It comes at no suprise...

It is no secret that I am pro-life. I have been admonished before that clerics cannot take public political positions. Being pro-life is not a political position, because the beginning of human life is a fact that comes before politics; it comes before government policy. It is that simple. Governments do not determine who is and is not human; the human person and the family comes before government. It is that simple.

The truth of the dignity of the human person is not something that can be compromised. Once it is, everything else is on shaky ground. It stands on one of the first lines we learn,

“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” (Genesis 1:26, NAB).

Our own dignity, which is protected by how well we guard the dignity of the most weak (which is certainly the unborn), rest on this line – not on science.

Often though science serves to support this truth, and for this reason I share with you the following link:

Study: Unborn babies can form memories by 30 weeks.

This is something that every pregnant woman knows, but now has scientific “proof” to back it up. I have included a picture of a fetus at thirty weeks for you reflection.

Rowing in the same direction?

In the interesting of reporting news about the culture war between the culture of life and the culture of death let's consider the following:

It has made news recently that President Obama has lifted the restriction on federal money going to embryonic stem cell research, despite ethical concerns and the practical limits of using embryonic stem cells for future treatments. Not really surprising since he promised he would on the campaign trail.

What made a lot less fan-fare in the news was on the same day President Obama also Rescinded Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007. This order explicitly directed government funds to other areas of stem cell research. This would include umbilical cord stem cells and adult stem cells. This area of stem cell research offers much promise, including a number of medical treatments that are already in place. In addition there are no major ethical concerns with this field of research.

In short: No matter which canidate you supported during the election, we all can agree on the usefullness of supporting forms of stem-cell research that do not kill human beings in the embryonic stage. This is a point in which unity is found.

So to anyone who would like to comment: What is President Obama's motive for this?

Thoughts on the Conversion of Paul:

Conversion of Saint Paul by Michaelangelo

In celebration of the year of Saint Paul, yesterday we celebrated the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, instead of the Third Sunday of Ordinary Time. We know the story from the Acts of the Apostles: Paul was hostil to the Church, he persecuted Her. On the road to Damascus he was surronded by a great light (Christ says: I am the way, the truth and the light), and in that light he met Christ. Later in his life, after spreading Christianity throughout the then known world, from Syria to Spain (quite a journey in those days!), he reflected on how at that moment he was called to be an apostle by Christ.

Let us reflect on our own calling by Christ. I am often asked, "When did you know you wanted to be a priest?" I always want to ask, "When did you know you wanted to be a husband, a father, a wife, a mother, a teacher, etc.?" Each of us is called by Christ. When our ancestors came to these shores of Lake Michigan, they were called by Christ to establish the Church here. We can read how they cleared plots of land, and working with priest and religious sisters, established and built with their own hands our parishes, schools, hospitals, etc. (lay involvment is not something new from the last fifty years!). We are also called to continue building up the Church in our own time as a great treasure. We must always remember that that we do not own this treasure, since the Church is not our body, but the body of Christ, but we are caretakers of it.

In view of this, we have to ask: "How is Christ asking us to take care of His Body here on earth?" He has called me to be married to the Church and to be the father of a parish. He is also calling you. What have we been doing to build up the Body of Christ?

We do not face the same challenges that our ancestors faced. We do not need to literally carve out space for the Church from the forest-wilderness, but we need to carve a space for the Church in the public-sphere. The Church is by and far one of the greatest advocates of human dignity. For the past two thousand years She has been building hospitals and schools, raising up religious orders to take of the poor, and advocating for the down trodden. To continue to be this great advocate, to literally "call it out" when human dignity is trampled, is the greatest challenge that the Church faces today.

In the center of Paul's conversion and what he held as the center of his life was the encounter with Christ. This has been the center of my calling, I cannot be a priest, in fact I cannot even call myself Christian, if Christ is not in the center of my life. Christ is the point on which all calling pivot. As members of His Body, we are called to encounter him, and from that encounter to be called by Him.

God bless you, and may the name of Jesus Christ be Praised!

Saint Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles...

...Pray for Us!

Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago and President of the Bishop's Conference: Letter to Mr. Obama

I will add some comments in read later, but I bolded what I found particularly worthy.
USCCB President Cardinal Francis George of Chicago sent a letter to President Elect Barack Obama last Friday urging him not to use executive orders to overturn the Mexico City Policy, conscience rights of abortion opponents or restrictions on funding embryo destruction.The letter was made public today and is posted below (h/t LifeSite):

Dear Mr. President-elect:

I recently wrote to assure you of the prayers of the Catholic bishops of the United States for your service to our nation, and to outline issues of special concern to us as we seek to work with your Administration and the new Congress to serve the common good.

