Make no mistake: The Rev. John B. Ardis, the Catholic priest whom Senator John F. Kerry has chosen to give the benediction at tonight’s closing session of the convention, opposes abortion.
But he also opposes capital punishment, the war in Iraq, and public policies he views as unjust toward the poor or hungry.
Although several Catholic cardinals have declined to speak at Democratic conventions because of the party’s support for abortion rights, Ardis, the director of the Paulist Center of Boston, will speak tonight without reservation, noting that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are fully in step with Catholic teachings.
"My goal is to bring the convention to a close in prayer and to challenge not only the candidates, but all of us to our responsibility as citizens," said
…Ardis has e-mailed Paulist priests around the country seeking input, and also has studied the invocation given by Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles at the 2000 Democratic convention. Mahony was criticized by some abortion opponents for addressing the convention; cardinals Joseph L. Bernardin of Chicago and John J. O’Connor of New York previously had declined invitations to speak at Democratic conventions.
Well I for one have no problem with Catholic clergy giving an invocation at the Democratic Convention. A blessing is not an endorsement. The Pharisees complained that Jesus sat and ate with sinners. If any of us refused to eat with sinners we could not even dine alone. My concern is over the choice of clergy. If the essence of Fr. Ardis’s church was extracted it could be sold as bottled water with no impurities such as dogma and doctrine. Though I truly doubt if he will say something outright heretical, I am critical of his seamless garment views that places everything as being equivocal to one another. Of course Fr. Ardis was hand-picked because they knew that anything said would not upset the pro-abortion apple cart of the Democratic Party. That if their consciences could be monitored by an EKG that not a blip would occur during the invocation. I was curious as to what Cardinal Mahony’s invocation contained and here it is:
"In You, oh God, we trust that you will keep us ever committed to protect the life and well-being of all people, but especially unborn children, the sick and the elderly, those on skid row and those on death row."
Not a bad invocation at all with no shying away from abortion. Now I might wish for something stronger like what Blessed Teresa of Calcutta said at the prayer breakfast during the Clinton administration. In fact this is a call to conscience applicable to both political parties and to us individually.
On the last day, Jesus will say to those at his right hand, "Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me."
Then Jesus will turn to those on his left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me drink, I was sick and you did not visit me."
These will ask him "When did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or sick, and did not come to your help?"
And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto the least of these you neglected to do unto me!"
Let us thank God for the opportunity He has given us today to have come here to pray together. We have come here especially to pray for peace, joy and love. We are reminded that Jesus came to bring the good news to the poor. He had told us what that good news was when he said, "My peace I leave with you, My Peace I give unto you." He came not to give the peace of the world, which is only that we don’t bother each other. He came to give peace of the heart which comes from loving, from doing good to others.
And God loved the world so much that he gave His Son. God gave His Son to the Virgin Mary, and what did she do with Him? As soon as Jesus came into Mary’s life, immediately she went in haste to give that good news. And as she came into the house of her cousin, Elizabeth, Scripture tells us that the unborn child – the child in the womb of Elizabeth – leapt with joy.
While still in the womb of Mary, Jesus brought peace to John the Baptist, who leapt for joy in the womb of Elizabeth. And as if that were not enough – as if it were not enough that God the Son should become one of us and bring peace and joy while still in the womb – Jesus also died on the Cross to show that greater love.
He died for you and for me, and for that leper and for that man dying of hunger and that naked person lying in the street – not only of Calcutta, but of Africa, of everywhere. Our Sisters serve these people in 105 countries throughout the world. Jesus insisted that we love one another as He loves each one of us. Jesus gave His life to love us, and He tells us very clearly, "Love as I have loved you."
Jesus died on the Cross because that is what it took for Him to do good for us – to save us from our selfishness and sin. He gave up everything to do the Father’s will, to show us that we, too, must be willing to give everything to do God’s will, to love one another as He loves each of us.
St. John says you are a liar if you love God and you don’t love your neighbor. How can you love God whom you do not see, if you do not love your neighbor whom you see, whom you touch, with whom you live?
Jesus makes Himself the hungry one, the naked one, the homeless one, the unwanted one, and He says, "You did it to me."
I can never forget the experience I had in visiting a home where they kept all these old parents of sons and daughters who had just put them into an institution and, maybe, forgotten them. I saw that in the home these old people had everything: good food, comfortable place, television – everything. But everyone was looking toward the door. And I did not see a single one with a smile on his face.
I turned to Sister and I asked, "Why do these people, who have every comfort here – why are they all looking toward the door? Why are they not smiling?" (I am so used to seeing the smiles on our people. Even the dying ones smile.) And Sister said, "This is the way it is, nearly every day. They are expecting that a son or daughter will come visit them.
