Father John McCartney of Saint Matthew’s on Long Island sums up the sad state Catholic politicians pretty well:
Two days after the inauguration of President Obama, I traveled down to Washington with fifty-one parishioners for the annual March for Life on the 36th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, Roe v. Wade.
It was a wonderful trip, and the march was the largest seen in years. It was also a decidedly young march, with vast numbers of high-school and college-aged young people participating.
Of course, hundreds of thousands of peaceful pro-life protesters marching in the nation’s capital did not make it on any of the news channels, nor was it reported in the print media.
Meanwhile, Caroline Kennedy, a pro-abortion Catholic, dropped out of her quest for the open New York Senate seat last week. Instead, Gov. Paterson, a pro-abortion Catholic, chose Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, a pro-abortion Catholic, to fill the vacancy. This so angered Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a pro-abortion Catholic, that she has announced she will challenge Sen. Gillibrand in the primary in two years. State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, a pro-abortion Catholic, is now set to challenge a weakened Gov. Paterson, a pro abortion Catholic, in the primary for governor in two years as well. There was talk of Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, a pro-abortion Catholic, for the senate seat, and perhaps making a future run for governor.
Whoever gets the Democratic nomination for governor may well face Rudolf Giuliani, a pro-abortion Catholic, in the state-wide race.
Meanwhile, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a pro-abortion Catholic, said on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, that some $200 million dollars in taxpayer money, a part of the economic stimulus package, was earmarked for subsidizing artificial contraception. Previously describing herself as
an “ardent Catholic,” Pelosi said that increased spending on contraception “will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government” — thereby implying that children are a burden to taxpayers. When Stephanopoulos asked the Speaker whether she was comfortable with that argument, she replied: “No apologies.” Thankfully, President Obama later dropped this from the stimulus package.President Obama has made some interesting political appointments: Joseph Biden, a pro-abortion Catholic, to be Vice-President; Leon Panetta, a pro-abortion Catholic, to run the C.I.A.; Tom Daschle, a pro-abortion Catholic, to run the Department of Health & Human Services; Janet Napolitano, a pro abortion Catholic, to run the Department of Homeland Security; Ken Salazar, a pro-abortion Catholic, to run the Department of the Interior; Tom Vilsack, a pro-abortion Catholic, to run the Department of Agriculture; Hilda Solis, a pro-abortion Catholic, to run the Department of Labor; Tim Kane, a pro-abortion Catholic, to head the Democratic National Committee; and Ray LaHood, a pro-life Maronite Catholic (how did that happen?) to run the Department of Transportation.
In other news, the U.S. Bishops have begun a postcard campaign to stop the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would undo every restriction placed on abortion during the last 36 years, including removing consciences clauses which would compel Catholic hospitals and doctors to perform abortions.
I am pleased to note that here at St. Matthew’s we began an anti-FOCA letter writing campaign more than a month ago. For those of you who have not yet sent in your letters, please go to www.smrcc.org, our parish website, where you may download them. In the meantime, pray.
—Fr. McCartney
February 9, 2009 at 2:54 pm
So the USCCB publishes that horrid, wishy-washy “Faithful Citizenship” and then wrings their hands over the possible passage of FOCA. Is there no one in the USCCB with the ability to think more than a day or two ahead or understand that their actions have consequences?
February 9, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Sorry, that anonymous was me. Hit the wrong key.
February 9, 2009 at 3:15 pm
And now that Daschle has crapped out, the next person on the list for Health and Human Services is pro-abortion Catholic Kathleen Sibelius.
February 9, 2009 at 3:24 pm
The “Freedom of Choice Act” will not overturn conscience clauses. I don’t support the “Freedom of Choice Act,” but to make up stuff about it that is not true does no good. There is nothing in the bill that suggests that any given doctor would ever be required to perform an abortion.
February 9, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I feel like it needs to be pointed out that if you are pro-death you aren’t Catholic. These politicians may claim what they like, but if you fundementally disagree with, and promote, ideas antithetical to Catholicism, then you aren’t Catholic.
Not to mention that not one of these politicians shows a proper or due deference to God. I mean, Pelosi says she’s Catholic, and then says, “But He should keep his omnipotent hands off my uterus.” I mean, seriously? God, your will, not mine be done, except when it comes to reproduction?
The thing that makes me most upset is not that these people call themselves Catholic, after all, there are plenty of Napoleans in a pysch ward, but rather that people believe them. This is why the Bishops need to unify, and start treating these miscreants like the apostates and heretics they are.
(Please visit my blog:http://www.culturalgadfly.com/)
February 9, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Amen to that, Horatius!
February 9, 2009 at 4:49 pm
In other news, the U.S. Bishops have begun a postcard campaign to stop the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would undo every restriction placed on abortion during the last 36 years, including removing consciences clauses which would compel Catholic hospitals and doctors to perform abortions.
as per A Y, i believe that while it is good for catholics to stand up for their faith and make a Christian issue out of fighting FOCA, we need to stand for the Truth as well. no strawman basher ever became a great apologetic.
for a (i’d consider) balanced point-by-point analysis of the FOCA from the standpoint of an earlier (presumably catholic pro-life) chain-mail calling for Novenas, snope.com presents this page: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/choice.asp
i strongly recommend all good catholics to read it and learn something about the thing they are fighting. faith is not chasing shadows.