I am writing today on a matter that could introduce significant negative and divisive factors into our national life, at a time when we need to come together to address the serious challenges facing our people. I expect that some want you to take executive action soon to reverse current policies against government-sponsored destruction of unborn human life. I urge you to consider that this could be a terrible mistake -- morally, politically, and in terms of advancing the solidarity and well-being of our nation's people.

During the campaign, you promised as President to represent all the people and respect everyone's moral and religious viewpoints. You also made several statements about abortion. On one occasion, when asked at what point a baby has human rights, you answered in effect that you do not have a definite answer. And you spoke often about a need to reduce abortions.

The Catholic Church teaches that each human being, at every moment of biological development from conception to natural death, has an inherent and fundamental right to life. We are committed not only to reducing abortion, but to making it unthinkable as an answer to unintended pregnancy. At the same time, I think your remarks provide a basis for common ground. Uncertainty as to when human rights begin provides no basis for compelling others to violate their conviction that these rights exist from the beginning. After all, those people may be right. And if the goal is to reduce abortions, that will not be achieved by involving the government in expanding and promoting abortions.

The regulation to protect conscience rights in health care issued last month by the Bush administration is the subject of false and misleading criticisms. It does not reach out to expand the rights of pro-life health professionals, but is a long-overdue measure for implementing three statutes enacted by Congress over the last 35 years. Many criticizing the new rule have done so without being aware of this legal foundation - but widespread ignorance of a longstanding federal law protecting basic civil rights is among the good reasons for more visibly implementing it. An Administration committed to faithfully implementing and enforcing the laws of the United States will want to retain this common-sense regulation, which explicitly protects the right of health professionals who favor or oppose abortion to serve the basic health needs of their communities. Suggestions that government involvement in health care will be aimed at denying conscience, or excluding Catholic and other health care providers from participation in serving the public good, could threaten much-needed health care reform at the outset.

The Mexico City Policy, first established in 1984, has wrongly been attacked as a restriction on foreign aid for family planning. In fact, it has not reduced such aid at all, but has ensured that family planning funds are not diverted to organizations dedicated to performing and promoting abortions instead of reducing them. Once the clear line between family planning and abortion is erased, the idea of using family planning to reduce abortions becomes meaningless, and abortion tends to replace contraception as the means for reducing family size. A shift toward promoting abortion in developing nations would also increase distrust of the United States in these nations, whose values and culture often reject abortion, at a time when we need their trust and respect.

The embryonic stem cell policy initiated by President Bush has at times been criticized from both ends of the pro-life debate, but some criticisms are based on false premises. The policy did not ban embryonic stem cell research, or funding of such research. By restricting federally funded research to cell lines in existence at the time he issued his policy, he was trying to ensure that Americans are not forced to use their tax dollars to encourage expanded destruction of embryonic human beings for their stem cells. Such destruction is especially pointless at the present time, for several reasons. First, basic research in the capabilities of embryonic stem cells can be and is being pursued using the currently eligible cell lines as well as the hundreds of lines produced with nonfederal funds since 2001. Second, recent startling advances in reprogramming adult cells into embryonic-like stem cells - hailed by the journal Science as the scientific breakthrough of the year - are said by many scientists to be making embryonic stem cells irrelevant to medical progress. Third, adult and cord blood stem cells are now known to have great versatility, and are increasingly being used to reverse serious illnesses and even help rebuild damaged organs. To divert scarce funds away from these promising avenues for research and treatment toward the avenue that is most morally controversial as well as most medically speculative would be a sad victory of politics over science.

I hope you will consider these comments in the spirit in which they are intended, as an invitation to set aside political pressures and ideologies and focus on the priorities and challenges that will unite us as a nation. Again I want to express our hopes for your Administration, and our offer to cooperate in advancing the common good and protecting the poor and vulnerable in these challenging times.

As we approach the first days of your new responsibilities as President of the United States, I will offer my prayers for you and for your family.

May God bless your efforts in fostering justice and peace for all,

Mr. President, as you begin your term.

Cardinal Francis George

Where'd the Catholics go?

The child's father and Mother were amazed at what was said of him [Jesus], and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his Mother, "Behold this child is destined for the rise and fall of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted, and you, yourself, a sword will pierce, so the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed.

