugees fleeing persecution or exploitation in their own countries. And we must address the root causes of migration. We are out of time for simplistic solutions. We need a well thought out and comprehensive immigration policy reform.
Let us always distinguish carefully between the more important issues and those that are of lesser importance. We need to keep in mind that we can never explicitly support something intrinsically evil. In classifying candidates, we must search for party and candidates positions that help us best to develop a sound public policy in our country. God grant us the wisdom to know and the courage to do what a well-formed human conscience enables us to recognize as responsible.
Source: http://www.arch-no.org/article.php
Bishop Robert Hermann
Archdiocese of Saint Louis
October 31, 2008, Bishop Hermann: 'I thought you should know’, We live in hope
October 24, 2008, Bishop Hermann:'I thought you should know', Week of prayer for the protection of human life
October 10, 2008,Bishop Hermann: ‘I thought you should know’, Save our children!
October 3, 2008, Bishop Hermann: ‘I thought you should know’, Pro-Life Sunday
Click here to go to Bishop Hermann's 2008 page
Joint Statement of the bishops of Dallas and Fort Worth
October 8, 2008
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
The month of October is Respect Life Month in our churches. It is a time in which we as Catholics are called to reflect upon the gift of life that has been entrusted to us by our Creator and to focus our attention on the many attacks against human life that exist in our culture today. This year, Respect Life Month takes on a more profound meaning as we face an election in our country where the protection of human life itself, particularly that of the unborn, is very much at stake. Therefore, as your Bishops, we wish to take this opportunity to provide clear guidance on the proper formation of conscience concerning voting as faithful Catholics and to articulate the Church’s clear and unambiguous teaching on life issues as they relate to other issues of concern.
The Church teaches that all Catholics should participate as “faithful citizens” in the public square, especially through our voice in the voting booth, and that we have the responsibility to treat the decision for whom we will vote for with profound moral seriousness. We must approach the right and duty to vote with a properly formed and informed conscience in accordance with the teachings of the Church. Last November, the Bishops of the United States issued a document entitled Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in which we and our brother Bishops issued clear moral guidelines to aid the faithful in proper formation of conscience with regard to the many issues we face in our nation today. Through this joint statement to the faithful of Dallas and Fort Worth, we seek to briefly summarize the key points and dispel any confusion or misunderstanding that may be present among you concerning the teaching contained in the document, especially that which may have arisen from recent public misinterpretation concerning this teaching.
1. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship clearly teaches that not all issues have the same moral equivalence. Some issues involve “intrinsic evils”; that is, they can never under any circumstance or condition be morally justified. Preeminent among these intrinsic evils are legalized abortion, the promotion of same sex unions and “marriages”, repression of religious liberty, as well as public policies permitting euthanasia, racial discrimination or destructive human embryonic stem cell research.
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship clearly states:
“There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called ‘intrinsically evil’ actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, ‘abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others’ (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.” (22)
2. The destruction of the most innocent of human life through abortion and embryonic stem cell research not only undercuts the basic human right to life, but it also subverts and distorts the common good. As Pope John Paul II clearly states:
“Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good… It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop…” (The Gospel of Life, 72; 101)
3. Therefore, we cannot make more clear the seriousness of the overriding issue of abortion – while not the “only issue” – it is the defining moral issue, not only today, but of the last 35 years. Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, more than 48 million innocent lives have been lost. Each year in our nation more than one million lives are lost through legalized abortion. Countless other lives are also lost through embryonic stem cell research. In the coming months our nation will once again elect our political leaders. This electoral cycle affords us an opportunity to promote the culture of life in our nation. As Catholics we are morally obligated to pray, to act, and to vote to abolish the evil of abortion in America, limiting it as much as we can until it is finally abolished.
4. As Catholics we are faced with a number of issues that are of concern and should be addressed, such as immigration reform, healthcare, the economy and its solvency, care and concern for the poor, and the war on terror. As Catholics we must be concerned about these issues and work to see that just solutions are brought about. There are many possible solutions to these issues and there can be reasonable debate among Catholics on how to best approach and solve them. These are matters of “prudential judgment.” But let us be clear: issues of prudential judgment are not morally equivalent to issues involving intrinsic evils. No matter how right a given candidate is on any of these issues, it does not outweigh a candidate’s unacceptable position in favor of an intrinsic evil such as abortion or the protection of “abortion rights.”
As Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship states:
“The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.” (28)
5. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in paragraphs 34-37, addresses the question of whether it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil – even when the voter does not agree with the candidate’s position on that evil. The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following:
a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or “abortion rights,” a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,
b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no “truly grave moral” or “proportionate” reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year. To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or “abortion rights” when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible.
6. In conclusion, as stated in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the decisions we make on these political and moral issues affect not only the general peace and prosperity of society at large, but also may affect each individual’s salvation. As Catholics, we must treat our political choices with appropriate moral gravity and in doing so, realize our continuing and unavoidable obligation to be a voice for the voiceless unborn, whose destruction by legal abortion is the preeminent intrinsic evil of our day. With knowledge of the Church’s teaching on these grave matters, it is incumbent upon each of us as Catholics to educate ourselves on where the candidates running for office stand on these issues, particularly those involving intrinsic evils. May God bless you.
Faithfully in Christ,
Most Reverend Kevin J. Farrell
Bishop of Dallas
Most Reverend Kevin W. Vann
Bishop of Fort Worth
Source: Diocese of Fort Worth
http://www.fwdioc.org
True Political Responsibility, October 4, 2008
Freedom of Choice Act Would Remove All Limitations on Abortions, October 3, 2008
Bishop James Vann Johnston
Springfield-Cape
October 3, 2008
Prudence and Preparing to Vote
“The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!” —Mt 6:22-23
Most Americans learn from an early age that voting is a civic duty. However, many Americans do not realize that voting is fundamentally a moral act. Like other moral actions in our lives, it is a choosing for which we will each be accountable before God. This can be lost or overlooked, especially in an age with loud voices seeking to relegate people of faith and moral conviction to the sidelines of public discourse.
For Catholics, it is not enough to vote for a candidate simply out of allegiance to some political party, self-interest, or emotional attachment to a certain candidate. This is why the document of the US Catholic Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” [FC], focuses the preparation to vote on preparing one’s conscience. As the document states: “[We] bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote. Our purpose is to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with God’s truth. We recognize that the responsibility to make choices in political life rests with each individual in light of a properly formed conscience …” (FC, 7).
With this in mind, it might be good to review what conscience is: “Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right,” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1778).
Our consciences will not serve us well if they are not formed and informed by the truth. In this regard, it is essential that we each form our consciences in the light of right reason, the Word of God, and the teaching of the Catholic Church. These are the reliable sources of truth on which we can rely to shape our consciences. Once the conscience is formed it is necessary to also examine the facts and information related to the choices one is facing. Finally, every Catholic should prepare by praying and seeking God’s help in discerning his will.
Prudence and principles
Our Catholic Church has a rich and sound teaching on all the issues related to the dignity of the human person, the social order, and justice. Because there are many issues at stake in an election, it can be still be confusing when casting a ballot. This is because there are so many important issues, and there may not be the “perfect” candidate who stands squarely with the truth on all of them. While all these issues are important and demand our commitment, some outweigh others. Prudence is the necessary virtue that helps us weigh the goods involved and to make practical judgments about which issues and goods take precedence over others.
Along with the virtue of prudence, principles for moral decision-making are needed. In several key sections of “Faithful Citizenship” the bishops describe some of these key principles. Firstly, the bishops point out that intrinsically evil acts (those acts which are always gravely wrong in every circumstance) are deeply flawed. Additionally, intrinsically evil acts are opposed to love of God and neighbor, and the good of persons. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. As an example, the bishops state in paragraph 22: “A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia.”
All the life issues are connected, including those that relate to basic human needs such as food, shelter, health care, education, and work. Catholics must place a great priority on these issues and meeting these needs in our neighbors, especially the poor and vulnerable. However, these issues depend on the protection of the most fundamental right, the right to life. Pope John Paul II explained this important aspect of church teaching when he said: “Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.” (“Christifidelis Laici” [“On the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in Church and in the World”], 38).
