Pro-life

During the Papal Mass at St. Patrick’s Rudy Giuliani received Communion.

Asked if he was uncomfortable with having broken the Church ban on the divorced and remarried taking Communion, Giuliani said, "No."

Now Tim Drake reports on a statement by Cardinal Egan.

“The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God. Throughout my years as Archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses, and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind. Thus it was that I had an understanding with Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, when I became Archbishop of New York and he was serving as Mayor of New York, that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion. I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the Eucharist during the Papal visit here in New York, and I will be seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding.”

During his presidential campaign he was not receiving Communion and now it looks like that was more of a tactic to prevent John Kerry type coverage than any real obedience. Bravo to Cardinal Egan for saying this publicly and for meeting with Mr. Giuliani at a later date.

I have seen a lot of news stores and editorials lately trying to infer that since a bunch of pro-abortion politicians received Communion at Papal masses that somehow this was connected with a softening of the Pope’s opinion on the subject as if he had anything to do with what happened. This is what he wrote previously to Cardinal McCarrick in Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles.

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

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

I am not sure why it seems that so few bishops seem to be concerned with the souls of pro-abortion politicians receiving Communion. You would think that there would be more concern for the person committing an act of sacrilege by receiving Communion unworthily. It is an act of charity to prevent a public sinner from receiving Communion and from eating and drinking judgment upon themselves as St. Paul said.

The issue of scandal is only secondary and the primary reason to withhold Communion is out of love for the person who is currently in a state unworthy to receive Communion. Exactly how are they going to repent when the issue is not given the weight it deserves. Somebody who constantly votes for the Culture of Death and is allowed to go on as if it is no big deal has little reason to take the Church’s disciplines in regard to Communion seriously. The idea that they should themselves not present themselves for Communion is of course what should happen, but for the most part his is not happening.

The supporters of the Culture of Death enjoy it when pro-Culture of Death politicians receive Communion since they can then infer that it is not that big of deal and that this issue is just one of many. Just look at all of the news stories and blog posts by dissidents who are in fact inferring this.

It seems from an observers point of view that this subject is just kind of icky for may bishops who don’t want to be seen as taking a political action. What those who would actually feel this way don’t understand is that their receiving Communion is also seen as a poetical statement. Though their largest concern should be the care of souls under their care. Though we should also be lifting up our bishops in prayer along with those Culture of Death polls.

In a Senate resolution welcoming the Pope to the United States has been cleansed of some "objectionable" languague.

Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life…

So Sen. Boxer has stood up to make sure such language did not make it through. As Paul noted the opposition to this language is in reference to the Church’s opposition to abortion. I find this odd though since if she believes children in the womb are not human life than the Pope speaking out to protect human life should not be objectionable to her. It is funny that someone who believes sucking the brains out of children just before being born is not objectionable, but witnessing in favor of protecting the weak and the vulnerable is.

San Francisco’s Archbishop George Niederauer tomorrow night will honor a “philanthropist” who, in recent years, has opposed parental notification for underage girls before they have an abortion and supported public funding for embryonic stem cell research. Niederauer will present George M. Marcus with Catholic Charities CYO’s Loaves and Fishes Award at a dinner and “gala” to be held at the Westin St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco.

Well I could see a "Goats and Tares" award being presented instead. A Loaves and Fishes award though is too ironic. In Jesus’ miracle thousands were feed from a small number of loaves and fish and in embryonic stem cell research thousands are killed to cure no one.

A.M.D.G.

A story from The Catholic World Report available
at Ignatius Insight chronicles a policy paper put out by Catholic
Relief Services the charitable arm of the USCCB.  Their
position includes giving information on condom use and the report
chronicles tactics used by CRS against those who conscientiously object
to doing this.  Germain Grisez has provides a in depth report
on this that shows how they have taken some older documents from the
bishops out of context and that they are probably presenting one thing
to the donors and the bishops while their actual practice on this issue
has been along secular lines.

The authors believes that there needs to
be an investigation of CRS and concludes.

Since CRS is an agency of the United
States bishops, its officials should act as their agents. If CRS
officials have been pretending to follow the bishops� policy while
disregarding it, they have betrayed their responsibility and misled the
bishops. Any bishop would fire a real estate agent who did that to him.