Gospel kata Luke, 2:33-5

Contrary to long standing custom there are no Catholic clerics, priest or bishops invited to participate in the ceremonies or festivities surronding the inauguration of our new president. Should not Catholics be represented in some capacity if Mr. Obama is going to unit the country as he promised? We are after all the single largest religion in the country.

Considering the long standing custom, such an omission is not an accident. This omission is meant to exclude Catholics from having an official voice at the inauguration (Mr. Kmiec is not the official voice of the Church), in short at this important and historic event of our nations history, Catholics are being discriminated against.

What has the new president to fear? It is almost certain that any bishop invited to speak would almost certainly discuss the dignity of every human being. This would be too much of a sign of contradiction for the Obama-era.

True measure of society?

We tend to measure a society from the stand-point of progress, technology, material comfort, and even how much freedom a person can exercise in that society. Never do we ask the question, "how do these various criteria help a person to live a flourishing life? A life of deep satisfaction?" Perhaps after examining this question we need to look for another criteria to measure a society by. Simply put a society is not measured by I-pods, and SUV's, but by how humane and compassionate it is.

The true measure of humanity is essentially determined in relationship to suffering and to the sufferer. This holds true both for the individual and for society. A society unable to accept its suffering members and incapable of helping to share their suffering and to bear it inwardly through “com-passion” is a cruel and inhuman society.

(Spe Salvi, 38)

Luxembourg Bishops Speak Out on Euthanasia

Defending Life: A Mission Proper to the Church

As a seminarian I am preparing for to be a spiritual leader in the Catholic Church, but also to exhibit a moral authority among the wider community. John Paul II recognized that for the proper exercise of moral authority the Church must remain neutral when it comes to politics (cf. Centissimus Annus). At the same time I am and will remain a pro-life advocate - remain so without apology. In the United States this looks like a compromise on remaining politically neutral.

The defense of life though it a mission proper to all Christians, Catholics and Protestants. The "right to life" is pre-political - this means that it should not be a political issue, but rather something taken for granted before it even reaches the debates of politics. So when there is a political challenge to protecting innocent human life, the Church must defend the same innocent human life. This was the message that Pope Benedict XVI delivered to the Argentinian ambassador to the Holy See, "To promote the dignity of the person and elevate it in an integral way for the benefit of all,mission proper to the Church."

So I acknowledge that I do not remain politically neautral when I advocate support of the any positions that are truly pro-life. I do not apologize for this, for I have not over-stepped my limits, but rather I ask the apology of the politicians who have over-stepped their own proper limits. It is not in the realm of politics to determine when life begins and end, but within the realm of the laws of nature that are above politics, and even above religious and denominationaly divides.
Saint Nicolas...

...Pray for Us!

Fight FOCA

The Freedom of Choice Act is all around bad legislation:

Fight FOCA

This is not an intrusion into politics, since the defense of life from any threat is a moral precept for all men and women of goodwill, especially Christians, and most especially those called to be spiritual shepherds. I understand that there are political overtones to this, but while these are foreseen, they are not intended. The defense of life justifies such.

Please continue to pray for your president, George Walter Bush

Please continue to pray for our president-elect, Barak Hussein Obama

Saint Thomas More, Pray for them!

Saint Gianna Beretta Mola, Pray for the United States!

An Evil Stocking Stuffer

I think these articles say enough:

Planned Parenthood Issues Christmas Gift Certificates: Give the Gift of Abortion from Lifenews.com
Planned Parenthood Has Reached a New-Low from the InForumBlog of Emmy award winning journalist Shelia Liaugminus
Evil Stocking Stuffers: Gift Certificates for Abortion from the American Papist

==========================================================

Planned Parenthood selling evil since 1916.

The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics....

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood

Pro-life: Single-Issue voting?

A house without a foundation

No one reading this blog would dream of building a house without first providing for a strong and certain foundation. We know that without a strong foundation the beauty of the rest of the house does not matter, since the whole building is unstable.

The same principle can be applied when we are talking about the various rights and duties. Some rights are more important than other rights simply because they serve as the foundation on which other rights are built. This means that if the first right is not adequately protected, the other rights that are “built” on top of will inevitably unstable.

In the history of our country we have enshrined three rights as these foundational rights, as can be clearly seen by a quick read of the Declaration of Independence when it states,

we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these, governments were instituted among men...

The Founding Fathers listed these three basic rights, since they knew that no other right could be guaranteed without these being protected. The fact that each human has these rights is so obvious to them that these rights are even considered to be “self-evident.” Simply put if these three rights are violated, none of the other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights or other laws will last much longer.

