Recently in Pro-life Category

(CNSNews.com) - Catholic members of Congress who vote for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) could face "automatic excommunication" if the act is determined to be "formal cooperation" in the evil of abortion.

When asked last week whether a Catholic politician voting for the FOCA - which would impose nationwide abortion on demand and government funding of abortion - would incur automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago said the question would need to be discussed once the actual language of the bill was known.

George is president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

In order to be considered in the next Congress, which convenes in January, the Freedom of Choice Act needs to be reintroduced. In the current Congress, it has been sponsored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

At a press conference at the fall meeting of the USCCB held in Baltimore last week, CNSNews.com asked Cardinal George if the language in the Catholic Catechism that says "formal cooperation" in abortion incurs the penalty of excommunication would apply to a Catholic member of Congress voting for FOCA.

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense and the church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life," CNSNews.com asked.

The CCC actually goes on to say right after this "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," and Canon 1398 says the same. It has not been an interpretation of this canon that it extends further than those directly involved in a "successful procured abortion."

"If openly Catholic politicians vote for this Freedom of Choice Act, which would pretty much allow unfettered access to abortion in the United States, would it be an automatic grounds for excommunication? But even if it's not automatic ... could you just explain the process of the excommunication?" CNSNews.com added.

"The excommunication is automatic if that act is in fact formal cooperation, and that is precisely what would have to be discussed once you would see the terms of the act itself," responded George.

I would love this to be true, but I seriously doubt that regardless of how the law is written and how ardent it is in supporting abortion that it will result in an automatic excommunication. Certainly those who voted for abortion including partial-birth abortion have ever been seen as excommunicated by their own action. I would certainly loved to see Rome broaden the Canon to mean precisely this (which I think would be possible). Though Canon 915 certainly applies to those who "obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" could be denied Communion. Individual bishops though could certainly excommunicate those politicians who would vote for FOCA.

"The categories in moral theology about cooperating in evil, which make you complicit in the evil even though you don't do it yourself, are material cooperation, which is usually remote and therefore doesn't involve you in the moral action except in a very auxiliary and minor way, and formal cooperation, which would involve you even though you are not doing it, in the way that makes you culpable," said George.

"So we would have to take a look at each case, and at each law, to determine whether or not the cooperation is material or formal. We've never done that," he added.

Not sure how a vote for FOCA could result in only "material cooperation" with evil.

Fr. Frank Pavone of the Priests for Life told CNSNews.com: "Any legislator who would vote for such an extreme piece of pro-abortion legislation [FOCA], and any executive who would sign it or judge who would uphold it, or even a citizen who would lobby in any way in favor of it, would be committing a serious sin, objectively speaking. It is cooperation with evil in a totally unjustified way."

Totally agree with that.

Pavone said that the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law lays out multiple conditions which must be met before an automatic excommunication occurs. "This really becomes a legal question that would require analyzing those conditions in an actual situation, and it is a step removed from the more clear-cut case of a person actually performing or undergoing the procedure [of abortion]," he said.

Dr. Mark Miravalle, a theology professor at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, said of a Catholic politician voting for FOCA, "I think you would have to conclude that it would be a formal act, a formal cooperation [in the act of abortion]."

The purpose of FOCA, he continued, "is to ensure the right of a woman to have an abortion."

One theoretical case where it would not be formal cooperation, but material, he said, was if the politician was pro-life at heart but did not favor legislation as the way to overturn abortion. Miravalle said, however, that such a case would be an "extremely rare and almost entirely theoretical impossibility, given the gravity of the legislation."
[article]

WASHINGTON: A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job-discrimination laws.

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their "religious beliefs or moral convictions."

It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to "assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity" financed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

This of course will cause much wailing and gnashing of teeth from pro-abortion types.

But three officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its legal counsel, whom President George W. Bush appointed, said the proposal would overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion.

The counsel, Reed Russell, and two Democratic members of the commission, Stuart Ishimaru and Christine Griffin, also said that the rule was unnecessary for the protection of employees and potentially confusing to employers.

Yes not allowing discrimination based on religious belief will "overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion." It must be opposite day there.

Obama has said the proposal will raise new hurdles to women seeking reproductive health services, like abortion and some contraceptives. Michael Leavitt, the health and human services secretary, said that was not the purpose.

Officials at the Health and Human Services Department said they intended to issue a final version of the rule within days. Aides and advisers to Obama said he would try to rescind it, a process that could take three to six months.

Yes allowing someone to follow their religious beliefs is a "hurdle to overcome." Not being able to force people to not follow their conscience is a problem. Yes those few people who actually have properly formed consciences are a defect that must be trampled over. You will assimilate to the culture of death or else! You can only have a consciously objection if it is to the military don't you know. Don't worry oh culture of deathers since this will only be a temporary span of time where conscience is king and Moloch will get back his crown within three to six months.

The proposal is supported by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals.

Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, said that in recent years, "we have seen a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations." [article]

Quite successful efforts especially when it came to pro-life pharmacists to have them fired. Planned Parenthood has called doctors, nurses, and pharmacists refusing to do what is evil a "significant and growing trend" and of course it must be quashed.

"It is not possible to anesthetize the conscience, for example, when it comes to molecules whose aim is to stop an embryo implanting or to cut short someone's life... I invite your federation [of pharmacists] to consider conscientious objection which is a right that must be recognized for your profession so you can avoid collaborating, directly or indirectly, in the supply of products which have clearly immoral aims, for example abortion or euthanasia..." -- Pope Benedict XVI, address to Catholic Pharmacists, 29 Oct 2007

Life Prizes is an annual prize program awarding up to $600,000 for outstanding efforts to awaken the conscience of America to the sanctity of human life through public advocacy, scientific research, outreach and public disclosure activities, legal action and other noteworthy achievements. Life Prizes is an initiative of the Gerard Health Foundation, the private charity foundation of Raymond B. and Marilyn A. Ruddy, long-time pro-life philanthropists.

