I am sure all of you have heard about our Kansas governor, Sebelius, being nominated by Obama to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. Most of you probably also know that she has been buddies with the infamous late-term abortionist, Tiller, who is Kansas' greatest thorn. She has accepted money from him for her campaigns, has had him to dinner at the governors' mansion, and I know has made things easier for him to do the evil that he does. She has vetoed every pro-life piece of legislation that has made its way to her desk (except for the recent Women's Right to Know, which allows women the right to see the sonogram that the abortion center does, among other things. I know she just signed this for political gain, i.e. not to seem so pro-abortion now that she has been nominated for this position.) It is a disgrace to Kansas to have these two in our state.
As much as I would love to get Sebelius out of Kansas, this position that Obama has nominated her for is not good. She has got to be one of the most pro-abortion politicians out there. All the while claiming to be "pro-woman." And claiming to be Catholic, which is even more disgraceful.
Now is your chance to voice to your senators how you feel about her nomination. Go here to the Americans United for Life Action website and your can plug in your information and they will email your letter to your senators. You can even use a letter they already have written. I just did it and it was so easy. Took only a few minutes! So go, now!
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, April 17, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The Pope Is Her Shepherd Too
Pope Benedict strongly rebukes Pelosi over abortion
House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s photo-op with Pope Benedict XVI turned sour when the Pontiff used the 15-minute meeting to reaffirm the teachings of the Catholic Church on the right to life and the duty to protect the unborn.
No photo of Nancy Pelosi and the Pope will be forthcoming, since the meeting was closed to reporters and photographers. The two met in a small room in the Vatican just after the Pope's weekly public audience.
Immediately after the meeting, the Holy See’s press office released a statement saying, "following the general audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage."
"His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."
Go here to read the full article.
Now we all have to remember to pray for Nancy Pelosi, that the words she heard will sink in and affect her heart and more importantly, her soul.
I am glad she won't get a picture.
Thanks to Cottage Blessings for the story.
Friday, November 7, 2008
A Message from Fr. John Corapi
THERE IS STILL A GOD IN HEAVEN!
The American people have now made it abundantly clear who they want to lead them, and the policies and practices that this president-elect has represented for some time, they can now claim as their own. Actions have consequences, and I am sure God has duly noted what our priorities are in the US of A. Economic matters would seem to take precedence over moral matters; money more important than life itself to most people (I guess they don’t consider almost 50,000,000 innocent children murdered by abortion part of life).
Now we shall see what the fruit of such a tree will be. I predict that we won’t have to wait long. In recent months we have seen “corrections” in the stock market, housing market, and banking industries. Now we’ll see if God orchestrates a “correction” in a country and a world that has demonstrated quite clearly that it prefers convenience and wealth to life itself.Regardless of whatever happens next, remember there is still a God in Heaven and He loves you. He is infinitely merciful—and He is infinitely just as well.
God Bless You
Fr. John Corapi
The American people have now made it abundantly clear who they want to lead them, and the policies and practices that this president-elect has represented for some time, they can now claim as their own. Actions have consequences, and I am sure God has duly noted what our priorities are in the US of A. Economic matters would seem to take precedence over moral matters; money more important than life itself to most people (I guess they don’t consider almost 50,000,000 innocent children murdered by abortion part of life).
Now we shall see what the fruit of such a tree will be. I predict that we won’t have to wait long. In recent months we have seen “corrections” in the stock market, housing market, and banking industries. Now we’ll see if God orchestrates a “correction” in a country and a world that has demonstrated quite clearly that it prefers convenience and wealth to life itself.Regardless of whatever happens next, remember there is still a God in Heaven and He loves you. He is infinitely merciful—and He is infinitely just as well.
God Bless You
Fr. John Corapi
Monday, November 3, 2008
PLEASE READ!!!
This is an article written by Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of the Kansas City, KS archdiocese for the Leaven, the diocesan paper. See the original article here.
‘The most important crisis in our nation is a moral crisis’
One of the saddest moments for me during this year’s election campaign occurred during the vice presidential debate, when the “Catholic” vice presidential candidate, Senator Joseph Biden, bragged about his role in preserving Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision which in effect legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
This outburst of pride by Sen. Biden occurred as part of his response to a question inquiring how his thinking had changed since he first entered public life. Senator Biden answered by noting that when he first became a member of the Senate, he believed judicial appointments should be made purely on the basis of the legal competence of a candidate. However, at some point in his Senate career, his thinking evolved. Senator Biden now believes that ideology must also be a factor in evaluating the suitability of a judicial candidate.
By his own admission, Sen. Biden’s leadership on the Judiciary Committee was critical in defeating a nominee who in his opinion, except for his opposition to Roe v. Wade, was qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. By helping preserve Roe v. Wade, Sen. Biden was also assuming a share of responsibility for the deaths of millions of children who have died from abortion because of that Supreme Court decision.