Following this train of thought, it also seems that among these three rights that the right to life stands out as the foundation for the other two rights. The reason is simple. A human cannot exercise his or her liberty nor can he or she pursue happiness if they are not living. A dead human does not exercise freedom of speech or freedom of assembly. There will never be a campaign by the NRA to make sure corpses maintain the right to bear arms. Such ideas are just absurd.

Life is simply the foundation for all other rights.

This same sentence from the Declaration of Independence also states that “all men” have these rights. Moving the language to the twenty-first century we can see that the Fathers meant all humans. So a law that violates any human's right to life, violates the basic principles of the United States. So the laws of the country must protect life, and to a certain extent this may even mean compromises on other rights, including to a limited extent the right of privacy (which you will not find in any part of the Constitution).

This clearly includes restricting abortion, since it is a matter of science that at the moment of conception a new human comes into existence. So even the youngest fetus deserves to have his or her life protected. Each of us was a fetus at one time, starting out as one cell than a cluster of cells, and we developed into who we are today. We are the evidence that a fetus is a human.

There is clearly an attraction to politicians that offer comprehensive welfare programs. This appeals to the natural sense of charity that all men and women of good will have. But if this same politician does not support a clear commitment to protecting life, especially innocent life, than his or her policies on any other number of issues become irrelevant.

Hold on, we cannot be single issue voters?!

This is not single issue voting! When a vote is cast for a politician that is committed to protecting life, a vote is being cast for a politician that is protecting the foundation of all other rights. Ultimately there are no other rights if life is not protected. So a vote based on one issue, the issue of life is not single issue voting, a voting for the protection of all rights.

I encourage challenges to this posting.

Worth a Look

Volition (n)- The act of making a choice. Sometimes the choice of inaction has consequences stronger than we could ever imagine. Throughout history, men have been faced with difficult choices in a world that makes it easy for them to conform. This film explores the hope that lies behind every decision made in the face of adversity; the hope that is buried in the heart of those that look beyond themselves and see something bigger worth fighting for.

The video would not load, so here is the link: Volition - a film of Hope by Tim and Matthew Morgan

Doorpost Film Project: Doorpost Film Project is an online community of independent filmakers existing to encourage truth-seeking visionaries by honoring their creativity as filmmakers, serving them in the context of building community and sharing their discoveries with the world so that others may have hope.

I have only watched this one video, and found it disturbing -- in the parallels that it draws between three different historical events. This was disturbing in a good-way though, since it draws out a truth about what is happening among us now. Violence and graphic content are not found in this film, but hopefully a different way of seeing and assessing the world.

Support, in word and deed, the dignity of human life

Column by Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, D.D., Bishop of Fargo

My own emphasis is done in red, and my own comments are always put in brackets [] and bolded, otherwise the article is reprinted in its entirity.

Most Rev. Samuel Joseph Aquila, Bishop of Fargo and author of this colum, visiting with seminarians at the North American College

I. Why a Catholic neccessarily is Pro-life:

On Nov. 4, 2008, the United States witnessed an historic event in the election of the first African-American president. With his election as president we have seen our nation take great strides forward in the civil rights movement and the rights for all peoples regardless of race. I congratulate President-elect Barack Obama and assure him of my prayers and the prayers of the faithful of the Diocese of Fargo in the immense responsibilities that he will undertake as president. One of those prayers will be for the conversion of his heart and mind to recognize the dignity of human life from the moment of conception until natural death and the truth that no government has the right to legalize abortion.

In his acceptance speech on Nov. 4, President-elect Obama stated, “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.” I pray that President-elect Obama will listen when it comes to the question of the unborn and not impose the intrinsic evil of abortion on the consciences of so many who know the truth that abortion is the destruction of a unique innocent human being. The President-elect in his voting record and his speeches has revealed that he is one of the strongest supporters of legalized abortion, as well as the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA). In this he directly opposes the divine law of God concerning the dignity of each human life, and so he strongly disagrees with the position of the Catholic Church. On a purely political level, he even disagrees with the majority of Americans, who at least want some limits on abortion. The Church, and most especially bishops and priests, will need to make the teaching of the Church known to every Catholic.

The Catholic Church teaches throughout her history the truth of the dignity of human life from the moment of conception until natural death [this is what is meant by the sense of the faithful]. This truth was recognized by our country until 1973 with the decision of Roe v. Wade. Today this truth is known even more clearly through reason and science. Every one of our lives began at the same moment: when an egg and sperm came together in our mother’s womb, formed one cell, and began to divide. It is truly marvelous and beautiful when you observe the truth through the technology of modern science. [It is not the Church that tries to force this issue, but science that agrees, life begins at conception].

