Letter to a Pro-Obama Catholic Friend

Dear [insert name of your misguided friend here],

Not a complete explicatio, but here goes.

Re: Obama on Abortion. The guy is the most pro-abortion candidate that this country has ever seen--radically so. He voted to allow children of botched abortions to die rather than be saved. There can be no compromise with the basic moral principle that an innocent life may not be intentionally terminated. That one issue IS more important than other issues of social justice. It is paramount and, from a moral perspective (and a sound philosophical one), cannot simply be one in a list of "other issues" whereby one weighs them and, on balance, other concerns outweigh the fact that the candidate is for murder. Murder can have no legitimacy in a civilized society. He is radically for murder. (He is consistent here.)

Re: Obama and Government Social Programs. Look to the Constitution. The founders set up a government of limited powers and based upon principles of federalism. I.e., the original design of the federal government is basically (and I am being terse here) to provide for a common defense of the states and to regulate mail roads. All other powers belong to the states. Subsequent to the Civil War and the adoption of the 14th Amendment we have a significantly changed constitutional structure. Significantly changed because the Supreme Court, in the early part of the 20th century, created the "incorporation doctrine" which applies the Bill of Rights to the states (illogical--and not the intent of the Founders!!!). Likewise, through an overbroad interpretation of the commerce clause, the Supreme Court--coupled with the influence of positivistic jurisprudence of the Holmesian version--has greatly expanded the power of the federal government that we see today. It is bad jurisprudence. It is wrong. And it is contrary to the Constitution. Thus, in addition to judicial activism which had no small role in creating the Leviathan, we have a federal government that encroaches into our lives more and more and regulates the states and individuals more and more. Unfortunately, it is the prevailing jurisprudence today.

The Founders, in their federalism, had a view of the government that was very much in keeping with the Catholic Principle of Subsidiarity, i.e., what can be handled at the lowest possible level, should be handled at the lowest possible level. Thus, I can spank and discipline my own kids when they get out of line--the city shouldn't do it, nor should the state, nor should the federal government. But what we see with the Hillary and Obama types is the "it takes a village" mentality. Their view is that the government should have the solution. The government should set policy. The government should be the answer. The government should tell me how to discipline my kids. (We see this already happening in CA.) Conservatives (as distinguished from Republicans) answer--"Government, get the hell out of my life. I know how to best govern myself and my family." This is not to say that there is no role for government, there is. But it is limited. It shouldn't extend to mandating health insurance or setting curricula in schools or disciplining somone's kids.

The Church and intermediary groups should be providing for social welfare. Good Catholics can differ on approach. I would challenge the pro-government-as-providing-social-welfare types to point to me one program that is a success! There are none. (Case in point: public schools.) They have all been abysmal failures. In fact, they are inimical to anyone wanting to live the culture of life. Let's take a few examples from Obama. Utilizing the power of the federal government he wishes to expand contraception, sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act, expand sex ed in the schools and further his radical agenda on "reproductive rights." (see here) (There are other things as well, but I am focusing on some paramount "cultural issues.")This all under a theory of government that says the government should do these things. This takes power away from the people and places it in the hands of the jackasses in Washington.

I will leave aside all of Obama's questionable associations with noted socialists, his esteem for the writings of communist Frantz Fanon and a number of others whose views are inimical to our country's traditions, and finally, his esteem for "critical legal studies" (the view that legal language is, in fact, a false discourse that perpetuates hierarchies-men over women, rich over poor, majorities over minorities whereas the object of law is to not merely determine "constitutionality" but force-feed "equality" whether the law requires it or not)as opposed to a sound jurisprudence.

For Catholics and those interested in common sense, there is nothing that can possibly commend this guy to gaining our vote. Creating further dependence upon government and making it more difficult for families to live as Catholics in an increasingly secular and regulated society is what Obama is all about. He's an arrogant socialist.

These discussions are better over drinks and cigars (if we can find a place to smoke them).

In Domino, etc.

Madison Priest Wants Altar BOYS ...

... and the local secular-feminist reporter goes nuts.

But Father Z gets it right:

Let’s not forget the facts and underlying issues. Service at the altar is not a right. No priest can be forced to have altar girls or women serving. The custom of service by boys and men is to be given first priority and fostered.

Tragedy in Richmond

Here is the article from The Wanderer (June 19, p. 3) on the Richmond case that caused a lot of ... shall we say, concern -- and spawned a lot of stories and a few investigations.

For those interested in reading more, here's the Washington Times follow-up.

Tragedy in Richmond

On April 29, Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo of Richmond, Virginia, wrote a confidential letter to his brother bishops. He recounted how Catholic Charities of Richmond (CCR) was complicit in authorizing, procuring, and paying for an abortion on January 18, 2008. The victims were the mother, a minor immigrant, and her unborn child, who were both under the “protection” of Catholic Charities because the mother was in the country illegally. The bishop’s letter explains that the Committee on Migration (MRS) of the USCCB supplies “foster care support services to undocumented minors in U.S. custody” through an arrangement with two federal agencies. According to officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), such custodial duties are routinely assumed by Catholic, Lutheran, and Jewish welfare agencies.

