|
Earlier this month, Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton ordered his priests to read a letter at Mass warning Catholics of the spiritual consequences of voting for pro-choice candidates. In doing so, Bishop Martino joined a small minority of Catholic bishops who have taken the extraordinary step of using their positions to sway parishioners into voting for John McCain. Bishops have a right to educate Catholics about the Church’s moral teachings. But they are not – and do not claim to be – experts in political affairs. Recent history shows why: such politics-in-the-pew activities, however well-intended, can have dangerous unforeseen consequences. Catholics, who make up about a quarter of the electorate, may very well have been the decisive factor in securing President Bush’s reelection in 2004. They swung to the incumbent by significant margins in Ohio, in no small part due to a coordinated campaign by GOP-affiliated “Catholic” organizations (with no ties to the Church institution) to convince them that a vote for John Kerry put them in a “state of sin.” This message was echoed – along with admonitions that Kerry refrain from Communion – by a few media-savvy Catholic prelates, most notably Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput and St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke. Only a handful of other bishops followed suit. Looking back over the past eight years, can we honestly say that the Bush Administration worked to champion Catholic values, even on issues like abortion? After all, Bush started an unjustified war in Iraq, set the table for the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and squandered a budget surplus on tax cuts for those who needed it the least. The result: some 47 million Americans are without health care, families are increasingly struggling to make ends meet, thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians have died, and the sharp decline in abortions of the 1990s has not been sustained. By Catholic standards, this hardly constitutes a pro-life record. Of course, some Catholics will undoubtedly point to Bush’s appointment of conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and the passage of the much-touted partial birth abortion ban. Yet these are mere table scraps for the movement that swept the president to power. Roberts has suggested that Roe v. Wade may be “settled law,” and the partial birth ban only did away with a certain rare type of abortion procedure. Few, if any, abortions were actually prevented by this legislation. The Church believes that abortion is the number one threat to human dignity in the world today. Why, then, did some bishops try to convince us to vote for Bush, a candidate who put ending abortion at the bottom of his list of priorities – well below the tax cuts, the war, market deregulation, and escalating a conflict with Iran. Why was it OK for the president to spend billions of dollars a week in Iraq while failing to fund – indeed, in some cases even cutting – social programs that might have reduced abortions, programs like health care for pregnant women and children? Why weren’t the full resources of our nation instead brought to bear to protect and defend the unborn? Catholics surely understand that candidates lure us in by speaking to our deepest desires, then pursue a completely different agenda – the old bait-and-switch. Make no mistake, the logic that the maverick bishops are using is identical to that which impelled millions of Catholics to pull the lever for Bush in 2004. If these men believe that we’ve been better off with four more years of Bush, they should say so, clearly and unambiguously. If not, they should return to the political sidelines. For Catholics, the 2004 election doesn’t necessarily serve as a model of what to do this time around. It can, however, provide us with some insight about what not to do. We cannot afford to substitute spiritual coercion for an open and honest conversation about which candidate will best promote our values, like health care for all, war as a last resort, and effective policies to prevent abortions. As a pro-life Catholic, I believe a compelling and faithful case can be made to vote for either McCain or Obama. For the good of our church and the good of our country, bishops like Joseph Martino would be well-advised to stop trying to suffocate this debate. |
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted October 30, 2008 at 1:08 pm
‘Blah, blah, blah’ article from Las Vegas Sun
McCain’s remarks on nuclear waste storage show his contempt for Nevada
Republican presidential candidate John McCain has said he would support the use of Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the dump site for the nation’s high-level nuclear waste. That is one of many reasons why Nevadans should vote for Democratic opponent Barack Obama, who has said he would kill the repository plan.
At a campaign stop Sunday in Cedar Falls, Iowa, 1,300 miles away from Southern Nevada, McCain continued to show that he doesn’t care about Nevada. He did so by mocking Obama’s concerns about how to safely store spent nuclear fuel, something McCain brought up during their last debate.
“We talked about nuclear power,” McCain said. “Well, it has to be safe environment(ally), blah, blah, blah.” That dismissive response, which drew cheers and applause from Iowans at this McCain rally, showed just how out of touch McCain is with the majority of Nevadans, who steadfastly oppose the dump. If the federal government had instead planned for the dump to be in Arizona, McCain’s home state, do you think he would have taken Obama’s remarks so lightly?
Thu, Oct 30, 2008 (2:06 a.m.)