Throughout the last several months I have been surprised and saddened at how little some Catholics know and accept the teaching of the Church on the matter of abortion. As a bishop I have received mail from Catholics with diverse complaints. Some state that I haven’t spoken forcefully enough and that it is my fault that the truth about abortion is not clearly taught in parishes. Others write and state that they are Catholic and prochoice, and see themselves as faithful to Christ and the Church. Catholics need to promote the Gospel of Life and understand, as Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessors have made definitive and clear, that the question of the moral legality of abortion is nonnegotiable. It is always and everywhere wrong, and this moral truth must be enshrined in law in every civil society. [See post from Nov. 16, "From a letter that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washing, D.C.]


I want to look at misunderstandings in Catholic teaching that I have encountered over the last several months. Most know that since the Church defends each human life, she must teach against abortion. However, some believe that it is possible to be a faithful Catholic and be pro-choice. This is impossible. Abortion is an intrinsic evil, which means that in no circumstance is it permitted nor may it ever be supported, even as a means to a good end. No Catholic can be faithful to Jesus Christ and the Church and support an intrinsic evil. The Catechism of the Catholic Church names several intrinsic evils or disorders, and I urge all Catholics to study these [find a better study partner than Nancy Pelosi, her Meet the Press Interview indicates she did not study very well]. Certainly the most serious is the destruction of innocent human life, such as abortion (CCC 2270-72), euthanasia (CCC 2277), the intentional killing of non-combatants in war and genocide (CCC 2313). Catholics must come to understand that every intrinsic evil undermines the dignity of the human person as created in the image and likeness of God and must never be condoned or supported. [There can be no social justice without the protection of innocent life, since there is nothing more unjust than taking innocent life].

Another misunderstanding among some Catholics is that abortion is just one issue among many issues. They will say “I am not a one issue person.” It is true that all Catholics must be concerned about the just ordering of society, which means concern for the economy, immigration, the war in Iraq, health care, taxes, etc. All of these impact the dignity of the human person and the flourishing of society. Different prudential judgments may be made about how to prioritize and address these matters in light of the teaching of the Church. Nevertheless, there are fundamental rights that no civil society may take away. The fundamental right to life is essential to all other rights (CCC 2273). Therefore the right to life, from the moment of conception until natural death, is the first among all rights and the first issue that must be taken into consideration, acted upon and protected. The Bishops of the United States spoke of this in their 2007 document on faith and public life, “The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many” (Faithful Citizenship 28) [seems pretty clear to me, I do not know where the confusion comes in].

The Second Vatican Council taught, “For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes” (Guadium et Spes 51). Our late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, taught “Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that ‘we must obey God rather than men’ (Acts 5:29)…In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it’” (emphasis added by Bishop Aquila, EV 73).

Catholics, regardless of their affiliation with a political party, must always support the dignity of human life from the moment of conception until natural death, and they must enact good laws which do so. Thus Catholics, be they judges, politicians, or voters, who support Roe v. Wade or “assisted suicide” by any type of legislation or candidate, place themselves outside of the law of God and the Church each time they vote in support of so-called abortion rights or rights to die. Each Catholic who is a member, works for or donates to a political party has the ability and obligation to transform party platforms, to put forward candidates who respect life, and to avoid cooperation in advocating abortion through either platform policies or candidates who oppose life.

II. Role of Religion in Public life:

A grave misunderstanding concerns the relationship between the distinct missions of the Church and the State and what it means to live one’s faith in the world. The Second Vatican Council lamented that “[the] split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age” (GS 43). In many ways this dichotomy has increased regrettably in the past forty years through the removal of religious and moral values from the public square. Indeed the mission of the Church and the task of the State are distinct, but they are never completely separate. The constitutional distinction between Church and State is found in the non-establishment of a state religion. However, this is not the denial of the entry of God or moral convictions into the public square.

The misinterpretation of the separation of Church and State as the denial of the entry of God or moral convictions into the public square reveals the reality that the religion predominately lived today is that of secular atheism [hey don't force your secular-atheism onto me], the denial of God, whether directly through the works of Richard Dawkins and modern academia, or more subtly through practical atheism, living day-to-day life as if God didn’t exist. Some Catholics in the separation of their faith from decisions in the political order abandon God and embrace secular atheism. Secular atheism goes hand in hand with secular humanism, namely, the idea that man alone can order society and the common life of the human race and that God has no part in this order. Secular humanism can never flourish, because the moment society abandons God’s law it also abandons humanity [look at the history of all secular-atheistic states: Revolutionary France, Soviet Empire, Third Reich, Pol-Pot, China's "Red Revolt" - all were brutally inhumane]. Abandoning the truth is directly opposed both to our ideals as Christians and to the founding principles of our country as seen in the Declaration of Independence which acknowledges the “laws of nature’s God” and “the Creator.”

