EXPONENTIAL HORN

WFUV Media Player

2011-09-18T22:56:00.000-07:00

WFUV Media Player: The Big Broadcast - 9/11/2011

Canon 915: Even the Pope Doesn't Get It Yet?

2010-12-16T22:43:00.000-08:00

In raising two Americans to the Cardinalate, Raymand Burke and Donald Wuerl, the Holy Father raises the question: Does he really "get it" regarding Canon 915?

Cardinal Burke has demonstrated, conclusively, definitively, that giving Communion to pro-abortion Catholics, including pro-abortion Catholics occupying public office, is "grave matter"--or, as lay people are more likely to say, "a mortal sin." (All the other conditions of a formal mortal sin being present.)

When asked recently to explain why so many bishops persist in giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians, Archbishop Burke gave one answer: corruption. None of the excuses such bishops have given hold any water. Primarily, they have claimed, falsely, that Canon 915 is a penal canon, and they therefore have the right to exercise discretion in imposing the "penalty" of denial of Communion. But Canon 915 is not a penal canon, and Cardinal Burke has demonstrated that it imposes a STRICT, GRAVE obligation.

That means, simply, an obligation which leaves one exactly two choices: obedience, or mortal sin. There is no third option, no matter how many in the hierarchy clearly wish to live under that illusion.

Truthfulness and charity require all Catholics who understand this issue to keep reminding bishops and priests of the truth that Cardinal Burke has made clear.

Cardinal Burke's original article on Canon 915:
www.tinyurl.com/canon915

Cardinal-elect Donald Wuerl | Sophistry and Evasion Continue

2010-10-25T14:18:00.000-07:00

http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/response-to-abp-wuerls-claims-that.html

No comment by Archbishop Donald Wuerl has ever responded directly to the conclusive case Archbishop Raymond Burke has made that disobedience to Canon 915 is always grave matter. In this blog post, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters dissects one of Archbishop Wuerl's typical statements.

Archbishop Burke Again Exposes the Sin of Those Who Defy Canon 915 (Dolan, Wuerl, Mahony, et al.)

2010-10-15T18:13:00.000-07:00

http://www.hli.org/files/HE_ArchbishopBurke_Antidote_10_9_10.pdf

Deal Hudson: The Catholic Teakettle Continues to Boil

2010-09-24T20:27:00.001-07:00

http://www.insidecatholic.com/feature/the-catholic-tea-kettle-continues-to-boil.html

Catholics and the Tea Party

2010-06-18T02:55:00.000-07:00

http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8306&Itemid=48

Quote(11) nullification
June 18th, 2010 | 5:45am

The proper response to Roe v. Wade, in accordance with Catholic teaching that a command to commit a crime must be disobeyed, is nullification. The governors, who are commanded by Roe to commit the crime of discriminating against a group of people by denying them the protection of the homicide laws, were and are required by Catholic teaching to disobey.

In April of 1973, Cardinal Krol, president of the NCCB, issued a statement to that effect.

"The bishops" have never again articulated what the Catholic Church's teaching REALLY requires of governors or any other government official with respect to Roe or abortion. What they HAVE done is give medals, honorary degrees, awards, speaking opportunities, lavish funerals, and Communion, to pro-abortion Catholics.

People who have been actual, active pro-lifers know that "the bishops" are marginal, shadowy, irrelevent figures as far as the pro-life movement is concerned.

Written by Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick

Dr. Charles Rice | Commencement Address | Christendom College | May 15, 2010

2010-05-25T11:09:00.000-07:00

CHRISTENDOM COLLEGE

COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS

MAY 15, 2010

CHARLES E. RICE

Professor Emeritus, Notre Dame Law School

      When President O’Donnell asked me to give this address, I expressed one concern: “Will there be a protest? And will you prosecute the protestors? Or at least 88 of them?” He made no commitment. I accepted anyway.
      So what can I tell you? This is a time of crises. The economy is a mess, the culture is a mess, the government is out of control.   And, in the last three years, Notre Dame lost 21 football games. But this is a great time for us to be here, especially you graduates of this superbly Catholic college. This is so because the remedy for the general meltdown today is found only in Christ and in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Let’s talk bluntly about our situation and what you can do about it.
      We are living through a transformation of our federal government. A one-party regime, the leader of which was elected with 54 percent of the Catholic vote, is substituting for the free economy and limited government a centralized command system of potentially unlimited jurisdiction and power. Its takeover of health care, against the manifest will of the people, not only funds elective abortions and endangers the elderly and conscience rights. It was enacted in disregard of legislative process and by a level of bribery, coercion and deception that was as open as it was unprecedented.
      To find a comparable example of the rapid concentration of executive power by a legally installed regime, we have to go back to 1933. Adolf Hitler was named Chancellor on January 30. Over the next few weeks he consolidated his power. The decisive event was the Reichstag’s approval of the Enabling Act on March 23, 1933, by which it ceded full and irrevocable powers to Hitler. That was the point of no return. The Enabling Act received the needed two-thirds vote only because it was supported by the Catholic party, the Centre Party.¹ Our “Health Care Reform,” enacted with the decisive support of Catholic members of both houses of Congress, may be the Enabling Act of our time in the control it cedes to government over the lives of the people. It includes the federal takeover of student aid. What do student loans have to do with health care? The common denominator is control. No student will be able to get a federally guaranteed educational loan without the consent of a federal bureaucrat. This opens the way to make political loyalty a test for educational advancement, as it was in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. This confirms the wisdom of Christendom’s decision to forego all federal aid.
      Unlike Germany in 1933, we have legal means of redress. I am proud to say I am a Tea Party guy. In November, the reaction may dislodge the Congressional arm of the ruling class. But that reaction will be only temporary unless we go to the source of the evil. The root problem is not political or economic. It is religious. And that is where you come in.
      “The social crisis,” said Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, “happens when we elect people to rule over us who are immoral. …. [P]eople who don’t have a moral bearing to elect other moral people, elect immoral politicians to serve over them…. So immoral lifestyles produce immoral leaders.”² In other words, we elect immoral, rather than moral, people because we have lost the ability, or the desire, to tell the difference. The answer, said Fr. Euteneuer, is “to turn back to God. … What we need is a conversion of heart.”
      We rightly urge fidelity to the Constitution. But no paper charter can survive the disappearance of the morality that produced it.   In 2001, thirteen days after 9/11, Pope John Paul II, in Kazakhstan, cautioned the leaders of that Islamic republic against a “slavish conformity” to Western culture which is in a “deepening human, spiritual and moral impoverishment” caused by “the fatal attempt to secure the good of humanity by eliminating God, the Supreme Good.”
      You graduates will enter a culture in which the intentional infliction of death upon the innocent is widely seen as an optional problem-solving technique. The Columbine shootings set a precedent. If you have a grievance against your classmates, fellow employees or IRS agents, the answer is to blow them away. Legalized abortion is the prime example of murder as a problem solver. And the execution of someone like Terri Schiavo occurs routinely, without public notice, when the family and caregivers agree to withhold food and water because it is time for the patient to “die with dignity.” The separation of morality from killing has counterparts in the separation of morality from economics, from sex and from personal decisions in general.
      There is no mystery in this. We are living through what Fr. Francis Canavan, S.J., called “the fag end of the Enlightenment,” the collapse of the effort by philosophers and politicians, over the past three centuries and more, to build a society as if God did not exist.³ That Enlightenment culture is built on three lies, secularism, relativism and individualism. They are components of what Benedict XVI called a “dictatorship of relativism… that recognizes nothing as absolute and which leaves only the ‘I’ and its whims as the ultimate measure.”⁴ Those three lies are weapons deployed by our enemy, Satan, the father of lies. Your job, for which you are well equipped, is to counter his lies with the truth. If you speak the truth, you will have an impact beyond what you know. Cardinal Edouard Gagnon described a conversation he had with John Paul II:

[T]he Holy Father… told me, “error makes its way because truth is not taught. We must teach the truth.… not attacking the ones who teach errors because that would never end—they are too numerous. We have to teach the truth.” He told me truth has a grace attached to it. Anytime we speak the truth…. an internal grace of God… accompanies that truth. The truth may not immediately enter in the mind and heart of those to whom we talk, but the grace of God is there and at the time they need it, God will open their heart and they will accept it. He said, error does not have grace accompanying it.⁵

Remember that Truth, with a capital T, “is a person, Jesus Christ.”⁶ And Christ is not some lawyer, CEO or community organizer. He is God. Cardinal Avery Dulles described three foundational principles: “that there is a God, that he has made a full and final revelation of himself in Jesus Christ and that the Catholic Church is the authorized custodian and teacher of this body of revealed truth.”⁷ The Catholic faith is not a set of doctrines. It is a lived encounter with Christ, who lives in, and teaches through, the Church.⁸
The Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church, is a great gift, not only for Catholics but for others to whose conscience it appeals “on the basis of reason and natural law.”⁹ The forces of evil concentrate their fire on the Vicar of Christ, who is the authoritative interpreter of the moral law. We must respond with loyal defense of him and of the Church. We are not, to borrow Fr. Euteneuer’s phrase, the Church Impotent. We are part of the Church Militant. Our job is to fight for the Truth. Don’t be conned by their lies:

The first lie is secularism: There is no God or he is unknowable. They say that is what the First Amendment means, but that, too, is a lie. On September 24-25, 1789, the First Congress approved the First Amendment and called on the President to proclaim a day of “thanksgiving and prayer… acknowledging… the many … favors of Almighty God.”¹⁰ President Washington proclaimed that day of prayer. The First Amendment required neutrality on the part of the federal government among religious sects while recognizing the power of the state and federal governments to affirm the existence of God. The Supreme Court has now imposed a duty on all governments to maintain an impossible neutrality between theism and non-theism. The words “under God,” according to Justice William Brennan’s still accurate description of the Court’s approach, may remain in the Pledge of Allegiance only because they “no longer have a religious purpose or meaning.” Instead they “may merely recognize the historical fact that our Nation was believed to have been founded ‘under God.’” ¹¹

   At all levels of government, the suspension of judgment on the existence of God has evolved into an establishment of secularism. Today, affirmations of God are considered non-rational, and are generally excluded from the public discourse which is shaped by utility and power rather than right or wrong.
      The existence of God is not self-evident. But it is unreasonable, even stupid, not to believe in God, an eternal being that had no beginning and always existed. The alternative is that there was a time when there was absolutely nothing.    But that makes no sense. St. Thomas Aquinas said, “if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--- which is absurd.”¹² As Julie Andrews put it in The Sound of Music, “Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could.”
   The only basis for transcendent rights against the State is the creation of the immortal person in the image and likeness of God. Every state that has ever existed, or ever will exist, has gone out of business or will go out of business. Every human being that has ever been conceived will live forever. That is why you have transcendent rights against the State. The person does not exist for the State. The State exists for the person. And for the family.

The second lie of Satan is relativism. To say that all things are relative is absurd, for that statement itself must be relative. The jurisprudence of relativism is some form of legal positivism, which asserts that there is no higher law that limits what human law can do. A law of any content is valid if it is enacted pursuant to prescribed procedure and is effective. Hans Kelsen, the leading legal positivist of the 20^th century, said that Auschwitz and the Soviet Gulags were valid law. He could not criticize them as unjust because justice, he said, is “an irrational ideal.”¹³ Kelsen claimed that relativism is the philosophy of democracy. John Paul II said relativism leads instead to totalitarianism: “If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to … impose his own interests … with no regard for the rights of others.”¹⁴

In your personal and professional lives you will be pressured to be a relativist, to lie, cheat or steal. As John Paul put it, the negative prohibitions of the Commandments, which are a specification of the natural law, “allow no exceptions.”¹⁵ But you will pay a price for your fidelity.
Let me tell you a story. Captain James Mulligan, of the United States Navy, spent seven years, half of them in solitary confinement, in the Hanoi Hilton after his plane was shot down in 1966. He was a cell-mate for a time of later Senator Jeremiah Denton. He, as were the others, was tortured severely and often to try to make him betray his fellow prisoners and his country. Captain Mulligan put his reliance on prayer, especially the Rosary. Under torture, he laid it on the line in a prayer he composed that we ought to make our own: “Lord, give me the strength and the guts to see this thing through to the end, one way or another. No one else knows, Lord, but you and I know, and that’s all that’s necessary. You suffered for your beliefs, and I must suffer for mine. Right is right if no one’s right; wrong is wrong if everyone’s wrong.”¹⁶ That is the answer to relativism.

The third lie you will confront is individualism. Social contract theories denied the social nature of man. They postulated a state of nature in which each person was an autonomous, isolated individual with no relation to others unless he consents. That is the origin of pro-choice as we know it today. Planned Parenthood didn’t think it up. The mother has no relation to her unborn child unless she consents. The husband and wife have no continuing relation unless they continue to consent. And so on. The autonomous individual is his own god. Conscience is not a judgment about the objective rightness or wrongness of an act. It is the individual’s unfettered decision as to what he wills to do. Whatever he chooses is, for him, the right thing to do. That is portrayed as the way to freedom. But “authentic freedom” cannot be separated from the truth.¹⁷ You are “free” to choose to put sand in the gas tank of your car. But you will no longer be free to drive your car because you have violated the truth of the nature of your car. You are “free” to choose to lie, to fornicate, etc., but you will diminish yourself because you have violated the truth of your nature. You have chosen the moral equivalent of putting sand in your gas tank. And there is one thing the autonomous individual of liberal mythology can never do. He can never put himself out of existence. He is going to live forever and will spend eternity someplace. Where, is up to him.

      It is time for us to shed our inferiority complex. We allow ourselves to be conned into thinking that the smart guys are the academics who think that something can come from nothing, who are sure that they can’t be sure of anything and who think that freedom means, without limit, the power and right to do whatever they want. This culture has lost not only its faith but also its mind. They need to hear the truth, especially about the right to life.
      But there we have a problem. Our prolife efforts are compromised by our timidity on contraception.    The Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 was the first time that any Christian denomination had ever said that contraception could ever be objectively right. The Magisterium teaches the truth, that contraception is wrong, first, because it deliberately separates the unitive and procreative aspects of sex; second, by so changing the nature of the conjugal act, the man and woman make themselves, rather than God, the arbiters of whether and when life shall begin; and third, contraception frustrates the total mutual self-donation that ought to characterize the conjugal act. If man makes himself the arbiter of whether and when life shall begin, he will make himself the arbiter of when it shall end as in abortion and euthanasia. John Paul II described abortion and contraception as “fruits of the same tree.”¹⁸ If it is man’s decision whether sex will have any relation to reproduction, why can’t Freddy and Harry get a marriage license? In 2004, Pastor Donald Sensing of Trinity United Methodist Church in Franklin, TN, wrote that opponents of same-sex marriage are “a little late. The walls of traditional marriage were breached 40 years ago” with the general acceptance of the contraceptive pill.¹⁹
      God has chosen to depend on human cooperation for the creation of new citizens for the kingdom of heaven. The contracepting couple alter the conjugal act to prevent that creation. What they say to God is something like this: “For all we know, God, it may be your will that from this act of ours a new human person will come into existence who will live forever. For all we know, that may be your will. And we won’t let you do it.” That is awesome. “Contraception,” said John Paul II, “is so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God.”²⁰
      Catholics practice contraception at the same rate as everyone else. One reason is that they have not been adequately informed. Many Catholic churches and schools are closing or consolidating for lack of parishioners and students. A fair response would be respectfully to say: “Most Reverend Bishop (or Father), you would not have this problem if you and your predecessors had been doing your job, over the past four decades and still today, of educating your people about the evil of contraception and about the entire positive teaching of the Church on marriage and the gift of life.” Christendom graduates know the score on this. Don’t be afraid to live it. And teach it, by word and example.
      The link is clear between the premises of the Enlightenment and of contraception and such evils as pornography, promiscuity, divorce, in vitro fertilization, cloning and others.²¹   Scientists at Newcastle University, in England, announced last month that they had created a “designer embryo” with the DNA of one man and two women, a child with two mothers.²² Our scientists are probably not far behind.
      Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, addressed this point in 2002. He discussed the description in Genesis 3 of the posting of angels east of Eden with flaming swords to keep man, after the Fall, from eating of the Tree of Life. After the Fall, man was forbidden to eat of that tree which gave immortality, “since to be immortal in this [fallen] condition would… be perdition.” People are now, Ratzinger said, “starting to pick from the tree of life and make themselves lords of life and death, to reassemble life….[P]recisely what man was supposed to be protected from is now… happening; he is crossing the final boundary….[M]an makes other men his own artifacts. Man no longer originates in the mystery of love, by… conception and birth… but is produced industrially, like any other product…. [W]e can … be certain of this: God will take action to counter an ultimate crime, an ultimate act of self-destruction, on the part of man. He will take action against the attempt to demean mankind by the production of slave-beings. There are indeed final boundaries we cannot cross….”²³
      This is serious business. Nineveh repented, prayed and was spared. Sodom and Gomorrah did not and were destroyed.²⁴ Those options could be ours.
      If we look at all this in merely human terms, our cause is hopeless. But we don’t depend on our own strength. And we don’t know everything. Don’t be discouraged when bad things happen. “God permits everything,” said St. Maximilian Kolbe, “in view of a greater blessing.”²⁵ Trust God. Fr. Walter Ciszek, S.J., who spent 23 years in Soviet prisons, said what God wants, especially in times of adversity or danger, is “an act of total trust,” demanding “absolute faith: faith in God’s existence, in his providence, in his concern for the minutest detail, in his power to sustain me, and in his love protecting me.”²⁶
      Trust God. And pray, especially, to Mary, his Mother and ours. At Lepanto in 1571, the odds against the Christian fleet were so great that Las Vegas would have taken that bet off the board. But they prayed the Rosary and Mary gave the victory. She can take care of our problems today. This really is a great time for us to be here. We know we are on the winning side. God is not dead. He isn’t even tired.
      Thank you for the privilege to be with you. God bless you, your families and Christendom College. And God bless the United States of America.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan on "Immigration": the comments continue...

2010-05-23T01:46:00.000-07:00

Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

May 23, 2010 at 3:41 am

“Dwight Spivey says:
April 30, 2010 at 8:34 am
A response from Archbishop Dolan to the comments on this page would be greatly appreciated by all, I’m sure. I understand he is busier than I can possibly imagine, but please don’t give us such an inflammatory and divisive statement and not respond to our honest and sincere comments on it. Thank you.”

Dwight:
Demagogues don’t answer questions. They just put out their propaganda and fool who they can fool, and then move on. Notice how Obama doesn’t have press conferences. Notice how the White House never issues any statements “explaining” or "clarifying" his countless lies about taxes, health care, the Arizona law, etc. There’s never any: “What I meant to say was…” There’s just silence. Questions don’t really exist. Notice that Obama has never returned a phone call or answered a letter from Gov. Jan Brewer. People who don’t agree (i.e., have not been duped) are not worthy to receive any answer.

http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/05/11/the-dignity-and-worth-of-every-person/

2010-05-22T20:30:00.001-07:00

http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/05/11/the-dignity-and-worth-of-every-person/

http://yesbuthowever.com/archbishop-8138826/

2010-05-22T20:28:00.001-07:00

http://yesbuthowever.com/archbishop-8138826/

usccb's memo to a battered wife: no taking names!

2010-05-18T01:43:00.000-07:00

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37001

Kevin Appleby, a spokesperson for the USCCB, said the organization works with who they can on each individual issue. [S]aid Appleby. “If we took names every time that a legislator disagreed with us and said we’re not going to work with them anymore, we wouldn’t be very effective.”

There's the problem. Get kicked in the teeth, come back for more. Get kicked in the teeth again, come back for more. Get kicked in the teeth, come back for more. To do otherwise would be "taking names."

In order to do his job AS A BISHOP, a bishop MUST "take names." I.e., a bishop must take note of the fact that a prominent Catholic has become MANIFESTLY WICKED. When a MANIFESTLY WICKED Catholic parades up to receive Communion, a blow is struck against the Church.

What IS a Catholic bishop? 1) a shepherd of souls, custodian of the truth and the sacraments, protector of the Church against scandalous wolves? 2) a meek, suppliant wether in a herd (the USCCB) that lobbies in Washington for the expansion of the Marxist central government?

