American Papist Issues Challenge to Left-Leaning Catholics: "No More Claiming US Bishops Are 'Partisan' on Abortion"

Tom Peters has issued a challenge to certain left-leaning Catholics "in the interest of dialogue":

I challenge them to explicitly and totally repudiate the pernicious claim that US Bishops, when they speak about abortion, are engaging in "partisan politics." This same claim is similarly made about American Catholics when they, essentially, mimic the talking points of the US Bishops.

The claim that US Bishops, and those who agree with them, are "partisan" when it comes to abortion is deeply hypocritcal, because such a claim is, itself, a partisan charge made exclusively by liberals.

Tom then goes on to quote L'Osservatore Romano (which the Catholic left has recently taken to treating with magesterial authority) against them:

"Obviously the Holy See and L’Osservatore Romano have been, are and will be fully at the side of the U.S. bishops in their commitment in favor of the inviolability of human life in whatever stage of its existence.

Other interpretations have no foundation, especially those that have wanted to use the newspaper’s articles to make it appear that the teachings of the U.S. episcopate on the inherent evil of abortion were an exercise in partisan politics, supposedly in contrast with a different strategy of the Holy See."

(emphasis added)

So, will the Catholic left now be willing to abandon the claim that the Bishops are acting out of partisan interests or in a partisan manner now that L'OR has put that little calumny to rest?

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

Archbishop Chaput on Jenkins, Obama and Notre Dame

"Archbishop Chaput on Notre Dame and the issues that remain" - Statement of Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver. May 18, 2009:

"I have found that even among those who did not go to Notre Dame, even among those who do not share the Catholic faith, there is a special expectation, a special hope, for what Notre Dame can accomplish in the world."

~ Reverend John Jenkins, C.S.C., May 17, 2009

Most graduation speeches are a mix of piety and optimism designed to ease students smoothly into real life. The best have humor. Some genuinely inspire. But only a rare few manage to be pious, optimistic, evasive, sad and damaging all at the same time. Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., Notre Dame’s president, is a man of substantial intellect and ability. This makes his introductory comments to President Obama’s Notre Dame commencement speech on May 17 all the more embarrassing.

Let’s remember that the debate over President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame was never about whether he is a good or bad man. The president is clearly a sincere and able man. By his own words, religion has had a major influence in his life. We owe him the respect Scripture calls us to show all public officials. We have a duty to pray for his wisdom and for the success of his service to the common good -- insofar as it is guided by right moral reasoning.

We also have the duty to oppose him when he’s wrong on foundational issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research and similar matters. And we also have the duty to avoid prostituting our Catholic identity by appeals to phony dialogue that mask an abdication of our moral witness. Notre Dame did not merely invite the president to speak at its commencement. It also conferred an unnecessary and unearned honorary law degree on a man committed to upholding one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in our nation’s history: Roe v. Wade.

In doing so, Notre Dame ignored the U.S. bishops’ guidance in their 2004 statement, Catholics in Political Life. It ignored the concerns of Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Notre Dame’s 2009 Laetare Medal honoree – who, unlike the president, certainly did deserve her award, but finally declined it in frustration with the university’s action. It ignored appeals from the university’s local bishop, the president of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference, more than 70 other bishops, many thousands of Notre Dame alumni and hundreds of thousands of other American Catholics. Even here in Colorado, I’ve heard from too many to count.

There was no excuse – none, except intellectual vanity – for the university to persist in its course. And Father Jenkins compounded a bad original decision with evasive and disingenuous explanations to subsequently justify it.

These are hard words, but they’re deserved precisely because of Father Jenkins’ own remarks on May 17: Until now, American Catholics have indeed had “a special expectation, a special hope for what Notre Dame can accomplish in the world.” For many faithful Catholics – and not just a “small but vocal group” described with such inexcusable disdain and ignorance in journals like Time magazine -- that changed Sunday.