See, this neglect to love brings spiritual poverty. Maybe in our family we have someone who is feeling lonely, who is feeling sick, who is feeling worried. Are we willing to give until it hurts, in order to be with our families? Or do we put our own interests first?
I was surprised in the West to see so many boys and girls given to drugs. And I tried to find out why. Why is it like that when those in the West have so many more things than those in the East? And the answer was: "Because there was no one in the family to receive them."
Our children depend on us for everything: their health, their nutrition, their security, their coming to know and love God. For all of this, they look to us with trust, hope and expectation. But often father and mother are so busy that they have no time for their children, or perhaps they are not even married, or have given up on their marriage. So the children go to the streets, and get involved in drugs, or other things.
We are talking of love of the child, which is where love and peace must begin.
But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?
How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world.
Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.
And for this I appeal in India and I appeal everywhere: "Let us bring the child back." The child is God’s gift to the family. Each child is created in the special image and likeness of God for greater things – to love and to be loved. This is the only way that our children are the only hope for the future. As other people are called to God, only their children can take their places.
But what does God say to us? He says, "Even if a mother could forget her child, I will not forget you. I have carved you in the palm of My hand." We are carved in the palm of His hand – that unborn child has been carved in the hand of God from conception, and is called by God to love and to be loved, not only now in this life, but forever. God can never forget us.
From our children’s home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortion. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy! I know that couples have to plan their family, and for that there is natural family planning, not contraception. A husband or a wife must turn their attention to each other, as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily.
The poor are very great people. They can teach us so many beautiful things. Once one of them came to thank us for teaching them natural family planning, and said: "You people who have practiced chastity, you are the best people to teach us natural family planning, because it is nothing more than self-control out of love for each other." And what this poor person said is very true.
These poor people maybe have nothing to eat, maybe they have no home to live in, but they can still be great people when they are spiritually rich. Those who are materially poor can be wonderful people.
One evening, we went out and we picked up four people from the street. And one of them was in the most terrible condition. I told the Sisters: "You take care of the other three. I will take care of the one who looks worse." So I did for her all that my love can do. I put her in bed, and there was a beautiful smile on her face. She took hold of my hand, and she said one thing only: "Thank you." Then she died.
I could not help but examine my conscience before her. I asked, "What would I say if I were in her place?" And my answer was very simple. I would have tried to draw a little attention to myself. I would have said, "I am hungry, I am dying, I am cold, I am in pain," or something like that. But she gave me much more – she gave me her grateful love. And she died with a smile on her face.
Then there was a man we picked up from a drain, half eaten by worms. And after we had brought him to the home, he only said, "I have lived like an animal in the street, but I am going to die as an angel, loved and cared for." Then after we had removed all the worms from this body, all he said – with a big smile – was: "Sister, I am going home to God." And he died.
It was so wonderful to see the greatness of that man, who could speak like that without blaming anybody, without comparing anything. Like an angel – this is the greatness of people who are spiritually rich, even when they are materially poor.
And so here I am talking with you. I want you to find the poor here, right in your own home first. And begin love there. Bear the good news to your own people first. And find out about your next-door neighbors. Do you know who they are?
I had the most extraordinary experience of love of a neighbor from a Hindu family. A gentlemen came to our house and said, "Mother Teresa, there is a family who have not eaten for so long. Do something." So I took some rice and went there immediately. And I saw the children, their eyes shining with hunger. (I don’t know if you have ever seen hunger, but I have seen it very often.) And the mother of the family took the rice I gave her.
"Where did you go? What did you do?" And she gave me a very simple answer: "They are hungry also." What struck me was that she knew. And who were "they?" A Muslim family. And she knew. I didn’t bring any more rice that evening. I wanted them – Hindus and Muslims – to enjoy the joy of sharing.
Because I talk so much of giving with a smile, once a professor from the United States asked me, "Are you married?" And I said, "Yes, and I find it sometimes very difficult to smile at my spouse – Jesus – because He can be very demanding. Sometimes this is really something true. And there is where love comes in – when it is demanding, and yet we can give it with joy.
If we remember that God loves us, and that we can love others as He loves us, then America can become a sign of peace for the world. From here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak – the unborn child – must go out to the world. If you become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for. God bless you!
What a beautifully speech. Mother Teresa aptly shows how peace and justice is deeply rooted in the dignity of how we treat the unborn. Our armies and navies can all be called home and while we slaughter 3,000 innocents a day we will have no peace or justice.
Sadly, by the end of every invocation the place is almost empty.
