Deplorable “Catholic Democrats” deplore Amb. Glendon

I am all for an identifiable Catholic presence in the public square.

That said, this group is becoming more and more divisive: Catholic Democrats.

Here is their latest defense of Notre Shame, which involves the denigration of Amb. Mary Ann Glendon.

My emphases and comments.

Catholic Democrats Deplores
Ambassador Glendon’s Undiplomatic Withdrawal from Notre Dame Commencement

Decision Not in Step with Majority of Catholics  [This group is more interested in polling data than Catholic teaching.  For them the "majority" gets to decide what is right when it come to Catholic identity.]
Who Support the President’s Social Justice Policies

Boston, MA – Catholic Democrats is expressing its disappointment in the decision by Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon to withdraw her acceptance of the prestigious Laetare Medal from the University of Notre Dame.  Ambassador Glendon sent a letter to Fr. John Jenkins, president of the University of Notre Dame, saying that she had reconsidered her acceptance because of the university’s decision to honor the President of the United States. [Hang on.  It wasn't because ND... NS was going to honor the President of the United States.  It was because NS was going to honor this President, who is without question the most pro-abortion President there has ever been.  The phrase used it an attempt to plant in your mind that Amb. Glendon does not respect the office of the President, probably because he is a Democrat.]

Ambassador Glendon, a professor at Harvard Law School and a listed advisor to the Right wing Catholic League, [Thus trying to damn her by association.  I wonder what other organizations Dr. Whelan belongs to?  Could any of them be an left wing organization?  No... wait!  How about Catholic Democrats?] said that she could not accept the award because she did not want to engage [WOAH! Read the text of Amb Glendon's letter to Fr. Jenkins.  She did not say she didn't want to engage about serious topics.  She said that that event wasn't the right moment, that in a short acceptance speech wasn't the right way to engage.  This is too serious.  So, effectively, this note from Catholic Democrats twists the facts so as to lie about Amb. Glendon.  They try to make her appear as unwilling to engage in dialogue.  I suspect she would be more than ready and willing to engage in the proper venue.] with the university on the "very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision … to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice." 

"It is unfortunate that Professor Glendon would repeat the Republican talking points to justify her decision," said Dr. Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats.  [When you encounter people who argue this way, you must immediately refuse their premise.  They seek to polticize what is really a matter of Catholic faith.  Amb. Glendon did not decline the Laetare medal because of partisan politics.  Were that the case, she wouldn't have considered taking it in the first place.  What has in the meantime become clear is that Notre Dame has compromised its Catholic identity by choosing to honor a pro-abortion extremist who happens coincidentally to be the President of the United States.  So, what Whelan said is really a misrepresentation of what Glendon wrote.]  "Like many conservative critics, she conveniently sidesteps any acknowledgement of President Obama’s pledge to reduce the number of abortions. [What this conveniently sidesteps is Pres. Obama's actual record.] Ambassador Glendon’s statement knowingly ignores the President’s leadership in moving the nation past the deep wounds of racial prejudice [Is Whelan now insinuating that Glendon has a racial problem?] and advancing a spectrum of social and economic justice issues at the heart of our faith – including a new focus on strategies to reduce abortion."  [This is the Kmiec Koolaid recipe.  The idea is that these other issues, such as racial equality, "justice", etc., are not just on a par with defense of the unborn, they actually take precedence.]

President Obama is the first president to run for office on a platform that promotes strategies to reduce the number of abortions in our country[Huh?  I wonder if that is true.  Wasn't President Bush pro-life?] Last week, Cardinal Rigali, chair of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) praised the re-introduction of the "Pregnant Women’s Support Act" saying that it  "offers an authentic common ground, an approach that people can embrace regardless of their position on other issues.[This is simple misdirection.  So what if Card. Rigali wrote in support of that bill? The bill aims at helping women when they are pregnant.  Help them so they don't feel so backed into a corner that they choose abortion.  That bill was intorduced by Rep. Davis of Tennessee, not Pres. Obama.  Also, no one has suggested that helping people is not a good strategy in reducing the number of abortions. The fact that Card. Rigali wrote in support of that bill does not therefore mean that President Obama's record on abortion is acceptable to Catholics.]