Thanks to Kevin Appleby for inadvertently pointing out a major reason that the USCCB is a corrosive, corrupting force in the Church. Aside from liturgical atrocities and rhetorical tricks that kneecapped the pro-life movement, the other principle legacy of Joseph Bernardin is the Church's addiction to taxpayers' money.

As long as Canon 915 is dead letter, the pro-aborts will continue eating the heart out of the Catholic Church in America, with each sacrilegious Communion--purchased from the bishops with government money.

dolan, chaput, dinardo, george, etc., etc.--in bed with ALINSKY network

2010-05-11T20:31:00.000-07:00

The colonization of the Catholic Church in America by Saul Alinsky is complete. A Catholic diocese is hardly a diocese without myriad ties to Alinskyite organizations promoting amnesty for and legalization of illegal aliens--not to mention abortion, gay marriage, and other fronts in the Left's war on Western Civilization. Thank Joseph Bernardin (D-Chicago) for much of Alinsky's success on these fronts.

http://www.speroforum.com/site/print.asp?idarticle=32146

http://www.speroforum.com/site/print.asp?idarticle=32608

fr. pfleger's ghostwriter

2010-05-10T20:51:00.000-07:00

Here’s one bishop (Timothy Dolan, D-NY) who’s taking orders from Archbishop ("you need to preach amnesty from the pulpit") Pelosi:

http://blog.archny.org/?p=652&cpage=1#comments

big crackdown on doctrinal deviations: archbishop pelosi calls on fellow bishops to "instruct" voters against dissent

2010-05-08T00:02:00.000-07:00

Who are the cardinals, archbishops, bishops coming to Archbishop Pelosi for instruction in the Catholic Faith?

Fox News

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday urged Catholic leaders to "instruct" their parishioners to support immigration reforms, saying clerics should "play a very major role" in supporting Democratic policies.

"The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me and say, 'We want you to pass immigration reform,' and I said, 'I want you to speak about it from the pulpit. I want you to instruct your' -- whatever the communication is," said Pelosi, who is Catholic, speaking at the Nation's Catholic Community conference sponsored by Trinity Washington University and the National Catholic Reporter.

"The people, some (who) oppose immigration reform, are sitting in those pews, and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the gospels," she said.

While it's not unusual for clergy to speak about politics from the pulpit, it is uncommon for a lawmaker to openly encourage them to preach a specific policy.

Asked for clarification, a Pelosi spokesman issued the statement: "From health care to energy security to immigration reform, the speaker believes the faith community has played and will continue to play a critical role in our national debate."

Pelosi said the church "has an important role to play" in teaching about dignity and respect, and "as a practical matter" it's not possible to tell 12 million illegal immigrants to "go back to wherever you came from or go to jail."

After Arizona passed a controversial immigration law, with Gov. Jan Brewer saying she was forced to act because Congress hasn't, Washington has been at a loss on how to proceed on new federal policies that could put millions of illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. Lawmakers on both sides admit that passing a bill during this election year is highly unlikely.

The Arizona law, which is slated to take effect July 29, makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally. It directs police to question people about their immigration status when they may be in the country illegally and when they already are the subject of police contact.

In other remarks at the Catholic briefing, Pelosi said she prays for her colleagues all the time, Democrats and Republicans alike.

"It's a beautiful thing to listen to different points of view. From a religious perspective we come from a similar Catholic background but sometimes we have to come to a different conclusion about how we translate that into public policy," she said.

Gov. Jan Brewer's YouTube response to Obama jokes about illegal aliens in Arizona

2010-05-07T21:43:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLgZ1LWLlko

Operation Rescue Exposé of Southwestern Women's Options in Albuqueque, N.Mex.

2010-05-06T19:01:00.000-07:00

"Abortion Capital" Series Exposes

Horrific Late-Term Abortion Business

May 6, 2010

Albuquerque, NM - Operation Rescue has released the final installment of a five part series of investigative reports titled "Abortion Capital," exposing the dangers of the new late-term abortion business, Southwestern Women's Options in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Part One explains how permissive abortion laws in New Mexico drew the late-term abortion industry to that state when the infamous Women's Health Care Services (WHCS) in Wichita, Kansas, permanently closed last year.

Parts 2-4 focus on each abortionist who works at Southwestern Women's Options, including Texas abortionist Curtis Boyd, and California abortionists Shelley Sella and Susan Robinson, who worked for WHCS doing abortions through the latest stages of pregnancy.

Part Five explores the late-term abortion method used by Boyd, Sella, and Robinson, and documents complications and reaction from other abortionists who consider it to be unsafe.

"We expect that there will be serious, life threatening emergencies at Boyd's abortion clinic just like there were at WHCS, where the Induction abortion method was developed. Women need to be warned of the very real dangers that they face at Boyd's Albuquerque clinic. It is only a matter of time before a woman dies from abortion complications there," said Newman. "The nature of the process makes it inevitable."

"We plan to use every legal option available to close this clinic for the protection of women and their viable babies. The first step is to raise public awareness and warn others of the dangers so they don't fall victim to this predatory late-term abortion mill, and we pray that the Abortion Capital series of reports will help do that."

Read the entire series:

Abortion Capital, Pt. 1: The Wild, Wild West
Abortion Capital, Pt. 2: "Am I Killing? Yes, I am. I know that"
Abortion Capital, Pt. 3: "A baby came out and it was moving"
Abortion Capital, Pt. 4: The Dancing Dog
Abortion Capital, Pt. 5: "We think the process is safe. Nothing is perfect"

Archbishop Timothy Dolan on "Immigration": Comments Continue

2010-05-01T18:23:00.000-07:00

http://blog.archny.org/?p=652#comments

Fran Rossi Szpylczyn says:

April 28, 2010 at 5:42 am

Thank you for your words on this subject Archbishop Dolan. It strikes me that most Catholics, who do either agree or feel ambivalent about the Arizona law, might not really fully comprehend the heft of anti-Catholic protest that you present here. Legal or not, Catholics were reviled and hated. And it was in that very cauldron that our faith thrived in this land. There is a lesson there, but that is another story for another day!
A few points about the draconian nature of the bill…
One is that there are numerous Arizonans who are “brown skinned” (the use of that language causes me to shudder) and are of Mexican heritage. Their families have been in Arizona long before it was Arizona. Now they have to produce “proof” of who they are? I personally find that, as an American and as a Catholic, appalling. And I say this as a Catholic who had a Jewish father. I do not have to scratch the surface very far to think of my own relatives who had to carry and produce identification that ultimately lead to their own suffering and untimely deaths.
To those who wish to say it is different, it is not. The good people of that time had many of the same “justifications” that I see here and elsewhere.
Another point is that this burdens numerous already over-burdened law enforcement agencies in Arizona. Imagine that the NYC police would have to take this on… Think on that for a moment and imagine its implications.
Who is speaking of the “rights” of those who have entered illegally? I don’t know about anyone else, but I think that this issue and Archbishop Dolan’s post are an invitation into a greater understanding of basic human dignity. We live in such perilous and punitive times; God have mercy on us all.
My final point would be that we must all approach the topics that are most visceral for us and the things that make us uncomfortable with great curiosity and not just steadfastness. If we do so with our faith and the enormity of our great Catholic tradition, we might all be astounded as to where we are led. I remind myself of this as well as there are numerous issues that my faith challenges me to see with new eyes. Such is the process of our faith.

Fran Rossi Szpylczyn says:

April 29, 2010 at 9:28 pm

While I agree with you, I am both curious and bemused by the dissenting commenters. How is church teaching right except for when one disagrees with it? And trust me – no one would easily call me a rule-bound person. (Not that I am breaking them either!)
Dissenting commenters – do you think you know more than the good Archbishop? Perhaps you do, perhaps you do.
Perhaps when we disagree with authority we should ask more questions.
Or maybe just lean into our discomfort about what we disagree with and what we actually know about it.
I say this as someone who is no stranger to disagreement. Expressing it is easy. Examining it and submitting to truth… Not. So. Much.
Fascinating post and thread. Human dignity still hangs in the balance.

Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

May 1, 2010 at 8:12 pm

Fran Rossi Szpylczyn:

Please note that everything Archbishop Dolan had to say was about “immigration.” Since the Arizona law is about ILLEGAL immigration, one could justly say that Archbishop Dolan’s comments were not even about the Arizona law, but some imaginary law in Archbishop Dolan’s cranium.

But assuming that Archbishop Dolan was actually commenting on the situation in Arizona, nothing he had to say had anything to do with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Thus, none of the “dissenters”–people disagreeing with the Archbishop–is disagreeing with any teaching of the Catholic Church.

I.e., none of these “dissenters” is being selective about the teaching of the CHURCH. So your original question is simply irrelevant.

Comments by an Archbishop about a law that doesn’t exist. Comments by an Archbishop that have nothing to do with Catholic teaching. Comments by an Archbishop that smear decent Americans seeking to protect themselves from mayhem, theft, home invasions, cop-killing, decapitations and other forms of murder, etc., all the while failing to acknowledge the existence of any of these ongoing horrors.

I await Archbishop Dolan’s upcoming comments about the whiners in Haiti, gobbling up international aid when there really was no earthquake.

Democrat Party Hack caught impersonating Archbishop of New York! "Archbishop Timothy Dolan" posts pro-chaos rant! Confuses "immigration" with ILLEGAL immigration!

2010-04-29T23:30:00.000-07:00

Archbishop Dolan’s screed was disgraceful and juvenile, filled with mockery of decent Americans as racists, nativists, Know-Nothings, etc. He even mocked their supposed patterns of speech: “‘for’ner.’” He contributed NOTHING to the discussion in the way of facts OR principles. His endorsement of the fact-blind ideology of Cardinal Mahony is shocking. Right out of the box, he misrepresents the issue as “immigration,” when the issue is ILLEGAL immigration.

Fortunately, Abp. Dolan’s own blog is filled with factual, intelligent responses to his comments, from people on the ground in Arizona, and from well-informed Catholics. That is, people who cite the relevant passages of the Catechism–something Abp. Dolan failed to do in his insulting, bigoted rant.

If a bishop has something to say that illuminates a current public issue with the light of Catholic teaching, he should speak. If all he has to offer are the talking points of the left-most wing of one political party, he is abusing his office as a bishop.

Archbishop Dolan has established himself over the past few months as just such a bishop. Unless he develops an understanding of where his authority as a bishop begins and ends, he is not an asset to the Church, but a destructive, misleading voice, and deserves to be called out on his irresponsibility by both clergy and laity.

Archbishop Dolan's nastier, even more insulting version of Mahonyism

2010-04-29T22:58:00.000-07:00

The Gospel in the Digital Age

Immigration Reform

Here we go again!

Anyone who does not believe that “history repeats itself” has only to take a look at the unfortunate new law in Arizona.

Throughout American history, whenever there is tension and turmoil in society — economic distress, political rifts, war, distrust and confusion in culture — the immigrant unfailingly becomes the scapegoat.

It’s a supreme paradox in our American culture — where every person unless a Native American, is a descendent of immigrants — that we seem to harbor an ingrained fear of “the other,” which, in our history, is usually the foreigner (immigrant), the Jew, the Catholic, or the black. (cf. Religious Outsiders, by R. L. Moore, or Immigrants and Exiles, by K. Miller).

So we can chart periodic spasms of “anti-immigrant” fever in our nation’s history: the Nativists of the 1840’s, who led mobs to torch Irish homes and Catholic churches; the Know-Nothings of the 1850’s who wanted to deny the vote to everyone except white, Protestant, native-born, “pure” Americans; the American Protective Association of the 1880’s and 1890’s who were scared of the arrival of immigrants from Italy, Poland, and Germany; the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920’s who spewed hate against blacks, Jews, Catholics, and “forn-ers”; the “eugenics movement” of the 1920’s and 1930’s who worried that racial purity was being compromised by the immigrant and non-Anglo Saxon blood lines; and the Protestants and Other Americans United of the 1950’s who were apprehensive about Catholic immigrants and their grandkids upsetting the religious and cultural concord of America.

And, here we go again! Arizona is so scared, apparently, and so convinced that the #1 threat to society today is the immigrant that it has passed a mean-spirited bill of doubtful constitutionality that has as its intention the expulsion of the immigrant.

What history teaches us, of course, is that not only are such narrow-minded moves unfair and usually unconstitutional, but they are counterproductive and harmful.

Because the anti-immigrant strain in our American heritage, however strong, is not dominant. Thank God, there’s another sentiment in our national soul, and that’s one of welcome and embrace to the immigrant.
That’s the ethos we New Yorkers are most at home with, as we look out at the Statue of Liberty, whose torch of welcome has caused tears of joy in the eyes of millions of our grandparents as they arrive exhausted and nearly desperate, and as we today live next door to Latino, Haitian, Asian and mid-eastern neighbors.

That’s the ethos most especially a part of the Catholic — the word means everybody — culture, which has been a spiritual mother to immigrants to America, who were and are mostly Catholic, who have found a home in parishes and schools which helped get them moved-in and settled in America.

From even a purely business point of view, a warm welcome to immigrants is known to be good for the economy and beneficial for a society.

To welcome the immigrant, to work hard for their legalization and citizenship, to help them feel at home, to treat them as neighbors and allies in the greatest project of human rights and ethnic and religious harmony in history — the United States of America — flows from the bright, noble side of our American character.

To blame them, stalk them, outlaw them, harass them, and consider them outsiders is unbiblical, inhumane, and un-American.

Yes, every society has the duty to protect its borders and thoughtfully monitor its population. The call is to do this justly, sanely, and civilly.
My brother bishops in Arizona worry this is not the case there. They have been joined by Cardinal Roger Mahony, Jewish, other Christians, and various civic and human rights groups.

I’m on their side.

I want history to repeat itself — but the “Statue of Liberty side,” not the Nativist side.

P.S. I thought you might be interested in a presentation on immigration reform that will be given at Fordham University on Monday, May 3. Cardinal Mahony will speak on “Our Heritage & Our Future: Why Enacting Comprehensive Immigration Reform Is a Moral Imperative.” Click here to view details on his presentation.
Tags: Cardinal Roger Mahony, Immigration Reform

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 27th, 2010 at 8:44 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