Senator Biden’s debate comments serve as a reminder that our current permissive policies sanctioning abortion have come from the courts — not from Congress, the state Legislatures, or a referendum of the people. It was the decision of the Court in 1973 that struck down all the state laws restricting abortions.
Senator Biden says that he accepts the Catholic Church’s teaching on when human life begins, but asserts that it would be wrong for him to impose this belief on others. At the same time, he is happy and even proud to cooperate in preserving the Supreme Court’s imposition of abortion public policy on the entire nation.
Inadvertently, Sen. Biden also reminded American voters that ultimately we have the ability to change public policy, even those imposed by an over-reaching Court. One of the most important responsibilities of any president is the appointment of federal judges and, in particular, appointments to the Supreme Court.
Senator Biden’s assertion that he preserved Roe v. Wade makes clear that it also matters whom we elect to the U.S. Senate. The Senate has the ability to block any presidential nominee. Also Governor Sarah Palin’s meteoric rise to national prominence demonstrates the importance of electing pro-life candidates as mayors and members of public school boards because of the values they bring to these important local offices and because they form the pool of potential candidates for higher office.
There are those who argue that there were illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade, so what difference does a law make? This is like arguing that since there are still murders, rapes, and thefts, we should just decriminalize these actions.
Of course, there will always be those who will not comply with the law. This does not mean that such laws are ineffective or unnecessary. There are no accurate records of the number of illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade. Doctor Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist and one of the founders of NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) admits that abortion advocates made up the statistics they used in their propaganda efforts to promote abortion’s legalization. The more honest estimates indicate that abortions increased by more than 10 times with legalization. This means that there are more than a million additional abortions annually because of Roe v. Wade. The law really does make a difference.
Senator Barak Obama says that he does not believe in litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees, but he also pledges to protect Roe v. Wade. Senator Obama has also stated that he wants, early in his presidency, to sign into law the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would eliminate the modest limitations of abortion permitted under Roe v. Wade. Informed consent and parental notification statutes have reduced the number of abortions.
FOCA, in its present form, would also take away conscience clauses. In other words, it could be used to coerce doctors, nurses, hospitals and health care systems to participate in abortion. We should take Sen. Obama’s promises seriously because they are very consistent with his record as Illinois state senator and his brief career as a U.S. senator.
There are many in political life who would like the abortion issue to just disappear. They argue that abortion distracts from the much more important issues of the economy and the national security. The most important crisis in our nation today is a moral crisis. It is a crisis about fundamental values and beliefs. The foundational issue of this moral crisis is whether we will continue to permit the state-sanctioned killing of our own children.
In a recently published interview Sen. Biden said that he is a “John XXIII guy” and “not a Pope John Paul guy.” I hope that he is not trying to imply that Pope John XXIII would bless or approve his action in support of legalized abortion. It is not my responsibility or my role to tell the people of the archdiocese for whom to vote. However, I can tell you there is no such thing as a “John XXIII Catholic” or a “John Paul II Catholic.” There are, however, “faithful” and “unfaithful” Catholics.
Senator Biden is proud to have helped preserve Roe v. Wade and thus to share responsibility for its consequences. Consider this when casting your vote: Are you ready to accept some responsibility for the more than a million unborn children who are killed every year by abortion? Think about it!
‘The most important crisis in our nation is a moral crisis’
One of the saddest moments for me during this year’s election campaign occurred during the vice presidential debate, when the “Catholic” vice presidential candidate, Senator Joseph Biden, bragged about his role in preserving Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision which in effect legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
This outburst of pride by Sen. Biden occurred as part of his response to a question inquiring how his thinking had changed since he first entered public life. Senator Biden answered by noting that when he first became a member of the Senate, he believed judicial appointments should be made purely on the basis of the legal competence of a candidate. However, at some point in his Senate career, his thinking evolved. Senator Biden now believes that ideology must also be a factor in evaluating the suitability of a judicial candidate.
By his own admission, Sen. Biden’s leadership on the Judiciary Committee was critical in defeating a nominee who in his opinion, except for his opposition to Roe v. Wade, was qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. By helping preserve Roe v. Wade, Sen. Biden was also assuming a share of responsibility for the deaths of millions of children who have died from abortion because of that Supreme Court decision.
Senator Biden’s debate comments serve as a reminder that our current permissive policies sanctioning abortion have come from the courts — not from Congress, the state Legislatures, or a referendum of the people. It was the decision of the Court in 1973 that struck down all the state laws restricting abortions.