Catholic Democrats has launched an online statement of support for the University of Notre Dame and its president, as well as in defense of Catholic education.  The statement has been signed by thousands of Catholics from across the country.  Catholic Democrats believes that the national debate on this controversy epitomizes the divisiveness in our Church and in the public square and is calling on all Catholics to engage in respectful dialogue on all the moral issues of our time.  [I don't think it is respectful to guide your decisions based on polling rather than by Catholic teaching.  I don't think it is respectful to accuse people of partisan politics when the issues really concern Catholic  identity.]

"While we are disappointed in Ambassador Glendon’s decision, we know that the majority of Catholics in the United States support the President because they feel he represents Catholic values across the spectrum of moral issues," [Again... they go by numbers rather than by Catholic teaching.  And did I really read that Pres. Obama represents Catholic values?] said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats.  "The Catholic Right is caught in a web of the political Right [See how they politicize this?] and is out of step with Church teaching on matters of political culture. [HUH? Has this fellow read what the Church teaches about the sanctity of life?  Abortion is not negotiable.]  Even the Pope has honored political figures who are not in agreement with Church teaching such as President Sarkozy of France.  Their actions and rhetoric are exacting an undisclosed cost on the Church and society that does not serve the best interest of either."  [On the surface, this point seems compelling.  The writer uses it in the strong closing position.  However, the analogy isn't good enough to support the position that Pres. Obama should therefore be honored at Notre Dame.  The President of France has, ex officio, the right to be a canon of the Lateran, no matter what his stance on abortion may be.  He takes that place as a matter of course.  The Holy Father could, of course, rescind that, but there would be diplomatic repercussions between states: this has been the right for the French head of state since the time of King Henry IV (+1610).  Henry in 1604 gave to the Lateran chapter the ownership of the Benedictine Abbey of Clariac.  The Pope therefore made the French head of state ex officio an honorary canon of the Lateran.  Thus, this "honor" comes automatically.  It does not come after a decision of the Pope or the Lateran chapter.  Though I remember reading that Notre Dame has a standing invitation to Presidents to speak at their commencement, Pres. Obama does not have an ex officio right to do soPres. Obama does not have a right because he is POTUS to be honored with an honorary doctorate.  Notre Dame made a decision to give an honor to Pres. Obama.  Moreover, even though Pres. Sarkozy is known to be pro-abortion, I doubt very much that he would have twice voted in a provincial assembly against a law that would require life-saving measures to be applied to a baby who had survived  attempts to abort it.  There is the issue of Pres. Obama's extreme position.  There is also the policy of the USCCB for Catholic institutions.   The Sarkozy/Lateran = Obama/Notre Dama parallel only seems to be a parallel.  When you pry it open, it isn't a good argument.]

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to Deplorable “Catholic Democrats” deplore Amb. Glendon

  1. As we use to say in the “board days” of drafting and design when there were checkers……you slit your wrists all over that one. It’s a see of red!

    Thanks for zooming in on pieces like this.

  2. Tominellay says:

    I never heard of Catholic Democrats before the Left needed its press releases.

  3. AlwaysCatholic says:

    Father: thank you for the history lesson. More of us need to self educate and how Holy Mother Church has shaped history.
    Two Points:
    1.Group after so-called “Catholic” group continue to look to the polls. Maybe it’s me, but the Roman Catholic Church is not a democracy. (Thank God, I don’t want my eternal life decided by a simple majority.)She is the Body of Christ on earth divinely instituted by the Saviour Himself. I’m sorry to those who do not understand this. The premise that these groups base their arguments on is not sound. Case closed.
    2. Looking at the nuts and bolts of abortion–I had a “friend” years ago that came to me for advice. She was struggling with her faith and wanted to ask me if I thought the Church was “right” about abortion. Before I could answer she looked at me and said, ” I’m pregnant and I’m going to have an abortion in two days.” I was very surprised because even though she struggled with her faith she was a discreet person with her private life and I really had no idea.
    Naive, I guess. She continued with, ” I guess it has to be ok because it really isn’t a baby yet, right? The government wouldn’t make it legal if it was a person.” Instead of overreacting emotionally, I quickly prayed to myself and said, ” Slavery was legal and at one time the Supreme Court of the US said that blacks were not “people.” She looked and me and said, “you are not my friend anymore.” I asked why and she said, ” Now I can’t get this abortion and my life is over.” I laughed and told her how surprised I was that such a small answer without even going into theology convinced her of the right of her child to have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    Brian was born in 1986, healthy and as we soon found out, gifted.
    Oh, by the way, he will be, God willing, ordained a priest next year. I’m just sayin’…