36 Responses to “Immigration Reform”

Irene says:
April 27, 2010 at 10:10 am
Will the USCCB be issuing a statement condemning the Arizona law? That would be helpful to Catholics everywhere, especially those in Arizona and in states contemplating similar legislation.
Christina Weigler says:
April 27, 2010 at 11:38 am
The folks of Arizona are scared of illegal immigrants. My family came to this country legally. We cannot divide those two realities. Compassion for those families being killed by the illegal immigrant populations coming to kill in the name of drugs, that is fear. If our government will not defend our borders, the states must.
Janelle says:
April 27, 2010 at 11:49 am
While I do appreciate your words I will agree to disagree. This bill is not mean spirited, nor is it an attempt to persecute the poor immigrants. There are laws in this country and while they are not perfect (they could never be), God does not call for us to break the law because we don’t agree with it or the time frame is too long. There are legal ways to come into this country and they should be used. Not everyone will gain access, life is not fair – we were not promised that it would be. No one is advocating for the mistreatment of illegal immigrants, human rights are a basic right that we should afford everyone. Civil rights are reserved for the people of this country, it is obvious that if you are willing to break the law from the onset that you will have no problem doing so again. Arizona has had MANY problems that result from illegal immigrants and they have a right to protect their people (legal residents of all races) as the Federal government has not been doing their job.
Greg Lamatrice says:
April 27, 2010 at 12:02 pm
I will not disagree with the Archbishop. I would only point out, as the great-grandson of immigrants – that in all of the great immigration events that he mentions, the immigrants in question came in through government points/ports of entry, were registered, screened for health issues, etc. I have no issue with immigrants, but there should be an established set of rules by which America welcomes the immigrant but also rules by which the immigrant abides. Is the issue one of immigration per se or is it legal vs. illegal and the state, and thereby its taxpayers, are being inundated/forced to provide benefits to persons not paying into the system?
Jason says:
April 27, 2010 at 12:11 pm
I encourage the Archdiocese to reach out to national TV media outlets (especially those obsessed with the demonization of the Church via the sex abuse scandals) and offer Archbishop Dolan as a guest willing to speak on the immigration issue.
Thomas says:
April 27, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Bless the Good News. God saves!
Christopher says:
April 27, 2010 at 1:03 pm
I am really undecided on how I feel about this whole issue. On one hand, I respect the fact that we are all sons and daughters of immigrants, with the exception of the American Indians, and so there is a sense that we need to be sensitive to those who are in search of a better life and brighter future in the United States.
On the other hand, I’m not sure that I would necessarily consider this bill in Arizona to be “mean spirited.” There are the residents of Arizona whose safety we certainly need to be concerned about; I don’t hear that mentioned often in the discussion. It is their safety the state (and federal) government needs to be concerned with, along with their property, crops, livestock, etc. Additionally, 60%of the drugs that enter the US come in through Arizona which is huge national problem. So perhaps it is with good cause that the people of Arizona are “scared” and believe this is a priority.
I’m not sure why the focus is almost exclusively directed at protecting the “rights” of those who have entered the country illegally. Stemming the violence, the crime, the drug trafficking is the responsibility of elected officials and law enforcement. Additionally, the state bill states that it is “to be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens.” It is not as if Arizona’s governor is just acting on a whim. All this legislation did was make it a state crime to be in the country illegally; it is already a federal crime (8 U.S.C. § 1325). Why isn’t anyone calling that a racist? I think it is because the federal government has been so impotent in dealing with the issue that no one views the federal government as doing anything serious about it; therefore, they get a pass. Additionally, the state bill “requires the person’s immigration status to be verified with the federal government pursuant to federal law.” So it is not as if some backwater sheriff is the sole authority on someone’s immigration status; it is still the federal government that determines a person’s eligibility.
I just really don’t feel either side of the argument is doing a good job of presenting an accurate justification for their position; however, my initial feeling is that if the governor of Arizona did a better job of stating her state’s position (i.e. crime statistics, financial data related to immigration, etc) then I would be more inclined to their position.
Gary J Sibio says:
April 27, 2010 at 1:27 pm
The archbishops comments are based on the media reports of this bill which have been misleading at best. The bill does not discriminate against anyone. It only allows the police to investigate the legal status of someone they are investigating for another reason. Illegal aliens have no right to be in this country in the first place so their rights are not being infringed upon.
Before you condemn any political entity for wanting to get the illegal alien problem under control, maybe you should take a look at what illegal aliens are doing to this country.
I’m all for immigration as long as they enter the country legally. We have to know who is entering the country. We need to make sure they are healthy and have no criminal record.
I work in a parish which has a large number of legal and illegal Mexican immigrants. I’ve talked about this issue with some of those who are here legally. They want tighter controls on illegals also. They would like to get their relatives into the country, but the illegals are making that more difficult.
Marla says:
April 27, 2010 at 3:22 pm
I would like to respectfully point out that legal immigration and illegal immigration are not the same thing. Perhaps we should do something to reform our immigration laws, and perhaps I do not understand the Arizona law well enough, but it does not seem to me that the citizens of Arizona are being unfair.
Claudia says:
April 27, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Why are we Catholics supposed to be more concerned for the villians than the victims when it comes to illegal immigrants? Why are we being pushed to support those who break the laws of our nation all in the name of corporal works of mercy? With all due respect to the archbishop and every other Catholic leader who advocates support for those who come to this country illegally—I am not going to pretend the laws of this nation do not matter and I will not pretend those who are here ILLEGALLY are simply victims of \mean spirited\ laws.
If we start disreguarding the laws which we find inconvenient, how then do we teach our children to obey the laws of our Catholic faith which we find inconvenient or may not fully support or understand?
I am deeply saddened that the leaders of my faith seem to be aligning themselves with human smugglers, drug dealers, and vile criminals …all in the name of \social justice\
All support for the illegal aliens will accomplish is MORE illegal aliens, and every illegal person who comes to this country via Mexico comes through a coyote—to pretend otherwise is foolish.
Karen Williams says:
April 27, 2010 at 8:24 pm
With all due respect Archbishop, while Mexico may be unsafe, unstable and undesirable, I’m not sure the best place for a Latina is necessarily in Arizona. Where healthcare reform has ushered in a new age for “reproductive freedom” paid for by the American taxpayer we will welcome across our borders new Mexican families and shuttle them to Planned Parenthood facilities to rob them of their hard-earned money , kill their mexican babies and place them on Depo Provera. Because we failed to elect a president and legislators that would have prevented this travesty, because we failed to live up to our baptismal calling to follow our conscience on such matters, the blood-letting expands now to all immigrants –especially the hispanic population– because our minds have not changed on this since the eugenics movement began. Yes, we have a problem that needs to be solved with immigration. Yes, the Jan Brewer bill seems to be a response to the killing, drug proliferation and ridiculousness of our current system to protect our borders from those who are not citizens here. But what, when, where, how will someone come up with real solutions rather than offer their criticisms? We may be sheep, but we are not dupes. We need life-affirming laws that actually do something. Prudentially speaking, what is wrong with enacting the laws that protect US borders? Ah yes..come to America where we can offer you coupons to Planned Parenthood.
Karen Williams
Phoenix, AZ
Chris Lynch says:
April 27, 2010 at 8:47 pm
It is unfortunate that the AZ law is perceived as something new, because it is not.
I live 35 miles from the California/Mexico border. EVERY WEEK you can see in the media that the federal authorities (used to be INS, now ICE) conduct sweeps of areas known to harbor illegal immigrants, put them on buses, and process them for deportation. Dept of Homeland Security – Customs and Border Protection does the same thing near my SoCal neighborhood, with its network of ships, airplanes, jeeps, cameras, microphones, etc. The same thing happens in Arizona.
These people are put on buses to Mexico or airplanes to Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, or wherever. This has been going on every day for DECADES. So there’s #1–nothing new.
#2: I have not heard any of the critics mention any country in the world where immigrants are not required to carry papers. Wanna go Mexico? Be sure to bring papers. How about the UK, or Ireland, Australia, or New Zealand? Bring those papers, you’ll need ‘em if you don’t want to be deported.
William says:
April 27, 2010 at 10:58 pm
First of all, if this law can stop the illegal drug trafficking that is occurring so frequently across the bordering countries, then Arizona’s governor can’t have had purely mean intentions. This drug war is killing people on all sides of the fence.
I do hope for some kind of immigration reform, but those who entered this country illegally have made it unfair for those who follow the procedures necessary to enter the country. To support this illegal activity is kind of like applauding someone for cutting in line when the people who got in line first have been waiting for hours.
On top of it all, after entering illegally, these people who came seeking for a better life often get the worst working conditions, unfair pay, etc. And from my understanding, they do pay certain taxes (deducted before it gets into their paychecks), but are too scared to redeem many benefits for fear of being deported.
This law, however, has way too much potential for abuse by authority figures and I do not see it lasting. Some reform is needed.
Fran Rossi Szpylczyn says:
April 28, 2010 at 5:42 am
Thank you for your words on this subject Archbishop Dolan. It strikes me that most Catholics, who do either agree or feel ambivalent about the Arizona law, might not really fully comprehend the heft of anti-Catholic protest that you present here. Legal or not, Catholics were reviled and hated. And it was in that very cauldron that our faith thrived in this land. There is a lesson there, but that is another story for another day!
A few points about the draconian nature of the bill…
One is that there are numerous Arizonans who are “brown skinned” (the use of that language causes me to shudder) and are of Mexican heritage. Their families have been in Arizona long before it was Arizona. Now they have to produce “proof” of who they are? I personally find that, as an American and as a Catholic, appalling. And I say this as a Catholic who had a Jewish father. I do not have to scratch the surface very far to think of my own relatives who had to carry and produce identification that ultimately lead to their own suffering and untimely deaths.
To those who wish to say it is different, it is not. The good people of that time had many of the same “justifications” that I see here and elsewhere.
Another point is that this burdens numerous already over-burdened law enforcement agencies in Arizona. Imagine that the NYC police would have to take this on… Think on that for a moment and imagine its implications.
Who is speaking of the “rights” of those who have entered illegally? I don’t know about anyone else, but I think that this issue and Archbishop Dolan’s post are an invitation into a greater understanding of basic human dignity. We live in such perilous and punitive times; God have mercy on us all.
My final point would be that we must all approach the topics that are most visceral for us and the things that make us uncomfortable with great curiosity and not just steadfastness. If we do so with our faith and the enormity of our great Catholic tradition, we might all be astounded as to where we are led. I remind myself of this as well as there are numerous issues that my faith challenges me to see with new eyes. Such is the process of our faith.
Will Haun says:
April 28, 2010 at 6:03 am
With great respect to the Archbishop, I think he steps beyond his competence here to his own embarrassment. Calling the Arizona bill “mean spirited” without actually demonstrating how it is so (especially when, in nearly every respect) it mirrors federal law is troubling – unless he’s prepared to argue that current federal law is also “mean … See Morespirited.” Even so, it would be worth pointing out what actually is “mean” about the bill.
Additionally, arguing this bill is of “questionable constitutionality,” also without any additional citation is a bit much for me. I and others have read the bill a few times looking for sound constitutional arguments against it, and I’m hard pressed to find any winners at this point.
Finally, I think the Archbishop’s comments, probably unintentionally, runs afoul of Rerum Nevarum and the dignity of the human person in a sense. Here he says “[f]rom even a purely business point of view, a warm welcome to immigrants is known to be good for the economy and beneficial for a society.” He’s right, “from…a purely business point of view,” it most certainly is – because illegal aliens (a distinction the Archbishop does not make in his post, to the point of conflation with legal immigrant) are seen as purely cheap labor by big business – an “economic unit” as Teddy Roosevelt warned against. This kind of mentality is not what the Catholic Church’s teachings should be condoning by using it as a secondary argument for amnesty, and the further erosion of national citizenship.
David West says:
April 28, 2010 at 7:02 am
I respectfully disagree with the Archbishop.There is a drug war going on in Mexico at this time perhaps the Archbishop would factor that into his decision making process regarding this issue. Arizona being on the very border of Mexico has to supply security and order for her citizens.Certainly the lives of people lost to the drug trade either when at war when bodies line the streets or when they are at peace with one another only to sell drugs to families are not advantageous or preferable to the Church. This is not a high brow political issue in regards to a European Enlightenment issue exclusively, there are base financial and egoistic demands that are met out by these groups which hold the average human life in the greatest contempt towards the accomplishment of those ends.
I hope that the Archbishop may revisit this issue with this in mind.
Sue Widemark says:
April 28, 2010 at 7:02 am
Dear Archbishop Dolan, this OP is simply wonderful!!!!!! Not only are you an excellent writer but I truly feel you are so speaking from the Holy Spirit!! And you are courageous to publish this article and I, for one, really appreciate your courage! I have admired you for some time, but now I admire you even more and I have shared this article with all of my friends, mailing lists etc! I don’t know what it is which makes us so afraid of “the other” but you are so right…we are so forgetting things like the Statue of Liberty and the words…”give me your tired, your poor…” and our constitution! Well, you said it all! One visitor to our home said that “when we needed those undocumented immigrants, we ignored them here except to work them hard and pay them little and now that we think we don’t need them, we “suddenly” get “worried” about the law!”… and to think that most folks in the USA who are so upset about “illegals” “breaking the law” have gone over the speed limit, driven “under the influence”, pirated software and lied on their income tax forms! hmmmm I think Our Lord did address that issue when He spoke of “Whited Sepulchers”! Thank you so much for this wonderful article and for being you – you are such a blessing to all of us!
Bev says:
April 28, 2010 at 10:51 am
It has always been about the vote. Most of the democrates spin the story for power and do not intend to fix any problem. Drugs,murders and kidnappings require an honest look at the reality. It is much to simple to choose the “easy” side and do the politically correct thing. That is why planned parenthood and our tax dollars are being used to murder babies with the presidents’wink. It is time for the church to stop pleasing everyone and teach truth. Do not pick a side-teach honesty. It is unfortunate that this article spins one side and wants to simply make the problem go away by demeaning those who have the courage to face reality.
Mary says:
April 28, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Immigration politics will be the death of us as a country and further divide the American Church. Immigration politics is a tool of the culture of death who deceive with language I am very unhappy that the Church is deceived into taking the side of Caesar.
Recall the concept of “Newspeak” in 1984 — if you control the language, you control the way people express things, and therefore, ultimately, how they look at things.
The Catholic Church is already characterized as anti-science. Our political culture got hold of the language during the stem cell wars and cleverly moved the language away (with considerable help from the like-minded media) from distinguishing between embryo and adult stem cells. Consequently, though we are only opposed to anti-life embryo destruction, we are portrayed as opposed to “stem cell research” in the public square.
Pro-choice. Anti-choice. Not abortion. Not life. Get the language and control the argument.
The Church is on course to do the same with immigration unless we carefully distinguish between illegal and legal immigration. The Arizona bill is about illegal immigration and the problems of border enforcement, crime, public safety and God knows what else in that state. Illegal immigrants. Not all immigrants. It is not about whether we are for immigrants or against them.
Those of us not in conformity with the bishops on this issue should not be characterized as anti-immigrant, even in a subtle way. This is not the America that my immigrant grandmother and father raised their families in. It is a left-leaning, progressive, pro-death America getting worse by the day. It does not reflect Catholic values. It does not have God anywhere is the narrative. How long will it be before the immigrant unborn will be tossed on the altar of Planned Parenthood abortuaries in the name of progress towards the American dream? I will never agree to cooperate with the present political culture.
Dwight Spivey says:
April 28, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Archbishop Dolan, you have been and still remain a hero of mine in our Church. However, I must respectfully state my extreme disappointment with this article. What is it about the term “illegal” that some people just don’t seem to understand? I welcome with open arms anyone who wants to immigrate legally, but I’m not so welcoming to those who don’t respect the laws of this country. If they don’t respect the immigration laws, who’s to say they will respect the remainder of federal, state, and local laws? Please explain to the faithful how you can reckon your opinion with Church doctrine and the laws of this country.
David Cruz-Uribe, SFO says:
April 28, 2010 at 2:23 pm
My blessings go out to the Archbishop for taking such a forthright stand grounded in both charity and justice. I am continually saddened by the nature of the criticisms, since they are grounded in fear and half-truths.
First, it is worth pointing out to many of the people who are justifying themselves as a child/grandchild/great-grandchild of immigrants: if you shake your family tree, something uncomfortable may fall out. My father immigrated to the U.S. in 1939; it was only after he died and we went through his papers that we discovered he was an illegal immigrant who got his status regularized some years after the fact. My wife discovered that her grandfather was an illegal immigrant who never got things sorted out.
Third, in practice the Arizona law will be used to target Hispanics, and many of them will be US Citizens. I really doubt that an illegal immigrant from Ireland or Poland (among the largest groups of illegal immigrants here in CT) will be stopped or questioned about their citizenship if they are stopped. However, when this was tried back in the past, Mexican-Americans in LA were routinely stopped and asked for their papers. Cheech Marin ridicules this in his movie “Born in East LA”: the hero, who can barely speak Spanish, is deported because he can’t prove he is an American.
Second, disabuse yourselves of the notion that illegal immigrants are here to rob, steal and murder. Most of them want jobs. As Barbara Ehrenreich said, you can only compare illegal immigrants to people breaking into your house if the people breaking in clean your bathroom and wash your dishes.
Jim says:
April 28, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Your Excellency- please explain how the bill is –
“mean-spirited”
similar to the “KKK”
“To blame them,
stalk them,
outlaw them,
harass them,
and consider them outsiders”
Also, in New York there are not 500,000 ILLIEGAL Latino, Haitian, Asian and mid-eastern neighbors, they mostly came according to the law..I am sure there are a few illegals.
The bill wants to enforce legislation against ILLEGAL immigrants. We are all for LEGAL immigration.
“Do you imagine that a State can subsist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power”~ Plato
annmarie says:
April 28, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Dear Archbishop Dolan,
I believe that you say what you do out of belief that it is the right thing.
However, so do I. I live on the border. My great-grandparents were in Mexico in the 1800s and came to the United States in 1910, during the Mexican revolution. I look white though and because of that have an understanding of both sides of the issue.
These facts have forced me to study the Church’s teachings on immigration. I know for a fact that I can, with the full authority of the Magisterial Church, disagree with you on this issue. And I do in spades.
You need to be here to be able to fit the facts of the situation to the template of Church teaching.
I will not go into it all. I would have to write a thesis. But if you give amnesty or if you allow these people to stay in the United States you will be doing the following:
Imbedding the drug lords and the smugglers into this society permanently because every illegal and legal Mexican is related to them by blood, marriage or transaction and live in fear of them. That fear makes it impossible to turn them in, to fail to cooperate with them and to fail to pay them protection money for the family left in Mexico.
Go beyond decimating Mexico. There are 12 to 20 or more million illegals in the U. S.
If they get amnesty and each bring in two people pursuant to family reunification, that means 36 to 60 million people here from Mexico out of a population of 100 million. My Mexican relatives down there speak about the need for Mexico to wake up and quit sending their children out of the country thereby destroying the Mexican family.
Failing to distinguish between refugees, asylum seekers and just plain illegal immigrants. The former deserve our hospitality to the extent we are able. The oridindary illegal alien does not.
Failing as a Shepherd of all the people, including legal American residents, to support justice for all, such as the legal who has lost their identity or their job.
Failing to speak out against the exploitive corporations who use these poor people for slaves and the pandering politicians who want them for votes.
Failing to speak out on the whole of the Church’s teaching which says the first solution is to help the sending countries fix their own social problems (JPII and B16)
We cannot afford this. Neither can the sending countries.
Please rethink this issue and encourage your brother bishops to do the same. And please quit spending Catholic money on a negotiable social issue. Save it for the non-negotiables like abortion etc.
Thank you.
Rose Kehoe says:
April 28, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Great disappointment in Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan. Without the rule of law, there is NO social justice for anyone.
It is so dishonest to speak of injustices against immigrants of the past who came legally and those illegally entering the country today, as though they were comparable situations.
What about the civil rights of U.S. citizens being harmed and even murdered on their own property by illegals?
The Archbishop makes it hard to have respect for him with such a dishonest statement.
Jim Simon says:
April 28, 2010 at 10:02 pm
I am torn on this one, right to my core. Please help me to understand. Where does the rule of law begin and and where does it end, especially with respect to people illegally in this country? Is not the rule of law shattered the moment a person breaks the law by coming across the border without permission?
My nephew is a border guard in southern California. The stories he tells are gut wrenching. He will tell you that a good number of the people are desperately trying to make a new life in America – some die on their way across, and many are within an inch of death and would die were it not for border guards finding them and hydrating them and being good Samaritans. But he will also tell you that a substantial number of people are seasoned, hardened criminals, drug traffickers and human kidnappers who, among many other heinous things, have killed his partner.
If it is true that, \every society has the duty to protect its borders and thoughtfully monitor its population,\ then how can it also be true that those who seek to uphold the law are only doing so, \To blame them, stalk them, outlaw them, harass them, and consider them outsiders…\ After all, are illegal immigrants not \outsiders?\ Are they not \outlaws?\ No – blaming, stalking and harassing them is not the answer. But should they be allowed to stay? And what of the hardened illegal alien criminals conducting drug war operations in the streets of Phoenix? Allow them to stay as well? God is not only all merciful but He is all just as well, no?
What of the millions who are legal immigrants (like the ones you herald in your letter and from which I derive my lineage — Irish and Lebanese)? Is it justice for them that an illegal alien is doing a job they should be doing? Is it justice for all of the thousands of \outsiders\ who are patiently and legally waiting to come to America that illegals are allowed to willy-nilly \jump the line?\
I really am torn, and I really would love a world without borders. But then I remember that even Jesus wanted some things that he ultimately did not get: a repentant Judas, a converted bad thief, a merciful Pilate. In my heart, I really am torn between justice and mercy on this one your eminence, and your essay left me even more unsettled.
I deeply admire your defense of innocent human life from the womb to the tomb and I completely respect your authority as teacher of the faith.
Most Respectfully, in Christ,
Jim Simon
Irene Mehlos says:
April 28, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Dear Archbishop Dolan, Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. Just recently my local interfaith peace study group and the Holy Cross Sisters (their US Provincial here in North Central Wisconsin) hosted Sr. Barbara Pfarr from Milwaukee to help dispel some of the myths about immigration reform. The information she presented at a Catholic parish up here was described as “eye-opening and jaw dropping” by the parish leaders. They had no idea what was going on. Our immigration laws are antiquated. Many of the previous comments referred to undocumented immigrants as “illegals” and “criminals” for seeking the right to work to provide for their families survival. The solution to come in through the “proper channels” is not so simple, and for the most, impossible. You have to have a lot of money in the bank just to apply. The US State Department Visa Bulletin in Feb 2010 indicated that work visas applied for in 1992 were first being processed this year (an 18 year wait). Family visas applied for in 1986 during a special program offered for a few applicants in Florida have just now been approved, 24 years after applying. Some of the family members, parents of the works have since died. The majority of immigrants in our town are not criminals, but instead hard working people with strong faith and family values who have left desperate situations. Many immigrants have been recruited to work in jobs not desirable to American citizens-like certain restaurant jobs and agricultural jobs. They are often exploited. I’ve met folks here who receive $150/week pay for full time work or longer. That’s $3.75/hr, or less! Yet in Nicaragua I saw average folks who made less than that for a full day. In many cases our trade agreements have driven them off their farms or otherwise destroyed their ability to make a living. Crimes are committed against undocumented workers here in the US, but they have no recourse to justice. Comprehensive immigration reform is desperately needed now. Legalizing current unauthorized immigrants and creating flexible legal limits on future immigration would raise the “wage floor” and assure full labor rights that would benefit both American workers, immigrants and the US economy. As Catholics and Christians, we are called to act justly.
Miguel Bamberger says:
April 29, 2010 at 6:25 am
There’s a difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration. I came in LEGALLY. I had to wait in line. Is the church encouraging bypassing the legal system that so many others have followed? Is it because the Catholic Church is afraid that without the influx of ILLEGAL immigrants it won’t be able to pay its debts?
Paul W. Primavera says:
April 29, 2010 at 6:49 am
Does the Bishop oppose obedience to public immigration laws? Has he missed Romans 13:5 and 1st Peter 2:13-14? All Arizona is asking is that if a person comes to Arizona from another country, then they come through legal channels and have their paperwork in order. Is this unjust? Is it unjust to arrest someone that has broken the law when the law itself is NOT unjust? What does CCC 1897 through 1899 say?
1897 “Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all.”
By “authority” one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.
1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.
1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”
Now none of us oppose LEGAL immigration. But we DO oppose ILLEGAL immigration. If I went to Mexico without a passport or other appropriate documentation, then I would be arrested and thrown in jail and rightly so.
This liberal, progressive attitude that has infiltrated the Church has got to be extinguished. No one of us hates or disrespects Hispanics or Arabs or Indians or whatever. BUT each of us MUST follow the LAW. IF you do NOT, THEN you SHOULD get thrown into jail just as Romans 13:1-7 states.
Gene Sullivan says:
April 29, 2010 at 8:03 am
It seems to me that the people of Arizona have a right to expect that the nations laws will be followed. If the Federal government chooses not to protect our borders, the State may choose to follow the law. 70% of the people of Arizona want to live in a safe lawful environment … what is wrong with that. The Church should use its persuasion to correct the injustices in Mexico and elsewhere. Then there would be no reason for the millions to flee to here … against our laws. As they say, “Render unto Ceasar, etc.”
John Cabaniss says:
April 29, 2010 at 8:09 am
Sir: I consider your comments appalling. Nowhere did you even acknowledge that the issue the law is meant to address is illegal immigration. Why did you speak as if the law targeted all immigrants when you know that was not true? You also referred to the bill as mean-spirited. I was unaware that anyone, even archbishops, were able to divine the intentions of others. It would be rash judgment on my part to express such an opinion and I see no reason to believe the judgment is any less rash coming from you.
Finally, I am most disturbed by what your statement naturally implies: that Catholics have an obligation to agree with it simply because a bishop has spoken. I wonder if you realize the position you bishops put us in. We have a moral obligation to assent to our bishop when he speaks on faith or morals but we have no such obligation when he offers his prudential political opinions. When you continually blur the distinction between the two situations you put us at risk of failing our moral obligation because we misjudge the character of your comments. I believe your statements here are your opinion, with which I respectfully disagree, but if I am wrong then you need to correct me. Am I morally bound to accept your comments? That is a yes or no question.
Brian Mershon says:
April 29, 2010 at 8:29 am
Arcbhishop Dolan. I am a faithful Catholic who tries in earnest to follow ALL of the Church’s teachings.
This is NOT a matter of faith and morals. This has to do with following the duly constituted laws of our country an enforcing them.
Certainly, the key principle is unavoidable. I just had a good friend from Colombia who completed all of the requirements of becoming a citizen legally–all of the costs and bureaucratic red tape.
But you think that people who do not follow our laws–whatever their ethnicity–should be given a pass on our laws–even when it threatens the security of the inhabitants of our country?
WHY do the U.S. bishops like you and Cardinal Mahony wade into areas of political and economic topics that are WAY outside of your competence? Repeatedly? For 40-plus years?
Stick to teaching the Faith. There is NOTHING in our Faith about allowing illegal immigrants into our country and allow them to threaten the well being of those who are here legally. That is about as simple as it gets.
It is not about racism or any other motivations you want to attribute to citizens of this country. It is about national security.
Matt Mack says:
April 29, 2010 at 10:15 am
Let me begin by saying that I’m a huge fan of Archbishop Dolan. I’ve watched him on EWTN and think he is a great Bishop. However I am so disappointed that he chose to issue this opinion on the Arizona Immigration law. There is no balance in his statement. There may be some flaws in this law but there are grave flaws and errors on the other side that led to this law. The law is a desperate act by the local community – the people of AZ – to establish some semblance of law and order in their state.
How can it be unconstitutional to ask for identification or proof of legal status from someone when they are pulled over?
Why can’t the Archbishop acknowledge that laws are being broken by illegal immigrants?
This statement will only add to the fractured nature of this country’s discourse that is increasingly becoming pointless. Can’t we have any conversations anymore without resorting to name calling, labeling, and finger pointing? The Church should be the source of the reasoned, balanced, thoughtful analysis and guidance that comes after several slow, deep breaths.
Sam Wood says:
April 29, 2010 at 10:27 am
Your Excellency:
I revere you as one who is an Apostle, one who is Jesus to us. What dismays me is that it seems there has been a slight shift in the discussion by the USCCB. The issue is NOT about racism or ethnocentrism, it is about legal vs Illegal status of immigrants. Yes, companies/corporations who use illegals in their work force need to be penalized for the abuse, but THEY promote the illegal immigration flow into this country and it must be stopped. But this is not an anti-immigration issue, it is as Brian says above, an issue of national security. And also, there needs to be enforcement of the current laws, and since our Federal government is not taking the bull by the horns, Arizona is.
Marilyn says:
April 29, 2010 at 10:53 am
Archbishop, I am a huge fan of yours and very grateful that your are the archbishop of New York. However, I think your statement on this bill is a little strong on one side without balancing the issues on the other side. There needs to be law and order in the state as well as in the Church for justice to prevail. There has been a failure on the part of the federal government to enforce the immigration laws and the consequence has been a breakdown in civil order in the border states. In Arizona there is a big problem with drug violence, kidnappings and human trafficking that is directly tied into lack of enforcement of our border. While I agree that we should not demonize anyone, the bishops need to come out with some positive advice on how to address this issue, not just say that it is wrong to enforce the law because good people may be harmed. We need to do something. It is also not fair to those who scrimped and saved to come into this country legally and have gone through all of the waiting periods required, that we turn a blind eye toward those who have avoided the legal process. If there is a danger in their home country, we have an amnesty proceeding that can be used.
Kevin says:
April 29, 2010 at 11:24 am
I respectfully disagree with the Archbishop and I am very much dismayed at the level of confusion that is being employed in this discussion by the media and others that are being swayed by their emotions.
It is very reminiscent of the Stem-Cell discussion where Embryonic and Adult are intertwined to create a perception that being against the intrinsically evil Embryonic Stem Cell research is somehow being against Morally acceptable Adult-Stem Cell research. The same confusion is being sown here.
We are speaking about illegal immigration not legal immigration. We would not be a country if not for legal immigrants. This is a fact that no intelligent person denies but it is scandalous to attribute this racist view to the supporters of the AZ and existing Federal Law. The people of AZ want their state back.
Jennifer says:
April 29, 2010 at 11:57 am
Your Excellency,
I greatly admire and appreciate you and the gift that you are to our Church is this present day. I’m also stunned at your words, for I find them grossly unfair and insulting. It is not immigration that people object to but ILLEGAL immigration. If the laws concerning immigration can be broken and ignored, why obey ANY law of the U.S.? You say in passing that our nation has a duty to protect its borders, but how exactly are we permitted to do that? The current laws are not enforced and every attempt to strengthen them is met with charges of racism and inhumanity and accusations of hate and fear.
The immigrants who came to Ellis Island seemed a very different sort. They came legally, they obeyed the laws, they built businesses, they learned the language, paid taxes and became citizens. They did not abuse and take advantage of the system. Now we have sanctuary cities that protect criminals who are here illegally. We seem to grant more protection under the law to illegal aliens than to our own citizens. When is it fair to say “enough is enough?”
The Church expects her own laws and traditions to be upheld; why not the laws of our nation?
How hurtful it is that you compare those who support this reasonable immigration law to the members of the KKK! No one wishes to harm any immigrant or persecute them because of their race or creed. We simply want our nation’s laws to be obeyed!
I am dismayed that you would say with a mocking tone that Arizona is “so scared” that they passed a “mean-spirited” bill that solely aims to expel the immigrant. Have we already forgotten Robert Krentz, the rancher who was shot to death on his own property by an ILLEGAL immigrant? Of course the state is alarmed! They should be! But it is not mean-spirited to seek greater law enforcement, and it is uncalled for to accuse them of wanting to expel every immigrant. I don’t believe that is their desire, or the desire of anyone else in America.
You seem to speak as though for the Church, and your words carry great weight and influence. If you oppose this legislation, be specific. Why? What exactly does it allow that is inhumane or mean-spirited? And tell us how exactly our nation is permitted to enforce its laws without violating the call to welcome the immigrant. Is there ANY obligation on the part of the immigrant?
Please do not be so quick to portray those who support this law as anti-immigration. That is not the case. It’s about ILLEGAL immigration!
God bless you and keep you.
Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 29, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Of all people, a bishop of the Catholic Church ought to know when he is abusing his authority as a bishop. You have been doing so, by shocking public statements and by your refusal to obey Canon 915. ( Cf. http://tinyurl.com/canon915 )
You are not teaching what the Catholic Church teaches; you are parroting the line of the Democrat Party. Not only do you caricature the new law, you caricature the bare, concrete facts of the situation in Arizona, as many previous commenters have ably pointed out. The issue is not immigration, but ILLEGAL immigration. The issue is not “nativism,” “bigotry,” “racism,” or any of the other devil-words pushed by Democrat talking points and other politically partisan bishops.
The issue is drug trade, kidnapping and human trafficking, home invasions, decapitation and other forms of terror, and murder. Not to mention the overarching agenda of the Democrat Party–to build a permanent, socialist, pro-abortion voting bloc by importing vast numbers of dependent, ill-educated people with no understanding of the U.S. Constitution or American culture.
Like your recent jaw-dropping statement that the pro-abortion Governor of New York is “a Catholic who takes his Christian faith seriously,” this latest effusion leads me to believe that the magisterium of the Democrat Party needs to grow less, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church needs to grow greater.