Not only did CCR of Richmond arrange an abortion for the girl and deliver her to the abortionist, but also “one member of [CCR] staff signed the consent form necessary for the minor to have an abortion.” The letter goes on to say that “about two months prior to this abortion the minor had been assisted by CCR staff with [the] implantation of a contraceptive device.”

Two USCCB officials signed the letter with Bishop DiLorenzo. One, Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City, is Chair[man] of the USCCB’s Committee on Migration. The other, Bishop Michael P. Driscoll, is Episcopal Liaison to Catholic Charities, USA.

According to their letter, the three bishops decided to write “because we felt the need to provide you [brother bishops] the information in this case so that you will not be caught by surprise should it be brought to your attention by other means…. It was, therefore, our desire to place this information before you proactively so that you can have confidence in the leadership and management that guides this work.”

In other word, damage control and saving face were paramount.

The bishops readily state that “the implantation of the contraceptive device and the abortion were contrary to basic teachings of the Catholic Church.” They state that they have “some responsibility” for the offices in which the “situation” occurred. “In addition,” the letter states, “ we are aware that this incident is a most regrettable stain on the record of excellence both of MRS and of Catholic Charities.”

First, The Murder; Then The Stonewall

I contacted the offices of all three bishops. Only Bishop DiLorenzo’s chancery responded. Anne Edwards, who is listed on the diocesan website as an advisor to the bishop, referred me to William Etherington, of the Richmond Law Firm of Beale, Davidson, Etherington & Morris. Mr. Etherington, who represents the diocese, confirmed that, once the incident came to Bishop DiLorenzo’s attention, neither the diocese nor CCR reported it to the Virginia Child Protection Services or to law enforcement authorities. Why not? In Mr. Etherington’s professional opinion, the incident did not constitute a crime in the Commonwealth of Virginia, nor was it covered by the USCCB’s Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. When asked if abortion was murder or child abuse, Etherington replied, “I leave that to the philosophers and theologians. I am not a canonist and I am not a theologian. Listen, this is a big big mistake, and remedial steps have been taken to make sure it doesn’t happen again.” (Speaking of Canon Law, according to EWTN’s website, “Canon 1398 provides that, "a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic [latae sententiae] excommunication.")

Since Mr. Etherington told me that the incident had not been reported, I tried to report it. After all, if abortion isn’t child abuse, what is? I called Maryjane Fuller, who is listed on the diocesan website as the Safe Environment Coordinator. It appears that CCR employees do not work for the diocese, they work for Catholic Charities. So Ms. Fuller told me that the CCR director, Joanne Natrass, should receive reports of sexual abuse regarding Catholic Charities employees. But I had already called Ms. Natrass. As soon as I mentioned the abortion, her secretary, Anita, said, “No Comment,” and hung up.

Ms. Fuller told me she had never heard of the incident. “This is horrible,” she said, and then, as we discussed it, she raised the question again: Does abortion even amount to “child abuse” under the Dallas Charter? Mr. Etherington, who is not a Catholic, had given his professional legal opinion, but Ms. Fuller sounded less certain. Whatever the answer, she emphasized that “the Diocese always stresses that you should report abuse not only because of the law, but because it’s the moral thing to do.”

Why The Coverup?

The Richmond Diocese website’s page for “reporting ‘ministry-related’ sexual abuse” lists telephone numbers for the County Department of Social Services, Child Protective Services Division; the Virginia Department of Social Service; and the Virginia State Police. On the advice of counsel, neither the diocese nor CCR reported the incident – the abuse of the mother and the murder of the child -- to any of them. Nor did they inform any of the other chancery officials and pastors in the diocese with whom I spoke. They were all shocked when I read to them about the incident from their bishop’s letter.

The bishops waited three months to inform their fellow members of the USCCB, and apparently told no one else. But what are they trying to hide? Haven’t our bishops learned that cover-ups don’t work? Wanderer readers might remember a similar pattern during the 1990s, as one abuse scandal after another broke into the secular press and into the criminal and civil courts in one diocese after another. The stonewalls never worked. In fact, they did great – even historic -- damage to the Church – not to mention to the victims, their families, and their communities, and to the Mystical Body of Christ.

The Richmond case represents a microcosm of the secular bureaucratic mentality that has plagued the American Church establishment for decades. Listen to the DiLorenzo letter: “Prior to the abortion, CCR, MRS’s Office of Children Services, and ORR/DUCS were in extensive dialogue regarding how to respond to the situation of the minor following her discovery in early January that she was pregnant.” In the maze of all these acronyms, did anybody call a priest? A bishop? Apparently not. They were too deeply mired in the bureaucratic swamp and haunted by the fear of losing federal government funding.