...The $600,000 in prize money will be divided among the following six winners:

American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) - Association of pro-life physicians that saves lives by remaining steadfastly committed to life within a stridently pro-abortion profession and which conducts research, writing, and public advocacy especially on the negative impact of abortion on women.

Richard Doerflinger - Associate Director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, bioethics expert, consummate researcher, and has been involved in almost every major pro-life legislative initiative since 1980. He has contributed behind the scenes to all major pro-life statements from the Catholic bishops during the last quarter century.

Margaret "Peggy" Hartshorn - President, Heartbeat International, a preeminent network of more than 1,000 pregnancy resource centers spread throughout the world that has directly saved the lives of innumerable unborn children and their mothers from abortion through vital pregnancy support.

Jill Stanek - Nurse who first publicly exposed infanticide of abortion survivors, Born-Alive Infant Protection Act proponent and chief witness, and prolific writer who uses the media and her popular blog to continue revealing the truth about late-term abortion.

Lila Rose - Founder of student pro-life organization Live Action and President of its UCLA chapter. She has launched several successful, undercover investigations that exposed the racism and statutory rape cover-up by Planned Parenthood.

Kay Coles James - Founder and President of The Gloucester Institute, an outreach and education initiative for young African Americans focused on developing solutions for the challenges facing communities today, utilizing lessons learned from the civil rights movement, including a recognition that the first civil right is life itself. She and her husband, Charles James, have worked to advance the pro-life cause for three decades as advocates in the highest levels of government, including the Reagan and both Bush presidential administrations and as founders of a pregnancy resource center and Black Americans for Life. [article]

This is a pretty cool idea and the finalists ere evaluated with the assistance of their Awards Selection Advisory Committee, which included the Archbishop of Denver Charles Chaput, the Reverend Dr. Alveda King, Ambassador Raymond Flynn, and Professor Hadley Arkes of Amherst College.

Doug Kmiec, a " pro-life " Catholic who vocally supported President-elect Barack Obama, defended his position in a lecture Tuesday at St. John's Seminary in Camarillo, California. The law professor told attendees that if Pope Benedict told him that his support for the pro-abortion politician was out of line with the Church's teachings, he would stand by the Magisterium. [article]

Wow that is so generous of him. Besides of course it is the Pope's job to individually contact Catholics who supported Obama publicly to set them straight.

First off Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP links to what he calls "Cringe-worthy comments from Domlife.org". And indeed they are quite cringe-worthy, though there are still some who realize what Obama's election means to the innocent in the womb. The difference between two Dominican nuns commenters part of the Adrian Dominicans was quite stark.

Tom of Disputations also looks at these comments and notices " complete lack of any residue of Dominican formation in many of the comments. How many could have been written by just about any politically liberal American and posted to just about any politically liberal American comment board? Does contemplation of the truth really add so little to political observation?"

The comments are rather amazing considering that they are all from vowed Dominicans or Lay Dominicans. Somehow I can't see St. Thomas Aquinas writing a defense for voting for President-elect Obama. More likely a Sed Contra in response for such a defense.

With Dominicans like these it is no surprise that St. Thomas Aquinas seems to be stepping in and helping out the pro-life movement himself. Here is a wonderful story of how St. Thomas Aquinas figures in the conversion of a former abortionist in Serbia personally responsible for performing 48 thousand abortions.

Jay Anderson writes a solid open letter to Bishop Malooly on his decision not to advise Vice President-elect Biden against receiving in Communion and mentions the good things the bishop has said in the past.

Bishop W. Francis Malooly, the newly-appointed bishop of Sen. Biden's Wilmington diocese, said according to an AP report that he had agreed to discuss Catholic teaching with Biden, but shied away from advising the senator to refrain from receiving Holy Communion.

"I won't politicize the Eucharist," Malooly said. "I don't want to alienate people. I want to change their hearts and minds."

Yes we have heard that one before. As I have written in the past many bishops really dislike the idea that their actions will be seen via a political lens. I can understand this to an extent. Nobody wants to do what is right and have people interpret it as an act of political partisanship. Though the key is that you have to do what is right even when it can be wrongly interpreted and of course their are ways to try to mitigate unintentionally misunderstanding.

The problem about not wanting to politicize the Eucharist is that it is sadly already been politicized. When a pro-abortion politician receives Communion he is making a statement that he believes he is still in communion with the Church regardless of what the Church teaches. Pro-abortion politician receiving the Eucharist can certainly be making a political statement by this act. They are in effect saying "Hey I vote pro-abortion and receive Communion and nobody thinks this is serious enough to act including my bishop."

Receiving Communion when you support an intrinsic evil is objectively gravely sinful. This is an act of sacrilege. Our number one priority for pro-abortion politicians is that they do not further harm themselves by committing sacrilege and that they repent and be brought back to be truly in communion. Our love for them means that we don't want them to commit a sin by receiving Communion when they have not yet repented from supporting an intrinsic evil. Receiving Communion unworthily is not like breaking some rule, it is receiving Jesus when you do not receive what Jesus teaches through his Church. It is an act of mercy to rebuke someone in a charitable manner. To ignore their sin is not merciful in any way. Receiving Communion unworthily is spiritually dangerous as St. Paul pointed out in I Corinthians 11:27-30.

What in troubling in Bishop Malooly case (if the report is true) is that this is not about denying Sen. Biden Communion, but about not even advising him to refrain from receiving. This is to totally ignore the steps in Matthew 18:15 that start with rebuking the sinner and then escalate. For example Bishop Naumann had discussions with Governor Sebelius and ended up telling her to not present herself for Communion which subsequently she has not done. The Bishop has a concern about not alienating and of course wants to change hearts and minds. But no hearts and minds get changed when you standby and do nothing about it. All acts of ecclesial discipline have a medicinal application which is to help lead towards repentance. "You just keep on doing what you are doing" is not exactly an effective method to change hearts or minds.