  4. Aaron says:

    Thanks for that story, AlwaysCatholic; very heartening.

    When these people keep insisting that Obama’s “social justice policies” are so Catholic-friendly, my first thought is, “How do you know?” Abortion is the only one he made a big point of acting on immediately. He hasn’t signed or pushed for any legislation regarding other social values issues like welfare, immigration, or the death penalty. We’ve gotten nothing but campaign rhetoric on all other social issues.

    They seem to assume that because he’s a known leftist, his social policies will be in line with theirs, which is telling.

  5. Mark says:

    Is there a link to the original press release?

    Tnx

  6. Jim says:

    I believe there will come a time that the “Catholic” democrats will leave and form their own church, or join the gay & abortion friendly episcopal church. Ever so slowly, the heirarchy is waking up to the need to proclaim Catholic morality and values more forcefully. The dissenters are on the wrong side of history, I’m afraid.

  7. Jordanes says:

    More Catholics who’ve sold their faith for a mess of worldly, political advantage.

  8. To be deplored by this group is high praise.

  9. Hidden One says:

    Time for somebody / some group to actually tackle Catholic Democrats, exposing it for what it is and rendering it far less effective than it is now.

    On a semi-related note, delenda est tabula.

  10. Cathguy says:

    Catholic Democrats is a disgusting organization. I am ashamed of them.

    There is an organization for REAL Catholics who are Democrats: it is “Democrats for Life.”

    Check them out.

    This other organization is a farce, and a terrible sham. Shame on them all!!!

  11. Clinton says:

    It is interesting that this group can only muster half-truths, spin and mischaracterization in defense of its position.
    They don’t seem to have much else. The misreading of Ambassador Glendon’s letter convinced me that these are not
    honest people with whom one can reason and debate. “Catholic Democrats” is merely a propaganda machine, like
    the odious “Catholics for Choice”.

  12. Charivari Rob says:

    “Boston, MA – Catholic Democrats is expressing its disappointment in the decision by Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon to withdraw her acceptance of the prestigious Laetare Medal from the University of Notre Dame. Ambassador Glendon sent a letter to Fr. John Jenkins, president of the University of Notre Dame, saying that she had reconsidered her acceptance because of the university’s decision to honor the President of the United States. [Hang on. It wasn’t because ND... NS was going to honor the President of the United States. It was because NS was going to honor this President, who is without question the most pro-abortion President there has ever been. The phrase used it an attempt to plant in your mind that Amb. Glendon does not respect the office of the President, probably because he is a Democrat.]”

    Not only is it not “…honor the POTUS..”, it is not “…honor this POTUS…”

    As I read her letter, Ambassador Glendon accepted word of being awarded the Medal (in good grace and good faith) in December, long before President Obama was scheduled as commencement speaker. When the commencement speaker was announced, she remained a gracious ‘guest’ and true to Catholic teaching. She did not threaten to withdraw or attempt to direct the University’s decision. She did indicate both her disappointment with the failure to live up to Catholic teaching and her determination to witness to the Truth, acting in good faith.

    That changed when it became clear that the University was using her as a token Catholic on the program for that event. Facing the prospect of being used to distort Catholic teaching and the fact that the ‘forum’ in question was completely unsuitable to counter the damage being done, she decided she was not going to be a party to it.