Senator Biden says that he accepts the Catholic Church’s teaching on when human life begins, but asserts that it would be wrong for him to impose this belief on others. At the same time, he is happy and even proud to cooperate in preserving the Supreme Court’s imposition of abortion public policy on the entire nation.
Inadvertently, Sen. Biden also reminded American voters that ultimately we have the ability to change public policy, even those imposed by an over-reaching Court. One of the most important responsibilities of any president is the appointment of federal judges and, in particular, appointments to the Supreme Court.
Senator Biden’s assertion that he preserved Roe v. Wade makes clear that it also matters whom we elect to the U.S. Senate. The Senate has the ability to block any presidential nominee. Also Governor Sarah Palin’s meteoric rise to national prominence demonstrates the importance of electing pro-life candidates as mayors and members of public school boards because of the values they bring to these important local offices and because they form the pool of potential candidates for higher office.
There are those who argue that there were illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade, so what difference does a law make? This is like arguing that since there are still murders, rapes, and thefts, we should just decriminalize these actions.
Of course, there will always be those who will not comply with the law. This does not mean that such laws are ineffective or unnecessary. There are no accurate records of the number of illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade. Doctor Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist and one of the founders of NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) admits that abortion advocates made up the statistics they used in their propaganda efforts to promote abortion’s legalization. The more honest estimates indicate that abortions increased by more than 10 times with legalization. This means that there are more than a million additional abortions annually because of Roe v. Wade. The law really does make a difference.
Senator Barak Obama says that he does not believe in litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees, but he also pledges to protect Roe v. Wade. Senator Obama has also stated that he wants, early in his presidency, to sign into law the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would eliminate the modest limitations of abortion permitted under Roe v. Wade. Informed consent and parental notification statutes have reduced the number of abortions.
FOCA, in its present form, would also take away conscience clauses. In other words, it could be used to coerce doctors, nurses, hospitals and health care systems to participate in abortion. We should take Sen. Obama’s promises seriously because they are very consistent with his record as Illinois state senator and his brief career as a U.S. senator.
There are many in political life who would like the abortion issue to just disappear. They argue that abortion distracts from the much more important issues of the economy and the national security. The most important crisis in our nation today is a moral crisis. It is a crisis about fundamental values and beliefs. The foundational issue of this moral crisis is whether we will continue to permit the state-sanctioned killing of our own children.
In a recently published interview Sen. Biden said that he is a “John XXIII guy” and “not a Pope John Paul guy.” I hope that he is not trying to imply that Pope John XXIII would bless or approve his action in support of legalized abortion. It is not my responsibility or my role to tell the people of the archdiocese for whom to vote. However, I can tell you there is no such thing as a “John XXIII Catholic” or a “John Paul II Catholic.” There are, however, “faithful” and “unfaithful” Catholics.
Senator Biden is proud to have helped preserve Roe v. Wade and thus to share responsibility for its consequences. Consider this when casting your vote: Are you ready to accept some responsibility for the more than a million unborn children who are killed every year by abortion? Think about it!
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Letter From Bishop of Salina, KS
This is the main reason why Barack Obama is a morally unacceptable candidate:
November 1, 2008
All Saints Day
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
On Tuesday the citizens of the United States will elect the leaders who will govern our nation during a time of national turmoil unprecedented in recent memory. We are in the midst of a severe economic crisis, a housing crisis and an unpopular and protracted war against extremists who threaten our national security.
But the fundamental crisis, and the one we hear least about in the media, is a moral crisis. It is a struggle to determine the kind of nation we will be as measured by our treatment of the weakest and most vulnerable among us, the innocent unborn. As Pope Benedict XVI teaches, "The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself. This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right—it is the very opposite. It is a deep wound in society."
Protecting innocent human life is not just one issue among many. From a moral perspective it is the foundational issue of our time. It is likely that the next president will decide the fate of the "Freedom of Choice Act". If passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, it will eliminate every single limit on abortions which have been achieved over the last thirty-five years. It would be catastrophic. This is an example of how much is at stake.
We Catholics have a duty to be actively engaged citizens. Before we vote we must be sure we know where the candidates stand on all the issues, particularly the most fundamental. If we are not well-informed voters we can do actual harm by our vote. As faithful citizens we have a duty to allow our Catholic principles and convictions to form our consciences and guide our decisions in the voting booth.
Please join me in praying for our nation during these final days before this momentous election. Pray for wisdom for all of our fellow citizens that we may choose well on November 4. So much depends on your vote!
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Paul S. Coakley
Bishop of Salina
Barack Obama has told Planned Parenthood that the first thing he will do if elected President is sign FOCA into law. He is pro-abortion down to the core! If you vote for Obama you are cooperating in a grave evil. Don't do it!