The May 17 events do have some fitting irony, though. Almost exactly 25 years ago, Notre Dame provided the forum for Gov. Mario Cuomo to outline the “Catholic” case for “pro-choice” public service. At the time, Cuomo’s speech was hailed in the media as a masterpiece of American Catholic legal and moral reasoning. In retrospect, it’s clearly adroit. It’s also, just as clearly, an illogical and intellectually shabby exercise in the manufacture of excuses. Father Jenkins’ explanations, and President Obama’s honorary degree, are a fitting national bookend to a quarter century of softening Catholic witness in Catholic higher education. Together, they’ve given the next generation of Catholic leadership all the excuses they need to baptize their personal conveniences and ignore what it really demands to be “Catholic” in the public square.

Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George has suggested that Notre Dame “didn’t understand” what it means to be Catholic before these events began. He's correct, and Notre Dame is hardly alone in its institutional confusion. That's the heart of the matter. Notre Dame’s leadership has done a real disservice to the Church, and now seeks to ride out the criticism by treating it as an expression of fringe anger. But the damage remains, and Notre Dame’s critics are right. The most vital thing faithful Catholics can do now is to insist – by their words, actions and financial support – that institutions claiming to be “Catholic” actually live the faith with courage and consistency. If that happens, Notre Dame’s failure may yet do some unintended good.

Bishop Joseph Martino: "No social issue has caused the death of 50 million people"

Last week InsideCatholic.com editor Deal Hudson complained about the use of the Bishops' document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" to justify a vote for Senator Barack Obama -- who as Robert P. George persuasively argued, is "not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket". According to Hudson, The most egregious "teaching" of the document occurs along the following lines:

Democrats agree with 90% of the Church's social teaching, Republican's 10%. So the fact that the GOP is pro-life is offset by the weight of the many other issues --minimum wage, national health insurance, etc. -- supported by the Democrats.

Conclusion: Catholics can ignore the pro-life and marriage issues.

Another way the document is being taught is to line up a long list of "intrinsic evils." Yes, the Republicans hold the line on one or two intrinsic evils, but the Democrats care about measures to eliminate a longer list of "intrinsic evils." It won't be mentioned that the latter group of "evils" are not intrinsically evil in the same way as killing unborn life; the former must be opposed in any and all ways, including legislation; the latter opposed by prudential means.

But the conclusion is the same: Catholics can ignore the differences between Republicans and Democrats on the life and marriage issues.

Hudson claims that such a damaging presentation occurs along "middle-management" lines -- conveyed by staff, "both at the conference and the chanceries."

At the same time, a number of bishops have spoken up to "correct the record".:

We now have 40 bishops who have spoken out individually to correct the record during this election. Add to that the other 21 bishops of New York State, in addition to Cardinal Egan, and you have 61 who have spoken aloud on the priority of life issues.

(See Hudson's post for the complete list).

On October 17th, at a dinner sponsored by ENDOW (Educating on the Nature and Dignity of Women), Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, CO criticized the moral reasoning of Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec, author of "Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama,":

"Kmiec argues that there are defensible motives to support Senator Obama," continued Archbishop Chaput. "Speaking for myself, I do not know any proportionate reason that could outweigh more than 40 million unborn children killed by abortion and the many millions of women deeply wounded by the loss and regret abortion creates."

The prelate continued: "To suggest -- as some Catholics do -- that Senator Obama is this year’s 'real' pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse.

Two days later, Bishop Joseph F. Martino (of the Diocese of Scranton, PA -- home of the "scrappy" Democratic VP nominee Joseph Biden), unleashed a blistering salvo at a presidential forum -- aimed not only at pro-choice Catholic candidates and those Catholics making the case of voting for them, but the USCCB's document itself. The Wayne Independent reports:

According to the USCCB’s "Faithful Citizenship" statement, approved by the full body of U.S. bishops in 2007, "a Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. "

Martino, who arrived while the panelists were stating their viewpoints, took issue with the USCCB statement, which was handed out to everyone at the meeting, and also that his letter was not mentioned once at the forum

"No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese," said Martino. "The USCCB doesn’t speak for me."
"The only relevant document ... is my letter," he said. "There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable."