  13. ealber says:

    this situation is very frustrating. How many Bishops, theologians, priests, and laity must explain their feelings and beliefs about this situation before these individuals finally stop politicizing it?

    AlwaysCatholic: thank you so much. You made my day.

  14. cthemfly25 says:

    First,I suspect that Ambassador Glendon fully anticipated this type of political response…and anticipated that her message of fealty to Church teachings, overlooked by Father Jenkins et al, would be met with the typical post–modernists blatherings.

    Second, Ambassador Glendon’s carefully worded letter addressed ND’s decision “to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.” Importantly, she did not limit her declination to concerns about ‘abortion.’ Those ‘fundamental principles of justice’ are well expressed in many encyclicals and elsewhere to include the recognition of property rights and free enterprise, marriage and family, and many other building blocks, ie principles, for a fair and just society. As we mourn these past 100 days and look ahead to more of the same, some Bishops have for too long been silent, and even complicit in seeking, top down socialistic policies which now serve as the springboard for the implementation of hard core and tyrannical socialism.

  15. EDG says:

    Mary Ann Glendon is a genuine legal scholar who actually knows what she’s talking about, unlike the community-organizer/part-time adjunct instructor who got boosted into the WH by the media and lots of money from unknown sources. “Catholic Democrats” should just be thankful that it’s not worth her while to argue with them, because she’d blast them out of the water, legally speaking. It’s always jaw-dropping when you see twits believe they can take on a genuine intellectual.

  16. AlwaysCatholic says:

    You’re welcome to all on WDTPRS list who appreciated the post. I am grateful to have a place to come to share our faith. Father Zuhlsdorf is such a generous priest to host this platform. Thanks to Father and all of you that participate.

    I shared another post in reference to where we were and what we were doing when Our Holy Father Benedict was elected Pope. It is as beautiful as this one.

    Our Lord has blessed me with a life where many situations like this one and the other story as well were put in my path. My parents always said that I attracted things like this because I was “Always Catholic”. I asked them what they meant by that and they said, Our Lord wants you to help others when they need it and this is His way of doing it.”

    I went to school for Theology thinking that’s what they meant. Actually, the theology part comes in handy when I need to explain the Faith. (Never as eloquently as Father Z, mind you…) However, different situations come across my path such as this without explanation except Divine Providence. My family still insists that it is because I am “Always Catholic.” They say it is because my Faith is my life. If that is true, then I am truly blessed.

  17. Houghton G. says:

    Catholic Democrats is a shill for Obama, one of many such groups he\’s employed in his never-ceasing campaigning to be president. (He has no inkling of how to govern–all he knows how to do is campaign.)

    These attacks on Glendon are organized straight out of the White House war room, I guarantee you. This is straightline political hardball. Ten to one that’s exactly what Jenkins discussed with Obama on his secret flight to Washington.

    I don’t know how it can be done, but these fraudulent groups have to be discredited–the mainstream media who take them seriously have to be bombarded with complaints until they stop regurgitating their dishonest press releases.

    But as a first step, we need to acknowledge up front that these groups are not Catholic in any sense but political shock troops, carefully organized and deployed by the White House.

  18. Carol McKinley says:

    Catholic Democrats is another initiative started by Eric McFadden of Catholics for Kerry/Hillary’s outreach director and various other apostasies. McFadden and Whelan were partners in the venture just shy of McFadden’s arrest for being, among other things, the largest pimp (including minors) in Ohio.

    When McFadden’s departed for the big house, a local Boston character named “Steve Krueger” joined Whelan’s initiative. Krueger, was executive director of…drumroll….Voice of the Faithful.

    It’s two people with venom for the teachings of the Church who have been attacking anyone willing to stand up for the Church’s tenets, sticking to their pipe dream that some day, we’ll be intimidated by them.

    Even the USCCB is losing their palate for their drivel and tactics!

  19. Rob Cartusciello says:

    Catholic Democrats is like many liberal political Catholic groups – two people with a fax machine, a website and a blog.

    I find it interesting that folks who would be the first to argue separation of Church and State have no problem interjecting a political agenda into internal Church discussions.