I wonder if he’ll even mention abortion…
The Paulist Center is a Unitarian Church.
The blogohood complaint about Ardis sound pretty pharisaical to me. First, lots of whining before a word goes out of the guy’s mouth. Second, lots of name-calling of the Paulist Center. A lack of charity, and for what? Yoga and Jung ads? Pretty lame. What issue was it we were all so concerned about? Oh yeah … abortion.
Todd why do you minimize the importance of the 46,000,000 murdered in the name of choice. Where is your charity for those in the womb? I don’t care about the Yoga or such, but they do support a view of homosexuality totally out of line with the church. They have no problem accepting those with pro-abortion views. Spiritual works of mercy require praying for the sinner, not joining with them. St. Paul never spared a dissenter his tongue, but this was done out of love.
If I am so concerend about abortion then I find that I am in good company with Blessed Teresa of Calcutta with what she said.
And exactly what did I say in this post on the Paulist Center? Pharsees were concerened about man-made law over divine law. My concern is not pharisaical since my position is inline with divine law. Abortion is no more rule it is based on the very fundamental fact that we are made in the image of God.
Why is it that you start your posts with Peace and then make uncharitable characterizations of what I said?
“During the Nicene Creed, for example, the sections on believing in only ‘one Lord’ (‘We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God . . .’) and only ‘one holy Catholic and apostolic Church’ are excised from the prayer.”
(From an article in the Weekly Standard.)
Since when are we not allowed to say anything about wolves in sheep’s clothing?
As a pro-life Catholic, am I out of place for suggesting you and others are barking up the wrong tree? Seemingly so. But I maintain my position that if you’re against abortion on demand, you should stay on target with the issue and not look for sinister yoga-homosexual or Ardis-Anglican connections. It shows two things to the opposition:
1. An inability to keep to the main issue at hand.
2. A sullying of the original argument by making all kinds of off-point and silly (in context) connections.
If the best the Paulist Center naysayers can do is this, I sure don’t want them on point in the prolife debate. And of course, this was even before a prayerful word escaped Fr Ardis’ mouth. Could you post exactly what he said, now that it’s been said?
I am truly growing tired of being accused of yoga-homosexual and Ardis-Anglican connections. Do you actually read my posts or do you just interject what you think is there? Please comment only on what I have actually said. I said Fr. Ardis supports gay rights in a definition that is not included in church teaching and at the benediction he did use the phrase “regardless of sexual orientation.” I have never made any remarks about Yoga or Anglican connections.
I have not been able to find the full text of Fr. Ardis bendiction but what I found at least said “guide every citizen of our United States to cherish all life.” Of course for someone like John Kerry who has recently said that embryo’s aren’t human this phrase can easily mean to not include abortion. The Paulist center in all of it’s myriad advocacies has no pro-life missions. Nothing in it’s mission statement or otherwise. By their fruits you will know them. I did not need to be a prophet to know what types of prayers that Father would offer.
For a party that has removed the tolerance plank on abortion and is openly advocating clone and kill bills a much stronger statement by the Church is required. But Fr. Ardis was specifically picked not to challenge the abortion party or to prick any consciences.
“I said Fr. Ardis supports gay rights in a definition that is not included in church teaching …”
If you have something in writing, that seems something reasonable enough to say. Not exactly germane to the discussion.
” … and at the benediction he did use the phrase “regardless of sexual orientation.””
In certain contexts this can be a perfectly valid thing to say: All people are children of God, “regardless of sexual orientation;” All people are welcome to shop on eBay or WalMart “regardless of sexual orientation;” and so on.
“The Paulist center in all of it’s myriad advocacies has no pro-life missions.”
Neither does the booster club at my parish school. Do I need to boycott them or criticize them in print for not designing their programs as you or others would have them do?
“By their fruits you will know them. I did not need to be a prophet to know what types of prayers that Father would offer.”
Indeed. But how is that relevant to the abortion issue? It seems you not only don’t need to be a prophet, you don’t need to collect actual facts and texts either.
You don’t have to convince me the Democrats are seriously flawed as a party. I gave up on them years ago. But I think you weaken your overall pro-life argument by making critiques of things you have not heard or read, of people and places you do not know.
I apologize for miscontruing your sentence: “I don’t care about the Yoga or such, but they do support a view of homosexuality totally out of line with the church.” The grammar seemed to imply yoga was accepting of homosexuality, not the Paulist Center or its director. I understand your intent now.
“Neither does the booster club at my parish school”
Are you serious in equating a Church with a booster club? The Paulist center has abour 40 ministries. Yet not one with pro-life apostalate. Looking around the Country the greatest scourge is abortion and yet they ignore it. Social justice for everybody but the unborn.