[...]

“No social issue has caused the death of 50 million people,” he said, nothing that he no longer supports the Democratic Party. “This is madness people.”

Martino also said that he wanted to persuade Father Martin Boylan, of St. John’s, to cancel the forum.

After his comments, most of the audience stood and clapped loudly while some were angry that the bishop usurped the forum.

His letter, published Sept. 30 and circulated throughout the diocese, states that a candidate’s abortion stance is a major voting issue that supersedes all other considerations due to its grave moral consequences.

"Health care, education, economic security, immigration, and taxes are very important concerns. Neglect of any one of them has dire consequences as the recent financial crisis demonstrates. However, the solutions to problems in these areas do not usually involve a rejection of the sanctity of human life in the way that abortion does," the letter says. "Another argument goes like this: ‘As wrong as abortion is, I don't think it is the only relevant ‘life’ issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote.’ This reasoning is sound only if other issues carry the same moral weight as abortion does, such as in the case of euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes. ... National Right to Life reports that 48.5 million abortions have been performed since 1973. One would be too many. No war, no natural disaster, no illness or disability has claimed so great a price."

[...] “No social issue has caused the death of 50 million people,” he said, nothing that he no longer supports the Democratic Party. “This is madness people.”

As Rocco Palmo notes, "the Scranton prelate was absent from last November's USCCB meeting in Baltimore which -- in a rare show of (near-)unanimity -- passed the Faithful Citizenship statement with 98% approval from the nation's hierarchy."

As to be expected, Bishop Martino's address has been received with mixed emotions. Deacon Kieth Fournier and Tito, my colleague at American Catholic, both applaud "The Lion of Pennsylvania", while the self-styled "progressive Catholic" members of Commonweal are predictably dismayed ("Ugly for the parish, for the diocese, for civil discourse, and for the hierarchy, which seems increasingly divided.")

Likewise, Vox Nova's Morning's Minion accuses such Bishops as Martino and Chaput of "deliberately distorting ["Faithful Citizenship"] itself (and here I point the finger at the Texas bishops), not only by fudging the theology, but by actually altering the set of relevant intrinsically evil acts."

And Michael ("Catholic Anarchist") Iafrate decries the lack of episcopal and ecclesial communion fostered by such outbursts:

Baffling, isn’t it, that these bishops feel the need to “clarify” the content of FC, a document that is revised and updated every four years in order to be as clear as possible in each election’s political context? If the bishops really intended to say that a Catholic may not vote for a pro-choice candidate if there is a “suitable” “pro-life” candidate available, why wasn’t this said in the document itself? Not only was this not said, it was not even remotely implied.

(Personally I find Michael's criticism of Martino rather curious, given that when a certain Bishop Botean went above and beyond the USCCB's own collective statement on Iraq to declare "direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin", he praised the individual prelate as having "the balls to give pastoral weight to the Holy See's judgment on the war, something that the USCCB was not willing to do." Do I detect a double standard?

American Catholic contributor DarwinCatholic also weighs in:

As for FC versus the various “clarifications” of it — consider how the thing was written in the first place. The bishops discussed and argued and revised and put forth different versions until they reached something that they were all willing to accept. However, it was doubtless pretty far from what some of the individual bishops would have liked. The nature of a compromise is to not be what many of its authors wished.

So since the bishops are individually tasked to be the shepherds of their diocese — they’re certainly not just regional representatives of the national bishops conference — it’s hardly surprising that those bishops who most felt that FC failed to be sufficiently clear on the application of principles to this particular election would issue their own teaching statements making their judgements clear.

As I noted myself, it would be a worthy effort in connection with this incident to undertake a reading of John Paul II's in examining the authoritative weight of collective USCCB statements as "Faithful Citizenship" -- and the prerogative of individual bishops to call into question such statements when they believe they are being wrongly exploited.

I expect there will be further reaction to Martino's address in days to come, in which case I'll update this post.