The bishops also point out two temptations that can distort the church’s defense of human life and dignity. “The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between the different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many,” (FC, 28; emphasis added). This means that one cannot make other social issues such as education or health care morally equivalent to the deliberate destruction of innocent human life.
Issues such as how to provide affordable health care or better education or how to conduct and conclude a war are issues that are open to principled debate as to how they should be addressed; as they say, “there is more than one way to skin a cat.” Life issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research are not in that category. These are simply always wrong in every conceivable circumstance. Not only that, they strike at the very foundational right upon which all other rights depend, the right to life.
The second temptation the bishops cite relates to a “misuse of necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity,” (FC, 29). Catholics cannot treat other issues related to human dignity and justice as optional. The bishops list several examples of such issues that demand our concern: racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, and the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy. These are “serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. They are not optional concerns which can be dismissed,” (FC, 29).
With the above in mind, it becomes clear that Catholics may not promote or even remain indifferent to those issues or choices that are intrinsically evil (abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, the destruction of embryonic human beings in stem-cell research, human cloning, and same-sex “marriage”).
Writing as Card. Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI tells us that “A well-formed conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals,” (“Doctrinal Note on the Participation of Catholics in Political Life,” no. 4; FC, 36). Therefore, it is a correct judgment of conscience that one would commit moral evil by voting for a candidate who takes a permissive stand on these intrinsically evil actions when there is a morally acceptable alternative.
Given what is at stake in every election, one can see how the hard work of preparing one’s conscience is so necessary. Elections affect us not only in the immediate sense, they have repercussions for generations. They are the moments when a nation defines itself: what it believes about the human person, the gift of life, marriage and the family, and civilization itself.
Catholic Bishops of New York State
Our Cherished Right, Our Solemn Duty
By the Catholic Bishops of New York State
Posted: 10/1/2008
Every four years, 12 months prior to the presidential election, the Bishops of the United States issue a statement calling Catholics to faithful citizenship. Simply put, faithful citizenship refers to our duty as Catholics to be full participants in the public square in order to make our nation and the world a better and more just place. With this duty comes the responsibility to exercise our right to vote and to be engaged in the political process. This right did not come easily, having been bought with the blood of our forebears and protected through the centuries by our Constitution and the men and women in uniform who defend it.
We Catholics are called to look at politics as we are called to look at everything – through the lens of our faith. While we are free to join any political party that we choose or none at all, we must be cautious when we vote not to be guided solely by party loyalty nor by self interest. Rather, we should be guided in evaluating the important issues facing our state and nation by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of His Church.
Our national and state elected officials have profound influence on countless matters of great importance, such as the right to life, issues of war and peace, the education of children and how we treat the poor and vulnerable. We must look at all of these issues as we form our consciences in preparation for Election Day, November 4.
It is the rare candidate who will agree with the Church on every issue. But as the U.S. Bishops’ recent document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship makes clear, not every issue is of equal moral gravity. The inalienable right to life of every innocent human person outweighs other concerns where Catholics may use prudential judgment, such as how best to meet the needs of the poor or to increase access to health care for all.
The right to life is the right through which all others flow. To the extent candidates reject this fundamental right by supporting an objective evil, such as legal abortion, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research, Catholics should consider them less acceptable for public office. As Faithful Citizenship teaches, “Those who knowingly, willingly, and directly support public policies or legislation that undermine fundamental moral principles cooperate with evil.”
These are complex times, so our task is not light. Educating ourselves for the presidential election is somewhat easier than doing so for the congressional or state legislative races, mainly because the candidates’ positions are generally better known. The presidential candidates of both major parties have legislative voting records which often provide valuable insight. In addition, their campaign Web sites, debates and news coverage regularly highlight the differences of the two on the issues.