President George Washington declared in his farewell speech in 1796, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.” Our forefathers had no concept of a civil and democratic society separated from belief. They knew that such a society would either never survive or, if it survived, would seriously undermine the rights and true freedom of peoples, particularly the freedom to practice religion.

Every faithful Catholic has a responsibility to promote the teachings of the Church in the world and to live them out. The Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium reminded the laity that “…by their very vocation, [they] seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God….They are called there by God that by exercising their proper function and led by the spirit of the Gospel they may work for the sanctification of the world from within as a leaven” (LG 31). Being faithful to the call and mission given to us by God can never be limited to Sunday worship, but requires the surrender of our complete and entire lives. If we are faithful Catholics, everything we do will be influenced by our relationship with God, his truth, his love and his constant inspiration. If we withhold the beauty and truths about human life from our nation’s laws, we diminish our society [we are the best at being American when we are the best at being Catholic].

Over the next several months, Catholics will be called upon to witness to the preservation of the fundamental right to life from the moment of conception until natural death. As Pope John Paul II reminded Catholics in 1988, “ the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination . . . everyone has the mission and responsibility of acknowledging the personal dignity of every human being and of defending the right to life, some lay faithful are given particular title to this task: such as parents, teachers,
health workers and the many who hold economic and political power” (Christifideles Laici 38). In his recent visit to the United States, Pope Benedict reminded us that “[Christian truths] alone can guarantee respect for the inalienable dignity and rights of each man, woman and child in our world—including the most defenseless of all human beings, the unborn child in the mother’s womb” (Benedict XVI, Homily at Mass in Yankee Stadium, April 20, 2008).

Over the next several months and years I invite you to join me and continue to work diligently to promote the Gospel of Life. I encourage all of the clergy and laity of the Diocese of Fargo to work toward this goal and foundational truth. Regardless of which political party a Catholic belongs to, he or she must work tirelessly for life and the protection of the unborn child.

As we celebrate Thanksgiving, let each one of us give thanks to God for the gift of our own life, the gift of our Catholic faith, and the gift of our country. I give thanks to God for the blessing of being a bishop and for being able to serve the faithful of the Church of Fargo. My fervent prayer for this Thanksgiving is that every Catholic and every person of good will might come to know the truth of the dignity of human life from conception to natural death and support this truth both in word and deed.

Printed in the November 2008 issue of New Earth, the newspaper for the Diocese of Fargo

I believe this has been placed in the common domain, if it will be removed to respect copyrights.

From a letter that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washing, D.C.

Pope Benedict XVI reaches out to bless a baby at the end of his general audience in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican June 18, 2008.

…Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).

The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and Sr. Nirmala, a sister of Mother Theresa's community, the Missionaries of Charity, in Sri Lanka, January 2005.

Apart from an individual's judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin…

One of God's little saints...

Yesterday I mentioned the basilica of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme (Holy Cross in Jerusalem) as the church close to Saint John Lateran where the pieces of the True Cross and other instruments of the Passion of Christ are kept. If you come to Rome make sure to pay a visit to this church and while there visit the shrine and tomb of Antonietta Meo (Nennolina). She is not yet a saint, but it looks like one day (soon) she will be declared one. Her story of courage in the face of intense suffering at a very young age is an inspiration about the dignity of life, and a tonic to the poison of the "culture of death."

Nennolina at age six in her first communion gown.

Nennolina may very well be the youngest saint the church has ever recognized. At the age of six she fell while playing at school. She broke her leg. There is nothing unusual about this. It took a long time to heal, and it was discovered that this delay in healing was because she had bone cancer. She spent the next year of her life, her last year suffering greatly from this pain. Yet she was always noted for her joy and how she often talked about Jesus and His Mother as if they were her friends and playmates.

She started writing letters to them and leaving them at the foot of the crucifix in her room. It is from these letters that we know this little girl was a mystic of the highest degree, having visions of the saints and carrying on conversation with the Lord. Through the intution of faith she knew that she could join her suffering to the suffering of the Lord on the cross as a sacrifice. She did this often.