But for the time being, let's ask our readers: what do you think?

Archbishop Chaput responds to Nancy Pelosi

Catholic News Agency reports that In a statement eloquently titled “On the Separation of Sense and State,” the Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., and his Auxiliary Bishop James D. Conley harshly criticized Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, for giving a confusing view of the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion, during a Sunday interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press"

Click here to download Archbishop Chaput's full rebuttal to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It's so good, I trust the Archbishop will understand my inclination to post it in full:

To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:

Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the "separation of Church and state." But their idea of separation often seems to work one way. In fact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest, not as a "political" issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.

Interviewed on Meet the Press August 24, Speaker Pelosi was asked when human life begins. She said the following:

"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition . . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose."

Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue "for a long time," she must know very well one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery's Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective (Loyola, 1977). Here's how Connery concludes his study:

"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever
one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."

Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."

Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelminglyheld that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But nonediminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.

Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that - alibisthat break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.

Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the "separation of Church and state" does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But ofcourse, it's always important to know what our faith actually teaches.

+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

Archbishop of Denver

+James D. Conley

Auxiliary Bishop of Denver

Archbishop Chaput: "The right to life is foundational"

As if the interview with National Review with Kathryn Jean Lopez wasn't sufficient, Archbishop Chaput asks us to "Vote for Real Hope and Change" on abortion in a contribution to First Things:

First, surrounding a bad social policy or party platform plank—for example, permissive abortion—with religious people doesn’t redeem the bad policy or plank. It merely compromises the religious people who try to excuse it.

[...]

Words are important. Actions are more important. The religious choreography of a campaign doesn’t matter. The content of its ideas does. The religious vocabulary of a candidate doesn’t matter. The content of his record, plans, and promises does.

Second, there’s no way for Catholics to finesse their way around the abortion issue, and if we’re serious about being “Catholic,” we need to stop trying. No such thing as a “right” to kill an unborn child exists. And wriggling past that simple truth by redefining the unborn child as an unperson, a pre-human lump of cells, is the worst sort of Orwellian hypocrisy—especially for Christians. Abortion always involves the deliberate killing of an innocent human life, and it is always, inexcusably, grievously wrong. This fact in no way releases us from the duty to provide ample and compassionate support for unwed or abandoned mothers, women facing unwanted pregnancies, and women struggling with the aftermath of an abortion. But the inadequacy of that support demands that we work to improve it. It does not justify killing the child.

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit—but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade. ...READ THE REST

National Review interviews Archbishop Chaput on Catholics in Political Life

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput was interviewed by Kathryn Lopez of the National Review, touching on the obligations of Catholic voters and legislators and other topics pertaining to his new book, Render Under Caesar: Serving the National by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life:

Lopez: What should it mean when I’m “voting Catholic?”

Archbishop Chaput: We should see ourselves as Catholic first — not white or black, or young or old. or Democrat or Republican, or labor militant or business owner, but Catholic first as the main way we identify ourselves. Our faith should shape our lives, including our political choices. Of course, that demands that we actually study and deepen our Catholic faith. The Catholic faith isn’t a set of clothes that we can tailor to a personal fit. We don’t “invent” our faith, and we don’t “own” it. If we really want to be Catholic, then we’ll live by Catholic teaching. Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves and abusing the belief of other Catholics who really do try to practice what the Church teaches.

Lopez: What extra responsibilities do Catholic politicians have?

Archbishop Chaput: Catholic public officials have a duty to see their work not merely as a job or a profession, but as a vocation flowing out of their Baptism. Every Christian has an obligation to continue the work of Christ’s redemption and to help sanctify and humanize the world. Obviously, Catholic politicians serve believers and non-believers alike. They need to respect the proper autonomy of secular affairs. But in dispensing justice and administering power, they serve the common good, and the common good is always tied to moral truth. Their religious faith should be their moral compass.

[...]

Lopez: Is there an abortion litmus test for Catholics?