It is often more difficult to get as good a grasp on the positions of incumbent congressional representatives and state legislators, not to mention their challengers. (How many of us cannot even name our state Senator or Assembly Member, let alone their electoral opponents?) News accounts of positions are harder to come by, and voting records on important issues are often lacking. So the task of doing due diligence can be truly challenging. Yet our state is facing many critical issues which are of vital concern to faithful Catholics, and it is absolutely necessary for good citizens to pay attention to these races and to vote accordingly for the better candidates. You can find all of the candidates for elected office at the New York State Catholic Conference Web site.
Many of the most compelling moral issues of the day play out at the state level. Commonsense restrictions on abortion, whether or not to employ the death penalty, issues related to same-sex “marriage” and civil unions, parental rights in education, programs to serve the poor, access to health insurance – all of these debates occur in the halls of our state Capitol in Albany. Your vote for State Senator and Assembly Member may be as critical as your vote for President of the United States.
We set forth below potential questions for candidates on a variety of critical issues, and we urge you to learn where all the candidates for every office stand with regard to them. This list is by no means exhaustive, but our hope is that it serves as a valuable tool in forming your consciences as you make your decisions in the voting booth as Catholic faithful citizens.
While we as Church officials cannot and do not endorse candidates for office, we encourage you to properly form your conscience by reflecting on the moral and social teachings of our Church and we strongly urge you to vote on November 4. For when we vote, we are exercising our cherished right and our solemn duty as Americans and as Catholics.
Important Questions for Political Candidates
The Right to Life
Do you agree with the need to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, which struck down all state laws criminalizing abortion and established a woman’s “right” to abort her unborn child in the womb?
Do you oppose the state’s “Reproductive Health & Privacy Protection Act” or the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” which both go beyond Roe v. Wade, guaranteeing a fundamental right to abortion with no restrictions or regulations?
Do you support a ban on physician-assisted suicide?
Do you oppose government funding for human embryonic stem cell research?
Do you oppose the death penalty?
Parental Rights in Education
Do you support the right of all parents – especially poor parents – to be provided with the means (such as education tax credits) to choose the most appropriate school for their child, including a religious or independent school?
Do you support restoring full state reimbursement on mandates in religious and independent schools?
Protecting Marriage
Do you support maintaining the historic understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman?
Immigration Reform
Do you support immigration reform that regularizes the situation for undocumented immigrants already in this country?
Do you oppose punishing charitable organizations which provide social services to undocumented persons?
Access to Health Care
Do you support legislative action to provide universal access to health care?
Protecting the Poor
Do you support an increase in New York State’s public assistance grant, which has not been raised since 1990?
Do you support an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, available as refunds to families with the greatest need?
Religious Liberty
Do you support the right of faith-based health and human service providers to offer services to the community in accord with their religious beliefs?
Do you support the right of faith-based health and human service providers to make employment and employee benefits decisions in accord with their religious beliefs?
How shall I cast my vote?
A letter from Bishop Boyea
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
This pro-life month of October is a good time for me to offer the following reflections. To be a bishop is to be a teacher, offering principles to help Catholics form their consciences as they fulfill their duty as citizens to vote. The following guidelines are intended for educational purposes only. This is not intended to endorse or oppose any particular candidate or political party, though it does oppose Proposal 2, the destructive constitutional amendment allowing unlimited research on live human embryos, which appears on this fall’s ballot. It is my hope that these principles will show how human reason and our Catholic faith shape our thinking, choosing and acting in daily life.
THE DUTY TO VOTE
• Catholics have the same rights and duties as other citizens, but are called to carry them out not according to worldly standards, but in the light of the truth of faith and human reason.
• In a democratic society, citizens vote on proposals and elect candidates for the common good. These choices can significantly affect many lives, especially the lives of the most vulnerable persons in society, such as young human embryos, children in the womb and those who are terminally ill. Therefore, Catholic citizens have a serious moral obligation to exercise their right to vote. What is more, we have a duty to vote guided by a well-formed conscience.
FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE
• Conscience is the means by which we discern the law “written” by God on our hearts that disposes us to love and to do good and avoid evil (cf. Romans 2:12-16). We have a serious duty to follow our consciences. To act against the judgment of conscience when it is certain about what is good and evil has the same seriousness as disobeying God. However, it is important to remember that it is possible for our conscience to be wrongly formed regarding what is good and evil.