February 9, 2009 at 4:52 pm
and to our “brotherly correction” obsessed fellow catholics, please re-read this chapter: Matthew 18:15-18
and when you’re done with that one, flip in front a bit to: Matthew 7:1-5
it is irresistibly tempting to take a swipe at these “pro-choice/death” catholics – but are you their parish priest? are you an ordained member of the catholic clergy? or do you need help with that plank in your eye too?
February 9, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Matthew 7:1-5 doesn’t call on us to tolerate evil.
And you might as well read Matthew 7:6. The holiness and sanctity of life, the right to determine when life begins, is worth living, and is deserving of protection has been cast to the doctors and government bureaucrats, and we’re already starting to see them turn and tear some people to pieces.
February 9, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Horatius said…
“I feel like it needs to be pointed out that if you are pro-death you aren’t Catholic. These politicians may claim what they like, but if you fundamentally disagree with, and promote, ideas antithetical to Catholicism, then you aren’t Catholic”.
No, that’s not true. Once baptized, you are always a Catholic. If you act against the teachings of the Church, you are a bad Catholic.
February 9, 2009 at 7:06 pm
This won’t happen, but once the bill is on track for a vote, the Holy Father should send a private letter to each member of Congress informing that should they vote for FOCA, they will be excommunicated.
February 9, 2009 at 7:16 pm
FOCA is purposely vague, but read the “Findings” that precede the actual bill (HR 1964; S1173 is similar), and the agenda is clear (see below). Note that several of the claims made in the “Findings” of the legislation are not factual or are exaggerations.
The bill itself says the government may not interfere in any aspect of a woman’s pregnancy, i.e. no regulations can be made to obstruct a woman’s access to abortion. Note also, that “health” of the mother has somehow come to include the emotional distress caused by the inconvenience of bearing the (unwanted) “product” of her freedom to exercise her reproductive rights (Roe v. Wade didn’t explicitly allow this, but go figure, that’s the main reason for abortion today). Ultimately, abortion-on-demand is the intended result.
Concerns regarding overturning the moral conscience clause derive from #2 which states the government may not discriminate against (as in “make a distinction between”) the exercise of these said “rights.” The danger lurking here is that this means the government will not be able to offer “protection” or exception to those who claim a moral objection to performing abortion as this would discriminate or distinguish between those facilities or individuals who are willing and not willing to do abortion (i.e. those who are not and those who are going to obstruct a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion). If this were not the case, then specific language to protect the moral conscience of physicians and facilities that was present in the version of FOCA in 1992 would remain in this bill. Again, go back to the “findings” and the agenda is clear. Those who fear FOCA are rightfully concerned. No straw here. For those who disagree, I beg you respectfully, to please take your head out of the sand.
House version of the FOCA BILL:
(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not–
(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose–
(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.
To view the entire bill, including “Findings” see
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/FOCA2007HR1964.html
February 9, 2009 at 8:10 pm
The USCCB more and more is eliciting scowls and shaking heads as opposed to the respect and loyalty their office should evoke. When they begin their “letter writing campaign”, maybe they might want to think about hand-delivering them to their parishoners who happen to hold public office and defy church teaching on abortion.
What does it take for these people to publically say, “You cannot be a Catholic in good standing and support abortion in public office.” What does it take???
February 9, 2009 at 8:32 pm
For people to have the courage of their convictions, they need to have the latter. If FOCA is vague, then there is a possibility that these politicians might actually be thinking that they’re doing something moral. With such an eloquent leader who talks about reducing abortions then puts it behind with an executive signature, one can get really confused. If it were not for the Lord, I’d be very afraid.
February 9, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Speaking of confused:
"There is no god who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know." –President Obama at last Thursday’s National Prayer Breakfast.
See it yourself:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88107
February 9, 2009 at 9:56 pm
In war, the first casualty is truth. It appears that he says one thing & does another. Is he the Evil One disguised as an angel of light? (or maybe that's going too far?) or just a typical politician who tries to please everyone even if entails lying. (At least he is not blaming the Hispanics like Hitler did the Jews for the economic downturn.) I don't trust him & I did not vote for him. Our Catholic politicians show have sharper wits though. But I saw his promise to PP to sign FoCA. That's where I decided that he is not that good.
February 10, 2009 at 12:20 am
It looks like to me Obama is intentionally mocking the Church. “Let’s see how far I can go, they are not going to put up any obstacles anyway”
GOD help us, Mum26
February 10, 2009 at 1:19 am
Mum26: or testing the limits. just how far can he go before the Church responds. When th bishops decided the close the hospitals if FOCA becomes law, there’s been talk that freedom of conscience will be respected. All this vagueness is leary. But if God is with us, then even the powers of hell cannot prevail.
February 10, 2009 at 2:00 pm
*it is irresistibly tempting to take a swipe at these “pro-choice/death” catholics – but are you their parish priest? are you an ordained member of the catholic clergy? or do you need help with that plank in your eye too?*
Yep, plank is there. Tempting? Swipe? So what’s your point? Shut up and let Satan get on with his work? Please clarify whose side you’re on. The babies would like to know.
February 10, 2009 at 2:42 pm
You talkin to me? If so, I am pro-life. I think there is something diabolical with the pro-choice or abortion limiting gimmick. And I know the ending of the story – Satan loses.