Archbishop Chaput: “Litmus test” is a media expression that’s front-loaded with the assumption of some priestly censor checking off behavioral-compliance boxes. That’s not how any sincere believer thinks about his or her faith. Faithful Catholics want to live their faith fully — and one of the principles of Catholic social teaching is that we can never deliberately kill innocent human life. Abortion always, deliberately kills an innocent unborn child. Nobody can honestly claim to be a faithful Catholic and then support a false “right” to abortion; it’s just an elegant way of evading the brutality of what abortion actually does.

Lopez: Is there any virtue to the Cuomo-esqe personally opposed, etc. formula we see over and over again with politicians, especially Democrats?

Archbishop Chaput: The problem isn’t unique to either political party, and no, there’s no virtue to the “personally opposed” argument at all. The word “virtue” comes from the Latin virtus meaning strength or courage. I don’t see much courage in maneuvering around the reality of abortion with sanitized labels like “pro-choice.”

Lopez: Whenever I write about Catholics and abortion, I am immediately asked, “What about war? What about the death penalty?” What about them? Can a Catholic vote for Senator “Surge”? We have killed people in Iraq, after all.

Archbishop Chaput: I’ve written and spoken against the death penalty for more than 30 years. And along with most other American bishops, I opposed our intervention in Iraq. But these issues are different in kind, not merely degree, from the violence involved in abortion. Anyone rooted in Scripture and Catholic tradition will understand the distinction if he or she reasons honestly. Genocide, euthanasia, abortion, and deliberately targeting civilians in war — these things are always grievously wrong. But in Catholic thought, war and capital punishment can be morally legitimate under certain carefully defined circumstances. Abortion is never morally justified. ...

Read the whole interview with Archbishop Chaput.

Archbishop Chaput: "Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life"

On August 12, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver will release his latest book - Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life, which focuses on a question of undeniable importance for Catholics in the U.S. but also around the world: What is the role of faith in the public square?

Fr. Robert Imbelli, a Boston College associate professor of Theology, gives readers an insightful and well-written review of the archbishop’s book, which will be published in L’Osservatore Romano.

Archbishop Chaput: "Better Citizens, More Faithful Catholics"

The First Things blog On the Square has published a portion of Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput's January 11, 2008, presentation in New Orleans titled “Catholic Identity in the American Public Arena”:

When we speak about a nation’s culture, we mean the entire fabric of its common life, from art and music to sports and schools. But since this is an election year, I want to apply the idea of Catholic witness specifically to our public life as citizens. Here are ten simple points to remember as we move toward November ...

***
2. Catholic is a word that has real meaning. We don’t control or invent that meaning as individuals. We inherit it from the gospel and the experience of the Church over the centuries. We can choose to be something else, but if we choose to call ourselves Catholic, then that word has consequences for what we believe and how we act. We can’t truthfully claim to be Catholic and then act as though we’re not.

3. Being a Catholic is a bit like being married. We have a relationship with the Church and with Jesus Christ that’s similar to being a spouse. If a man says he loves his wife, his wife will want to see the evidence in his love and fidelity. The same applies to our relationship with God. If we say we’re Catholic, we need to show that by our love for the Church and our fidelity to what she teaches and believes. Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves, because God certainly won’t be fooled.

***
5. Scripture and Catholic teaching, however, do have public consequences because they guide us in how we should act in relation to one another. Loving God requires that we also love the people He created, which means we need to treat them with justice, charity, and mercy. Being a Catholic involves solidarity with other people. The Catholic faith has implications for social justice—and that means it also has cultural, economic and political implications. The Catholic faith is never primarily about politics; but Catholic social action, including political action, is a natural byproduct of the Church’s moral message. We can’t call ourselves Catholic, and then simply stand by while immigrants get mistreated, or the poor get robbed, or unborn children get killed. The Catholic faith is always personal but never private. If our faith is real, then it will bear fruit in our public decisions and behaviors, including our political choices.

