Jeffrey Miller

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.