Now the persons soul is the number one priority in this issues, but many bishops also seem to forget about the scandal of this and the message it sends. For pro-abortion Catholics when they see that pro-abortion Catholic politicians are ignored it only confirms them in their own opinion about abortion. This can't be the worst crime of our time if it is met with such a wimpy reply. Formal cooperation with evil must not be all that bad if the answer is to ignore it. Those that are pro-life are scandalized when a pro-abortion politician receives Communion. The media delights in taking pictures of pro-aborts receiving Communion since even they do that this is not right or at least realize it is in opposition to the Church. While scandal is of secondary importance, it is still important. Action is a teacher and so is inaction.

God graced me by not having the heavy load of being a bishop and I can totally understand why so many saints were unwilling to take on the weight of episcopal office since they truly understood what being a shepherd who is responsible for his sheep means. Though like many in St. Blogs I am an Armchair Bishop in that I pontificate on what I think bishops should do. As an armchair bishop this is what I would imagine I would do if one of my sheep was a pro-abortion politician. First off all the steps assume prayer involved at every level and follow the steps of Matthew 18:15.

• Meet with the person to teach the truth and to express the seriousness of the pro-life issues. No doubt one meeting would not bring about the necessary repentance and it might take several.
• If the meetings get nowhere, than to inform the person not to receive Communion until such a time as he has repented.
• If he still obstinately receive Communion than to order that Communion be withheld from him and an act of mercy.
• Excommunication is certainly something else that should be considered when a person obstinately continues to vote for abortion and to publicly advocate it. Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans excommunicated three men who resisted segregation. These three men later did repent of their sin. As evil as racism is in modern times it has nowhere the death toll of abortion. Supporting abortion does not result in an automatic excommunication, but there is nothing stopping a bishop from excommunicating someone if he sees it as a prudential. Church history is filled with stories of those who were excommunicated who lated died within the graces of the Church. Yeah the media would raise a firestorm over it, but so what? Better that the media raises a firestorm than for someone to die not being in a state of grace and finding what a real firestorm is. Blessed are those who are persecuted by the media for teaching the truth.

Archbishop Burke was pretty much a model when it comes to this. Bishop Martino of Scranton judging by what he said at the USCCB meeting seems to think along these lines also and certainly seemed frustrated on the conference's tepid response to this.

I would like nothing better than to see Sen. Biden, Rep. Pelosi, Mayor Giuliani, Gov. Ridge, etc, repent and to be in full communion with the Church. This is not a political issue, but a mandated act of loving our neighbor. The Good Samaritan acted when others passed by and I pray that more bishops act and that we in turn pray for our bishops..

On the Laura Ingraham show today she had Raymond Arroyo on again and they were talking about the election and the Bishop's meeting that he attended.

Laura Ingraham: Here is the problem, how many of the bishops voted for Obama.

Raymond Arroyo: ...The bishops I spoke to say that maybe half of their brother bishops if not more voted for Obama. Because they thought the symbol of Obama would overcome racism and be a great healer and unity.

This of course is total hearsay and not verifiable. If true, which I suspect it is than it certainly explains a lot. How in the world can we be surprised if 45 percent of Mass attending Catholics voted for Obama if that percentage or more of the Bishops did. Though even if this was ten or five percent it would still be scandalous.

Though to look on the bright side maybe the number of Catholic bishops voting for a pro-abortion candidate is down from previous years. The Bishops were certainly much more vocal this year with a large segment making statements on the election. Though as Raymond Arroyo also said we can't really expect the statements to make much difference when they come out just before an election and the animals have already escaped the barn with people being indoctrinated with culture of death beliefs from the time they are a child.

But I don't want to be all whinny about the bishops when some have been quite active and forceful in what should be our reaction to protecting life. American Papist covers some of the statement here.

Cardinal George's address to the USCCB was an excellent response in addressing these issues.

Though creating a true culture of life is certainly not on just the bishop's shoulders or the parish priests either, but on all of us to live the faith and to defend life.

BALTIMORE (CNS) -- To fill a gap in existing prayer books, the U.S. bishops Nov. 11 overwhelmingly approved a liturgical service in English and Spanish for blessing children in the womb.

Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., praised the new blessing as "a tangible way to witness pastorally and sacramentally to the life of the unborn child" and said it could also serve as an opportunity for parishes to bring together expectant couples for mutual support.

Bishop Michael D. Pfeifer of San Angelo, Texas, said the document could present "a great catechetical moment for all of us." He said he hoped it might lead the bishops to declare an annual day of prayer for the unborn in the future.

The document required the approval of two-thirds of the Latin-rite members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and must be sent to the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments for "recognitio," or confirmation. The English-language version was approved 223-1 and the Spanish-language version 224-0.

Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the bishops' Committee on Divine Worship, introduced the document Nov. 10, the first day of the USCCB fall general assembly in Baltimore.

He said the blessing, which had been approved both by his committee and by the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, "was prepared to support the parents awaiting the birth of their child, to encourage in the parish prayers for and recognition of the precious gift of the child in the womb, and to foster respect for human life within society."

The blessing can be used in the context of a Mass or outside a Mass, and for an individual mother, a couple or a group of expectant parents.

Bishop Serratelli said the pro-life committee had received requests from "a number of dioceses" for such a document.

The blessing includes intercessions "for our government and civic leaders that they may perform their duties with justice and compassion while respecting the gift of human life" and "for a safe and healthy pregnancy for all expectant mothers and for a safe delivery for their children."

It also expresses concern "for children who are unwanted, unloved, abandoned or abused, that the Lord will inspire his people to protect and care for them."