• For this reason, we have an equally serious duty to form or teach our consciences properly so that we can judge what is good and evil accurately. We are obliged to seek the truth and then to abide by it. Catholics receive direction in this life-long process from the teachings of the church on matters pertaining to faith and morals. We rely on the help of the Holy Spirit to apply these teachings to particular issues.
AREAS OF PRUDENTIAL JUDGMENT
• In some moral matters, the use of reason allows for legitimate diversity in our individual prudential judgments. Within certain parameters, Catholic voters may differ, for example, on what constitutes the best immigration or health care or housing policies. Catholics may even have differing judgments on the decision to wage a just war. Therefore, because these prudential judgments do not involve the direct choice of something evil and take into consideration various goods, it is possible for Catholic voters to arrive at different, even opposing, views.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
• Notwithstanding a possible diversity of prudential judgments, each of us should guide our decision making on all issues with a fundamental respect for the dignity of every human being from the moment of conception to natural death. This is a non-negotiable principle. It is the foundation for a just society and of Catholic social teaching. Respect for human dignity is the basis for the fundamental right to life. It is also the basis for all those things needed to live with dignity – for example, work, fair wages, food, shelter, education, health care, security and migration. But these other basic human needs lose all meaning and purpose if the fundamental right to life – the right to exist – is denied. Because of respect for the dignity of the human person, Catholics are obliged to come to the aid and defense of the defenseless, especially the poor. Another guiding principle is the defense and promotion of marriage as the lifelong bond between one man and one woman for the building up of family life.
SOME THINGS ARE ALWAYS EVIL
• A correct conscience recognizes that there are some choices that always involve doing evil and that can never be done even as a means to achieve a good end. These choices include elective abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, destruction of young human embryos, human cloning and same-sex “marriage.” Such acts are judged to be intrinsically evil; that is, evil in and of themselves, regardless of the motives of those who promote these ideas. They constitute an attack against innocent human life, as well as against the very nature of marriage and family.
• Other examples of choices that always involve doing evil would be racial discrimination and the production and use of pornography. These actions offend the fundamental dignity of the human person.
• Concerning choices that are intrinsically evil, no one with a well-formed conscience, especially a Catholic, may promote or even remain indifferent to them.
HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL PROPOSAL
• Currently, successful scientific research is being done on adult stem cells, which the church supports and encourages because this scientific work does not involve the killing of young humans in the embryonic stage. However, on the ballot this fall in Michigan, Proposal 2 would encourage the killing of human embryos. Even if a great good, such as the cure of diseases, could be achieved by this process, the good end or goal never justifies a deliberate attack on innocent human life. In addition, this proposal is too open-ended. The last clause reads: “Prohibits state and local laws that prevent, restrict, or discourage stem cell research, future therapies, or cures.” It is unimaginable to put into our state constitution a ban on the ability of the legislature or local governments to place any controls on this or any other industry. Proposal 2 goes too far. It could allow researchers to do all kinds of experiments on embryos and on genes. No one, with a well-formed conscience, can vote for such a proposal. We simply must find other ways, such as adult stem-cell research, to reach these good goals.
VOTING FOR CANDIDATES
• In light of the above, we would commit moral evil if we were to vote for a candidate who takes a permissive stand on those actions that are intrinsically evil when there is a morally acceptable alternative. What are we to do, though, when there is no such alternative?
• Because we have a moral obligation to vote, deciding not to vote at all is not ordinarily an acceptable solution to this dilemma. So, when there is no choice of a candidate that avoids supporting intrinsically evil actions, especially elective abortion or embryonic stem-cell research, we should vote in such a way as to allow the least harm to innocent human life and dignity. We would not be acting immorally, therefore, if we were to vote for a candidate whose positions on these issues are not totally acceptable in order to defeat one who poses an even greater threat to human life and dignity.