After her death, Nennolina appeared to her mother in a glorified body. Her cause for sainthood is currently being pursued, and she has already been declared to have exercised heroic virtues, and it looks like one miracle has already been attributed to her.

This little girl was filled with Wisdom much beyond what her age would allow. This is not Wisdom that she knew, but rather it was given to her by God. It could not have come from anywhere else. This teaches us that God gives each person the tools and gifts that they need to be holy, happy, and healthy in this world and in the next. Through her couragous suffering she teaches us that suffering has a value that is much needed in this world, and that to suffer well can paradoxically be a source of deep and lasting joy.

Please pray to Venerable Servant of God, Antonietta Meo, for the graces that my cousine Stephanie needs as she raises her son, Owen, suffers with similar health issues.

Statement of Cardinal Egan, Archbishop of New York

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 26, 2008

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

Edward Cardinal Egan

Archbishop of New York

August 26, 2008

A good ole Wisconsin boy speaks up...

H.E. Frank J. Dewane

2nd bishop of Venice in Florida

A photocopy of the letter, for your own prooftexting.

transcription:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

As you are all aware next week our country will conduct its political elections in so doing, choose its public officials. Many of you have spoke and written to me on this matter sometimes requestion that I endorse a political party or candidate: that is something I cannot do.

However, as Bishop, it is my responsibility to instruct the faithful regarding the Church's teaching on moral issues, the most important being the right to life and dignity of every person, from conception till natural death. There issues are fundamental to the healthy of any society and should therefore, be carefully considered when voting for a particular candidate. After all, in voting we are making moral choices [my emphasis].

The Second Vatican Council has taught that the laity are not to reliquish their participation in 'public life,' but instead fulfill their proper task of infusing the temporal order with Christian values. This teaching would apply for instance, to the act of voting for a political candidate or public official [my emphasis], which I encourage you to do.

In assisting you in properly forming your conscience before voting, I would recomment that you consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Compendium fo the Social Doctrine of the Church. There two works highlight the Church's teaching on our moral responsibility to promote the common good [my emphasis, see note 1].

As Catholics, we are called upon to respect and protect the rights of all, especially, the unborn child [his emphasis], the weakest and most vulnerable among us. At the same time the family [his emphasis], the basic unit of society [my emphasis], must be safeguarded, promoted, and protected based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman [my emphasis].

In affirming these right of natural law [my emphasis, see note 2], it is often argued that Catholics are promoting their own "personal values" which do not apply to other citizens. This accuation is false inasmuch as rights, such as the right to life and dignity of ever person are common to all people [my emphais - common to all people, not just Catholics, and Catholic is always pro-life for all], regardless of their personal belief. These fundamental rights cannot be denied by any individual or group as they are intrinsic God-given rights which we must affirm [my emphasis, see note 3], and above all protect.

As you discern your choices of public official, be assured of my prayers for you and your families.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+Frank J. Dewane

Bishop of Venice in Florida

Notes:

(1): This term, common good, is very much misunderstood. Often people think of what society, most specifically government can provide for them in a material and fiscal sense. This is not the common good, but rather an exercise in distrubative justice. The common good actual is not material, it is the benefit that a person receives from being a member of that society in and of itself. This is seen by looking at a marriage: When a man and woman marry, we say that they enter into a marriage. If unfortunetly they divorce, as they stand before the family court judge they cannot ask for "half-the-marriage" in the final settlement. Each of them benefited from being part of this marriage, but neither of them would be able to point out what this benefit was materially. So the interest of the common good actually means to promote what makes the nation better.

(2): Natural law are the moral norms that any healthy and sound person (and many unhealthy and unsound people for that matter) can arrive at through the exercise of reason. It is objective true for all, since human nature is the same for all. While often used in various systems of ethics developed by various religious systems, natural law is not dependent on any religious doctrine. It can be used just as easily in the secular sphere, as in the religious sphere.

(3): From the Declaration of Independance: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" (paragraph 2). In its founding documents the state, and in Her teachings the Church, agree that human rights are not created by man, but for man, and are given to him by God. As such it is also a common teaching of both state and Church, that the state cannot create new rights. Any attempt to do so is a violation of the concept of rights in general. These "new rights" are necessarily "false rights," and hence will ultimately conflict with each and every genuine right.

I mean this last sentence as a prophetic utterance, unless false rights, such as the "right for two men or two women to marry each other," the "right to abortion," the "right to redistribution of property," etc. are not absolutely opposed, all other rights will in practice be eroded. There will be limits on freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of the free exercise of religion (this is not just the running of parishes, congregations, and dioceses, but also the running of schools, hospitals, and other social outreaches, which are intrinsic to the mission and character of the Christian religion), the freedom of parents to educate their own children as they see fit, etc. will be severly limited.