The bishops need to get with the new regime. Babies are not a "blessing", but a "punishment."

Seriously though, this is great news.

Baltimore, Nov 9, 2008 / 11:08 pm (CNA).- Since the election of Barack Obama as the next President of the United States, several Catholic commentators have speculated on how the original agenda of the annual Fall General Assembly of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) will change.

According to bishops involved in the organization of the three-day meeting, which starts this Monday, the agenda, including a public discussion of abortion and politics, is fully on track.
Speculation that the agenda might change came late last week when several prominent Catholic commentators argued that the bishops had "lost authority" by speaking out strongly against Catholics voting for pro-abortion politicians, like Sen. Barack Obama and other mostly Democratic candidates, who were elected to office last Tuesday.

On Friday, Religion News Service reported that the USCCB "has scuttled plans to discuss abortion and politics next week in Baltimore," citing the bishops' spokeswoman, Sister Mary Ann Walsh. RNS also quoted Sister Walsh saying that the agenda had yet to be finalized.

Moreover, according to the National Catholic Reporter's John Allen Jr., "some analysts, especially those of a more liberal bent, are spinning the election of Barak Obama as a 'repudiation' of what they see as an overly strident and partisan tone from the bishops, especially on abortion. A few ardently pro-life Catholics, meanwhile, actually believe that what they call 'silence and treachery' from the bishops on abortion helped pave the way for Obama's success."

On Friday, Peter Steinfels argued in his regular New York Times column that "anyone constructing a list of the big losers on Tuesday would probably include the nation's Roman Catholic bishops."

No the "big losers" were not the bishops, it was the unborn. But since Steifel's definition of being a big loser is that people did not listen to the bishops who spoke out then by that definition Steinfells and like-minded types are also big losers since nobody listens to them on all of their progressive ideas for the Church.

A similar suggestion was made by Fr. Thomas Reese S.J. of Georgetown University in an article published by the Dallas Morning News on Sunday.

Quoting the same figure of nominal Catholics voting for Obama, Reese said that "Episcopal authority took a major hit during the election," and argued that "(the) division between the vocal, partisan bishops and the silent, nonpartisan bishops will be a major issue at the Baltimore meeting."

I knew that just as soon as the election was over that progressive Catholics would be taking just this exact tack. That the bishop's authority had taken a hit. This is laugh out funny coming from those whose idea of authority is what issues from their own lips. You have to preach the truth in season or out of season. You have to preach the truth even if you do not persuade everybody. You preach the truth simply because it is the truth. But for progressive Catholics preaching the truth to prevent the murder of innocents results in being a "big loser" and "taking a hit." I guess the martyrs all got it wrong.

Fr. Reese's idea of partisan is only political, but the word means "a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person." The "cause" here was for the unborn. Remaining silent in defending life is not something to be proud about. If you are nonpartisan when it comes to defending life you are one of those who allow evil to exist by doing nothing.

Even though a sizable number of Bishops to their credit did speak up, there was never a chance that they were going to have a sizable influence. A bishop's letter or homily goes up against the 24/7 culture of death and often minions of the culture of death exist right within the diocese to make sure any strong pro-life messages from their ordinary are promptly doused with water.

After reading Steinfels and Reese here is a palate cleanser at the end of the article.

Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Oregon, also offered a different vision on how to interpret the current circumstances from a Catholic perspective.

"In our present political climate it would be very easy to somehow link our courage and hopefulness to the outcome of political endeavors. It would be easy to position our hope in some kind of political strategy and call for greater courage in fostering that particular strategy."

"The fact that whatever kind of kingdom we manage to build here will always be an imperfect kingdom helps us keep our focus on that in which and for which we ultimately hope, a kingdom of God in eternity," he said. [article]

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team. [article]

This of course is hardly surprising and the immediate effect when these executive orders are changed will be dead people. The Party of Death knows their priorities. The Mexico City Policy which required all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services in other countries. Say hello to tax dollars supporting abortion once again. Say hello to Federal funding of ESCR.

Yes President-elect "above my paygrade" Obama is able to make decision regarding life anyway.

Catholic Obama supporters such as professor Nicholas Cafardi said "supports government action that would reduce the number of abortions," including an "adequate social safety net for poor women who might otherwise have abortions." This was the common case made by Catholic Obama supporters since this is about the only possible argument they could use regardless of how implausible it is. While economics certainly play a part in a decision for abortion, the fact that it is even seen as a possible choice is a major factor. The law is a teacher and if the government says abortion is legal than it will be seen as moral. If the government says ESCR is legal and thus moral they are teaching that you can kill at the beginning of already created life. Politicians like to talk about being conflicted on abortion, but the law is not conflicted at all - it says go ahead.

It is also not just poor women that get abortions anyway. Many women going to expensive schools or other circumstances find an unexpected pregnancy as disrupting their plans. But will there actually be a "safety net" created to help pregnant women? Both Obama and his running mate Joe Biden voted against extending the health care program to cover pregnant women and their unborn children. The State Children's Health Insurance (SCHIP) is a federal program that provides funds to states to provide health care services to children of low-income families. Funny how they say they want universal healthcare, but voted against extending existing healthcare to pregnant women. Bit of a mixed message there.

Catholic Obama supporters are going to have to wish for a lot of offsetting to support their contention that Obama would effectively reduce abortions. A president Obama's Supreme Court picks would surely keep abortion legal and prevent individual states from making it illegal. Add the numbers killed because of this to ESCR, and Federal support of NGO's and abortion you end up with a lot of people dead. There are going to have to be hundreds of thousands of women choosing life because of a so-called safety nets to offset and reduce the number of abortions. I have a feeling Obama and the Democrats will use the same contractor that is suppose to be building the border fence to also build safety nets. Plus if FOCA actually got passed the very laws that helped to reduce the abortion rate in recent years will be totally gone.