November 1, 2008
All Saints Day
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
On Tuesday the citizens of the United States will elect the leaders who will govern our nation during a time of national turmoil unprecedented in recent memory. We are in the midst of a severe economic crisis, a housing crisis and an unpopular and protracted war against extremists who threaten our national security.
But the fundamental crisis, and the one we hear least about in the media, is a moral crisis. It is a struggle to determine the kind of nation we will be as measured by our treatment of the weakest and most vulnerable among us, the innocent unborn. As Pope Benedict XVI teaches, "The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself. This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right—it is the very opposite. It is a deep wound in society."
Protecting innocent human life is not just one issue among many. From a moral perspective it is the foundational issue of our time. It is likely that the next president will decide the fate of the "Freedom of Choice Act". If passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, it will eliminate every single limit on abortions which have been achieved over the last thirty-five years. It would be catastrophic. This is an example of how much is at stake.
We Catholics have a duty to be actively engaged citizens. Before we vote we must be sure we know where the candidates stand on all the issues, particularly the most fundamental. If we are not well-informed voters we can do actual harm by our vote. As faithful citizens we have a duty to allow our Catholic principles and convictions to form our consciences and guide our decisions in the voting booth.
Please join me in praying for our nation during these final days before this momentous election. Pray for wisdom for all of our fellow citizens that we may choose well on November 4. So much depends on your vote!
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Paul S. Coakley
Bishop of Salina
Barack Obama has told Planned Parenthood that the first thing he will do if elected President is sign FOCA into law. He is pro-abortion down to the core! If you vote for Obama you are cooperating in a grave evil. Don't do it!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Obama vs Archbishop Chaput
complete article here
Little Murders
by Charles J. Chaput
Oct 18, 2008
In an address delivered on October 17, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput stated that ''Prof. Douglas Kmiec has a strong record of service to the Church and the nation in his past. But I think his activism for Senator Barack Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.''
The following is condensed and adapted from an address Charles J. Chaput delivered at an ENDOW (''Educating on the Nature and Dignity of Women'') dinner, October 17.
Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama
I began work on Render Unto Caesar in July 2006. I made the final changes to the text in November 2007. That's a long time before anyone was nominated for president, and it was Doubleday, not I, that set the book's release date for August 2008. So - unlike Prof. Douglas Kmiec's recent book, Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama, which argues a Catholic case for Senator Obama - I wrote Render Unto Caesar with no interest in supporting or attacking any candidate or any political party.
The goal of Render Unto Caesar was simply to describe what an authentic Catholic approach to political life looks like, and then to encourage Americans Catholics to live it.
Prof. Kmiec has a strong record of service to the Church and the nation in his past. He served in the Reagan administration, and he supported Mitt Romney's campaign for president before switching in a very public way to Barack Obama earlier this year. In his own book he quotes from Render Unto Caesar at some length. In fact, he suggests that his reasoning and mine are ''not far distant on the moral inquiry necessary in the election of 2008.'' Unfortunately, he either misunderstands or misuses my words, and he couldn't be more mistaken.
I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed ''abortion-rights'' presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973. Despite what Prof. Kmiec suggests, the party platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively ''pro-choice;'' it has also removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing. On the question of homicide against the unborn child - and let's remember that the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer explicitly called abortion ''murder'' - the Democratic platform that emerged from Denver in August 2008 is clearly anti-life.
Prof. Kmiec argues that there are defensible motives to support Senator Obama. Speaking for myself, I do not know any proportionate reason that could outweigh more than 40 million unborn children killed by abortion and the many millions of women deeply wounded by the loss and regret abortion creates.
To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's ''real'' prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred ''prolife'' option is to subvert what the word ''prolife'' means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama's record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George's Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ''Obama's Abortion Extremism,'' and his follow-up article, ''Obama and Infanticide.'' They say everything that needs to be said.
Of course, these are simply my personal views as an author and private citizen. But I'm grateful to Prof. Kmiec for quoting me in his book and giving me the reason to speak so clearly about our differences. I think his activism for Senator Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress prolifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.
And here's the irony. None of the Catholic arguments advanced in favor of Senator Obama are new. They've been around, in one form or another, for more than 25 years. All of them seek to ''get beyond'' abortion, or economically reduce the number of abortions, or create a better society where abortion won't be necessary. All of them involve a misuse of the seamless garment imagery in Catholic social teaching. And all of them, in practice, seek to contextualize, demote and then counterbalance the evil of abortion with other important but less foundational social issues.
This is a great sadness. As Chicago's Cardinal Francis George said recently, 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 in blood. This can't be something you start playing off pragmatically against other issues.''
