USA: PRO-ABORTION/CHOICE POLITICIANS & SPEAKERS
  |
| |
|
In a message dated 2/18/2004 6:48:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, cinjub-request@www.cin.org writes:
From: "Father Richard Gant, S.T.D., J.U.L." <rgant@stx.rr.com>
To: "cinjub" <cinjub@cin.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 05:05:27 -0600
Subject: Catholic News: Princeton Professors Defend Bishop's Ban on Pro-choice
Politicians
Princeton Professors Defend Bishop's Ban on Pro-choice Politicians
Zenit
Saturday, Feb. 14, 2004
PRINCETON, New Jersey -- Two leading Catholic intellectuals came out in
strong support of the decision by a Midwest bishop to ask pro-abortion
Catholic politicians in his diocese to refrain from receiving Communion.
In an article published by National Review Online, professors Robert George
and Gerard Bradley defended the actions of then La Crosse Bishop Raymond
Burke (now archbishop of St. Louis).
The professors wrote: "Having made every effort to persuade pro-abortion
Catholic legislators to fulfill their obligations in justice to the unborn,
Bishop Burke articulated the obvious: Any Catholic who exercises political
power to expose a disfavored class of human beings to unjust killing sets
himself against the very faith he claims to share. The Church cannot permit
such a person to pretend to share in the faith he publicly defies. By
receiving Communion -- the sacrament of unity -- pro-abortion Catholics are
pretending exactly that. The bishop has called a halt to the pretense."
Robert George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the
James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton
University. Gerard Bradley is professor of law at the University of Notre
Dame and president of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars.
The two professors expanded on their analysis for ZENIT.
Q: One newspaper report quoted (---------------), the
recipient of Bishop Burke's letter, as saying: "I'm concerned that the
bishop would pressure legislators to vote according to the dictates of the
Church instead of the wishes of their constituents because that is not
consistent with our democratic ideals." Is the bishop's letter really
interference in the democratic process?
Bradley: (--------------) paints a sorry and mistaken picture of legislators.
(------) worries which of two external pressures upon them is more consistent
with democratic ideals: the Church's "dictates" or their constituents'
"wishes." Even in a democratic system, it is the obligation of legislators
to exercise moral leadership and sound judgment in fulfilling the
requirements of solidarity, justice and the common good.
George: The first responsibility of those exercising public authority is to
protect the right to life of the weakest and most vulnerable members of the
human family. Still, the Church cannot "dictate" to anyone. Everyone --
including (---------) -- is legally free to reject Catholic teaching,
including the Church's teaching on the sanctity of human life and the
inherent dignity of each and every human being.
Episcopal authority cannot force a politician to oppose abortion, slavery,
the exploitation of labor, or any other injustice. But bishops can and
should make it clear to politicians and others who publicly collaborate in
and promote grave injustices such as abortion that they have broken
communion with Christ and the Church.
Q: Many politicians say they are elected to represent all people in their
district and therefore cannot impose Catholic beliefs on the entire
population. Is this a valid position?
Bradley: This sounds much like what (-------------------) is quoted as saying in a recent newspaper article. (--------) says that (----------)
accepts Church teaching on abortion as a matter of personal faith, but would
not impose (---------) faith upon society.
This is an evasion of the basic issues of justice and human rights that are
at stake in the debate over the fate of the child in the womb. The damning
flaw in (---------'s) logic can be brought into focus effortlessly by substituting
the word "slavery" or the words "racial discrimination" for the word
"abortion."
Equality and Dignity
To act consistently with the Church's teachings about the equality and
dignity of each member of the human family --whether the issue is abortion,
slavery, segregation or any other form of injustice -- is not to "impose
Catholic dogma." It is to uphold justice and basic human rights.
George: The Church's understanding of when a human being comes to be --
namely, at conception -- forms the basis of its anti-abortion teaching. This
understanding derives from the indisputable facts of human embryogenesis and
intrauterine human development. It is not something anyone is asked to
accept merely "on faith."
There is nothing whatsoever in the Church's teaching -- in its expression,
in its factual presuppositions, in the arguments advanced in its favor --
that depends upon special revelation, private knowledge, or strictly
religious sources of any kind.