But Catholic supporters of Obama will continue to defend the indefensible when it comes to their supporter rather than defend the indefensible in the womb.

Let nothing disturb you,
Let nothing frighten you,
All things pass away:
God never changes.
Patience obtains all things.
He who has God
Finds he lacks nothing;
God alone suffices. -- Saint Teresa of Avila

"God does not call us to be successful. He calls us to be faithful." -- Blessed Mother Teresa.

For the last month I have been preparing myself for a Sen. Obama win. I am by nature a pessimistic-optimist. I am though much more calm than I expected I would be in the aftermath of President-Elect Obama. It is much easier to remember today that my trust is in Jesus. Though I am also in mourning for the unborn who will die as a result of an Obama Presidency. They will never get to vote in an election, much less get healthcare or participate in the economy. The economy goes up and down. Dead babies stay dead.

Maybe we need to pray for the health of Supreme Court members so that they stay healthy another four years and have no desire to retire. Yeah I am only saying this jokingly, but no doubt some will retire and have a replacement named by a President Obama and another generation of children will be killed with the permission of the court. One thing you can say about Democrats is that they never pick a nominee that "grows" in office - they are reliably strict deconstructionists who will find a foreign law that matches their biases or grab a penumbra in a pinch.

Being thankful for little things the Democratic Senate does not have 60 seats so I hope this will keep the misnamed Freedom of Choice Act from being able to be signed into law. At least I hope that it is not able to be passed. Unfortunately the Mexico City policy will be history in an Obama administration. Plus I can only imagine the type of people that will be sent to represent us in the U.N. Say hello to CEDAW and the United Nations efforts to make abortion a universal "right." Plus President Bush's restrictions on Federal funding of embryonic stem-cells will be gone and surely the taxpayers will be funding destructive embryonic research regardless of the progress of ethical sources of stem-cells. Federal money will be used for cloning research and yet more embryos will die at the hands of scientists killing in order to preserve life.

This is the affirmative action presidency. Affirmative action is notorious for placing skin color above qualification and the electorate decided accordingly. There was hardly a dimes worth of difference between any of the Democratic presidential wannabees other than varying levels of experience. Obama's main qualification was that his father was from Kenya and he was capable with a teleprompter. Though once he became the nominee he had a cascade of forces historically helpful for a Democrat to take the office this time around.

Though at least now we know how many racists there are in the United States. Those 56,280,668+ that voted for Sen. McCain are obvious racists for not voting for "The One." And just because you might have voted for Alan Keyes - well you're racist too for not voting for Obama. The idea that the election of Sen. Obama is going to heal race relations I think is laughable. The media will frame every opposition to a President Obama's policies as racially tinged just as they did during the election.

As far as the media goes I don't know which I liked worse. The media that use to pretend to have some objectivity or the one that simply became campaign operatives. Media bias is nothing new and selective reporting has been with us for quite a time. The editing of the Palin interview to make her look worse and the L.A. Times withholding of a video tape are just some of the egregious examples this time around. The media can determine what the Palin family ate the night before by inspecting their garbage can, but could find nothing worthy to investigate on Sen. Obama. Gee remember the media trying to pin cocaine use on President Bush, yet Obama's biographies detailing drug use get a yawn. I hear that the Main Stream Media is going to be elevated to a cabinet position by President Obama because of the good work they did for him. No longer will dissent be patriotic as the media said during the Bush years.

Now we will also have a culture of death Catholic Vice President who will be putting the vice into Vice President with his support of many forms of abortion. I bet the media can hardly wait to snap a picture of him receiving Communion to gloat. The USCCB meets soon to discuss "practical and pastoral implications of political support for abortion." Will the scandal of Sen. Biden be addressed? Probably not, but I would love to be wrong.

I hear that Sen. Obama will be FedExing 30 pieces of silver to Doug Kmiec. Moloch is quite happy with all of the Catholics that voted for Sen. Obama. According to Catholic Culture "Among Catholic voters who attend Mass weekly, McCain won majority support: 54- 45%. Among those who do not attend weekly Mass, the margin for Obama was an overwhelming 61- 37%. Thus Obama drew his support from inactive Catholics." So 45 percent of Mass going Catholics supported the most extreme supporter of abortion ever in a Presidential race. The unborn chopped up via scalpels will be glad to hear about hope and change.

I also hear that Gov. Palin will be stepping down so that she can get some experience by becoming a community organizer.

I find it strange that all of the pro-life measures lost and that all of the anti-same-sex marriage measures won. Somehow their is still some idea of what marriage means, but the preciousness of life is another story. Washington State now has doctor assisted suicide like Oregon. So all we need to do is have California join in and we can call it the Kevorkian Coast or simply the Death Coast. In Michigan voters approved ESCR (supported by a Catholic Governor Jennifer Granholm). Modern liberalism means more dead people. If you don't get them at the beginning of life you can always catch them when they get old or sick. The endless pursuit to make the distance from cradle to grave to be zero. Modern feminism says "Give me liberty and give them death"

Oh and by the way thanks a lot Jack Ryan (the Senator and not Tom Clancy character) whose divorce papers led to him withdrawing and giving us a Senator Obama in the first place. What a maroon.

But like many American I will be praying for a President Obama. May his campaign promises be typical campaign promises that never come into fruition. I pray that he realizes the definition of life is not "beyond his paygrade" and the the protection of life and liberty includes those who have been conceived. That he will realize his mother choose life in a situation that so commonly leads to abortion. The law is a teacher and as long as abortion is legal there will be many abortions but as this story works out we can still work to save lives on a personal level.

The Paragraph Farmer on Single Issue Voting.

Charcoal Fire offers Election Primer for Catholics and An Obama Supporter comes to the door

Chuck Norris unleashes attack on Obama over abortion

Four years ago strong statements by bishops on voting were as rare as hen's teeth. This time around we have had a pethora of excellent statements including this one a reader sent me issued by Bishop Ronald W. Gainer of the Diocese of Lexington.