Meanwhile, the basic human rights violation at the heart of abortion - the intentional destruction of an innocent, developing human life - is wordsmithed away as a terrible crime that just can't be fixed by the law. I don't believe that. I think that argument is a fraud. And I don't think any serious believer can accept that argument without damaging his or her credibility. We still have more than a million abortions a year, and we can't blame them all on Republican social policies. After all, it was a Democratic president, not a Republican, who vetoed the partial birth abortion ban - twice.
The truth is that for some Catholics, the abortion issue has never been a comfortable cause. It's embarrassing. It's not the kind of social justice they like to talk about. It interferes with their natural political alliances. And because the homicides involved in abortion are ''little murders'' - the kind of private, legally protected murders that kill conveniently unseen lives - it's easy to look the other way.
The one genuinely new quality to Catholic arguments for Senator Obama is their packaging. Just as the abortion lobby fostered ''Catholics for a Free Choice'' to challenge Catholic teaching on abortion more than two decades ago, so supporters of Senator Obama have done something similar in seeking to neutralize the witness of bishops and the pro-life movement by offering a ''Catholic'' alternative to the Church's priority on sanctity of life issues. I think it's an intelligent strategy. I also think it's wrong and often dishonest.
It's curious that nobody seems to worry about the ''separation of Church and state,'' or religious interference in the public square, when the religious voices that speak up support a certain kind of candidate. In his book, Prof. Kmiec complains about the agenda and influence of what he terms RFPs - Republican Faith Partisans. But he also seems to pay them the highest kind of compliment: imitation. If RFPs are bad, is it unreasonable to assume that DFPs - Democratic Faith Partisans - are equally dangerous?
As I suggest throughout Render Unto Caesar, it's important for Catholics to be people of faith who pursue politics to achieve justice; not people of politics who use and misuse faith to achieve power. I have no doubt that Prof. Kmiec belongs to the former group. But I believe his arguments finally serve the latter.
For 35 years I've watched thousands of good Catholic laypeople, clergy and religious struggle to recover some form of legal protection for the unborn child. The abortion lobby has fought every compromise and every legal restriction on abortion, every step of the way. Apparently they believe in their convictions more than some of us Catholics believe in ours. And I think that's an indictment of an entire generation of American Catholic leadership.
The abortion conflict has never simply been about repealing Roe v. Wade. And the many pro-lifers I know live a much deeper kind of discipleship than ''single issue'' politics. But they do understand that the cornerstone of Catholic social teaching is protecting human life from conception to natural death. They do understand that every other human right depends on the right to life. They did not and do not and will not give up - and they won't be lied to.
So I think that people who claim that the abortion struggle is ''lost'' as a matter of law, or that supporting an outspoken defender of legal abortion is somehow ''prolife,'' are not just wrong; they're betraying the witness of every person who continues the work of defending the unborn child. And I hope they know how to explain that, because someday they'll be required to.
Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., is the author of Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life (Doubleday, 2008). The views expressed here are his own, and do not represent those of the Archdiocese of Denver. Copyright 2008 The Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.
Little Murders
by Charles J. Chaput
Oct 18, 2008
In an address delivered on October 17, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput stated that ''Prof. Douglas Kmiec has a strong record of service to the Church and the nation in his past. But I think his activism for Senator Barack Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.''
The following is condensed and adapted from an address Charles J. Chaput delivered at an ENDOW (''Educating on the Nature and Dignity of Women'') dinner, October 17.
Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama
I began work on Render Unto Caesar in July 2006. I made the final changes to the text in November 2007. That's a long time before anyone was nominated for president, and it was Doubleday, not I, that set the book's release date for August 2008. So - unlike Prof. Douglas Kmiec's recent book, Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama, which argues a Catholic case for Senator Obama - I wrote Render Unto Caesar with no interest in supporting or attacking any candidate or any political party.
The goal of Render Unto Caesar was simply to describe what an authentic Catholic approach to political life looks like, and then to encourage Americans Catholics to live it.
Prof. Kmiec has a strong record of service to the Church and the nation in his past. He served in the Reagan administration, and he supported Mitt Romney's campaign for president before switching in a very public way to Barack Obama earlier this year. In his own book he quotes from Render Unto Caesar at some length. In fact, he suggests that his reasoning and mine are ''not far distant on the moral inquiry necessary in the election of 2008.'' Unfortunately, he either misunderstands or misuses my words, and he couldn't be more mistaken.
I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed ''abortion-rights'' presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973. Despite what Prof. Kmiec suggests, the party platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively ''pro-choice;'' it has also removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing. On the question of homicide against the unborn child - and let's remember that the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer explicitly called abortion ''murder'' - the Democratic platform that emerged from Denver in August 2008 is clearly anti-life.