Bishop DiLorenzo plaintively laments that “some members of MRS staff were not sufficiently aware of Church teaching,” so they did not “take stronger and more appropriate action.” Well, whose fault is that? Doesn’t it sound all too familiar? For years, the Wanderer has warned that the USCCB and CCUSA bureaucrats are much closer to the pro-abortion crowd in Washington than they are to the faithful or to the Faith. After the scandals, we prayed that they might see the light. Instead, the bishops circled the wagons and stubbornly stuck with “business as usual.” The Richmond abortion case indicates that they merely ignored their own rules and relied on lawyers and secrecy instead. In the meantime, as we noted three weeks ago, Cardinal McCarrick made it perfectly clear in 2006 that the prospect of losing federal funding has profoundly influenced (read “silenced”) the bishops with regard to their dealings with prominent “Catholic” politicians who are champions of abortion, the paramount moral issue of our time.

One Catholic official in HHS put it bluntly: “It’s come to this. The U.S. Government can’t trust the Catholic Church to take care of children.” This story is not over.

Professor Douglas Kmiec: Off the Reservation

Prominent Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec shocked the Catholic legal world when he endorsed Barack Obama for President. Kmiec didn't just make this one statement, he also wrote a second piece where he again reaffirmed his endorsement and--in this author's opinion--naively believes that Obama will be more receptive to an authentically Catholic perspective on the moral issues of the day. But, not to be outdone, it seems that Kmiec again was revelling in the glow that is Obama yesterday.

Some have speculated on Kmiec's seeming overnight change from a political and cultural conservative to a supporter of Obama, arguably the most left-wing and most pro-abortion candidate that the United States has ever seen. Some have opined that he is acting like a woman scorned from betrayals from the Bush Administration over the War in Iraq. Others speculate that the seeming dulling of his exercise of practical prudence is a result of the onset of Parkinson's disease. Whatever the reason, it is clear that Kmiec is not reasoning well in his support for Obama. Consider the following from Kmiec's June 7, 2008 article on Catholic Online (referenced above):

The on-going intelligent and civil discussion also allows us to grasp how no candidate who merely checks a pro-life box in a superficial way should be permitted to blind us from the balance of Catholic social teaching, including the strengthening of the family with a family wage and tax structure that is responsive to the needs of the average family; the ending of an unjust and disproportionate war; the care and stewardship of the human environment; and the structuring of society to look after the most vulnerable among us, including especially the elderly, the poor, and of course those whose voice can only be heard through ours.

Kmiec sounds like a seamless garment kind of guy. "The balance of Catholic social teaching," in Kmiec's mind, seems ignore the very foundations of marriage and the family. While I agree with his comments on the family wage and tax structure, his comments on the other issues seem disturbing. The "ending of an unjust and disproportionate war" is a judgment and position that may be taken by a thoughtful Catholic, but other thoughtful Catholics may disagree and still remain Catholics in good standing. The "care and stewardship of the human environment," is a curious phrase. I'm not quite sure what the "human environment" is. Perhaps it is the family built on stable marriage? Finally, the "structuring of society...," is the most disturbing. "Structuring" or "Re-structuring society" is a favorite buzz-word of faculty lounge and coffee house Marxists. These types generally see big government as the answer and, in the process, they give short shrift to the Church's time-honored teaching of the Principle of Subsidiarity. Based upon his associations--aptly pointed out by Tom Roeser--it is not unfair to put Obama in this camp. Has Kmiec joined him?

Here are the facts:

• Obama is pro-abortion; for expanding sex ed in public schools; for expanding access to contraception; for embryonic stem cell research.

• Obama is on the record at a gathering of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (June 17, 2007) as saying that the first thing he will do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

• Obama is pro-same-sex unions, thus undermining the family built on stable marriage.

Professor Kmiec has yet to explain to us why Catholics should vote for Obama.

Oh wait...he has:

"Obama's conception of promoting the common good is situated in those regular but welcoming neighborhoods most of us call home—foreclosure aside. He intends to ask government and non-governmental entities—and you and me—to do our part. Frankly, it is more than a little exhilarating to be given that much faith and trust."

With all due respect, Prof. Kmiec, there is no such thing as a common good that includes the murder of the innocent and the undermining of marriage and the family.

Perhaps Chris Will Put This as The Description of This Blog

"...[I]n some secular humanistic future, when the only sin will be pain, the only evil ill health; when childbearing will be looked upon as a disease, and terminal illnesses will not be tolerated; when it is just possible that the free, human beings will be forbidden to have a child, or a smoke, or a drink, save by prescription of the National Health; in that cold, clinical future, you will search in vain for the rebels save in the ranks of the Catholic Church."

--Archbishop John Murphy of Cardiff, Wales (d. 1995)

Perpetual Adolescence

The ever perceptive Diogenes has provided us with another instance of the "progressive wing"of the Catholic Church. Pictures and videos speak volumes.

Compare this "progressive group" with another group in the Catholic Church--this one. Unlike the former group, this one holds fast to the truth and has the uncanny ability to sniff out a fake.

The paradox here is that the truly mature are and remain young, whereas those caught in a perpetual adolescence become increasingly old and irrelevant.

Welcome

The Catholic guys welcome you to our ongoing conversations, observations, critiques, reviews, brawls, and links to anything and everything that might contribute to Holy Mother Church.

ad majorem dei gloriam!