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.

Last Saturday I had the privilege of consecrating the restored church of Old St. Patrick. This is the oldest existing Catholic church in Kansas City. It will serve as the Oratory for the Latin Mass community which first began here under Bishop John Sullivan, and for many years has shared the parish of Our Lady of Sorrows.

One of the beauties of the Traditional Latin High Mass that I celebrated is that it highlights a most profound aspect of the Mass, namely our participation with the Communion of Saints. The high altar, multiple candles, incense and Gregorian chant, collectively give us a striking image of the Heavenly Jerusalem which is our ultimate home. Every Mass celebrates this reality, but I must admit that the traditional Mass captured this magnificent expression of the ultimate hope and goal of Christians in a powerful way. We should reflect on this often, because the ultimate goal of everything we do is to get ourselves to heaven and bring with us as many as we can.

The month of November begins with the two great celebrations: All Saints day (November 1) and the Commemoration of All Souls (November 2). These feasts celebrate our communion with the "Church triumphant" in heaven, and the "Church suffering" in purgatory. Today I would like to share a few brief comments about what we have sometimes called the "Church militant," the Church here on earth.

We, the Church on earth, have a very special challenge as participants in the grace and life of Jesus Christ to "fight" against the enemies of Christ's justice and truth and light and life. We must be attentive to the demands of this daily "battle" in a peaceable but serious manner.

I am sometimes amazed at the casual manner with which Christians, Catholics included, take up our life within what Pope John Paul II rightly called the "culture of death." The Church, by comparison, reminds us that we are engaged - by reason of our Baptism and Confirmation - in a battle, "not with flesh and blood, but with the principalities and powers, with the rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in heaven." (Eph 6:12) Jesus Christ has won the ultimate battle, but we, in the course of our human life must make our choice, determining on whose side we will live and die. Whose side will you choose?!

What is at stake in this battle is our immortal soul, our salvation. My responsibility as bishop is with the eternal destiny of those entrusted to my care. My total energies must be directed to the well being of those who otherwise may come under the spell of a radically flawed and fundamentally distorted moral sense, at odds with what our Mother the Church teaches. There are objective and transcendent truths. There is such a thing as right and wrong. There is a legitimate hierarchy of moral evils, and the direct willful destruction of human life can never be justified; it can never be supported. Do you believe this firm teaching of the Church?

Did you know that in Canada priests and Christian ministers have already been brought before tribunals for preaching and teaching in support of marriage? They are charged with "hate speech" against homosexuality. In light of the tyranny of choice growing each day in our own beloved country, we ought to be ready for similar attacks on religious freedom. We must not fail to preach the Gospel. We can not withhold the truth of our faith. That is why I will never be silent about human life. It is why I am proud of so many others - bishops, priests, deacons, religious and laity - who are not afraid to speak out about the values that matter most. What about you?!

Our Lord told His apostles that they would be hated by the world, just as He was. Nearly all of them died a martyr's death. As warriors in the Church militant, we must never resort to violence. But we must stand up fearlessly against the agents of death, the enemies of human life. Human beings are not Satan, but we know too well that they can come under his spell. They can become willing agents of death, numbed and poisoned in this culture of death. What about you?!

As we begin this month of November, the month of the Church, let us call upon the Saints to inspire us, befriend us, and pray for us. Let us offer many prayers and sacrifices for the poor souls who have gone before us. They need our meritorious suffrages to help them reach heaven.

And let us resolve to be warriors of the Church militant; warriors with our eyes fixed on heaven. Let us ask God's mercy and strength to persevere in our call - individual and collective - to holiness. Mary, Mother of the Church, Pray for us! [source]

I came up with this.

Tom at Disputations

A definition of "Commonweal Catholic"

Someone who is more offended by the use of the term "pro-abortion" than by the fact that their political party and candidate are pro-abortion.

Tom has also been looking at the arguments made by Zippy's arguments against voting for Sen. McCain.

The ever awesome Ramesh Ponnuru

George Weigel does a nice job of responding to the "Catholic brief for Obama" by Nicholas Cafardi, M. Cathleen Kaveny, and the inevitable Douglas Kmiec, but is perhaps too embarrassed on their behalf to point out every shoddy aspect of it. I feel no such constraint. I will underscore one of Weigel's points and add a few more.

1) The authors cannot get through the subject of their first sentence without telling an untruth. "George Weigel and his fellow McCain advisors. . ." As Weigel points out, he has not advised McCain formally or informally.

2) The opening paragraph ends, "Center for Disease Control statistics reveal that prosperity directly affects the abortion rate far more significantly than Republican rhetoric pledging to outlaw abortion--" Really? The CDC has done a study on the effects of Republican rhetoric?

3) "--a feat John McCain has failed to accomplish with nearly three decades in Congress." Are the authors seriously holding it against McCain that he has not single-handedly been able to, among other things, reverse a Supreme Court decision? No, they're not: They're just taking a cheap shot at him and moving on.

4) "In terms of health care, McCain makes no provision for the uninsured. . ." Not true. Perhaps the authors have not heard that McCain would grant families a $5,000 tax credit to purchase health insurance? If the authors want to maintain that Obama's plan is superior to McCain's because it would insure more people, they can do so without making things up. But they go cartoonishly further.

5) ". . . and proposes that the insured pay more." No, he doesn't. The vast majority of people would come out with more money after McCain's tax reform.

6) The authors say nothing about Obama's support for taxpayer funding of abortion, which the abortion lobby itself suggests will result in many, many more abortions; nothing about his stated commitment to make passing the "Freedom of Choice Act" the very first thing he does as President; nothing about his opposition to providing legal protection against homicide for all infants; nothing about his opposition to parental consent and notification laws (which have demonstrably reduced the number of abortions); nothing about his opposition to federal funding for pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that help make it possible for pregnant women in need to avoid resorting to abortion; nothing about his support for the industrial production of "research embryos" by cloning. . . well, you get the picture.