Vince Giordano's Nighthawks

2010-04-20T13:05:00.000-07:00

to the bishops: how important are children? really?

2010-04-19T15:42:00.000-07:00

We all know that about 2/3 of American bishops engaged in covering up sexual abuse. The vast majority of bishops tolerate gross liturgical abuses, and brush off complaints from laity.

The vast majority of bishops during the past forty years have treated pro-abortion Catholic politicians like honorable Catholics in good standing, even refusing to remove them from liturgical ministries (i.e., as lectors and EMCs), etc., and up to this moment, refuse to obey Canon 915. Complaints from laity are brushed off. Noted pro-abortion Catholics have been appointed to the bishops' National Review Board and countless other national and diocesan bodies.

From about 1975 to 1993, with only two or three exceptions, bishops either condemned or ignored the existence of the pro-life Rescue Movement. No bishop ever answered the question: Is it gravely sinful to remove an obstacle that is preventing an abortion? (The answer [affirmative] is not really in doubt--but it resides in unread tomes of moral theology. The bishops--unanimously--refused to answer the question while American cops were removing tens of thousands of rescuers from the doorways of abortion clinics, making themselves [the cops] into formal accomplices to homicide. The Rescue Movement died when the U.S. Congress voted [without any objection from the bishops] to crush it with draconian penalties in the FACE Act.)

All of these episodes in our history reflect these patterns of thinking and behavior on the part of (the vast majority of) bishops:

1) The existence of the moral law, civil law, or ecclesiastical law counts for nothing. Only damaging publicity or threat of civil or criminal action motivates a response.

2) The suffering and/or death of born and unborn children is not a concern. Only pressure from publicity and/or powerful people counts.

3) The complaints of laity do not count. They may be ignored, or, in the case of the persistent, lied to, threatened, or bribed.

This is a picture of corruption, of surrender to strictly worldly (not to say godless) standards of behavior, of the absence of paternal charity toward actual children or "little ones" in general.

Barack Obama Countdown. Gone in...

2010-03-27T07:07:00.001-07:00

Want to Advertise in this space? Email us at Ads@ObamaCountdownWidg

National Debt Clock

2010-03-27T07:04:00.001-07:00

After ObamaCare FAIL, Bishops Lash Out

2010-03-26T22:48:00.000-07:00

The commitment by Cardinal George to being "never political" is, to put it kindly, unintelligible.

All lobbying is political.

The USCCB goes beyond political. It is a partisan, left-wing organization.

Any time the USCCB takes a position that a Catholic can disagree with without sinning, the USCCB: 1) is taking a partisan political position; 2) is abusing (and progressively eroding) the authority of the bishops who are its members.

It goes without saying that this is true a fortiori when the USCCB takes a position that a Catholic cannot agree with without sinning.

A perfect example is this latest, year-long scandal of the USCCB's promoting a totalitarian, collectivist, murderous, financially ruinous, unConstitutional healthcare "reform."

Obamacare is counter to the teaching of the Catholic Church IN TOTO, yet it had the support of the USCCB until the last moments, when it became clear that abortion funding could not be excised.

No matter what meaningless abortion verbiage the Obamacare legislation MIGHT have contained, Cardinal George and the entire USCCB have known since November of 2008 that ANY "reform" legislation was going to be designed and administered by the most pro-abortion administration in history--with principal regulatory authority being vested in Kathleen Sebelius, the second-most blood-thirsty woman Archbishop Donald Wuerl has ever certified as worthy to receive Holy Communion.

If Cardinal George and the USCCB could swallow the bill itself (just without explicit abortion funding), and the certainty that, even without explicit abortion funding, it would be administered and embellished by Kathleen Sebelius and an army of other infanticide enthusiasts, there is no rational basis for their rejection of the Executive Order that Bart Stupak so pathetically wears to cover his shame.

And yet we have seen, in the space of less than a week, multiple bishops lashing out at Stupak, NETWORK, the LCWR, and the CHA. Shame on them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1001219.htm

Cardinal praises expanded health care but fears remain on abortion

Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, talks with Catholic News Service in Washington March 23, shortly after President Barack Obama signed the new health reform package into law. (CNS/Bob Roller)

By Nancy Frazier O'Brien

Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops praised new health reform legislation for expanding health care to more Americans but said the bishops and the Catholic community will be watching closely to ensure that the new law does not expand federal funding of abortion.

"We are apprehensive as we look to the future, even as we applaud much of the increased care that will be available," Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago told Catholic News Service March 23, shortly after U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

"So we will watch basically and try to continue to enter into conversations as a moral voice -- never as a political voice; we've been very careful to insist upon the moral principles that everybody should be cared for and no one should be deliberately killed," he added.

Cardinal George acknowledged in the interview that "the unity of the church has been wounded" in various political actions and conversations surrounding the health reform debate. The USCCB opposed the Senate bill that passed the House March 21, while some Catholic groups and members of Congress supported it.

"We are certainly concerned about division in the church, because bishops have to be the people who are concerned about its unity, about keeping people together around Christ," he said.

"The bishops know that they don't speak for every one of the 61 million Catholics in the country, but what we do is we speak for the Catholic faith itself," he said. "And those who share the faith will gather around."

The cardinal said it remained to be seen whether the executive order promised by Obama would be adequate to keep the status quo on federal funding of abortion.

"The president's executive order puts in some administrative protections that we are very grateful for, but an administrative order doesn't substitute for a statute," he said.

Asked whether he expected church agencies to face difficulties related to abortion in the health reform law, the cardinal said, "We'll see how that plays out in the courts."

"I suspect that there will be court challenges to Catholic medical practice," he added.

Cardinal George also rejected claims by some that the USCCB had allied itself in the health reform debate with groups that were primarily interested in advancing the Republican agenda.

"I really don't think that's true," he said. "The principles are twofold -- everybody taken care of, nobody killed. And I think that moral voice, while it doesn't correspond politically to either party, has been consistent."

Also March 23, the USCCB released a statement by Cardinal George on health reform that was endorsed by the bishops' 32-member Administrative Committee.

The statement noted that the bishops' conference has worked for nearly a century to achieve "reform of our health care system so that all may have access to the care that recognizes and affirms their human dignity."

"As Catholic bishops, we have expressed our support for efforts to address this national and societal shortcoming," it added. "Many elements of the health care reform measure signed into law by the president address these concerns and so help to fulfill the duty that we have to each other for the common good.

"Nevertheless, for whatever good this law achieves or intends, we as Catholic bishops have opposed its passage because there is compelling evidence that it would expand the role of the federal government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans to cover abortion," it said.

The statement also said the new law "failed to include necessary language to provide essential conscience protections" and could leave many immigrant workers and families "worse off since they will not be allowed to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges to be created, even if they use their own money."

The statement expressed the belief that "new legislation to address its deficiencies will almost certainly be required."

Without naming any of them, the statement also praised "the principled actions of the pro-life members of Congress from both parties, in the House and the Senate, who have worked courageously to create legislation that respects the principles" outlined by the bishops.

"They have often been vilified and have worked against great odds," it added.

Archbishop Chaput Gives Back of the Hand to Pro-Life Congressmen

2010-03-26T18:37:00.000-07:00

Archbishop Chaput should be ashamed to attack the fake Catholic groups, while at the same time never mentioning the USCCB.

The USCCB, fully aware that ObamaCare would be designed by Obama, Pelosi, Ezekiel Emanuel, Cass Sunstein, David Axelrod, the Tides Foundation, the Apollo Project, etc., etc., and managed by Obama appointees like Kathleen Sebelius, supported the whole monster for nearly a year, expressing reservations about nothing except the absence of some meaningless abortion language that--even had it been included in the bill--would have been nullified by the first federal court that got a whack at it.

It is disgusting that Archbishop Chaput and "the bishops" don't (and they CAN'T, having supported this evil from the beginning) have a kind word for the Republicans who fought to kill this monster from beginning to end. As usual, pro-life Republicans get the back of the hand from "the bishops," because pro-life Republicans won't join "the bishops" in promoting collectivism, which the Catholic Church condemns.

Rep. Paul Ryan's little finger is more Catholic than the whole USCCB.

Fr. VF

March 22, 2010

A bad bill and how we got it

The following column by Archbishop Chaput is scheduled for print publication in the March 24, 2010 issue of the Denver Catholic Register.

As current federal health-care legislation moves forward toward law, we need to draw several lessons from events of the last weeks and months:

First, the bill passed by the House on March 21 is a failure of decent lawmaking. It has not been “fixed.” It remains unethical and defective on all of the issues pressed by the U.S. bishops and prolife groups for the past seven months.

Second, the Executive Order promised by the White House to ban the use of federal funds for abortion does not solve the many problems with the bill, which is why the bishops did not -- and still do not – see it as a real solution. Executive Orders can be rescinded or reinterpreted at any time. Some current congressional leaders have already shown a pattern of evasion, ill will and obstinacy on the moral issues involved in this legislation, and the track record of the White House in keeping its promises regarding abortion-related issues does not inspire confidence. The fact that congressional leaders granted this one modest and inadequate concession only at the last moment, and only to force the passage of this deeply flawed bill, should give no one comfort.

Third, the combination of pressure and disinformation used to break the prolife witness on this bill among Democratic members of Congress – despite the strong resistance to this legislation that continues among American voters – should put an end to any talk by Washington leaders about serving the common good or seeking common ground. Words need actions to give them flesh. At many points over the past seven months, congressional leaders could have resolved the serious moral issues inherent in this legislation. They did not. No shower of reassuring words now can wash away that fact.

Fourth, self-described “Catholic” groups have done a serious disservice to justice, to the Church, and to the ethical needs of the American people by undercutting the leadership and witness of their own bishops. For groups like Catholics United, this is unsurprising. In their effect, if not in formal intent, such groups exist to advance the interests of a particular political spectrum. Nor is it newsworthy from an organization like Network, which – whatever the nature of its good work -- has rarely shown much enthusiasm for a definition of “social justice” that includes the rights of the unborn child.

But the actions of the Catholic Health Association (CHA) in providing a deliberate public counter-message to the bishops were both surprising and profoundly disappointing; and also genuinely damaging. In the crucial final days of debate on health-care legislation, CHA lobbyists worked directly against the efforts of the American bishops in their approach to members of Congress. The bad law we now likely face, we owe in part to the efforts of the Catholic Health Association and similar “Catholic” organizations.

Here in Colorado, many thousands of ordinary, faithful Catholics, from both political parties, have worked hard over the past seven months to advance sensible, legitimate health-care reform; the kind that serves the poor and protects the rights of the unborn child, and immigrants, and the freedom of conscience rights of health-care professionals and institutions. If that effort seems to have failed, faithful Catholics don’t bear the blame. That responsibility lies elsewhere. I’m grateful to everyone in the archdiocese who has worked so hard on this issue out of love for God’s people and fidelity to their Catholic faith. Come good or bad, that kind of effort is never wasted.

Edward Kennedy, Abortion Senator. Comments Closed on Cardinal O'Malley's Blog. Comments Open Here.

2009-09-04T19:29:00.001-07:00

107 Responses to On Senator Kennedy’s Funeral

Comments

1.
Grace
Comment by Grace | 2009/09/02 at 20:19:10

Cardinal Sean:

Thank you for this, although I disagree on various points.

Of course Senator Kennedy should have been afforded a Catholic funeral. And I had no problem with you being there.

If you read what has been written about this Mass of Christian Burial, however, I think what you will find is that the bulk of the criticism out here is not directed at your participation, but at the way in which Senator Kennedy was canonized at the funeral and the way in which certain aspects of the funeral were politicized.

The purpose of a Mass of Christian Burial is the pray for the soul of the deceased and to bring to mind the hope we have in the Risen Christ. Period. It is not to be a celebration of the life of the deceased, no matter what pop culture and contemporary praxis seems to say.

In watching the funeral closely, there was no sense of this. It was all about Kennedy, all the time. The homilist effectively canonized him, picturing him in heaven. The General Intercessions, in particular, were a rather shocking politicization of the moment.

I don’t think anyone but the most inveterate Kennedy-hater would have expressed any objections to the funeral or your participation in it if the rite had been respected for what it has traditionally been about – praying for the soul of the departed, prayers that we will all need.