Prof. Kmiec argues that there are defensible motives to support Senator Obama. Speaking for myself, I do not know any proportionate reason that could outweigh more than 40 million unborn children killed by abortion and the many millions of women deeply wounded by the loss and regret abortion creates.
To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's ''real'' prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred ''prolife'' option is to subvert what the word ''prolife'' means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama's record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George's Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ''Obama's Abortion Extremism,'' and his follow-up article, ''Obama and Infanticide.'' They say everything that needs to be said.
Of course, these are simply my personal views as an author and private citizen. But I'm grateful to Prof. Kmiec for quoting me in his book and giving me the reason to speak so clearly about our differences. I think his activism for Senator Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress prolifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.
And here's the irony. None of the Catholic arguments advanced in favor of Senator Obama are new. They've been around, in one form or another, for more than 25 years. All of them seek to ''get beyond'' abortion, or economically reduce the number of abortions, or create a better society where abortion won't be necessary. All of them involve a misuse of the seamless garment imagery in Catholic social teaching. And all of them, in practice, seek to contextualize, demote and then counterbalance the evil of abortion with other important but less foundational social issues.
This is a great sadness. As Chicago's Cardinal Francis George said recently, 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 in blood. This can't be something you start playing off pragmatically against other issues.''
Meanwhile, the basic human rights violation at the heart of abortion - the intentional destruction of an innocent, developing human life - is wordsmithed away as a terrible crime that just can't be fixed by the law. I don't believe that. I think that argument is a fraud. And I don't think any serious believer can accept that argument without damaging his or her credibility. We still have more than a million abortions a year, and we can't blame them all on Republican social policies. After all, it was a Democratic president, not a Republican, who vetoed the partial birth abortion ban - twice.
The truth is that for some Catholics, the abortion issue has never been a comfortable cause. It's embarrassing. It's not the kind of social justice they like to talk about. It interferes with their natural political alliances. And because the homicides involved in abortion are ''little murders'' - the kind of private, legally protected murders that kill conveniently unseen lives - it's easy to look the other way.
The one genuinely new quality to Catholic arguments for Senator Obama is their packaging. Just as the abortion lobby fostered ''Catholics for a Free Choice'' to challenge Catholic teaching on abortion more than two decades ago, so supporters of Senator Obama have done something similar in seeking to neutralize the witness of bishops and the pro-life movement by offering a ''Catholic'' alternative to the Church's priority on sanctity of life issues. I think it's an intelligent strategy. I also think it's wrong and often dishonest.
It's curious that nobody seems to worry about the ''separation of Church and state,'' or religious interference in the public square, when the religious voices that speak up support a certain kind of candidate. In his book, Prof. Kmiec complains about the agenda and influence of what he terms RFPs - Republican Faith Partisans. But he also seems to pay them the highest kind of compliment: imitation. If RFPs are bad, is it unreasonable to assume that DFPs - Democratic Faith Partisans - are equally dangerous?
As I suggest throughout Render Unto Caesar, it's important for Catholics to be people of faith who pursue politics to achieve justice; not people of politics who use and misuse faith to achieve power. I have no doubt that Prof. Kmiec belongs to the former group. But I believe his arguments finally serve the latter.
For 35 years I've watched thousands of good Catholic laypeople, clergy and religious struggle to recover some form of legal protection for the unborn child. The abortion lobby has fought every compromise and every legal restriction on abortion, every step of the way. Apparently they believe in their convictions more than some of us Catholics believe in ours. And I think that's an indictment of an entire generation of American Catholic leadership.
The abortion conflict has never simply been about repealing Roe v. Wade. And the many pro-lifers I know live a much deeper kind of discipleship than ''single issue'' politics. But they do understand that the cornerstone of Catholic social teaching is protecting human life from conception to natural death. They do understand that every other human right depends on the right to life. They did not and do not and will not give up - and they won't be lied to.
So I think that people who claim that the abortion struggle is ''lost'' as a matter of law, or that supporting an outspoken defender of legal abortion is somehow ''prolife,'' are not just wrong; they're betraying the witness of every person who continues the work of defending the unborn child. And I hope they know how to explain that, because someday they'll be required to.
Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., is the author of Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life (Doubleday, 2008). The views expressed here are his own, and do not represent those of the Archdiocese of Denver. Copyright 2008 The Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
No Respect For Life Obama
Monday, October 13, 2008
NOBama
Just a few quotes I dug up for all you Catholics who think its ok to vote for Obama.
If I had more time I would list them all...
If I had more time I would list them all...
NOBama
"The Church is never partisan but that doesn't change the fact that abortion is the central social issue of this moment in our national history -- not the only issue, but the foundational issue; the pivotal issue. For Catholics to ignore it or downplay it or 'contextualize' it would be an act of cowardice."