6. Each of us needs to follow our own conscience. But conscience doesn’t emerge from a vacuum. It’s not a matter or personal opinion or preference. If our conscience has the habit of telling us what we want to hear on difficult issues, then it’s probably badly formed. A healthy conscience is the voice of God’s truth in our hearts, and it should usually make us uncomfortable, because none of us is yet a saint. The way we get a healthy conscience is by submitting it and shaping it to God’s will; and the way we find God’s will is by conforming our lives to the counsel and guidance of the Church that Jesus left us. If we find ourselves disagreeing as Catholics with the teaching of the Church on a serious matter, it’s probably not the Church that’s wrong. The problem is much more likely with us.

***
8. So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t, and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics—people whom I admire—who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite—not because of—their pro-choice views. And they also need a proportionate reason to justify it.

9. What is a proportionate reason when it comes to abortion? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them in the next life—which we certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives, then we can proceed.

[More]

(emphasis added)

Archbishop Chaput on Decline of "Religious Involvement in Democratic Society"

Speaking to a crowd of some 700 people gathered in Garden Grove, California, for the Orange County Catholic Prayer Breakfast, Denver’s Archbishop Charles Chaput OFM Cap. decried the growing exclusion of religion from the public square, and called for a shift in perspective regarding the place of religious believers in a democratic society.

The prayer breakfast, which was modeled on a similar event held in Washington D.C., is an effort to fulfill Pope John Paul II’s call for a “new Evangelization.” The event began with the praying of the Rosary and a Mass, followed by breakfast and Archbishop Chaput’s address.

The archbishop, who is well known for providing a strong Catholic voice on important moral issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage, immigration, and the death penalty, said that in recent years people in both major American political parties have wrongly tried to blame the conflicts in American public life on the active participation of religious believers. [. . .]

However, he pointed out, there are key differences between non-sectarian public institutions and a secularist ideology. No Christian, Chaput said, should want to live under the tyranny of a secularist ideology. “Whenever you hear loud fretting sparked by an irrational fear of an Established Church, somebody’s trying to force religious believers and communities out of the public discussion of issues.”

“Secularism isn’t really morally neutral. It’s actively destructive…It ignores the most basic questions of social purpose and personal meaning by writing them off as private idiosyncrasies,” the archbishop said.

Americans are, “losing the Founders’ perspective on the meaning of our shared public life,” Chaput added. “Certain beliefs have always held Americans together as a people.”

“We have wealth and power and free time and choices and toys -- but we no longer see clearly who we are,” he lamented. . . . READ MORE

Source: Denver Archbishop decries trend of discounting religious believers in political life Catholic News Agency. Dec. 7, 2006.

The full text of Archbishop Chaput's talk -- “Seeing Clearly” -- can be found at the Archdiocese of Denver website.

Archbishop Chaput on Church vs. State

"I don't think the government should listen to the church - the government should listen to the people and the people should listen to the church."

(HT: New Advent)

Archbishop Chaput: Christian case for marriage is one of liberation and human dignity

A look at language — and marriage: The Christian case for marriage is one of liberation and real human dignity

How we frame our thinking about a question helps to shape the answer we arrive at. The language of a discussion is a crucial part of the discussion itself. If we don’t examine and challenge the vocabulary of a debate, we can count on losing it.

I remembered this recently while reading a local news headline that said, “Proposals target gay rights.” The story dealt with this year’s simultaneous efforts to define marriage in our state constitution, and to establish the legal status of “domestic partnerships.”

The headline was interesting. Before the first word of the first paragraph, it encouraged readers to think about the story’s content in a specific way. A story about, “Family activists voice concern,” might have led readers to view much the same information very differently.

We need to approach these issues with three simple principles.

First, the nature of marriage is a matter of common sense and long tradition, rooted in practical experience. It’s not simply a “religious” issue. Marriage as a lifelong relationship between one man and one woman exists for the benefit of children and the protection of women. Society depends on children and the way we form their lives. Emotional fulfillment is an important factor in good marriages, but that’s not the main purpose of the relationship. Marriage exists to create a supportive environment for the rearing of children and the protection of women as they mother — whether people are “religious” or not. The fact that marriages frequently fail does not change the purpose of marriage. Rather, it proves that we too often do a poor job of preparing people for what marriage really entails and supporting them in the demands of mature married life.