All in all, these three professors have given the sort of intellectual performance you would expect of an unscrupulous politician.

Adam of the Theotokos podcast takes on the arguments used by Nicholas Cafard

CHANTILLY, Va. (AP) -- A new drug store at a Virginia strip mall is putting its faith in an unconventional business plan: No candy. No sodas. And no birth control. Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy is among at least seven pharmacies across the nation that are refusing as a matter of faith to sell contraceptives of any kind, even if a person has a prescription.

States across the country have been wrestling with the issue of pharmacists who refuse on religious grounds to dispense birth control or morning-after pills, and some have enacted laws requiring drug stores to fill the prescriptions.

In Virginia, though, pharmacists can turn away any prescription for any reason.

"I am grateful to be able to practice," pharmacy manager Robert Semler said, "where my conscience will never be violated and my faith does not have to be checked at the door each morning."

On Tuesday, the pharmacy celebrated a blessing from Arlington Bishop Paul S. Loverde. While Divine Mercy Care is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, it is guided by church teachings on sexuality, which forbid any form of artificial contraception, including morning-after pills, condoms and birth control pills, a common prescription used by millions of women in the U.S.

"This pharmacy is a vibrant example of our Holy Father's charge to all of us to wear our faith in the public square," said Loverde, who sprinkled holy water on the shelves stocked with painkillers and acne treatments. "It will allow families to shop in an environment where their faith is not compromised."

...The Virginia store's policy has drawn scorn from some abortion rights groups, who have already called for a boycott and collected more than 1,000 signatures protesting the pharmacy.

Once more so much for choice. You will dispense birth control even if it is against your conscience. We demand it! How dare you follow your conscience!

"If this emboldens other pharmacies in other parts of the state, it could really affect low-income and rural women in terms of access," said Tarina Keene, executive director of the Virginia chapter of the National Abortion Rights Action League.

How scandalous that other pharmacists might be "emboldened" to follow their conscience. This must be stopped!

Whether Catholics will be drawn to the pharmacy is uncertain. According to a Gallup poll published last year for an extensive study of U.S. Catholicism called American Catholics Today, 75 percent of U.S. Catholics said you can still be a good Catholic even if you don't obey church teachings on birth control.

That is mandated boilerplate. Any story about Catholics and contraception has to include some poll about Catholics and birth control. Funny how when an article is about Catholics and abortion they don't mention that the same poll said the "Church's teaching on abortion is 'very important,'"

Catherine Muskett said she plans to shop at the drug store even though she lives more than 20 miles away.

"Obviously it's good to support pro-life causes. Every little bit counts," said Muskett, one of about 75 people who crowded into the tiny shop for Tuesday's ceremony.
[article]

Amen to that, I would go out of my way to support a drug store that did this.

Having a conversation with an Obama supporter I heard yet again the argument "nobody is pro-abortion." This made me wonder just why it is that people who support legal abortion as an option don't want to be called pro-abortion? This seems to me to say quite a deal. If as they often contend that it is not a child and just a lump of tissue of the equivalent of a tadpole then what is the big deal if I or someone else call you pro-abortion. Why should their be any argument about this and why shouldn't they be proudly pro-abortion? If they are not pro-abortion then do they think they are anti-abortion? Is there a middle ground where you are neither for or against abortion? Don't think so.

Besides the definition of "pro" that applies is "an argument in favor of a course of action." If you say that abortion is an acceptable course of action then you are in fact pro-abortion. There is often an equivocation about letting it be a choice for somebody else to make. But again if you support somebody in their choice of action you are in favor of that action happening. If I said it was okay for an individual to choose to go around shooting people or not based on their preference, I would in fact be pro-murder even if I never shot someone myself.

I think abortion supporters get upset about being called pro-abortion because they do no really believe what they say they believe. Very few will admit that it is murder, but that they still believe the women has the right to murder in this circumstance. Instead they will talk about reducing abortion and never explain why "an acceptable moral choice" needs reducing. They will call abortion a right, but as others have noted can point to no other right that needs reducing. They set up a barricade of linguistic obstacles such as being pro-choice (they don't mind the "pro" in this case) as if anybody in the world was anti-choice. It is like saying you are pro-air. The reality of abortion must be obscured in a cloud of words so that what you say you are supporting doesn't sound all that bad. The morality of abortion in phrased in the circumstance of the pregnant women instead of addressing whether they are killing a person or not. The language used to defend abortion is deeply conflicted simply because the logic involved is conflicted as well.

Either dismembering a child in the womb is an acceptable moral act or it isn't. If you think it is then you are pro-abortion and should admit it.

Dawn Eden reports on a blog entry by a pro-abortion medical student who was "freaked out" by what she saw during a day at Planned Parenthood. Please pray that the medical student receives the grace to reconsider her opinion and not anesthetize her conscience.

I am starting to feel sorry for Doug Kmiec. After his most recent article for the L.A. Times in defense of Obama on abortion you got to wonder how deep of a hole he is willing to dig for himself. At the rate he is going he is going to run into copyright infringement on Jules Verne's Journey ot the center of the earth.

I do wonder how he found himself in this predicament of going from a vocal Gov. Romney supporter to a vocal Sen. Obama supporter which is not exactly a normal progression. Though maybe it is not as hard to go from saying that Mitt Romney is now pro-life and had a pro-life conversion to saying that Sen. Obama is the best hope to reduce abortion. Though the defense of Romney is at least plausible.

Sometimes I get the sense that Kmiec went to Sen. Obama in a fit of pique instead of being willing to support McCain and he has been trying to justify himself ever since.