In Christ,

Grace
2.
al garner
Comment by al garner | 2009/09/02 at 21:12:43

Dear Cardinal OMalley
I have been having a tough time wondering why at Senator Kennedy’s Funeral Mass, the TV camera left the Santuary and showed the windows, the candles etc. it was crazy. We all wanted to see how many of our so called Catholic Politicians went to receive The Blessed Sacrament after voting for and backing abortion and gay marriage and some for euthanasia.
I am a practicing Catholic and raised my sons the same but it is hard when they visit and the subject comes up like these. How phoney is the Church and what it will not do for money. Very sad.
I know God will judge but to put on a show like Teddy had who left a young girl in a car in a creek to die, divorced his wife after having children, got that absolved to remarry another woman, was a strong leader on abortion and gay marriage? No wonder we have so many cafeteria Catholics, they all pick and choose and so do our leaders. Very Sad and everyone will stand before God and I am sure he will ask our priests how did you shepherd my flock. I am afraid what the answer will be, but He already knows. How sad He must be. (time for vatican lll) remove the liberals and put the conservatives back in we are sliding down hill fast!
Thank You
AL Garner Carnegie Pa Just out side of Pittsburgh
A FRIEND OF THE SERAPHIC MASS ASSOC
I KEEP THEM BUSY!
3.
sunshineman411
Comment by sunshineman411 | 2009/09/02 at 21:18:37

This was a lovely and very moving post. Cardinal Sean, thank you for writing this and acting as Christ would.
4.
T Lobo
Comment by T Lobo | 2009/09/02 at 21:47:54

I respectfully disagree with your position and presence at the funeral.
5.
Mark B. A. Cappetta
Comment by Mark B. A. Cappetta | 2009/09/02 at 22:00:53

Bless you Your Eminence, for being a true Catholic Christian in representing the Archdiocese of Boston at Senator Ted Kennedy’s Funeral Mass. You did what I firmly believe Jesus Himself would have done.

There is too much division within the Church and the world today, and you showed to the entire world that the heart and spirit of the Roman Catholic Church is truly represented by what you did last Saturday.

May God Bless you and Mary keep you!

Faithfully Yours,

Mark (San Mateo, CA)
6.
Leslie Czwakiel
Comment by Leslie Czwakiel | 2009/09/02 at 22:05:33

We are all God’s children and He loves us all, flaws and all. This blog entry is eloquent and touching. Bravo! I totally agree with you and I am so thankful you set the record straight. I saw other Catholics, all up in arms about Senator Kennedy having a Catholic mass. One of the greatest gifts that God and Jesus taught us was that we must embrace the capacity to love, to celebrate all life and to forgive our sins. Some of the critics could do well to remember that.
Bendiciones,
Leslie Czwakiel
7.
jerome schmutte
Comment by jerome schmutte | 2009/09/02 at 22:08:55

One word — scandalous.
8.
Cindy
Comment by Cindy | 2009/09/02 at 22:17:31

Cardinal Sean, my heart aches for you for all the horrible, cruel things people are saying about you attending Sen. Kennedy’s funeral Mass. You are a very holy man and a merciful man and I know you were praying very hard for his soul all through the Mass and if I may say so, I felt that you looked a little uncomfortable being there. It is not for us to judge, none of us – not even you. I pray that people stop with the horrible things they are saying about you and that they realize they need to let it go. You saved our Archdiocese and we are so blessed to have you, I’ll keep saying it. You have done nothing but good things for all of us since you came to Boston. Please know that many, many people are praying for you and for this to stop. Sen. Kennedy now has to face the one and only judge. God bless you always!
9.
skeeton
Comment by skeeton | 2009/09/02 at 22:19:46

Your Eminence,
I appreciate your reasons and logic for allowing Senator Kennedy to have a Catholic funeral Mass and your choice to preside at said liturgy. What troubles me (and many other ordinary lay Catholics) greatly was not the Mass offered for his soul but the very public nature of it. Senator Kennedy was a source of manifest, objective and very grave public scandal because of his open hostility toward life issues. That he was given such a public send-off from the Church only compounds the scandal. As a layman, it was hard enough to witness the repeated wounds suffered by the Body of Christ that were inflicted by this most visible American Catholic politician, who repeatedly twisted the teachings of the Church for mere expediency. It is twice as difficult to witness that unto his death, Senator Kennedy was not required to make an equally objective and public repudiation of his previous position before the Church made such a obvious fuss over him, to a national television audience, no less. Are there no more ecclesial consequences for supporting and advocating for the murder of innocent human beings? Based on the Church’s seeming ambivalence toward the very public nature of the Senator’s scandal, you would have to excuse the laity if we wondered aloud whether the American episcopacy even believes the things the Church claims to profess. It is episodes like this that make being a faithful Catholic so difficult.
10.
Barb
Comment by Barb | 2009/09/02 at 22:20:13

Thanks for this — it was long overdue from our church leaders. You put it very beautifully!
11.
Phillip O. Hamilton
Comment by Phillip O. Hamilton | 2009/09/02 at 22:29:53

Cardinal Sean,
I have no clue as to why these mean spirited hatefilled people are critical of your participation in the mentioned burial rites.

If GOD can forgive the senator, why can’t they?

Please pray for me,

Phillip Hamilton
12.
Larry
Comment by Larry | 2009/09/02 at 22:30:19

WWJD? Way to go cardinal Sean. Compassion for the sinners,care for the bereaved, hope for the young.

I think you hit a home run except with the one issue zealots.
I’ was not a big fan of the Senator but I had emphathy for his
outlook and views. If my two brothers were gunned down in cold blood because someone did’nt like them I would favor the death penalty. the senator did not favor capital punishment????
Life is full of tough choices.

Change is inevitable…..growth is optional
13.
John Lee
Comment by John Lee | 2009/09/02 at 22:33:30

Your Eminence:
I strongly support your attendance at the late senators funeral. Though we all may have different opinions about different things we are all called by God to love one another. Christ teaches us that He loves us even though we are sinners. He is a forgiving God after all. We, as Catholics, must love each other. We are not judges and we have no place judging others. We will all face judgement one day by God and we should leave all the judging to Him. Thank you for voicing your opinion and representing the Catholic Church at the senators funeral.

Respectfully Yours,

John Lee
14.
The Harney’s
Comment by The Harney’s | 2009/09/02 at 22:46:52

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. For you are truly God’s voice of love and peace, His gentle hands, His loving heart here on earth.
God has given us His Word. The examples are there. Blessed are they that see.
15.
Bill
Comment by Bill | 2009/09/02 at 23:11:37

At last, a voice of reason cries through the loud din of the opposing sides. Forgiveness, compassion and recognition of a total picture seem to escape some folks.

Thank you for being able to state your reasons so well. Amen!
16.
Ruth Ann Pilney
Comment by Ruth Ann Pilney | 2009/09/02 at 23:39:52

Thank you for expressing this the way you did. It’s perfect! I pray that we Catholics become more unified for the sake of the Gospel message.
17.
Rose Marie Benoit
Comment by Rose Marie Benoit | 2009/09/02 at 23:48:28

Precious Cardinal Sean,
It as saddened me to read and hear what people have said regarding your presents at Senator Kennedy’s Funeral. Jesus said,” I came to save the sinner, not the self righteous.” Jesus was there, too. He head the prayers we lifted up to the Father for the soul of Ted Kennedy. The cry of Jesus from the Cross, “Father, forgive them they know not what they are doing.” Jesus prayed for all of us. All I can ask of the Lord, as my time grows near to the end is, “Jesus, Forgive me for all my sins and Remeber me in the Kingdom of your Father.” Cardinal, please pray for us. These words of Mother Teresa still ring in my ears, “God does not ask us to be successful, only to be faithful.
I Love you with the Heats of Jesus and Mary,
Rose Marie
18.
Michele Loughlin
Comment by Michele Loughlin | 2009/09/03 at 00:50:17

After reading several of the posts, I am very thankful and relieved that our merciful and all-knowing God is my Judge and not my fellow Catholics!
19.
Linda O.
Comment by Linda O. | 2009/09/03 at 01:06:23

Thank you so much for your thought-provoking comments on this very public, very Catholic event. I totally appreciate your openness about why you participated. I grew up in Massachusetts and followed the lives of the Kennedys very closely, but became disillusioned by Senator Kennedy’s support of abortion. The greatest Kennedy, in my eyes, was Rose Kennedy, because of her undying faith amid such a life filled with tragedy and heartache (especially now that I am a mother myself).

Regarding abortion and Senator Kennedy. Some people say we don’t really know when life begins, or when a new life becomes a person, and I say, give the benefit of the doubt to the new life – that he or she is a person once conception occurs. With Senator Kennedy, no one can know the state of his soul during his final days, we also need to give him the benefit of the doubt and pray for his soul to be united with God.

If his funeral and services were not exactly the most orthodox and not up to standards that the Church sets for such occasions, still, I believe it was possible for the Holy Spirit to touch the millions who watched, to know that forgiveness comes through Jesus Christ, as transmitted through the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Perhaps the proceedings inspired someone to return, or someone who has been seeking to look more closely at Christ as a source of hope.

I pray for you, and for all the priests and bishops of our Church, who have such a tremendous responsibility on your shoulders. May God bless you in your vocation.
20.
marsha anne
Comment by marsha anne | 2009/09/03 at 01:06:50

Cardinal Sean—-Greetings from Denver!
Cardinal Sean,we all know that you are very pro life and stand firm in our Catholic doctrines and beliefs. You are and have been a virtual”angel” to the historic and great city of Boston!!!! You are and have been such a humble servant of the Lord!
Despite the controversy here which there is of,course, you followed you heart that beats with love and compassion…It seemed that you were praying your heart out for Teddy and this whole volatile situation!
We bring the deceased to the church—the sainted AND the sinners, asking for that Divine Mercy, and even as we breathe our last breath, Jesus told St. Faustina that His MERCY precedes His justice!!!! As orthodox Catholics,Ted Kennedy did seriously disappoint and upset us, no two ways about that! But “Judge not lest ye shall be judged!!”
May God have mercy on his soul, we pray! Loving and Forgiving are You O Lord! Just don’t believe that Jesus or St. Francis would have turned away! You are in our prayers!!
PAX ET BONUM……PEACE AND EVERY BLESSING to you
dear Cardinal Sean!!

marsha anne and siaosi

PS WE LOVE YOU!!!
21.
Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Comment by Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick | 2009/09/03 at 01:40:44

I thought the name Monan was familiar. Didn’t he preside at the beatification Mass for the abortion mill receptionist who was killed by the lunatic John Salvi? She was a B.C. alumna, and they praised her to the skies. [Donald Monan, SJ, President of Boston College at the time, celebrated a memorial Mass for abortion clinic worker Shannon Lowney, three-and-a-half weeks after her death. Lowney was eulogized at the Mass as a heroic, exemplary Catholic and alumna of Boston College. Monan was the principal celebrant at the funeral Mass for Edward Kennedy.]

I would like to have a Cardinal at my funeral. I’m sure I don’t have to kill 50 million babies to merit it. How many people DO I have to kill? I wouldn’t want to go overboard unnecessarily.

There are no words Cardinal O’Malley can say AFTER the event that can ever repair the damage that was done to the Church by his presence at the Kennedy spectacle. Hundreds of millions of people saw him at the Kennedy beatification. Tens of dozens may read this blog.

Ultimately, the message sent by Cardinals O’Malley and McCarrick was: We don’t much like abortion, but unborn babies are not REAL people.

I mean, if Kennedy had spent forty years as a screaming supporter of the killing of REAL people, he wouldn’t have had two Cardinals eager to help in his beatification, would he?

There is this other issue: Any Kennedy funeral is an occasion where hundreds of pro-abortion “Catholics” will troop up to receive sacrilegious Communions. By refusing to obey Canon 915, Cardinal O’Malley teaches the world that being pro-abortion is not sinful. http://www.tinyurl.com/canon915

The greatest “teachable moment” Cardinal O’Malley will EVER face has come and gone, and he utterly blew it. There is NOTHING he can do, if he were to remain as Archbishop of Boston for fifty years, that could make his decades as Archbishop anything but a big, fat waste of time. At best.
22.
Jim
Comment by Jim | 2009/09/03 at 07:36:01

Dear Cardinal Sean,

I’m sorry to hear that the bishops of our country are anxious to support a plan for “universal health care” (a.k.a. government provided [later, mandated], through forced taxation, health insurance). What’s next? What other heretofore un-enumerated in either scripture, or The Constitution, “rights” do we all have?

How about the “right” to a home? Shouldn’t the state provide all of us with a house? How about the “right” to a vehicle? After all, we all need transportation – more people use/need cars than health insurance at any one given time. It’s another right! How about the right to a “free” college education? It’s the only fair and just thing to do, correct?

You see where this is going. There is no end in sight to a list of “rights”, given enough time and imagination – and ignorance of scripture, The Constitution, economics, and sound public policy. We can rationalize anything we want by unilaterally declaring, “It’s a justice issue!” Or, even worse, by asking that faux sincere rhetorical question, with the answer already implied within it, “What would Jesus do?”

Respectfully submitted
23.
lisa
Comment by lisa | 2009/09/03 at 07:59:40

Ted Kennedy never once even on his death bed expressed public regret for his pro abortion politics. We see the typical Catholic democrat line { I personally am pro-life however I cannot impose my views on others} The funeral would have been a opportunity for you to teach on this Catholic democrat philosophy but…. This funeral and glorification of Ted by representatives of the Catholic Church serve to support these pro-abortion Catholics and scandalize our Church.
24.
BarbaraKB
Comment by BarbaraKB | 2009/09/03 at 08:07:01

Thank you, Cardinal Sean, for being present for the Kennedy family during their time of grief. And thank you for posting this so that many will understand why.

BTW, two friends, who have not attended mass in years, decided to attend a local mass this past Sunday because of the grace and love shown at that funeral mass. Basically there response to the massive coverage was, “I do love what God has for me at the mass. Maybe I do need to go more often.”

Peace to your ministry and peace to your day.
25.
Paul Reynolds
Comment by Paul Reynolds | 2009/09/03 at 08:31:02

As a non-Catholic, though steeped in the tradition of the church, I find it comical that US Catholics are so democratic in their responses to a “Prince of the church”.

This “A La Carte” Catholicism must surely be an aberration; perhaps the opinionated laiety would be happier in a more inclusive church – Episcopalian, for instance?
26.
Father Francis
Comment by Father Francis | 2009/09/03 at 08:46:26

Cardinal Sean, you are certainly “Eminent” and this blog shows the Church as a Gospel instrument. I recalled John XX111′a first encyclical’s title for the EMK dying and funeral event; the Church is Teacher, and Mother and you did both roles well here at in the Basilica and it was crowned at dusk in the exhange of letters with HH B XV1 read by Cardinal McCarrick in Arlington which showed Grace at work in that sacred turf.
I do hope that your leadership here will be shared in the NCCCB in this Year of the Priest as so many have been tossed aside as several of its members did to so many with total un-Christian lack of basic respect; sadly the same treatment meted to prominent Catholic elected officials on the abortion issue. I am absolutely a Gospel of Life believer in practice and prayer but I shudder when some supposeedly pastoral leaders seem to forget the Mother role and come across as finger-wagging angry men. You are a credit to Galway, the Franciscan Tradition and the best of what is good as a Shepherd in Jesus’ Body the Church.
Beannacht De’ort. “Go maire tu cead” may yu live to be one hundred’! Another Franciscan
27.
Gary George
Comment by Gary George | 2009/09/03 at 08:54:44

I am humbled at the courage of Bishop D’Arcy.

I am humbled at the courage of Father Tom Eutenauer.

I am reminded that we are given opportunities in every day life to be authentic witnesses of the Gospel.

I pray Lord that you would strengthen our Church leaders and all of the faithful in doing the right thing.
28.
Ray
Comment by Ray | 2009/09/03 at 09:42:37

To reviewer/moderator, please use the version below in lieu of my previous comment if you will allow it to be published. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to express my view.

Your Eminence,

I respect your opinion very much and agree that a funeral mass was appropriate, but I am deeply saddened that we live in a world where few will stand for the most vulnerable, the unborn who do not vote. They have no ability to further empower the politically powerful. Thanks to Senator Kennedy and his colleagues millions of human lives have been cut short and millions human voices have been silenced forever. Jesus said “bring the little ones to me”. Honoring a powerful senator is fine but the clarion call to stand for the unborn and be a visible advocate for those who have no one powerful on their side would have been very heroic. Only God will Judge Senator Kennedy, I will not, and while I feel a funeral mass is appropriate it should not be used as the political vehicle which it was. The visible presence of a Roman Catholic Cardinal did not seem right. Since the unborn or the about-to-be-born aborted children do not vote they will not have a voice unless we have the courage to speak for them through our actions.

Respectfully,

Raymond, LaFayette, NY
29.
Nick Tortorella
Comment by Nick Tortorella | 2009/09/03 at 10:16:54

Thank you Cardinal Sean for so clearly and carefully outlining your reaction to the vitrolic comments regarding your participation at the funeral of Senator Kennedy, even the right to have the funeral itself.

Our faith is borne of forgiveness, all judgment left to the Lord. In today’s Catholic society it seems that some forget this and would rather assign judgment, deny eternity or publicly condemn fellow pilgrims.

Your voice and clarity Cardinal is a welcome contribution. I prefer to leave the state of Sen. Kennedy’s soul to the Lord and worry more about my own.

I thought his funeral was a wonderful testimony to the richness of our Catholic tradition, an unusual acknowledgement of the Senator’s imperfections and a fitting tribute to his many accomplishments on behalf of the poor and anowin of the world.

God’s blessings on you, your ministry, the Senator and his family and especially on those who have the need to be steadfast in their ability to know the mind and heart of any other human being other than themselves.
30.
Sister Janice
Comment by Sister Janice | 2009/09/03 at 10:18:58

Dear Cardinal Sean,

Not only has your blog today been honest, courageous and inspiring, but it places before us all what we are called to as Catholic Christians: to follow Jesus who reveals the compassion and mercy of God, especially to sinners. I am glad to know that God will be judging me and not some of the mean-spirited people who have spent large segments of time tearing down rather than building up this Body of Christ we call the Church.

Thank you for reminding us all that “we believe in a loving and forgiving God.” Your presence at Senator Kennedy’s funeral was more than appropriate. It was a witness to that belief.
31.
Mary
Comment by Mary | 2009/09/03 at 10:22:36

Dear Cardinal Sean, I understand the need for sensitivity, compassion and charity but I do think some of the things that happened at the funeral were a scandal. I wonder what kind of funeral the father of Terry Schiavo will get? My own Dad died after a long illness of great suffering. He was loyal and faithful to the all the church teachings. He was really only mentioned very briefly in the homily because my understanding is that the church is moving away from eulogies. In many of the Marian messages Our Lady is giving in the world today, she talks about the coming schism and apostasy withing the church, not unity. The only unity is with her son Jesus, and the world crucified him. I will pray for you I know none of this is easy. Sincerely, Mary
32.
Charles
Comment by Charles | 2009/09/03 at 10:26:37

Your Eminence,

Thank you for your explanation of your presence at the funeral for Senator Kennedy, about which I feel a little better than when I first heard about it. I can understand your desire to be charitable to the bereaved at a time of loss and also to be charitable to the dead, who may have done some good in his life, at least according to some prudential theories of how to obtain the common good in the political and social realm. And of course the deceased may, for all we know, have repented his public, judicial and legislative promotion of abortion (and I would add homosexual activity) in his dying hours. And I agree that a funeral is not really the right to time to get up on soapbox and condemn Senator Kennedy’s stand on these issues.

However, surely you can recognize that there is a real problem when Catholic politicians who publicly and repeatedly promote things antithetical to the teaching of the faith are NEVER criticised publicly by the successors of the apostles, whose task is to uphold the apostolic faith. I think there is a real problem that the faithful may conclude that these issues, i.e., abortion and homosexuality, are no big deals. After all, since Catholic politicians repeatedly thumb their nose at Church teachings and are never reprimanded or held to account for them, why should the poor schmoes in the pews have to follow all those “rigid rules” that the mean old Church sets up.

Certainly the promoters of the normalization of abortion and homosexual activity will use the gentleness and charity of the Church’s shepherds precisely to downplay the importance of the Church’s teachings in these areas. The Boston Globe article this morning is a good example. It basically used your words to portray you as primarily rebuking those nasty pro-life critics for being uncharitable and rude, as if that is much worse a problem than the scandal of Catholic politicians’ openly advocating against Catholic teaching and not being rebuked or held to account for it by the Church’s shepherds.

Finally, you have to admit that the polite, gentle “dialogue” with these same Catholic politicians seems to have borne little to no fruit heretofore. The same politicians continue to advocate abortion and homosexual activity without let up and without accountability. As a member of Courage, I know that holding and living the Church’s teachings can be difficult, but the Church has the divine truth on teachings of human life and sexual morality. If the Church’s pastors were more willing during the lifetimes of these Catholic politicians to publicly hold them accountable for their anti-Catholic positions, then maybe the participation in a funeral mass wouldn’t be so controversial.