Second, if we’re serious about our faith — if Jesus Christ really is the “way, the truth and the life,” and the organizing principle for our lives — we need to carry our convictions into our public policy thinking. They are not just our private preferences. We should never apologize for this. If we don’t live what we believe, then what we claim to believe is empty piety. Catholics can compromise about many issues in daily political life. But we can never barter away the nature and sanctity of the human person or those institutions that nurture, form and support the human person.

The Christian case for marriage and the family is a message of liberation and real human dignity. It is not “against” anyone. It is for the happiness of human society. Any effort to reframe and misrepresent that truth needs to be vigorously challenged. We need to govern our actions toward all people with the virtues of justice, charity, mercy, wisdom and prudence. But “tolerance,” if it leads us to live a lie or compromise away the truth about human relationships, is not a virtue. It is the opposite.

Third, all persons were created by a loving God and deserve the protection of the law. Society’s legitimate, preferential treatment of marriage should never become an excuse for prejudice. Extending legal and financial benefits to persons in different kinds of non-marital relationships can make sense, depending on the circumstances. But we need to proceed with clear thought regarding the consequences. It does little good to enshrine marriage in the Colorado state constitution, on the one hand, while we legally recognize other unions that compete with it for equality.

“Marriage” as a word has meaning because of its foundational role in our understanding of family and society. It’s much more than just another voluntary emotional relationship. If we remove, or even indirectly compromise, the central role and preferential treatment of marriage in our culture, we undermine both our families and the long-term health of our society.

Archbishop Chaput

One of the lessons from last year that too many American Catholics still don't want to face is that it's OK to be Catholic in today's public square as long as we don't try to live our beliefs too seriously; as long as we're suitably embarrassed by all those "primitive" Catholic teachings; as long as we shut up about abortion and other sensitive moral issues and allow ourselves to be tutored in the ways of "polite" secular culture by experts who have little or no respect for the Christian faith that guides our lives.

Read the whole thing.

Archbishop Chaput Does Not Back Down

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput recently had "words" with some of his audience at a recent speech in Denver. Here is some of what was said as reported in the Rocky Mountain News:

"Why do (religions) feel they have to impose their views on us?" asked one woman.

"If we don't - you'll impose your views on us," Chaput shot back to murmurs from the group.

"For religious believers not to advance their convictions about public morality in public debate is not an example of tolerance - it's a lack of courage," Chaput said in his prepared remarks.

In another face-off, a man identifying himself as a Catholic graduate of Regis University questioned why "a bunch of celibate men are telling us what to do about sex."

"That's the unfair kind of remark that happens in these discussions," Chaput retorted.

"Let's have an honest debate and not make fun of the values of the other side. We've become quite uncivilized."

One questioner observed that the Catholic Church doesn't appear to care about protecting women hurt by unwanted pregnancies.

His voice rising, Chaput replied, "That dear baby who gets aborted is who I'm protecting. Somebody doesn't just get hurt with abortion - they get killed."

"Who will take care of the unwanted children?" another asked.

"I'll take any child that's unwanted and find them a home and take care of the mother," he said. "You have my personal pledge on that."

When the issue of separation of church and state arose, Chaput derided a bill before the legislature that would require hospitals to give emergency contraception information to sexual assault victims.

"The state doesn't seem to worry too much about separation of church and state when it wants to force its point of view on Catholic hospitals," he said.

To applause, another questioner observed that if the church wants to be part of public life, "When is the church going to agree to pay taxes?"

"I run 50 Catholic schools that keep you from paying more taxes - is that worth it to you?" Chaput shot back.

It was the state, he said, that recognizes that tax exemptions allow faith groups to mount masive social service programs, which benefit all society.

What a awesome and wonderful shepherd he is! May God Bless and Keep him and all our bishops.