VOTING IS A MORAL ACT
• Our duty is to vote in keeping with a conscience properly formed by fundamental moral principles. As your bishop, I am not telling you to vote for or against any candidate. Rather, I wish to assist in the forming of correct consciences and to invite a consideration of the issues in the light of these fundamental moral principles. In this month of October, may Our Lady of the Holy Rosary guide us to fulfill our duty in good conscience.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
+ Earl Boyea
Bishop of Lansing
October 2008
Source: http://www.dioceseoflansing.org/bishop/How_Shall_I_Cast_My_Vote.html
The Northern Cross - To Seek His Face
October a time to reflect on human dignity
October 2008
Dear friends in Christ,
Each year the bishops of the United States set aside October as Respect Life Month and invite all Catholics to pray, reflect and renew their commitment to the defense of human life.
The fundamental principle of our faith, rooted in Sacred Scripture, is the dignity and worth of each human person, from the moment of conception until natural death. What are we called to do? In his message entitled “The Gospel of Life” (95), Pope John Paul II stated: “What is urgently called for is a . . . united ethical effort to activate a great campaign in support of Life.”
Human life is our first gift from God, our Creator. This gift is also a challenge and demands a response. We are called to protect human life and defend it.
The extent of this care is shown in the parable of the Good Samaritan. The original questioner asks Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” At the end of the parable, Jesus poses another, more profound question: “Who was neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” Our Lord thus invites all his disciples to understand that there is no limit or ceiling on who is our neighbor.
All human life is sacred, from the instant of conception until natural death. We are brothers and sisters, in a perpetual state of advocacy for all human life.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, our world has become more disquieting for us, a home that has many more marks of danger. We have had to admit that some among us see no intrinsic worth in human life. There are those who seem to contend that some are dispensable because of certain political or ideological commitments. Terrorism is built upon contempt for human life.
Contempt for human life, however, is not limited to terrorists. Even in our own society, there has been a growing temptation to see human life in highly utilitarian ways. Some assertions of individual freedom and technical scientific progress have denigrated the incalculable worth of each human person, born and unborn. These attitudes, frequently posed in terms of freedom, actually undermine freedom by diminishing the most vulnerable among us. Such “freedom” actually ends up in coercion.
In this light, I particularly bring to your attention the evil of abortion in our society. There are many other urgent issues, as well, that threaten human life, from poverty and violence to oppression, lack of health care, insufficient educational opportunities and unemployment.
As followers of Jesus Christ, we must be advocates for the weak, the fragile and the marginalized in all these issues. But advocacy on behalf of others in these situations never excuses wrong choices and attitudes regarding the direct attacks on innocent human life.
The failure to protect and defend human life in its most vulnerable stages at life’s beginning and its natural end makes suspect any claims to the “rightness” of positions of other matters affecting the poor and powerless of the human family. One does not play with “percentages” here. A committed and convinced Catholic is always pro-life on the issue of abortion and euthanasia, and that includes the voting booth.
Let me repeat, there are some actions and behaviors that are always wrong; they are incompatible with our love of God and the dignity of each human person. Abortion, the direct taking of innocent human life prior to birth, is always morally wrong, as is the deliberate destruction of human embryos for any reason. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are not acts of mercy but morally wrong actions. Direct attacks on civilians and terrorist acts are always to be condemned.
It is to be noted that issues involving human life are interdependent, are inter-connected. If a society makes abortion legal, it inevitably begins to erode the respect for life in other areas.
As Catholics — priests, deacons, religious and laity — we must come together in celebration of God’s word and in the sacraments, in prayer and meditation, in study and teaching, particularly with our children, youth and young adults, so that all might more fully understand, proclaim and celebrate the extraordinary gift that God has bestowed on us in creating us in his own image and likeness. That is the richness of human life that we are to reverence, celebrate and — most certainly — protect. May such activity lead to a more complete dedication to the cause of human life in our daily interactions, in our personal growth in holiness and in our dealings with the society at large.
We make the prayer of Pope John Paul II our own: “May the ‘people of life’ constantly grow in number and may a new culture of love and solidarity develop for the true good of the whole of human society” (“The Gospel of Life,” 101).
October is also the Month of the Rosary. Oct. 7 is the Feast of our Lady of the Rosary, the patroness of the Diocese of Duluth.