Archbishop Charles Chaput - Denver, CO
Archbishop Charles Chaput - Denver, CO
NOBama
"At this point, the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitively into a party of death"
Archbishop Raymond Burke
Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, President of the Commission for Advocates - Vatican
NOBama
"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.
Bishop Kevin J. Farrell- Dallas, TX
Bishop Kevin W. Vann - Fort Worth, TX
Bishop Kevin J. Farrell- Dallas, TX
Bishop Kevin W. Vann - Fort Worth, TX
NObama
"Catholics would commit moral evil by voting for a candidate who embraces abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning and same-sex “marriage,” when a morally acceptable candidate is available. "
Archbishop Joseph Naumann - Kansas City, KS
Bishops Ronald Gilmore - Dodge City, KS
Bishop Paul Coakley - Salina, KS
Bishop Michael Jackels - Wichita, KS
Election Novena
Go to Faith and Family Live and see this post by Danielle Bean. It has an election novena, which I think we will sorely need this year.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Fat Super Tuesday and Lent
Today is quite a day. Fat Tuesday and Super Tuesday combined. One last day to pig out, eat meat, have dessert, and get overloaded on the ever-present political scene of an election year. Not that we are giving up politics for Lent! In fact, in our state, the Republican caucus is on this coming Saturday. I told Dan he should go, but we'll see. Maybe we should both go and bring all the kids. Wouldn't that be fun? That would truly be a Lenten penance. Actually, they probably wouldn't let us in.
So tonight, after a grand dinner with dessert, we'll sit and watch the Super Tuesday results. Hopefully we won't be disappointed.
Then tomorrow, Lent begins. A great time of year. A time to refocus on the spiritual life, check where we've been sliding, pare down the excess, etc. When I was a kid, the focus was all on what you were giving up. Now it is (or should be) so much more. Time to renew the quest for holiness. And boy, do we have a ways to go!
So tonight, after a grand dinner with dessert, we'll sit and watch the Super Tuesday results. Hopefully we won't be disappointed.
Then tomorrow, Lent begins. A great time of year. A time to refocus on the spiritual life, check where we've been sliding, pare down the excess, etc. When I was a kid, the focus was all on what you were giving up. Now it is (or should be) so much more. Time to renew the quest for holiness. And boy, do we have a ways to go!
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Hillary Rodham & Barack Hussein Obama
I am just wondering how fickle the democrat/independent voters in NH could be if what the pundits are saying is true. Hillary chokes up (did anyone actually see a tear?) and all of a sudden she gets the votes needed to win the state.
I should be happy she won. She has such high negatives that a Republican would have more of a chance of beating her than Barack Hussein Obama.
Sadly, based on what I see from the field of Republican candidates (Duncan Hunter being the exception), the conservative movement appears to be in the final throes of death. Would the Church allow a cloning exception if the cloned person was Ronald "Ronaldus Magnus" Reagan?
When Chelsea Clinton asked a returning US Soldier about fear, he said that there were only three things he was afraid of: “Osama, Obama, and Yo’ Mama.”
Posted by Dan
I should be happy she won. She has such high negatives that a Republican would have more of a chance of beating her than Barack Hussein Obama.
Sadly, based on what I see from the field of Republican candidates (Duncan Hunter being the exception), the conservative movement appears to be in the final throes of death. Would the Church allow a cloning exception if the cloned person was Ronald "Ronaldus Magnus" Reagan?
When Chelsea Clinton asked a returning US Soldier about fear, he said that there were only three things he was afraid of: “Osama, Obama, and Yo’ Mama.”
Posted by Dan
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Rudy worse than Hillary
Why Dr. Dobson's right
Posted: October 23, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Joseph Farah
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007
Focus on the Family's James Dobson has been getting a lot of heat lately for taking a principled stand – that he will not support any candidate for president who is pro-abortion.
For the life of me, I can't figure out what is controversial about this position.
This is my position. And I think it's healthy that the Republican Party knows there are people like me and James Dobson – I strongly suspect millions like us – who will not vote for Rudy Giuliani over Hillary Clinton.
We can't do it. Our consciences do not permit us to do so. It's just that simple.
I believe not voting for either candidate is the right thing to do in that scenario. I believe announcing it, as Dr. Dobson did, is the right thing to do. And, I believe saying it early and often is the right thing to do.
There are some practical reasons for doing this besides being faithful to one's principles – and, I believe, God's principles.
We will never get better candidates if we accept lesser candidates. It's simple market politics. If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, it will represent the first time in 30 years that an avowedly pro-abortion candidate did so. Don't expect that pendulum to swing back for another 30 years.
And, if Giuliani should, by some twist of fate, win the presidency, it will mean the end of Reaganism. It will represent a turning point in the history of the Republican Party and our nation. It will mean the continued deaths of tens of millions unborn babies when we are closer than ever to defeating the abortion culture that Roe v. Wade initiated in 1973.