Thank you from your son in Christ.
33.
Fr. John Peek
Comment by Fr. John Peek | 2009/09/03 at 11:49:32

As long as political leaders who make war against some of the most fundamental moral teachings of the Church and moreover have committed much of their political career to such opposition and are given the same status as those have fought courageously for those moral teachings; there will be no end to abortion in this country. This kind of ‘pastoral love’ is leading our country and Church into moral chaos.
34.
David M Cavalier
Comment by David M Cavalier | 2009/09/03 at 11:51:32

Briiliant!!!
Thank you!
35.
Cindy
Comment by Cindy | 2009/09/03 at 11:52:37

To “sunshineman411″ Bravo! Yes, Cardinal Sean DID act as Christ would have – showing mercy and forgiveness!! Thank you! And to Phillip Hamilton, yes, if God can forgive why can’t everyone? Exactly what I can’t understand.

I pray for more positive and supportive comments for Cardinal Sean.
36.
F. Hannon
Comment by F. Hannon | 2009/09/03 at 11:53:22

Your Eminence,

You know better than I that catechesis today is a wreckage, one of the symptoms of which is the presumption that Satan and hell are passé; that is why sacramental confession is on life support.

Yes, of course “we believe in a loving and forgiving God from whom we seek mercy,” but the doctrine has always held that sacramental confession is the means by which Catholics do so, particularly in instances involving grave offenses (e.g., the advocacy of procured abortion and homosexual activity.)

Both the highly public nature and the canonizing tone of the Senator’s funeral Mass inevitably served to perpetuate Catholics’ widespread, gross ignorance about their faith, particularly since nothing whatsoever is known publicly about whether or not the Senator made a sacramental confession before his passing.

This is not about us judging the Senator, whose salvation I hope and pray for; it is about a preciously acute teaching moment being utterly lost.

Sincerely,

Frank Hannon
Melrose, MA
37.
Katie
Comment by Katie | 2009/09/03 at 11:55:37

Dear Cardinal Sean,

As a young Theology grad student, I find your words heartening. I was particularly moved by the call to change hearts through loving relationship, and your emphasis on the good works (though incomplete) and humility of faith of the Senator.

As I prepare myself for a career of lay ministry, my biggest fears and disappointments come from the polemical and politicized anger and venom of my brothers and sisters IN the Church! It is particularly disheartening when these sentiments come from our leaders… Thus, I applaud your pastoral teaching sense.

A few years ago I traveled to Bluefields, Nicaragua, and met Bishop Paul. It was near the time of your installation as Archbishop of Boston… He had nothing but praise for you, which seems well deserved.

Take good care, and try to keep your head!
Katie D.
38.
Sr. Nancy Charlesworth
Comment by Sr. Nancy Charlesworth | 2009/09/03 at 11:58:20

Dear Cardinal Sean,

Thank you for your presence at the funeral of Senator Kennedy
and thank you for respresenting thetender mercy of the Lord.
39.
Mark Toft
Comment by Mark Toft | 2009/09/03 at 11:59:06

Dear Cardinal O’Malley,

I have great respect for you, but am disappointed in the the way the American Catholic Church has “sainted” the Kennedy family. Nearly all of the Kennedy’s, from father to sons has been crooked and cheating in dealings with others. Senator Kennedy was an avowed abortionist and socialist. Granted we are all sinners, but unfortunately, your actions speak to a more Protestant approach to faith than Catholic. This man did not deserve a Catholic funeral. Denying him this would have sent the strongest message to the world, instead you wimped out.

In His Love,

Mark Toft
40.
Dave Mueller
Comment by Dave Mueller | 2009/09/03 at 12:11:32

Dear Cdl. O’ Malley,

Thank you for giving an explanation – that helps! I agree with most of what you said about showing mercy and love to all.

However, the Mass was overly politicized, as pointed out by a previous poster.

I guess the question is: is abortion just another issue? Sen. Kennedy has (partial) responsibility for 50 million unborn babies on his soul. If he had maintained a principled pro-life position, things might be very different in America today. To take such a barbaric public position as he did over 35+ years, should have demanded also a public repentance and repudiation of that position.

Also, while we might commend Sen. Kennedy for his compassion for underprivileged Americans (at least for the fraction who survived to be born), let’s be clear that wanting to help the underprivileged does not ipso facto equate to big government programs. Jesus asked individuals to help the poor with personal interaction and love; He didn’t tell us all to band together to create a big government program that efficiently issues checks. Catholic Social teaching is thus not necessarily of a piece with the Democratic party agenda – this is a matter of prudential judgment, and indeed, arguably violates the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.

Your comments do help in alleviating the scandal that this funeral caused in the minds of many. Please continue to make it clear that it was an act of mercy and love to a soul that God created in His own image, and who showed at least SOME sign of repentance, and not in any way an endorsement of his tragic and barbaric support of abortion.
41.
Mark Zanghetti
Comment by Mark Zanghetti | 2009/09/03 at 12:27:39

Thank You for taking the time to explain and once again prove that St Francis wasn’t wrong when he said preach unceasingly and when necessary use words. Your actions and your words were sorely needed and illustrated to me what course to take in dealing with the death of Senator Kennedy. No he wasn’t perfect, just human and Catholic, may he rest in peace.
42.
Marie
Comment by Marie | 2009/09/03 at 12:40:49

I too will have to respectfully disagree on many of your points. I am praying for you, please will you pray for me. God bless.
43.
Virginia Stuart
Comment by Virginia Stuart | 2009/09/03 at 12:45:25

Thank you for showing the compassionate side of the Catholic
church. The hatred being spewed out against the Kennedy
family is absurd and devastating to the Church. Have the words
of Jesus disappeared… “The greatest of these is love” and
“Judge not”
44.
Karl
Comment by Karl | 2009/09/03 at 12:49:24

Your Eminence:

I thought your presence and role at the funeral were pitch-perfect. I know that people are being directed to express their disagreement on your blog by at least one other Catholic clerical blog, whose readers pretty reliably storm blogs and polls to create the appearance of massive response.
45.
Bruce
Comment by Bruce | 2009/09/03 at 12:55:40

Your Eminence,
I disagree with those who say that you should not have taken part in Sen. Kennedy’s funeral. As the shepard of the Archdiocese, it is most assuredly your place.
I do however agree with those who objected to the political nature of the funeral service. The Funeral Service is supposed to be an offering to God for the respose of the soul of the departed. Instead it was an opportunity for the President and other politicians to exploit the Senator’s death for political purposes.
I agree with the writer who said it is hard to teach his children right from wrong when we continually turn a blind eye toward politicians, actors, entertainers, and other public figures who use the Church to promote their agendas and castigate the Church when it disagrees.
My prayer is that we can someday return to spreading the teachings of our Lord instead of playing to the crowd.
46.
Michael Williams
Comment by Michael Williams | 2009/09/03 at 13:02:29

Thank you, your Eminence, for these words, While I’m sure some will remain unpersuaded, it was kind of you to offer your thoughts on the matter. I fear this blog will soon be inundated with angry criticisms from readers of Father Zuhsldorf, who has urged his readership to come here and comment. Despite his heated denials, his blog has essentially become a Republican organ, so neither he nor many of his readers could abide the fact that Senator Kennedy was not demonized by all after his death.
47.
Alex
Comment by Alex | 2009/09/03 at 13:16:54

“There are those who objected, in some cases vociferously, to the Church’s providing a Catholic funeral for the Senator.”

Your Eminence, I was one of those people and I must still respectfully but strongly disagree with your decision. The funeral Mass, a Sacred Liturgy of the Church was used as a political political platform and a celebration of the Senator’s life. It was unbecoming of a Catholic funeral and sent the wrong message to all the pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians out there.
48.
thomas tucker
Comment by thomas tucker | 2009/09/03 at 13:24:52

Very persuasive and well-written post.
We are called to love, and sometimes that consists of tough love, but not at a funeral. At that time, compassion is what is called for. I agree with Grace that the funeral was overly-politicized, but that is not something that you are responsible for.
God bless you.
49.
Linda
Comment by Linda | 2009/09/03 at 13:42:04

Your Eminence,

When hearing the gospel account of John’s beheading, I can’t help but chuckle when we respond, Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ. It sounds so wrong. Lol!

I am glad that you presided at the funeral and have taken time out to post your thoughts on this. It was a beautiful celebration that was observed nationally, perhaps even in some global areas. I had goose bumps just thinking of the multitude of people that were able to participate in the liturgy, catholics and non-catholics alike. The prayers, readings, music, tributes, and eulogies were enough to change hearts. Yes, in the midst of sorrow, hearts were changed. Thank you Lord Jesus!
50.
richard
Comment by richard | 2009/09/03 at 14:17:40

Your Eminence

I have been reflecting more deeply on your justification for the extraordinary public spectacle that was Senator Kennedy’s funeral. There is a lot that one could say about this but let me restrict myself to one comment that I think goes to the logic of the argument.

You conclude your commentary with the injunction that we should all work “to change laws so as to make America a safe place for all, including the unborn”.

How can the first step in this process be honoring the man who, perhaps more than any other, was responsible for these laws being in place?
51.
Mark
Comment by Mark | 2009/09/03 at 14:38:14

Your Eminence:

The reaction to the Church holding a Catholic funeral for the late Sen. Kennedy reminds me of a similar reaction to Jesus’ ministry:

… but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” (Lk 15:2)

If the criteria were that one had to be without sin, then no one ever would get a Catholic funeral. (cf. Jn 8:7, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”)

Respectfully,

Mark
52.
John
Comment by John | 2009/09/03 at 14:43:10

Thank you for having this liturgy. No one person will agree with another on all the issues. I regret that there are some who in any way would think that you should defend your position.

I thought that the liturgy balanced approrpriately the short comings that Sen. Kennedy and, realisticaly, all humans have. Sen. Kennedy’s happen to be more public. His letter to the Pope and his fight for social justice issues spoke highly of him as a person and as a Catholic.

I saw one of his relatives on Meet the Press the next day and her testimonial was awesome. She acknowledged our faith as one believing in the forgiveness and redemption of our sins. We are a church of sinners. I find it interesting that we are still willing to cast stones.

The forgiveness and love of Sen. Kennedy was a testament to the conviction that we should all have as Catholics.

God Bless, May I be forgiven as he was.
53.
Faith Flaherty
Comment by Faith Flaherty | 2009/09/03 at 14:50:28

Thank you, Cardinal O’Malley. You’re presence was very Christian. It was the Catholic thing to do. The “murmurantes,” whose tone is so devisive, are wrong. They do not help their cause at all. They drive people away with their self-righteous, more Catholic than the Pope, tone. You did the right thing. God bless you.
You also are right on changing people’s hearts, as the way to win the abortion war. Demonizing the other side just drives people away.
You are in my prayers, thank you for being a priest, thank you for being my Cardinal Archbishop. May God bless you with many more years to work for our salvation.
54.
Jennifer Frey
Comment by Jennifer Frey | 2009/09/03 at 14:51:38

Your Eminence,

I appreciate that you are willing to speak out about your actions; your words have helped me to understand your actions better.

Many of us who take pro-life issues very seriously feel upset when figures like Senator Kennedy are lionized by eminent persons of Catholic Faith in a Catholic Church. As you well know, Senator Kennedy dedicated most of his political career to promoting the unjust killing of innocent human beings in the womb. No amount of healthcare and welfare advocacy can erase or downplay this fact. When Senator Kennedy is lauded on TV by Churchmen as an advocate for those who are “most vulnerable” in our society, it is difficult for me not to scratch my head and wonder what is going on. Senator Kennedy, as you know, actively set out to allow the murder of those among us who are most vulnerable. To indicate otherwise is to mislead the faithful and the public at large.

You are correct that it was appropriate for you to be present at the funeral. But I disagree that it was appropriate to hold up Senator Kennedy as a faithful witness to the gospel because he was a voice for those who were “most vulnerable”. He was not a voice for the most vulnerable in our society; he was a man who made sure that they could be killed under the law.

Respectfully yours,

Jennifer Frey
55.
Peg Ekerdt
Comment by Peg Ekerdt | 2009/09/03 at 15:01:22

Cardinal Sean,
Thank you for your wisdom, courage, grace and faithful leadership. And thank you for reminding a nation that it is only the conversion of human hearts–conversion borne of dialogue and kindness-that will enable us to embrace and defend all life. Deepest thanks–Peg Ekerdt
56.
Gav Dublin
Comment by Gav Dublin | 2009/09/03 at 15:14:33

Eminence,

It would appear that the overly zealous who criticised you in relation to your presiding over the funeral of the late Sen. Kennedy can, perhaps, call themselves very devout Catholics. What they cannot call themselves though, is very christian.
57.
Moles
Comment by Moles | 2009/09/03 at 15:21:18

Your Eminence,

I cannot but feel torn in this issue. As a Catholic boy, I was taught by the Jesuits, but much of my faith leans towards the traditional. As such, my disappointent was not with your being there, not with the fact that Sen. Kennedy was granted a Catholic funeral Mass, but with the circus that this Mass became. The lack of reverence for the Holy Sacrament in the tabernacle by those reading the prayers of the faithful come to mind immediately.

As you know, the Rite of Christian Burial is a solemn moment where we as Catholics put our fullest expression of faith to the test. These are the points in our lives where we put our faith in everlasting life with Christ to the test as we pray for the soul of the departed. We hope that our loved ones will do the same for us. This Mass, however, lost its most spiritual significance for the people around the world who believe in Life after Death and who believe in the Body of Christ.

Your being there was important to the Church as a public outreach. We are to forgive everyone as Jesus did. Those who fail to try to forgive are not honoring that prayer we say at every Mass, the one Jesus gave us himself, chronicalled by St. Mathew. Please understand that from my perspective, as a sinner, that I want forgiveness. I want peace. I want the Mass to be what brings me closer to my Savior, not something that is viewed on the outside as a circus.

I would love to see your comments about the Mass. You have no need to explain why you were there, in my opinion. Your are a man of God, your role is to spiritually lead us, especially when it comes to forgiving those in our midst. I just would like explanation how in your diocese you allowed a Mass to become a circus. This is my only objection.

Peace to you.
58.
JohnRDC
Comment by JohnRDC | 2009/09/03 at 16:28:33

It is long past time that the Catholic bishops dissociate themselves from openly supporting the social agenda of the Democratic party.

The present association allowed Cardinals O’Malley and McCarrick to justify the near-canonization of Sen. Kennedy that passed for a funeral mass on Saturday to emphasize how big-government social programs, promoted avidly by the Senator, are so in line with the teachings of the bishops that this backing alone compensated for the Senator’s unstinting—and very public support—for the agenda of the National Abortion Rights Action League. This is casuistry.

It is time, for instance, that someone at the USCCB discovers that the panoply of Democratic programs enacted under the aegis of “The Great Society” have produced counterproductive results. Prime evidence #1: The stunning increase in out-of-wedlock births. Simply voting repeatedly for large federal programs aimed at fixing the host of social ills affecting the nation should not be considered prima facie evidence for “santo subito.”
59.
Craig Smith
Comment by Craig Smith | 2009/09/03 at 17:06:01

Your Eminence,

Thanks for your words and wisdom.

God Bless
60.
Marie Nowakowski
Comment by Marie Nowakowski | 2009/09/03 at 17:08:52

Cardinal Sean….
As a Catholic outside of your See…I commend you for your presence at the funeral of Senator Kennedy…the Church today tends to compartmentalize an individual’s Faith based on one thing…abortion… the deeds of many in our Faith deserve to be acknowledged for the whole cloth…you did that with your presence last Saturday….
61.
Ian O’Malley
Comment by Ian O’Malley | 2009/09/03 at 17:20:07

Dear Cardinal O’Malley,

I am proud of my Church for honoring a man like Ted Kennedy. Although he staunchly supported abortion, he was a man that represented so much good that it would have been ignorant and offensive to our country to not offer him a Catholic burial. The Kennedy’s made me proud to be an American and especially an Irish American.

I am only 25 years old so I wasn’t around to see Camelot’s rise and fall but I do remember my grandmother back in Mayo telling me how she cried with the world when he was taken from us. Shortly after they cried again for Bobby. No other family has affected the world like they have, and affected it for the better.

Cardinal, you made me proud to be an American, a Catholic and an O’Malley. Thank you!

Ian O’Malley
Chicago, IL
62.
Jim
Comment by Jim | 2009/09/03 at 17:25:52

These comments remind me of a talk I heard by a Benedictine Abbot: on the servant who had all forgiven him by his master but did not forgive those below him who owed him little in comparison. He did not get (understand) forgiveness, thus he was not forgiven (could not receive forgiveness). Forgiveness is something we learn; he hadn’t. Watching the funeral, I hoped and prayed that we Catholics could come together on this, on the beauty of the liturgy, the Mass. Nope. Politics seems to run deeper than our faith. Seems to. We can all hope and pray this is not so, or can be overcome, transcended.
63.
Brendan Muller
Comment by Brendan Muller | 2009/09/03 at 18:05:39

Senator Kennedy caused great scandal to Catholics by his support of abortion. He never publicly recanted this position. The Archdiocese of Boston gave great scandal too by affording him such a public funeral. Youe Eminence owes Catholics everywhere an apology. Scandalous.
Utterly scandalous.
64.
Ernest Cortens
Comment by Ernest Cortens | 2009/09/03 at 18:13:20

Your Eminence
Your thinking is so far removed from the understanding of the Pro-life cause that I believe attempts to change your views are a waste of time.
I will petition the Pope to request your resignation.
It would be impossible for your replacement to do as much damage to the unborn.
65.
Karen
Comment by Karen | 2009/09/03 at 18:20:35

Cardinal, thank you for your compassionate words. You ministered to the Kennedy family as Jesus would have done.
66.
Virginia K. Piccininni
Comment by Virginia K. Piccininni | 2009/09/03 at 18:51:19

I don’t want the Catholic Church to vote for me as far as health care or any other thing – that’s why we have a Constitution.

I believe in liberty and freedom for all and when the doctors want to kill (or let die is the euphemism) this will only be another just cause our leaders will confound. Our church leaders are simply no match for the rotten secularists in this society.

We need to guard against giving our government, but especially our President any more power whatseover. Haven’t you noticed
yet that he almost always distorts the truth?
aht he rarely tell the truth.
67.
Peter
Comment by Peter | 2009/09/03 at 19:06:10

Cardinal Sean,

Thank you for presiding at the funeral. Thank you also for this blog post in which you call us to civil dialogue with others with whom we disagree. The Internet Catholic websites are full of nasty, confrontational commentary.

I do think that Senator Kennedy’s funeral resembled a “canonization” at some points – there was too much praise for him and too much political propaganda in the General Intercessions. Some of this would have been more appropriate at the ceremony on the night before. Nevertheless, I hope the Mass inspired people to pray for him and for all the deceased.

May he rest in peace. And may we turn peoples’ hearts back to the least among us, the unborn.

Peter
68.
S. Moore
Comment by S. Moore | 2009/09/03 at 20:17:07

Here is one of the problems surrounding our differing views of
Sen. Kennedy’s legacy: he did not, as you say, merely fail to
“support Catholic teaching and advocacy on behalf of the unborn.”

Sen. Kennedy worked tirelessly to enable the slaughter of the unborn,
including voting twice to deny compassionate medical care to babies born
alive during an abortion. This is no mere “failure to support”. This is cruel and evil and it is merciful to call evil acts what they are: evil.
He actively opposed the Church in the gospel of life and many died as a result because he had enormous influence. Many followed where he led. Many died as he voted.

His pastors failed him, in my opinion. As the scandal of obstinacy grew in public, where was the merciful, public pastoral correction?
69.
Sr M Lorraine, FSP
Comment by Sr M Lorraine, FSP | 2009/09/03 at 20:20:11

Dear Cardinal O’Malley,

I have been pondering Pope Benedict’s words in his new encyclical “Charity in Truth”:
“To defend the truth, to articulate it with humility and conviction, and to bear witness to it in life are therefore exacting and indispensable forms of charity.”

To speak the truth is an indispensable form of charity, especially when that truth is unpopular. Our society does not want to hear that the unborn child must not be killed.