The term “orientation” is not used by any orthodox Catholic group. In fact groups such as Courage totally condemm it for all of its secular baggage. We are all God’s children and that means following him and not blaming sexual acts on orientation. The Paulist center runs a ministry that is coordinated by Dignity. This groups has been supressed by the Vatican for it’s open defiance of Church teaching. While I am totally against discrimination of those who suffer from same-sex attraction I am also against those who perform homosexual acts and heterosexuals who engage in fornication and adultery. Excusing the behavior of those who are commiting grave sin is not an act of mercy. Love requires that we will the good for our neighbor, encouraging them to seperate themselves from God is evil.
“Are you serious in equating a Church with a booster club?”
The Paulist Center is not a parish. We have a Center in KC with an apostolate to the poor. Neither they nor the local Catholic Worker House have pro-life groups. I’ve been in parishes without them, too. You have an interesting litmus test for orthodoxy.
“Looking around the Country the greatest scourge is abortion and yet they ignore it.”
I don’t think I’d bother to Capitalize it, if I disagreed with it.
“The term “orientation” is not used by any orthodox Catholic group.”
Aha! Another litmus test.
“We are all God’s children and that means following him and not blaming sexual acts on orientation.”
Blame: an interesting term in an interesting context.
“Excusing the behavior of those who are commiting grave sin is not an act of mercy. Love requires that we will the good for our neighbor, encouraging them to seperate themselves from God is evil.”
So why have you waited to condemn the Paulist Center, or did it just have to pop up on your moral radar screen in this instance?
“So why have you waited to condemn the Paulist Center, or did it just have to pop up on your moral radar screen in this instance?”
Notice the search bar at the right of my site. Maybe before accusing me of something you might just want to search on “Paulist Center” before doing so.
I also never said that the Paulist center was a parish. But if you have an altar and perform the Mass it is certainly a Church. And because other non-parish’s don’t have pro-life centers, that is a shame on them. Dorthy Day was strongly pro-life after suffering from an abortion herself. She worked hard to help the poor and provide for pregnant women.
“To me, birth control and abortion are genocide. I say, make room for children, don�t do away with them. I learned that prevention of conception when the act that one is performing is for the purpose of fusing the two lives more closely and so enrich them that another life springs forth and the aborting of a life conceived are sins that are great frustrations in the natural and spiritual order. “
Too many Catholic Worker houses have abandoned the pro-life mission of Dorothy Day. I have seen some of the web sites for Catholic Workers houses and exploration shows open endorsement of contraception and homosexuality.
But regardless Todd, I have come to be annoyed by your tone in the comment boxes where you make unstantiated charges and even criticize the Captilization of a word as something meaningful. Litmus tests are useful to find the true acidity of something. If you find a Catholic group using the very language of gay activists that is a meaningful reading. Plus it is even more than just a litmus test to have a ministry run by a group supressed by the Vatican. Whose very leaders have been told not to have anything to do with this subject (which in the usually progressive obedience has been disobeyed). I can see why these topics are of interest for you since you seem to disagree on so much of what the Pope and the Magisterium say. It certainly didn’t take you long to criticize Cardinal Ratzinger’s latest letter.
What is the point of a teaching Church if it can be ignored as it suits you. Let it be done unto me according to my agenda. Remember heresy means to pick and choose.
Greetings, Jeff, and peace
“But regardless Todd, I have come to be annoyed by your tone in the comment boxes where you make unstantiated charges …”
I think we clarified the nonsubstantiation. I clearly admitted my error in misreading your text and accepted your correction. Somehow, I think a person who takes pride in having his blog praised for “wise-ass musings” has somewhat of a thicker skin than he lets on.
” … and even criticize the Captilization of a word as something meaningful.”
I think even misspellings are open for critique. At the very least, they are litmus tests for a lack of attention to detail.
“I think we clarified the nonsubstantiation.”
How about making that statement without first checking my site for previous references to the Paulist Center. Perhaps a lack of attention to detail before commenting. True I am not thin-skinned and can bear criticism. Oh and if you think that attention to detail is important then you might want to look at your post on Ratzinger’s document for a spelling error at the end.
I think post #4 said the complaints about Ardis going to the convention “sounded pharisaical,” which is a subtle difference from calling you a pharisee. Sometimes people who aren’t pharisees can utter a phrase that sounds like they might be. I give you the benefit of the doubt you asked for.
I’m always appreciative of a good editor, so I’ll happily correct any spelling or other errors on my blog anytime somebody points them out to me.