What (-----------) and other pro-abortion Catholic politicians need to face
up to is their strict obligation in justice to respect and protect the human
rights of all, the unborn not excluded. The claim that they cannot fulfill
this obligation without "imposing" their faith on others is exactly what
Professor Bradley says it is: an evasion.
Q: Is it fair to single out just one issue, abortion, on which to judge a
Catholic politician instead of looking at a wider range of issues?
Bradley: As Pope John Paul II has made abundantly clear, abortion is the
most pressing human rights issue of our time. It is fundamental. It places
countless lives in peril. Indeed, many millions of tiny human beings have
already been killed in the United States alone since abortion was legalized
in 1973.
Bishop Burke has made it clear to pro-abortion Catholic politicians that
they are placing their souls in jeopardy by grave injustices they are
committing against vulnerable members of the human family.
At the same time, he has reminded the entire Catholic faithful of his
diocese of their obligations in solidarity and justice to the unborn. He
worries -- quite rightly in my view -- that many Catholics do not fully
understand the gravity of the injustice of deliberate feticide.
Public opinion polls say that self-identified Catholics support abortion at
about the same rate the general population does, and Catholics probably
resort to abortion as often as do others. Part of the reason for this
scandalous collapse of moral understanding and resolution surely is the bad
example set by prominent pro-abortion Catholic politicians.
George: There is a profound issue here of the responsibility of the diocesan
bishop. Bishop Burke acted because he believed that his duty as a bishop
required him to act. My view is that he is right about that. The prevalence
of prominent pro-abortion Catholic politicians is a grave scandal.
Given the life-destroying and soul-imperiling consequences of the scandal, I
do not see how it can be considered merely optional for bishops to speak and
act. Of course, different bishops may make different prudential judgments
about whether individual persons guilty of exposing the unborn to abortion
should be addressed on the issue of sacramental communion publicly or only
privately.
But I do not see how a bishop can fulfill his duties without at least a
public statement of the fact that Catholic promoters of abortion have by
their persistence in grave injustice broken communion with Christ and the
Church.
Especially now that Archbishop Burke has taken the lead, I think that any
bishop or archbishop who says nothing publicly about Catholics in his
diocese who support abortion needs to consider the message he will be
interpreted as sending. Silence in the face of injustice is always a potent
teacher -- a teacher of bad lessons.
Q: Do you agree, Professor Bradley, that bishops have a duty to act, that it
is, as Professor George says, "not optional"?
Bradley: I have given the matter a great deal thought, and have arrived at
the same judgment: It is not optional.
--__--__--
In a message dated 2/18/2004 9:49:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, cinjub-request@www.cin.org writes:
From: "Father Richard Gant, S.T.D., J.U.L." <rgant@stx.rr.com>
To: "cinjub" <cinjub@cin.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:58:26 -0600
Subject: Catholic News: Kansas Prelate Doesn't Want Pro-Abortion Speakers Invited
Kansas Prelate Doesn't Want Pro-Abortion Speakers Invited
KANSAS CITY, Kansas, FEB. 18, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Archbishop James Keleher
has asked Catholic churches, schools and institutions under his jurisdiction
to stop inviting pro-abortion politicians and others to speak or take part
in other presentations.
His statement was published in the archdiocesan newspaper on Friday, the day
after (--------------------), a Catholic who defends abortion, spoke at
the University of St. Mary in Leavenworth, the Associated Press said.
The (--------------), invited to speak as part of the school's Lincoln Lectureship
series, talked about education and economic development. Pro-life advocates
had been critical of the invitation for (------) to speak on the Catholic campus.
ZE04021822
Dear Friends:
This posting is primarily intended for USA members. Out of deference to those who object to finger-pointing, the above messages have been sanitized, in part.
The fact is that if we call ourselves Catholic, we have to be defenders of the faith. Said another way: We stand for the flag but kneel at the cross! Your valuable comments are respectfully invited. Thanks.
Please stand tall, proudly and in solidarity with Pope John Paul II and our Church.
IN GOD WE TRUST:
Pat de Sousa
Maryland, USA