Now many of us probably have taking a position that we later realized was foolish, but were too prideful to admit our mistake. Though when you take such a public position, pride can really kick in to keep you from saying "What in the world was I thinking, boy did I screw up."

This is why I propose a "Witless Protection Program." The Witless Protection Program would take people who took really stupid public stances and relocate them to somewhere else in the United States and give them new names and new lives. U.S. Marshals would oversee the Witless Protection Program or Witless Security Program (WitlessSec) and make sure that the Witlesses stay our of political life or make future stupid public opinions.

I am sure that if Doug Kmiec was offered such a program he would surely avail himself of it. Surely it would be a relief to be able to stop defending Obama as someone who would actually reduce abortions. He wouldn't have to explain how the The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which Obama promised to sign as soon as presented to him which overrides all existing restrictions on abortion in the states will actually reduce abortion. So write your Senator and Congressmen and support the Witless Protection Program to help save so many like Professor Kmiec.

A reader sent me a link to this column by Bishop Hermann

Save our children! More than anything else, this election is about saving our children or killing our children. This life issue is the overriding issue facing each of us in this coming election. All other issues, including the economy, have to take second place to the issue of life.

Save our children! Many people in Germany supported Hitler for economic reasons even though, as his programs advanced, he put to death millions of Jewish people. He ended up wrecking the economy together with the country of Germany.

How are we different if we vote for proabortion candidates for office? How can we help change our political and legal situation to protect innocent children and support a culture of life?

Save our children! When I speak to some socalled good Catholics, I am shocked that they are quite ready to vote for a pro-abortion candidate under almost any circumstance. I find this hard to understand. We have heard the word "abortion" so often that perhaps we no longer associate procured abortion with the killing of children, yet that is what it is. The term itself can be misleading. The dictionary tells us that it comes from a Latin word that means "to disappear or to miscarry." Sometimes abortions simply happen because of natural causes. That is why this word abortion, for many people, apparently does not really connote the destruction of children. When a human agent induces an abortion, that human agent is taking the life of one of our children.

Save our children! How can a so-called good Catholic vote for a candidate that supports laws that take the life of innocent children, when there is an alternative? If there were two candidates who supported abortion, but not equally, we would have the obligation to mitigate the evil by voting for the less-permissive candidate.

Save our children! How can a so-called good Catholic vote for a candidate that supports laws that justify the killing of a child that survived a botched abortion? How can such a so-called good Catholic receive the Holy Eucharist?

In Chapter 10 of St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he states: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? ... You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons."

Save our children! Have some of our so-called good Catholics become so hardened against the Gospel of Life that they believe that other issues outweigh the Gospel of Life? Have some of our so-called good Catholics put politics ahead of the Fifth Commandment, in which God states: "Thou shalt not kill"? Do some of our so-called good Catholics, who may go to Mass every Sunday and receive the Holy Eucharist, really believe that voting for a pro-abortion candidate, when there is a clear alternative and therefore no justifiable reason for so doing, is really not voting to have children killed? This election is all about saving our children!

Save our children! I have no doubt that there may be some so-called good Catholics who are reading this column and who may be really angry about now. I ask the question "Why would such a person be angry?" If we do good deeds, then our conscience is at peace. If we do evil deeds, then our conscience bothers us. It is my hope that this column will lead some of our so-called good Catholics to study the Catholic Catechism.

Save our children! Some of our so-called good Catholics may have hardened their hearts against the real understanding of induced abortions, that they can no longer see that this involves the destruction of our children. "If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts!"

Save our children! Supporting induced abortions is not the greatest sin in the world. A greater sin is the refusal to repent of such a serious crime or the denial that this involves the killing of innocent children.

Save our children! I have used this terminology again and again penetrate the defenses of anyone who in the past may have put personal, economic or political interests above the issue of saving our children. The right to life is our most fundamental right, and to defend this right on behalf of the most vulnerable is a great privilege and is worth giving one's life for. Policemen and firemen always risk their lives to save human life. Why should we not risk our own reputation to save our children?

Save our children!You can see by now that I do not believe that this column by itself will change hearts. The issue of abortion involves serious sin, and to overcome serious patterns of sin requires grace. If you are still with me, may I suggest that you join me and many others in praying the daily Rosary from now until election day for the sake of life. Why not pray the family Rosary every night between now and the general election. The Rosary brought down the Iron Curtain. It can also help us turn around the culture of death to a culture of life.

Save our so-called good Catholics who ignore Catholic moral principles when applied to our political life. Pray the family Rosary daily. Pray the family Rosary for our so-called good Catholics who could use your love and your charity. Pray for our so-called good Catholics who ignore serious Catholic moral teachings and still receive Holy Communion. Love them by praying the family Rosary for them. Don't debate with them. Intercede for them. Praying for them is more fun than fighting with them.

Save our children and save our so-called good Catholics who have abandoned Church teachings in favor of personal gain. Pray the Rosary. Pray it every day. Get the whole family to pray the Rosary daily. Prayer is more powerful than contentious arguments. Spread the word to other families. In praying the Rosary, children's votes count as much as adult votes. Sometimes they pray with purer hearts than we do. If you are disgusted with the TV news, then turn it off and turn on the prayer Internet. What we hear in prayer leaves us in peace. When we pray for our country and for our fellow citizens, we are filled with peace. St. Paul tells us that our warfare is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and powers and the spirits of darkness.

Prayer is our protection. Let it also be a protection for our country. If you want to make Satan angry, pray the Rosary for the sake of Life. Pray that as a nation we will choose leaders that will say 'no' to the culture of death and say 'yes' to the culture of life. Save our children! Pray the Rosary! [source]

Wow!

The wonderful Robert P. George on Obama's Abortion Extremism

George Weigel also has an excellent article on the arguments used by Obama Catholics.