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/oct/30/blah-blah-blah/
posted October 30, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Korzen really has ot be kidding here…
“Looking back over the past eight years, can we honestly say that the Bush Administration worked to champion Catholic values, even on issues like abortion?”
Yes, he did.
* Bush appointed two judges who will likely overturn Roe
* Appointed numerous pro-life judges to lower courts
* Signed the partial-birth abortion ban, signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, signed the Born Alive Infants Protetion Act
* Stopped taxpayer funding of abortions here and abroad
* De-funded the UNFPA over forced abortions
* Funding pregnancy centers to help pregnant women
* Funded proven abstinence programs to reduce unplanned pregnancies
* Limited taxpayer funding for life-destroying research
* Tried to stop federal drug usage in assisted suicide
* Repeatedly called for a human cloning ban
* Supported Congressional bills to respect parental notification and consent
and the list goes on…
What Krozen ignores of course is how Barack Obama supports unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy and says his first legislation he will sign as president is a bill overturning every single pro-life law that has reduced abortions by as much as 50 percent in some states.
Korzen is all talk and no action and his pro-life case for the candidate who is perhaps the most pro-abortion candidate for president since Roe is prima facie absurd.
How a candidate who will force taxpayers to fund hundreds of thousands of abortions here and in foreign countries, who opposes a partial-birth abortion ban, opposes parental consent, opposes informed consent, opposes pregnancy centers, opposes abstinence education, etc. can be called pro-life is beyond me.
posted October 30, 2008 at 1:48 pm
‘Blah, blah, blah’ article from Las Vegas Sun
McCain’s remarks on nuclear waste storage show his contempt for Nevada
Republican presidential candidate John McCain has said he would support the use of Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the dump site for the nation’s high-level nuclear waste. That is one of many reasons why Nevadans should vote for Democratic opponent Barack Obama, who has said he would kill the repository plan.
At a campaign stop Sunday in Cedar Falls, Iowa, 1,300 miles away from Southern Nevada, McCain continued to show that he doesn’t care about Nevada. He did so by mocking Obama’s concerns about how to safely store spent nuclear fuel, something McCain brought up during their last debate.
“We talked about nuclear power,” McCain said. “Well, it has to be safe environment(ally), blah, blah, blah.” That dismissive response, which drew cheers and applause from Iowans at this McCain rally, showed just how out of touch McCain is with the majority of Nevadans, who steadfastly oppose the dump. If the federal government had instead planned for the dump to be in Arizona, McCain’s home state, do you think he would have taken Obama’s remarks so lightly?
Thu, Oct 30, 2008 (2:06 a.m.)
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/oct/30/blah-blah-blah/
posted October 30, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Well written Korzen…that’s why this Catholic is voting Obama-Biden on the 4th!!
posted October 30, 2008 at 11:38 pm
By calling Archbishop Burke media savvy, Korzen not only completely misses the point, he betrays his intention completely. Burke is as media savvy as a brick wall. Anyone who knows him knows that it is only with great reluctance that he will talk with any reporter, even Catholic ones. And if he goes on television, he’s as exciting to watch as drying paint.
The reason his comments came out in the first place is because the reporter in St Louis knew he had already made a similar ruling just before he left La Crosse (and that was only made public by mere accident) and he asked the Archbishop about John Kerry. That those comments went on to make news and are his basic identifier to anyone who doesn’t know him is not a result of him seeking media attention, but a result of the simple truth he told, but one that is so astonishing to people today since Communion is taken so lightly.
What this reveals is Korzen’s basic belief — that at the core of every Church leader with whom Korzen disagrees on doctrinal issues, there is simply a desire for power and control. That is plainly wrong. There really are bishops who are concerned for the spiritual and physical well-being of their flock and who actually do things for their spiritual edification and not out of self-interest or political ambition. But that does not seem to be in the realm of Korzen’s possibilities.
posted October 30, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Oh, yes. And if he’s going to complain about the bishops getting into politics, let’s see him complain about the millions of dollars contributed by Catholic parishioners to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development that went to ACORN. Oh, but I forgot, this is double-standard time. Nah, can’t say anything about that because it would reflect badly on Obama.
posted November 3, 2008 at 9:15 am
So Catholics are to saty out of politics when it involves abortion, but if it’s civil rights or amnesty for illegals then it’s ok…
posted November 12, 2008 at 7:34 pm
The entire episcopal conference just dissolved your initiative, united with Rome.. and in turn, authentic Catholics can finally unite with them.
This historical victory is 50 million fold superior than the presidential election!
Seems you are always on the loosing side of the battle for God.