A short treatise on Sarah Palin's ability to swim.

Benedict XVI, noticably very happy to have his hat returned to him.

Sarah Palin was invited to meet with the Pope while both were vacationing in Venice. The liberal press reluctantly watched the semi-private audience, hoping they will be able to allot minimal coverage, if any. The Pope asks Governor Palin to join him on a Gondola ride through the canals of Venice. They're admiring the sights and agreeing on moral issues when, all of a sudden, the Pope's hat blows off his head and out into the water. The gondolier starts to reach for the Pontiff's hat with his pole, but this move threatens to overturn the floating craft. Sarah waves the tour guide off, saying, 'Wait, wait. I'll take care of this. Don't worry.' She steps off the gondola onto the surface of the water and walks out to the Pope's hat, bends over and picks it up. She walks back across the water to the gondola and steps aboard. She hands the hat to the Pope amid stunned silence. The next morning the topic of conversation among Democrats in Congress, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, PBS, CNN, the New York Times, MSNBC, Hollywood celebrities, and most of the people in France and Germany is:

'Palin Can't Swim.'

With special credit to Some Have Hats

Why one cannot be privately pro-life, but publicly pro-choice:

I came across this following quote from Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City: When you talk about protecting innocent human life, this is something that we need to do as human beings. And the fact that the Church has a voice on this issue and a position on this issue, doesn’t mean it’s an imposing of our beliefs or values, anymore than the effort to break down segregation by the Church was an effort to impose some kind of religious doctrine on the culture or society, but it was us standing up for a fundamental human right.

Nancy Pelosi, D., Speaker of the United States House of Representitives.

The origin of this quote depends on to distinctions involving doctrine and morals, and also the seperation of Church and state.

Seperation of Church and State: This principle that the civil laws of a land should not impose the religious beliefs of any group of people on the whole of civil society. This principle is enshrined in both the United States Constitution and in the the Social Doctrine of the Church (see Centisimus Annus). A Catholic politician cannot by either the principles of our constitution, nor by the principles of our own religion pass laws that require the assent of civil society to such doctrinal beliefs such as revelation through scripture and tradition, the infallibility of the Pope on matters of faith and morals, etc.

Based on this distinction many a Catholic politicans, like the above pictured Nancy Pelosi, attempt to be "privately pro-life, but publicly pro-choice," since in their view imposing the moral teachings of the Church is also imposing the doctrinal principles of the Church on civil law violates the seperation of Church and state.

Doctrine and Morals: The teaching on pro-life though is not exclusively a doctrinal issue, but also (and more importantly) a moral issue. As such for a politican to be a proponent of civil laws that correspond to Catholic moral principles is not a violation of the seperation of Church and state.

The basis of this can be found very recently in Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) of John Paul II, of blessed memory. It is the same principle that is found in Church teachings down through the ages, from Scriptures through the Fathers to the present day. While the moral teachings of the Church correspond to the teaching of the Lord in the Gospel, and is founded on that Gospel, they are also written in the human heart. This is the principle of natural law. So the moral teachings of the Church are binding on all, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. This is not an imposition of the Church beyond its borders, but a reflection that these moral teachings can be discerned by all who seek the truth with an honest and open heart.

This may seem like a very nice Pollyannish sentiment, but the pro-life movement provides a clear example that this is true. While Fr. Richard John Neuhaus is right to indicate that the pro-life movement started as primarily a Catholic movement, it has expanded greatly in the three decades since Roe vs. Wade. It now includes Christians of all stripes, Jews, Muslims, and others including agnostics and atheists. The March for Life in Washington, D.C. each spring has become perhaps the largest annual ecumenical and inter-religious gathering. The reason for this great diversity within the the pro-life movement is that the principle that the moral teachings of the Church are available to all men of good-will in an honest search for the truth, is true. It is more than a nice sentiment of the Church.

For this reason all politicians are responsible for supporting the common moral heritage. This is especial true of Catholic politicians since they benefit from the teaching office of the Church.

As a final thought I leave you with a comment from Francis Cardinal George of Chicago: The unborn child, who is alive and is a member of the human family, cannot defend himself or herself. Good law defends the defenseless. Our present laws permit unborn children to be privately killed. Laws that place unborn children outside the protection of law destroy both the children killed and the common good, which is the controlling principle of Catholic social teaching. One cannot favor the legal status quo on abortion and also be working for the common good.