Despite whatever good he did, Senator Kennedy spent the better part of his long political career actively working for legislation that would favor abortion. That is not a judgment; it is part of the public record. He even voted in favor of partial-birth abortion, a horrendous procedure in which the baby’s brains are sucked out.
He did immense damage to the pro-life movement. Is that of any consequence in the eyes of the bishops?
While we pray in charity for his soul, it is indeed a deep scandal for the Church to imply that his record on abortion is of no consequence. I realize you were in a difficult position, but I am deeply disappointed that the overall impression given by the funeral was that it doesn’t really matter if a Catholic politician ardently supports abortion.

Who is speaking up for the millions of innocents who have been slaughtered and continue to die every day?
While Ted Kennedy had a magnificent funeral, these innocent children are thrown into dumpsters. And no one weeps.
70.
Michael DiPasquale
Comment by Michael DiPasquale | 2009/09/03 at 20:29:58

Reading some of these mean spirited comments, does anyone wonder why so many Catholics are leaving the church?
72.
Rico
Comment by Rico | 2009/09/03 at 20:58:06

Your Eminence
I watched the funeral mass and agree with your dicisioin 100 % .I Believe Jesus would have done the same.there are some Catholics who have become to militant and in so doing lose the compassion and the charity that is expected of Catholics….There is only one Judge and We all know who that is … I pray for the Church and its members we all know we do not have to wait in line to go to confession yet we all wait in line to recieve the body and Blood of our lord Jesus christ….In the words of jesus with alittle spin :) let those without sin cast the next negative comment God Bless you the Holy Spirt is with you … Peace in Christ Ron
73.
Rico
Comment by Rico | 2009/09/03 at 21:10:01

Your Eminence
If I can interject a little humor …God has shown his great love for us by making our sins invisible to others… When we look at each other we see a person …Imagine if Sin had a color say Adultry your nose would turn Green.If we stole something our eye sockets would turn Black … If we have unpure thoughts our ears turned red…. the Cummion line Would be a very colorful place …Peace in Christ
74.
Larry Brooks
Comment by Larry Brooks | 2009/09/03 at 21:17:50

Your Emminence,
I agree with your decision to attend Sen. Kennedy’s funeral and the correctness of his having a Catholic funeral. But not for the reasons you state. It seems clear that the prsence of his family at his bedside and the presence of a priest summoned at the time of crisis soupled with his letter to and response from the Holy Father give ample justification to note that the dictates of Canon 1184 were met. Simply granting a Catholic funeral in order to keep those who are on the fringe when it comes to Catholic belief is questionable at best and harks back to the fears of not teaching the whole truth after Vatican II. “When is the other shoe going to drop” “When will we mention the Truth that makes us free.” Clearly the Senator’s family knows what the Church teaches. Jesus never wavered on his teaching and did not back away when His teaching either “hurt” someones feelings or caused them to reject Him.
You are right but I feel for the wrong reasons.
75.
tom dooley
Comment by tom dooley | 2009/09/03 at 21:25:52

Your Eminence:
Your prayers for the repose of the senator’s soul are appropriate. His very public and political funeral was scandalous however. It was yet another example of poor leadership within the Boston hierarchy. To allow the Mass to be transformed and degraded into a political rally was objectionable to say the least. Senator Kennedy was no ordinary dissenter within the Church. He actively supported through his political power the promotion and government funding of abortion. His letter to the pope was a farce.
76.
Sally Fiore
Comment by Sally Fiore | 2009/09/03 at 21:36:41

Dear Cardinal Sean,

My first time on your blog…. I am so grateful for your comments. As a life long practicing Catholic, I find myself searching for another community to belong to due to the intolerance now taking center stage with conservative catholicism. Please stand tall in your beliefs and help us reconcile with the Church. We miss our Mass, our community, our brothers and sisters on the Vine, but cannot accept the intolerance that has the louder voice.

Please soldier on with all of us in mind. And thank you for being at Ted’s funeral. He has been a source of comfort for so many disadvantaged brothers and sisters among us.

Sally Fiore
Jackson NH, formerly from Tewksbury MA
77.
Kelly Thatcher
Comment by Kelly Thatcher | 2009/09/03 at 21:38:32

Coupla quick questions:

How come the only non-liturgical reference to praying for the senator’s soul came from a non-Catholic…namely, Barack Obama?

How come the only one who gave reasons to pray for the senator’s soul came from a non-Catholic…namely, Barack Obama?

Nobody that I know of decried the senator’s right to a Mass of Christian Burial. On the contrary.

Nobody that I know of had any problem with you or any priest participating. On the contrary.

The problem I’m struggling with is that no cleric or speaker even hinted that it might be a good idea to pray for Edward Kennedy’s soul. Except for — ironically enough — Barack Obama.

This, I believe, is where we failed our brother in Christ, Edward Kennedy.

Folks, even if we weren’t asked to do it by any priest or post-Mass speaker, please pray for the happy repose of his soul.

Thank you.

Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord, and let the Perpetual Light shine upon him. May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.
78.
Pereira
Comment by Pereira | 2009/09/03 at 22:12:30

Cardinal Sean:
My hat off to you. In this post you demonstrate the compassion of Jesus who came to call sinners, he who leaves the 99 sheep to go in search of the lost one. I completely agrre with you: we have to be people of compassion and see in everyone God’s face.
Some of the vitriole attacks come from people who probably defend capital punishment, from people who think that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Thank you very much for your position on the side of the poor. May God continue to bless you.
79.
Jim Fraser
Comment by Jim Fraser | 2009/09/03 at 22:27:03

While I appreciate the Cardinal’s position, the effective canonization which was his funeral mass tells Catholics nationwide that living in open contradiction to the teaching of the Church has absolutely no penalties and no consequences. It shows that if the Church is not serious about obedience then neither is the God she speaks for. That is the sad lesson that millions will take away from this, if only intuitively.
80.
Buffy
Comment by Buffy | 2009/09/03 at 22:41:34

Your Eminence,
Thank you for taking the time to share your feelings by writing this article. I felt you should have been there and could not believe how quickly you were attacked for doing the right thing. Although I am a republican and was not a supporter of Senator Kennedy’s, I watched as much as I could of the funeral. It was a very moving experience and did bring many together.
Thank you for attending.
81.
Jeffrey Pinyan
Comment by Jeffrey Pinyan | 2009/09/03 at 22:48:45

I’m going to keep this short and to the point. We owe it to Ted Kennedy to pray for his soul; it’s the least we would ask anyone else to do for us. We can hope that he repented of his support of abortion (among other things) at his last confession, but we will never know that, because of the seal of confession.

What we do know with certainty is that he did not publicly recant the positions he held on issues that were not consonant with the Catholic faith. I dare say that it would have been utterly disastrous for the pro-choice movement if he had done so: the “liberal lion” ending up to be a turncoat (although, in honesty, he would be a return-coat, coming back to the pro-life stance he held earlier in life).

Maybe he wanted to publicly recant, but did not get the opportunity to do so. But what causes me sorrow is to know of the “lost opportunity” of his public repudiation of abortion. It makes me second-guess (to my deep sorrow) whether he was truly repentant on the matter, whether he confessed it with true contrition, if he confessed it at all. This, among other things, has resulted in a scandal surrounding the highly-publicized funeral Mass.
82.
Dr. Dale
Comment by Dr. Dale | 2009/09/03 at 23:16:55

Your Eminence:
Bravo, you made a brave and correct decision. This scripture is telling: “When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “”Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.”" All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a ’sinner”.
Jesus invited Himself to be a highly publicized guest of the sinner Zacchaeus even before he repented his sin. Jesus loved the sinner but hated the sin. The same is true of senator Kennedy and you demonstrated that clearly by presiding at his funeral.
God Bless.
Dr. Dale
Dr. Dale
83.
B. James Stinson
Comment by B. James Stinson | 2009/09/03 at 23:30:53

I am not a Catholic, and I understand if you think it’s none of my business. But I am a pro-lifer, and I want the Catholic Church’s witness to be strong and uncompromised. I feel that the hagiography of Sen. Kennedy that we’ve heard from the pulpit has been corrosive of the church’s integrity.
84.
John
Comment by John | 2009/09/04 at 00:26:38

There is no question, in my mind, that Senator Kennedy did many good things in his life; and, thus, deserved a private funural Mass, in spite of his many short comings. But, what I saw on TV was an extremely well orchestated public statement implying that one can be a Catholic in good standing with the Church, even if you agree with abortion rights and gay marriage.

You had many excellent reasons for being at the funural Mass, but the above implied statement to the TV viewers, like mysef, is the only real issue. How can I, now, belive the Churches sincerley bellieves its’ position on abortion and gay marriage, if all I hear is talk?

John
85.
Jasper
Comment by Jasper | 2009/09/04 at 01:17:34

Cardinal Sean,

Ted Kennedy voted twice to oppose a ban against delivering a baby breech up to the neck, stabbing the baby in the nape of the neck, suctioning out the baby’s brains, collapsing the baby’s skull with forceps, and delivering the dead baby.

and we Catholics who oppose abortion are the judgmental ones?

no wonder these are so many cafeteria Catholics.
86.
Br. Jay Rivera, OFS
Comment by Br. Jay Rivera, OFS | 2009/09/04 at 05:16:25

As a fellow Franciscan I believe that out holy father St. Francis would have been proud of this son, Cardinal Sean. St. Francis would not have denied any man or woman, regardless of his history, the right to a Catholic funeral, the right to our prayers for the repose of his soul and the consolation of this family. Nor would Francis have absented himself from such a funeral.

Not only did our holy father Francis demand that his brothers and sisters pray for the dead, but he also commanded that we not judge others. It was the mind of our holy father Francis that we see Christ in every man from conception to natural death. Men are sinful and our holy father knew this. But he also knew that only Christ and his mother are sinless.

Let us not forget that our holy father Francis was a friend to the faithful and to the Muslim Sultan who opposed the Catholic faith. Why would any Catholic expect a son of St. Francis to be less compassionate and hold on to a negative view of an individual, even one who was wrong on important issues? That was not the example that Francis taught to his sons and daughters.

Our holy father Francis also taught his sons to obey the Gospel. The Gospel commands us to have mercy. It commands us to forgive sinners. It demands that those who have no sin throw the fist stone. Finally, but not less importantly, St. Francis taught his sons and daughters to be totally poor. Poverty is not only material. But more essentially poverty is detachment from our self-righteousness. Yes, we are bound to the Truth. And as Cardinal Sean has stated, Senator Kennedy’s legacy for the poor would have been complete, if he has also upheld the rights of the unborn, but he didn’t and only he knew why. We cannot know the conscience of another. We can only judge actions, not consciences.

Poverty requires that we strip ourselves of our own opinions and see men and women through the eyes of Christ, as the beloved sons and daughters of the Father for whom his son died and whom he has redeemed. As Franciscans it is our duty and our solemn promise to God, the Church and St. Francis to live the Gospel as Francis lived it and to obey the holy rule that commands us to embrace Christ on the cross.

It is imperative and appropriate for a Franciscan brother, such as Cardinal Sean, to obey the Rule of St. Francis and respond to the late Senator and to his family and friends with fidelity to the words of Christ on the cross by showing mercy. It would have been very disappointing to see a Franciscan Friar hold on to his own feelings toward Senator Kennedy’s voting record and disregard the words of the Gospel, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Sometimes our opinions are the wealth that will keep us from entering the Kingdome of Heaven.

Fraternally,

Br. Jay Rivera, OFS
87.
Fr. Vincent T Nagle
Comment by Fr. Vincent T Nagle | 2009/09/04 at 05:46:15

Your Eminence

Thank you for your thoughtful blog on the Kennedy Funeral. In reading the reactions and comments on this funeral I could not help thinking that much of the bitterness comes from a bitter history. For years, many faithful Catholics felt rejected, ignored and at times betrayed by the clergy on questions ranging from liturgy to life issues. Thus, a lot of automatic negative emotion comes out anytime these themes arise. God bless you for being the one to courageously live out and teach the faith in the face of so much reaction.

With gratitude, Fr. Vincent Nagle
88.
Fr Sean Coyle
Comment by Fr Sean Coyle | 2009/09/04 at 06:19:14

Your Eminence

Grace, in the first comment, expresses my thoughts. I am inclined to ask ‘Why was Edward Kennedy NOT given a Catholic funeral?’

The instant ‘canonizations’ and eulogies didn’t help Ted Kennedy’s soul one bit. They showed a lack of genuine Christian charity and have no place at a funeral Mass. President Obama should have given his eulogy at the wake in the Kennedy Library, not during Mass.

I prayed for the soul of Ted Kennedy and asked the people to do the same at my Masses last week here in the Philippines.

As we say in Ireland, ‘God rest his soul’.

Fr Sean Coyle
Bacolod City
Philippines
89.
Janet
Comment by Janet | 2009/09/04 at 08:03:35

Your Eminence,
Thank you for your thoughtful and loving words to remind all of us of the depth of God’s mercy and the essential pastoral role of the Church. I hope that your words will eventually touch the hearts of those who still seem to be so hateful toward a man whose flaws were (in my opinion) overshadowed by the good he was able to do during his life. In any case, only God may judge the worthiness of any human being.
Thank you,
Janet
90.
Sean
Comment by Sean | 2009/09/04 at 08:34:05

Your Emminence

I have but one criticism of your participation. The manner of the liturgy was exactly what many of the priests in your diocese are supposed to limit.

How is a typical parish priest supposed to tell a widow or grieving child that they cannot have eulogies for their husband and father when they have seen this on national television? There is the appearnace that there is one Church for the wealthy, famous, and powerful, and another for everyone else.

Pax Christi
91.
Cecilia Metzger
Comment by Cecilia Metzger | 2009/09/04 at 09:43:11

I was deeply saddened by the public funeral for Senator Kennedy. I believe the prolife movement that I`ve worked for for 36 yrs. will be harmed. There should have been a private funeral unless it was made public that he had repented for supporting abortion and gay marriage. What about the spiritual work of mercy: Admonish the sinner. You`ve given the go ahead to all the other many prochoice politicians that there are no consequences for killing the least of our bretheran–the unborn.
92.
Fr. Vincent
Comment by Fr. Vincent | 2009/09/04 at 09:43:15

Your Eminence,

I certainly support your presence and participation at Senator Kennedy’s funeral. I too share your concern regarding Church unity and the polarization we are experiencing in the Church.

As a Cardinal in the Church, I would hope that you would carry your experience back to Rome. The Holy Father and Curia need to understand the kind of people they seem to be listening to. Like wolves in sheep’s clothing…they claim to be more Catholic than the Pope….seemingly very devotional and tied to tradition (small “t”)….yet filled with all the vile things Jesus spoke about in last Sunday’s Gospel. Thankfully, they are a minority in our Church. May charity and forgiveness….which you exemplify in your ministry, and which was the hallmark of Jesus’ ministry, lead the way!
93.
John
Comment by John | 2009/09/04 at 09:50:45

Your Eminence,

I think there can be some disagreement with regards to the Mass happening, but I have not heard of one Canon Lawyer who believes that the GIRM and Canon Law were followed during the Mass.

The Priest offering the Mass changed the text of the Mass in clear violation of Canon Law and the GIRM. For example, he changed “his and him” to a non-masculine word. The GIRM and His Holiness have said over and over that eulogy’s are not allowed at Mass. Yet, you allowed it to happen. I could go on and on for pages, but you get the point.
94.
Miriam
Comment by Miriam | 2009/09/04 at 10:10:58

As a new Catholic (Easter vigil 2008) there is still a lot I do not know about the rules.

But, I do know that abortion is wrong, it is evil and there is no excuse for it.

A Catholic funeral for Ted Kennedy? Sure, no objection here.

But, why was it televised? Whether or not he repented of his actions before his death, the funeral should have been a private affair. I don’t recall seeing a public funeral for his sister, Eunice, who was so pro-life and who lived her life as a devout Catholic and as such would have been a great example of a Kennedy who actually follows church teaching.

Part of the letter that Senator Kennedy sent to Pope Benedict was read at the funeral. The parts that were excerpted seemed to be excuses not sorrow and nowhere have I read that he asked forgiveness for his life actions.

We must remember that Ted Kennedy was pro-life until it was politically expedient to become pro- death.

I have also read the some priests talked with the Kennedy family so that they could become comfortable voting for abortion laws. If the teachers of the church did that, they have even more to answer for than Senator Kennedy.

If it looks like a scandal, walks like a scandal, it is a scandal.

As for your participation, you have to do what your conscience tells you and I do appreciate that.

Sincerely in Christ,

Miriam
95.
Fr. Leo Shea, M.M.
Comment by Fr. Leo Shea, M.M. | 2009/09/04 at 10:34:34

Dear Cardinal Sean,
I am deeply touched and grateful for your compassion which you have expressed in your blog regarding your motivation to attend and participate in Senator Edward Kennedy’s Funeral Mass. I did not see the funeral since I was on retreat in rural Jamaica, West Indies where I live and work, but I heard from relatives on Cape Cod and Boston. For me, Jesus’ spirituality is summed up in one word “COMPASSION”. The world needs a Church that is compassionate, Cardinals who are compassionate and christians who are compassionate. My family thanks you.
Father Leo Shea, M.M.
96.
Meg S
Comment by Meg S | 2009/09/04 at 11:44:29

Your Eminence-
First of all, thank you for being a priest. I appreciate your laying down your life for Christ’s bride, the Church.

I will pray for your courage to stand up boldly for the Truth. To frame the issue of love and forgiveness against standing up for Truth is a false premise.
I, for one, am tired of this silly argument. This is not an either/or issue. Yes, Jesus did forgive sinners, but also required repentance and to “…go and sin no more”.

When I was discussing Catholicism with a Protestant friend, I pointed out the unity in Catholic faith and morals. She remarked that she doesn’t see much unity. I have to admit, that she certainly has a point.
Satan is attacking the Church from within and doing more damage than any non-Catholic can do.
We must learn to truly love…by speaking the Truth WITH LOVE. If we fail to learn how to do this as individuals in the church, then Christ’s body will remain broken.

I saw many comments on this blog that portrayed Catholics who criticized your silence about Sen. Kennedy’s very vocal work in favor of abortion and homosexual marriage as being zealots, vindictive, mean-spirited, Pharisees, etc. I simply don’t see any of that attitude in any comment. I saw great respect and charity and thank everyone for their thoughtful comments.

In His Love.
97.
patrick j walsh
Comment by patrick j walsh | 2009/09/04 at 11:57:47

The Cardinal blew a great opportunity by
presiding over the Kennedy funeral.

Faithful Catholics are confused by his
fawning over public officials and his need
to be recognized by them.

“Be not afraid” the late Pope proclaimed
to the world.

Cardinal Omalley reminds
me of the apostles before Pentacost.
98.
Mary T. Miller
Comment by Mary T. Miller | 2009/09/04 at 12:00:14

Dear Cardinal Omalley,
I aggree with you 100%. I am very pro life, I was very upset to see some people using the abortion issues as a reason for Senator Kennedy not to have a funeral mass. Very sad for two reasons: first, that kind of anomosity hurts the pro life movement; second, and most important, that kind of sentiment mocks the call to forgiveness that our savior invited us to.
May God continue to bless and guide you always.
Mary T. Miller —Maumee OH
99.
mary Cox
Comment by mary Cox | 2009/09/04 at 12:44:50

I am delighted that you did not give in to the idea that you should not attend Sen. Kennedy’s funeral. The Catholic church has done enough to push people away. I find your response to all of this hype refreshing and back to basics. We are all in need of forgiveness at some point.
Thank you for staying the course.
M.Cox
100.
John M. Keba
Comment by John M. Keba | 2009/09/04 at 12:53:46

Cardinal O’Malley,

To say the truth is to say of what is that it is, and what is not that it is not; it is the adequation of the mind with reality. You did not bury a repentent sinner – you honored a pro-abortion politcian.

Your excuses lack truth, and willfully misuse and abuse the concept of Christian charity to mask the fact that a lifelong dissident of your church and an enemy of the very concept of the sanctity of life was lauded before the world with your blessing. He was not buried in Christian charity; he was virtually canonized.

Once again, a “prince” of the Catholic Church has done his very best to set back the pro-life cause.
101.
Fred H
Comment by Fred H | 2009/09/04 at 12:55:52

Thank you for sharing your wisdom – your obedience to the Faith.