Should Giuliani succeed, it will represent the end of any hope for the Republican Party to serve as an alternative to the Democratic Party for millions of people like me and Dr. Dobson. That's bigger than two terms of Hillary Rodham Clinton. That's worse even than four or eight more years in the wilderness.
I'll go even further than Dr. Dobson. Not only will I not support any candidate who is pro-abortion, I won't support any candidate who is not doing his or her absolute best to uphold, support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That shouldn't just be my prerequisite. It should be the prerequisite of every American.
Yet, it is very difficult to find among the front-runners candidates who respect and revere and understand the Constitution.
I also won't vote for any candidate who says he's against abortion and same-sex marriage and higher taxes and Second Amendment restrictions but whose actions as an elected public official betray his words. That means you, Mitt Romney.
As voters, we should raise our standards. Otherwise, we will get candidates whose standards reflect the lowest common denominator – not the ideals of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Dr. Dobson is right. More of us should take that principled stand. More of us should let the whole world know what that stand is. More of us should hold politicians accountable to higher standards.
If they want our votes, they should have to earn them.
What is so hard to understand about that?
I actually believe it would be worse for America if Rudy Giuliani were elected president than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
If Hillary wins, the reaction to her predictable overreaching will be similar to what we experienced in 1994 – a "Republican revolution."
If Rudy wins, millions will simply defect from the Republican Party. If you want to see the rise of a third party, just be sure to nominate Giuliani and elect him as president.
The long-term consequences of a Giuliani victory are far worse than the consequences of a Clinton victory.
So let's avoid that dire choice now. There's still time to avoid such an unpleasant scenario. Let's just nominate a Republican the Republican base can support.
Posted: October 23, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Joseph Farah
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007
Focus on the Family's James Dobson has been getting a lot of heat lately for taking a principled stand – that he will not support any candidate for president who is pro-abortion.
For the life of me, I can't figure out what is controversial about this position.
This is my position. And I think it's healthy that the Republican Party knows there are people like me and James Dobson – I strongly suspect millions like us – who will not vote for Rudy Giuliani over Hillary Clinton.
We can't do it. Our consciences do not permit us to do so. It's just that simple.
I believe not voting for either candidate is the right thing to do in that scenario. I believe announcing it, as Dr. Dobson did, is the right thing to do. And, I believe saying it early and often is the right thing to do.
There are some practical reasons for doing this besides being faithful to one's principles – and, I believe, God's principles.
We will never get better candidates if we accept lesser candidates. It's simple market politics. If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, it will represent the first time in 30 years that an avowedly pro-abortion candidate did so. Don't expect that pendulum to swing back for another 30 years.
And, if Giuliani should, by some twist of fate, win the presidency, it will mean the end of Reaganism. It will represent a turning point in the history of the Republican Party and our nation. It will mean the continued deaths of tens of millions unborn babies when we are closer than ever to defeating the abortion culture that Roe v. Wade initiated in 1973.
Should Giuliani succeed, it will represent the end of any hope for the Republican Party to serve as an alternative to the Democratic Party for millions of people like me and Dr. Dobson. That's bigger than two terms of Hillary Rodham Clinton. That's worse even than four or eight more years in the wilderness.
I'll go even further than Dr. Dobson. Not only will I not support any candidate who is pro-abortion, I won't support any candidate who is not doing his or her absolute best to uphold, support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That shouldn't just be my prerequisite. It should be the prerequisite of every American.
Yet, it is very difficult to find among the front-runners candidates who respect and revere and understand the Constitution.
I also won't vote for any candidate who says he's against abortion and same-sex marriage and higher taxes and Second Amendment restrictions but whose actions as an elected public official betray his words. That means you, Mitt Romney.
As voters, we should raise our standards. Otherwise, we will get candidates whose standards reflect the lowest common denominator – not the ideals of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Dr. Dobson is right. More of us should take that principled stand. More of us should let the whole world know what that stand is. More of us should hold politicians accountable to higher standards.
If they want our votes, they should have to earn them.
What is so hard to understand about that?
I actually believe it would be worse for America if Rudy Giuliani were elected president than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
If Hillary wins, the reaction to her predictable overreaching will be similar to what we experienced in 1994 – a "Republican revolution."
If Rudy wins, millions will simply defect from the Republican Party. If you want to see the rise of a third party, just be sure to nominate Giuliani and elect him as president.
The long-term consequences of a Giuliani victory are far worse than the consequences of a Clinton victory.
So let's avoid that dire choice now. There's still time to avoid such an unpleasant scenario. Let's just nominate a Republican the Republican base can support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