As the bishops� agency, CRS acts in the person of the Church. CRS
officials should be managing a charitable apostolate of the Catholic
Church in the United States. But they have been distributing material
on which they have prohibited putting the CRS logo. If they are doing
what they cannot make clear that the Church is doing, how can they be
conducting a charitable apostolate in the Church�s name? But if and
insofar as they have not been conducting a charitable apostolate in the
Church�s name, they are betraying the Church herself�not only the
bishops but all the faithful, and even Jesus himself, the Church�s Head.

Moreover, it seems that some partners have been pressed to cooperate
despite their conscientious objections. Negative reactions of bishops
and churches in other countries seem to be regarded as a problem to be
dealt with rather than as expressions of conscientious judgment to be
respected.

Faithful Catholics who have donated to CRS in recent years for AIDS
relief did so because they expected the program to be carried out in a
distinctively Catholic way. Had they not expected this, they could have
donated to a secular organization fighting AIDS. If CRS officials have
used donations otherwise than they have led donors to expect, CRS
officials have misappropriated those funds.

Finally, even by secular standards, people encouraged to use condoms to
prevent the transmission of HIV have been ill-served. Genuine
charitable apostolate in regard to the prevention of HIV transmission
helps save lives but also does something infinitely more important,
namely, offers everyone it reaches help to rise from the life of this
corruption to the life that never dies. However, the opposite was
offered if, as it seems, people who should have received loving service
in the Church�s name were scandalized in the strict sense by being
encouraged to continue engaging�or worse, as early adolescents, to
begin engaging�in sinful sexual activity rather than to live chastely.

What has been going on at CRS must be investigated. The CRS board is
ultimately responsible for its operations. I urge the board to begin by
examining the items described in this article. The questions those
items raise suggest many further questions.

It does remind me of the line George Weigel recently used where he mentioned “salvation-through-latex approach to AIDS prevention.”

“Children are an heritage of the Lord: and
the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a
mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath
his quiver full of them”
Psalm 127:3-5 

Oh wait according to the
Gospel according to Obama.

“Look, I got two daughters � 9 years
old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about
values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them
punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16,
so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

Yes a quiver full of punishment and of
course today being the three year anniversary of Terri Schivo’s death
that Obama’s greatest regret in his years in the Senate was not voting
to contribute to the killing of her.

A new annual report from Planned
Parenthood shows the nation’s largest abortion business has made over
$1 billion in income for the first time in its history. The non-profit
pro-abortion group shows the historical gain in its new annual report
covering 2006-2007.
While Planned Parenthood made $972 milion in its 2005-2006 annual
report, last fiscal year it brought in $1.017 billion.

On its web site posting of the annual document, Planned Parenthood says
it “highlights our advancements in providing and protecting trusted
health care services and medically accurate sexuality education.”

Instead, the report finds Planned Parenthood doing more abortions than
ever before.

The report shows an increase in the number of provided abortions from
264,943 in 2005 to 289,650 in 2006.

Planned Parenthood reveals it has doubled �excess of revenue over
expenses� funds from $55.7 million in 2005 to $112 million in 2006.

How do you tell the difference between a
pro-life Democrat and a pro-abortion one concerning presidential
politics?

Well if you have any kind of test let me
know since I can’t find one.

Catholic and “pro-life” Senator Bob Casey
Jr. has come out in support
of Sen. Obama.  Funny I thought the support of infanticide or
for someone whose greatest regret was that Terri Schiavo did not die
earlier was not exactly pro-life.  You learn something new
everyday.

As Todd M. Aglialoro noted at
Inside Catholic a major piece of irony.

Casey was quoted as saying he
favored Obama because the Illinois senator “thinks we shouldn’t be deaf
to the voices of the next generation.”

But there is no  lack of people
for who party trumps everything else.  There were the pro-life
Catholics who thought that Rudy Giuliani was da bomb and of course
Casey’s predecessor Sen. Santorum decided to support Sen Specter over
an actual pro-life candidate.

Now I am sure that Senator Casey would
explain himself using some variation of the seamless garment argument.
 Though I think for accuracy sake this should be renamed the
shameless garment argument  since many people who use it are
quite shameless in how they justify supporting pro-abortion politician
and measures.  Democrats who manage to see infinite shades of
gray for most moral issues see life issues as one solid color and
minimum wage can be of equal value as protecting the unborn.
 If hospitals treated people like the shameless garment
argument then people who stubbed their toe would be as likely to get
immediate attention as someone who had already lost near a gallon of
blood.  What we need is triage when it comes to the pro-life
cause and the unborn come first.