May the Spirit continue to bless you in your ministry to the People of God, the Church.

Peace be with you!
102.
John Bezner
Comment by John Bezner | 2009/09/04 at 15:36:32

I am sickened at the comments on this post, saying devout Catholics are not Christians. I guess your definition of Christian is “heretic”. We are called to follow Christ’s teachings given to us throught the Apostles (Church). We should not tolerate any evil. The biggest heresy of our modern times is that intolerance is the greatest evil. Should we tolerate people to drive drunk, should we tolerate people being killed through capital punishment? Should we tolerate men raping women? People have become so distant from God, that they do not even have common sense.

Kennedy received communion at a Papal Mass and had it delivered to him. This is contrary to what the Church teaches. He was an enemy of the Church and should not have received communion.
103.
Christine
Comment by Christine | 2009/09/04 at 16:30:40

Dear Cardinal O’Malley, I believe the grandiose funeral for Senator Kennedy was most inappropriate and scandulous, given his ardent and public support of abortion. A private funeral would have been more appropriate.
104.
Patricia Cornell
Comment by Patricia Cornell | 2009/09/04 at 17:16:31

Your Eminence, As a convert of 25 years to the True Faith, I am constantly being reminded of the weakness of the laity and the clergy regarding the doctrine of the Catholic Faith.

There were opportunities to deny Senator Kennedy communion, to have a fatherly chat with him prior to this denial so he could repent. Instead your appearance at his funeral appeared to OK his actions of abortion support. Please read this again….to OK his support for abortion. Others at this funeral are also Catholics in Name Only. The Senator could have had a private funeral and another clergy celebrating….it would have been more appropriate, it appears to me.

This past June I moved from Northern California where 75% of the citizens are fallen-away Catholics..I moved to the St. Louis, MO area. Lots of Catholics and lots of Churches. Now I can participate in the Holy Mass and receive His body and blood each day. I am truly blessed. I pray and hope others do, also, that I can act and speak the True Faith to the point of death. The moved was specifically to have a choice of Catholics in my life. I was becoming more and more like those people living around me. I needed the support of other Catholics.

This is the year of the clergy and your appearance at the funeral is not an indication that you understand what supporting the Faith is about. You might have been shot, might have received nasty letters, etc., etc., etc., from dispointed citizens. You would have stood up for the Faith…..and died for the Faith.

I recall what the Holy Father said just a couple of years ago to US clergy visiting Rome…”….speak and act to justify your becoming a martyr….” or words to that effect.

Thank you for reading my email.

Sincerely, Patricia Cornell
105.
Nuno Vieira
Comment by Nuno Vieira | 2009/09/04 at 17:17:53

Dear Cardinal:
Chirst said of Himself: Ego sum pastor bonus. I am convinced if Jesus Christ were in Boston, in the day of the Senator’s funeral, he would have presided at the burial of His brother Ted and would have consoled his family. Therefore, you were, then ,the real vicar of Christ on this earth. Tu es pastor bonus.
106.
Stephen Rivers
Comment by Stephen Rivers | 2009/09/04 at 17:38:54

Dear Cardina Sean,

Thank you for writing so beautifully and strongly, and for participating in Senator Kennedy’s funeral. Your presence was a great example of leadership, kindness and Christian charity, notwithstanding the criticism you have received by those who are apparently without sin and so enjoy casting stones.
107.
Mother of many
Comment by Mother of many | 2009/09/04 at 17:49:00

Dear Cardinal Sean,

Thank you for your explanantion regarding the Kennedy funeral. While I could not disagree more with your participation and reasoning, it is admirable that you make yourself accountable to the flock.

Noting that you cite the dates of your profession and ordination in your blog I feel compelled to point out the obvious. Bastille day was caused, in part, by abuse of the common people by the governing powers of the day who included many of the Church heirarchy. Cardinals, bishops and even priests, who were closely aligned with the secular governing officials. Unfortunately, the religious were swayed away from Truth because they so closely intermingled with the powerful politicians of their day.

The beheading of the Baptist was simple. John was sent as a herald to call people to repentance. He had the courage to speak the Truth when it was not politically expedient. He called a sin a sin. His reward for refusing to bow to the political machine of the day was death.

May God guide you in your office.

A mother of many.
108.
Rico
Comment by Rico | 2009/09/04 at 19:05:33

I can not believe some of the angry comments and lack of christian charity coming from some catholics.Clearly shows where the church is .Clearly if you read the saints responsible for converting major populations of pagans.did not do it by being judgmental ..but by charity and truely living the Catholic life and many lost their life doing so…When the apostles asked jesu why could we not expel the demon jesus said this type needs fasting and prayer….We should look inward and remove the tree from our eye before we attempt to remove the speck from anothers eye…
109.
tim
Comment by tim | 2009/09/04 at 19:28:39

I firmly support your position on Senator Kennedy’s funeral. I believe that your open minded gesture was very Christ like. It almost makes me want to return to the church that I have been alienated from by the divisive and hypocritical political stances as well as the shameful response relating to the safety of children.

Comments are closed

Cardinal O'Malley Makes His Case for Big, Televised Kennedy Funeral

2009-09-03T17:51:00.000-07:00

http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/2009/09/02/on-senator-kennedys-funeral/comment-page-2/#comment-157113

Saturday was the 39th anniversary of my ordination to the priesthood, at St. Augustine’s Church in Pittsburgh by Bishop John B. McDowell, who is still going strong today. In the Church’s calendar, the feast day for August 29 is the Beheading of John the Baptist. People usually take note when I tell them that I was professed to religious life on Bastille Day, July 14, and ordained on the feast of the Beheading. Not that I am superstitious.

On Saturday morning I attended the funeral Mass for Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Father Donald Monan, S.J., former president of Boston College, celebrated the Mass and Father Mark Hession, pastor of Our Lady of Victories in Centerville, preached the homily.

The music was outstanding with the Tanglewood Festival Chorus enriching the liturgy along with mezzo-soprano Susan Graham who later sang an absolutely striking rendition of Schubert’s “Ave Maria.” Cellist Yo-Yo Ma graced us with his beautiful solo performance of Bach and later joined Placido Domingo, who sang the “Panis Angelicus.” Placido has a superb voice. I told him how much I like the Zarzuela, the Spanish classical musical theater productions. His family had a troupe that presented Zarzuelas in Mexico and he promised to arrange a performance.

The venue for the funeral Mass was Mission Church, the magnificent Redemptorist Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help.

Senator Kennedy prayed often in this church when his daughter, Kara, was stricken with cancer. It is a church where countless faithful have gone to pray and ask for healing, grace and forgiveness.

In light of these themes, I wish to address our Catholic faithful who have voiced both support and disappointment at my having presided at the Senator’s funeral Mass.

Needless to say, the Senator’s wake and Catholic funeral were controversial because of the fact that he did not publically support Catholic teaching and advocacy on behalf of the unborn. Given the profound effect of Catholic social teaching on so many of the programs and policies espoused by Senator Kennedy and the millions who benefitted from them, there is a tragic sense of lost opportunity in his lack of support for the unborn. To me and many Catholics it was a great disappointment because, had he placed the issue of life at the centerpiece of the Social Gospel where it belongs, he could have multiplied the immensely valuable work he accomplished.

The thousands of people who lined the roads as the late Senator’s motorcade travelled from Cape Cod to Boston and the throngs that crowded the Kennedy Library for two days during the lying in repose, I believe, were there to pay tribute to these many accomplishments rather than as an endorsement of the Senator’s voting record on abortion.

The crowds also were there to pay tribute to the Kennedy family as a whole. On the national political landscape, if Barack Obama broke the glass ceiling of the presidency for African Americans, Jack Kennedy broke it for American Catholics.

As a young lad, I saw photographs of both Pope John XXIII and President John Kennedy hanging in the thatched cottages of County Mayo and heard the Gaelic greeting, “God and Mary be with you.” Three of the Kennedy brothers died in service of our country in the prime of life. And Eunice Shriver, who died just a few weeks ago, was an outspoken defender of the unborn and an apostle of the Gospel of Life. She taught us all how to love special children and to make room for everyone at the table of life. In 1992, Eunice petitioned her party’s convention to consider “a new understanding” of the issue, “one that does not pit mother against child,” but instead seeks “policies that responsibly protect and advance the interest of mothers and their children, both before and after birth.”

Much of what is noble in the politics and work of the Kennedys had its origins in the bedrock of the faith of Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy. As a young woman she had a profound experience of God’s love that transformed her life. She strove to communicate that faith to her large clan. Since the time of her funeral Mass I have kept her memorial prayer card, inscribed with Rose Kennedy’s own words:

“If God were to take away all His blessings, health, physical fitness, wealth, intelligence, and leave me but one gift, I would ask for faith – for with faith in Him and His goodness, mercy, love for me, and belief in everlasting life, I believe I could suffer the loss of my other gifts and still be happy – trustful, leaving all to His inscrutable Providence.”

There are those who objected, in some cases vociferously, to the Church’s providing a Catholic funeral for the Senator. In the strongest terms I disagree with that position. At the Senator’s interment on Saturday evening, with his family’s permission, we learned of details of his recent personal correspondence with Pope Benedict XVI. It was very moving to hear the Senator acknowledging his failing to always be a faithful Catholic, and his request for prayers as he faced the end of his life. The Holy Father’s expression of gratitude for the Senator’s pledge of prayer for the Church, his commendation of the Senator and his family to the intercession of the Blessed Mother, and his imparting the Apostolic Blessing, spoke of His Holiness’ role as the Vicar of Christ, the Good Shepherd who leaves none of the flock behind.

As Archbishop of Boston, I considered it appropriate to represent the Church at this liturgy out of respect for the Senator, his family, those who attended the Mass and all those who were praying for the Senator and his family at this difficult time. We are people of faith and we believe in a loving and forgiving God from whom we seek mercy.

Advocating for the dignity of life is central to my role as a priest and a bishop. One of my greatest satisfactions in my ministry thus far was helping to overturn the abortion laws in Honduras. The person who answered my call for help with that effort was Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who had been a prominent leader in NARAL and the abortion rights movement. His own change of heart led Dr. Nathanson from a practice of providing abortions to becoming one of the most eloquent exponents of the pro-life movement.

Helen Alvaré, who is one of the most outstanding pro-life jurists, a former Director of the Bishops´ Pro-life Office and a long standing consultant to the USCCB Committee for Pro-Life Activities, has always said that the pro-life movement is best characterized by what it is for, not against. We are for the precious gift of life, and our task is to build a civilization of love. We must show those who do not share our belief about life that we care about them. We will stop the practice of abortion by changing the law, and we will be successful in changing the law if we change people’s hearts. We will not change hearts by turning away from people in their time of need and when they are experiencing grief and loss.

At times, even in the Church, zeal can lead people to issue harsh judgments and impute the worst motives to one another. These attitudes and practices do irreparable damage to the communion of the Church. If any cause is motivated by judgment, anger or vindictiveness, it will be doomed to marginalization and failure. Jesus’ words to us were that we must love one another as He loves us. Jesus loves us while we are still in sin. He loves each of us first, and He loves us to the end. Our ability to change people’s hearts and help them to grasp the dignity of each and every life, from the first moment of conception to the last moment of natural death, is directly related to our ability to increase love and unity in the Church, for our proclamation of the Truth is hindered when we are divided and fighting with each other.

President Obama and three former presidents attended Senator Kennedy’s funeral. I had the opportunity to speak briefly with President Obama, to welcome him to the Basilica and to share with him that the bishops of the Catholic Church are anxious to support a plan for universal health care, but we will not support a plan that will include a provision for abortion or could open the way to abortions in the future. The President was gracious in the short time we spoke, he listened intently to what I was saying.

Democrats and Republicans sat side by side in the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, praying for Senator Kennedy and his family. It is my sincere hope that all people who long to promote the cause of life will pray and work together to change hearts, to bring about an increased respect for life, and to change laws so as to make America a safe place for all, including the unborn.

Canon 915 Time Capsule

2009-03-29T03:34:00.000-07:00

http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/2008/01/canon-915-mills.php

Canon 915 Is Not Optional

2009-03-28T22:01:00.000-07:00

It would be good if someone would explain to Abps. and Bps. Wuerl, O'Malley, Dolan, Niederauer, Malooly, et al., that they have no authority to set a "policy" in their various dioceses with respect to Canon 915. It makes no more sense for Abp. Wuerl to be conferring with Abp. Naumann about this matter than for Wuerl to be pondering whether he has a "policy" that one or other of the Commandments is to be obeyed or disobeyed in his diocese. (Bp. Martino's recent statement was, notably, not a declaration of a policy decision but a reminder to his priests regarding their obligations as ministers of Communion.)

According to the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts ( www.tinyurl.com/pont915 ) the obligation to discern situations of manifest grave sin, and the obligation to obey Canon 915, belong to the pastor, and the bishop plays no role qua bishop. The bishop is involved only qua minister of Communion. The obligation expressed in the Canon flows directly from "divine law," not from any initiative of any ecclesiastical authority.

According to the same document, the obligation to obey Canon 915 is not contingent on there having been consultations with the party who is in the situation of manifest grave sin. So much for taking 40 years to "counsel" with Pelosi, Kerry, Dodd, Kennedy, etc.

Aside from reluctance to confront abortion as a "social sin" involving powerful people as well as a "personal sin" committed by anonymous women, I suspect that many bishops cannot see the real principles involved because Canon 915 is mentally "fused" with "marriage," even though the Canon itself never mentions any particular species of "grave sin." The mental de-linking of Canon 915 with "marriage law" is what Abp. Burke has called the "discovery" of Canon 915.

www.tinyurl.com/canon915
www.tinyurl.com/pont915
=================================
Sebelius to be barred from Communion in Washington?
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=2411
Kathleen Sebelius, the Kansas governor who has been chosen by President Barack Obama to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, may be instructed to refrain from receiving Communion in the nation's capital, the Washington Times reports. Sebelius, a Catholic who has been a staunch supporter of legal abortion, was told by Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City that she should not present herself for Communion. The Times reports that Archbishop Wuerl has conferred with Archbishop Naumann and would "act in accordance with the admonition from Kansas City." It was not clear whether Archbishop Wuerl would instruct his priests to refuse to administer Communion to Sebelius if she challenges the policy.

Obama's magnificent brain on display

2009-03-21T16:27:00.000-07:00

"Gone" Barack Obama

2009-03-02T17:44:00.001-08:00

The Porkulus Bill Gives Obama the Power to Murder You

2009-02-09T12:24:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/c44ah5

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey
Email | Print | A A A
Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama's stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill's health rules will affect "every individual in the United States" (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and "guide" your doctor's decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis." According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and "learn to operate less like solo practitioners."

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not "meaningful users" of the new system will face penalties. "Meaningful user" isn't defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose "more stringent measures of meaningful use over time" (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the "tough" decisions elected politicians won't make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle's book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration's economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration's health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. "If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it," he said. "The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol."

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it "inexcusable and irresponsible" for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com
Last Updated: February 9, 2009 00:01 EST

2008-12-31T07:59:00.000-08:00

How to Tell if Your Cat is Plotting to Kill You

2008-11-13T10:28:00.000-08:00

How to Tell if Your Cat is Plotting to Kill You

FresnoBee.com: Local: Valley Libertarian crusader Marshall W. Fritz dead at 65

2008-11-09T10:34:00.000-08:00

FresnoBee.com: Local: Valley Libertarian crusader Marshall W. Fritz dead at 65

Valley Libertarian crusader Marshall W. Fritz dead at 65

By Vanessa Colón / The Fresno Bee

11/06/08 22:39:34

Marshall William Fritz, an icon of the Libertarian movement who opposed state-run schools, once ran for Congress and created a widely circulated political quiz, died of pancreatic cancer Tuesday in Fresno.

Mr. Fritz, 65, a writer and adventurer, began his political life as a liberal in the 1960s but shifted to libertarianism in the 1970s and clung to it to the very end.

His belief in individual liberty prompted him to run unsuccessfully for Congress on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1982.

"He was larger than life. He was an ardent seeker of truth and goodness. If he saw the truth, he'd change his life and conform to it," said Alan Schaeffer, president of the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, which Mr. Fritz founded. "He had a passion for religion, cultures and geography."

Mr. Fritz developed a political quiz in the 1980s called the "World's Smallest Political Quiz." The 10-question quiz helps someone find out where they belong on the political spectrum and has been widely circulated, particularly in Libertarian circles.

Born in Inglewood, Mr. Fritz began his career as an IBM salesman but then turned to the nonprofit world.

He established Advocates for Self-Government in 1984, now based in Georgia, to promote Libertarian ideals. He also established the now-defunct Pioneer Christian Academy, a kindergarten-to-12thgrade school that challenged the existing educational system. The school had no formal curriculum, no tests, no homework and no separation based on age or grade. Students for the most part taught each other.

In 1994, he founded the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, a group that encouraged parents to pull their children out of public schools and educate them at home or in private schools. At his death, he was board chairman.

His friends described him as a devout Catholic, an intellectual and a world traveler who loved to eat.

"As he traveled all these different places, he was delighted to try the local food," said longtime friend Virgil Swearingen of Fresno.

"He loved to eat everything," Swearingen said.

Fritz was active in the Christian Businessmen's Committee, Serra Club, Toastmasters, a nonprofit that hones communication and leadership skills, and Overeaters Anonymous, a group that focused on eating habits. Fritz volunteered at a homeless shelter and coached youth soccer.

He was the publisher of two newspapers, The Educational Liberator and The School Liberator.

One of the biggest issues he opposed was allowing government to run public schools.

"He was for freedom from government tyranny, and he started three organizations in Fresno that were devoted to freedom from government tyranny," Swearingen said.

"Among freedom-oriented people he was probably as well known as anyone in the freedom movement. It seems they all knew and respected him," he said.

Fritz is survived by his wife of 44 years, Joan Fritz; his son, Eugene Fritz of Calwa; his three daughters and their husbands, Susan and Christopher Bethea of Clovis, Lucie and Tony Ruiz of Fresno and Ann and Kyle McKenna of Pittsburgh; 12 grandchildren; and his brother, Russell Fritz of Baja California, Mexico.

A Catholic Mass will be celebrated at Our Lady of Perpetual Help parish, 929 Harvard Ave., Clovis, at 5:15 p.m. today. A graveside service will follow at noon Saturday at the Holy Sepulcher Cemetery in Orange.

In lieu of flowers, remembrances may be made to the Marshall Fritz Lectureship Fund at 1071 N. Fulton St., Fresno 93728.

Obama Gives McCain The Finger

2008-11-03T09:56:00.000-08:00

Scattershooting

2008-11-01T10:51:00.000-07:00

Scattershooting: "Obama’s definition of rich…

First in July of 2008 he promised tax cuts to everyone making under $300K…

Next in September of 2008 he suggested it was for everyone making under $250K…

Then in October of 2008 he maintains its was for everyone making less than $200K…

Biden then said middle class constitutes those making under $150K…

Richardson now claims Obama will provide a tax cut for everyone making under $120K…

Is there a trend here?

It won’t be too long before we get back to the $42K and above he considered rich when he voted to raise taxes last year."

Ace of Spades HQ

2008-10-28T04:36:00.000-07:00

Ace of Spades HQ:

October 27, 2008
Surprise: CBS Spikes Audio of Obama's 'Redistribution of Wealth' Quote, Figuring It's Better to Just Call it 'Out of Context'
—Ace

Yeah, why let viewers hear the actual recorded evidence?

They might come to the wrong conclusions that way.

Better to tell them what they're supposed to think and send them on their way.

People aren't good at thinking. That's why we have the media. They do our thinking for us.

YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

2008-10-26T23:25:00.000-07:00

YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Dog risks life for kittens

2008-10-26T11:52:00.000-07:00

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Dog risks life for kittens: "Dog risks life for kittens
Advertisement

A dog has risked its life to protect four kittens trapped in a house fire in Melbourne, Australia.

Firefighters found Leo guarding the kittens which were in a cardboard box in one of the bedrooms.

When the fire broke out inside the house, the family of four plus their other dog managed to escape.

However Leo paid the price for his bravery. He succumbed to the smoke and heat.

Firefighters rushed the dog to safety and revived the unconscious Leo with a heart massage and oxygen."