We are surrounded by a society that needs more than ever the light of the Gospel. We entrust our hopes to Mary’s motherly intercession. With the repetition of the prayers of the rosary, we turn to Mary with the insistent, trusting prayer of a child to his or her mother. In this way, the rosary becomes a weapon of victory, an effective weapon, to which Christ’s promise applies very well: “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you” (Luke 11:9).
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Dennis M. Schnurr
Source: http://www.dioceseduluth.org/index.php?PageID=350&QryParentID=315 (broken link)
Bishops' 2008 Pre-election Statement
Letter from Bishop David A. Zubik on Catholics and Voting
My dear family of the Church of Pittsburgh,
There is an important matter that falls under my responsibilities as bishop which has taken front and center stage – the upcoming elections. One of the things I treasure most about you, the faithful of the Church of Pittsburgh, is the open way in which you offer suggestions to me and make requests of me. Sometimes those requests conflict. The election issue is one such example. Some of you have asked me to speak out publicly about the presidential candidates. That I can not do. The important document written by the Bishops of our country entitled Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States (available at www.faithfulcitizenship.org) underscores the important point that the Church cannot, I repeat, cannot tell people for whom they must vote. However, the document is very clear about highlighting two things about our voting privilege: (1) the right that we have to vote as American citizens is precious. (2) the obligation that we have to bring our faith to our voting is sacred.
As we approach the coming elections, I implore you to consider both: your right to vote; and your obligation to bring your faith to the voting booth.
To assist you in both might I suggest four important steps. (1) Familiarize yourself with the issues of the campaign; (2) Learn what the teachings of the Catholic Church are regarding those issues; (3) reflect on both in a spirit of prayer, and (4) Vote.
To assist you in understanding what the teachings of the Church are regarding the various campaign issues, I would recommend that you consult with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults or the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Moreover, you might also want to secure a copy of Faithful Citizenship. Since the presidential election of 1976 and every four years, we the Bishops have offered updated versions of this important document to assist voters as they exercise their voting rights coupled with the responsibility of an understanding of the issues from the perspective of faith.
Now there is a second issue which I need to address with you as well. Over the course of the last several weeks, several people who are recognized as Catholic leaders in our diocese have espoused a public rationale for why they personally are choosing to vote for a particular candidate for the presidency. These reflections have appeared in either local newspapers or in national periodicals. A number of you have raised questions with me about their statements.
Over the course of the past week especially, I have reflected long and hard about how I might be able to respond to the many questions that you have placed on my desk about such statements.
I wish to clarify the confusion that has been caused by these public statements with the hope that any division that has been caused by such remarks and worse any scandal that may have resulted from such comments is addressed. It is important to say once again that no one has a right to tell anyone how to vote. Moreover those who have offered their personal interpretation of the Church’s teaching do not speak for the Church and in some part do not reflect the teaching of the Church.
While Faithful Citizenship speaks about the moral choice which we each must make when we enter the voting booth, the manner in which we vote must weigh all the issues with a clear reflection on the teachings of the Church. The primary theme of Faithful Citizenship is the right to life and the dignity of every human person. As the United States Bishops made clear, this is the foundation of a moral vision for society. We cannot dismiss this foundational principle as secondary in our thinking. As the bishops insist, we cannot consider abortion or euthanasia as merely two issues among many to be weighed or dismissed with a shrug. Nor can we exclude other issues that also are pro-life: concerns about the poor and immigrants, concerns about peace and war, concerns about bigotry and prejudice, concerns about capital punishment, and other social justice issues.
Having offered these few thoughts on the upcoming electoral process, it is my sincere hope that I have clarified some of the questions which you have raised, especially in light of some well-known Catholics who advocate for your vote for a particular candidate from their own personal perspective.
As we are prepare for this year’s elections, remember to know the issues, know the Church’s teachings, pray about both and vote. To do so as a woman or a man of faith highlights the right we have as American citizens and the responsibility we have as members of the Church.
Grateful for our belief that “Nothing is Impossible with God,” I am
Your brother in Christ,
Most Reverend David A. Zubik
Bishop of Pittsburgh