Deal Hudson writes:

If I had to decide who was more
pro-abortion, Obama or Clinton, it would be difficult since they each
have a 100% NARAL rating. I guess I would nod toward Obama since he
described his biggest “mistake” in politics voting to allow the parents
of Teri Schiavo to have their daughters case reviewed in court.

I suppose Prof. Doug Kmiec, who also endorsed Obama, will applaud the
decision of Sen. Casey, and offer to join Casey and Obama on their bus
trip across Pennsylvania.

They can write “Pro-Life Catholics for Obama” across the side of the
bus! That might provoke some laughter from even the starchiest of
Pennsylvanians.

Well the reality is that they have thrown
the pro-life cause under the bus.

In related news a special “Mass for Democrats”
to be celebrated at San Jose diocesan cathedral for a group called
“Catholic Democrats of California” whose web site specifically supports
abortion “rights”.

From the America blog:

… But, it has gone largely unremarked
in
analysis of the upcoming Pennsylvania primary that Clinton does have
one group of political activists to whom she is especially indebted.
Pro-choice groups like NARAL, NOW and Emily’s List have been the base
of her fundraising and organizational support. They have sent emails
and placed phone calls to voters in key primary states questioning
Obama’s commitment to Roe v. Wade. And, the generational cleavage among
women � older women tend to support Clinton by significantly large
margins than younger women � is also related to the abortion issue. For
older women, Roe was part of their emergence on the national political
stage, a process that they see coming to fruition in Clinton’s bid for
the White House.

Cleavage among women?

In heavily Catholic Pennsylvania, it is
curious that so little
attention has been paid to Clinton’s dependence on these groups. Her
campaign is built largely upon her experience during her husband’s
tenure in office, and few pro-life voters will forget that it was Bill
Clinton who vetoed the Partial Birth abortion bill. Did she advise him
to do so?

There has been some indication that she
did indeed do so. Regardless though she voted against the partial-birth
abortion ban and does have a 100% NARAL voting record.

Clinton should find an audience in
Pennsylvania where she can distance
herself from some of the more extreme pro-abortion arguments. She could
say that the Democrats need to move beyond simply defending Roe and
find alternatives to abortion or new ways of preventing unwanted
pregnancies in the first place. She could repeat her husband’s mantra
that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” and point to ways that
might make it more rare.

The effort would cost her nothing. The older women who are Clinton’s
base know where she stands on the issue, and they are never going to
abandon her. But, she could usefully position herself as a more
moderate candidate for the general election, and strengthen what
remains as her most credible claim to the nomination: the ability to
attract moderate swing voters, many of whom are Catholic and many of
whom have continued to deliver large majorities for pro-life Democrats
in Pennsylvania.

I do find this odd advice from a Jesuit
magazine (well at least I wish this was odd advice from  a
Jesuit magazine).  That basically Hillary should just
“position”
herself with no mention of actually wanting to reduce abortion. Just
repeat her husband’s mantra about abortion. It doesn’t matter if she should actually ever do such as thing and of course if she was actually
President she would veto any pro-life legislation  and her
court picks would certainly not be the types to restrict abortion.

I also wonder what the writer considers
“extreme pro-abortion arguments?” From a Catholic perspective what
would be a moderate pro-abortion argument.

Elementary school principal.

Despite the current UK government’s
seeming desire to plunge headlong
into as much babykilling as possible, there are a couple of interesting
developments on the pro-life front in Britain at the moment.

First, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has reversed its earlier
stance that abortion’s mental health risks to the mother
were outweighed (before 24 weeks) by the relief of getting an abortion
when the mother found the pregnancy distressing.

Now they have announced, based on a review of the
literature, that the possible mental health risks of abortion are
significant enough that they need to be taken seriously and that the
whole question of the mental health risks associated with abortion
needs to be revisited, with possible changes to medical practice and
public policy.

I guess I am too skeptical to think that
this study will have any serious effect.  I can easily imagine
the counter that will be used if this is given any real attention. It
will all be put down to something like “Catholic guilt” or some form of
religious guilt.  Even for women who are non-believers who
suffer from this it will be put down to societal mores that they
unconsciously absorbed.  If only society was totally open to
the wonder of abortion then there would be nobody suffering these
unneeded effects.  

Though I would love to be wrong.
 It just doesn’t matter what the real effects of abortion and
contraception are.  They will be seen as “necessary evils”
required so that the culture can continue down the road of sexual
promiscuity and avoidance of children.