    As for poll data – Truth is a majority of one – Athanasius contra mundi.

  20. Sandra in Severn says:

    These are NOT the majority of Catholics, not even sure if they are catholic (the little “c” is intentional). Reminds me of how in the Cold War days you really knew what was Communist/Socialist and what wasn’t. The words “people” or “democratic” would show up in the pompous title of the group.

    This must be the “church” of Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Biden.

    Interesting reading up on McFadden, sounds like a “true son of the church” just not the Catholic Church. I know we are to pray for our enemies, we should pause and pray for these misguided people being led a-stray.

  21. Rancher says:

    The true Catholic Church in the USA will likely become like the Marine Corps–composed of a few good men and women. The rest will, as another poster said, bail out and join some politically correct denomination or will form the American Catholic Church which will have no connection to the one true Church. Better fewer and right than more and wrong.

  22. Londiniensis says:

    Shabby arguments, shabby ad hominem attack. Just shabby.

  23. Carol McKinley says:

    “Catholic Democrats is like many liberal political Catholic groups – two people with a fax machine, a website and a blog”

    Even any half-baked shtick is going to registered with the Secretary of State, have a Board of Directors, Officers and By-laws. Whelan and Krueger are two people with poor discretion and judgment, a fax machine and a voodoo doll named Catechism.

  24. Jeff Pinyan says:

    Perhaps “Catholic Democrats” don’t know that the sensus fidelium, and indeed our individual consciences, must be informed by the Magisterium of the Church. Someone should let them know.

    From Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 12:

    This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, “from the bishops to the last of the faithful” they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it [the Magisterium or the appreciation?], receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3).

  25. Richard says:

    I wonder what the average age of these “Catholics” who form the “majority” opinion is…

  26. Allena says:

    They have just fell for the rationalize anything you want as being ok because that’s what people want to hear line.

    This is the root of every sin, pride!

    I know what is right, not the Church.

    It’s a war and these are our enemies, we should pray for them, but we never ever should bend on teaching of the Church.

  27. Supertradmom says:

    As a Catholic, I have never been polled for my opinion, and I doubt whether anyone on this blog has been asked any such question which supports abortion. I really am fed-up with this “majority” Catholic language without real proof, as all the Catholics I know are fiercely pro-life. God bless Dr. Glendon, who is seriously misrepresented by the above article. May she be given great peace and consolation for her brave decision.

    And, as an alum, I still cannot understand ND’s persistence in continuing with the gross decision to invite and award the President. The petition gathered by the Newman Society was handed in today to the ND President, Board, Head Chaplain, and local Bishop!

  28. Latekate says:

    You CAN’T “dialogue” on moral issues, they are moral issues! Abortion is wrong, period, end of discussion, no “dialogue”: thesis vs antithesis= new synthesis (compromise). This is what they hate: absolutes. If Catholics are unwilling to “dialogue” on an issue they can’t “compromise” Catholics into moving leftward with “dialogue” on abortion.

    They also love to quote (easily manipulated) polls as support for the truth of their position and to promote the lie that mob rule is somehow righteous rule.

    I don’t believe these people ARE truly Catholic. The lefties are crafty, they maneuver into positions of leadership or authority and try to lead folks into following another agenda. They call themselves things that sound mainstream and All-American to try to convince folks that they speak for all Catholics.

  29. Dear Fr. Zuhlsdorf,

    The Catholic Democrats are being extremely disingenuous here.

    When this whole scandal erupted, I was in the minority of voices, saying, “hold your horses,” while a great deal of vitriol was being spouted from many quarters. I was willing to give ND the benefit of the doubt, and say, “Is it really as bad as all that?”

    Well, ND’s handling of the fallout has shown beyond a shadow of doubt that, however innocent their decision to invite the POTUS, their intention in granting the honorary degree was to honor the man, Barack Obama. Since Barack Obama is the most radically pro-abortion person ever to stand in, let alone be elected to the Oval Office, it is quite clear that honoring his person were in direct and complete disregard for and even contempt of the USCCB’s statement on Catholics in Political Life.

    ND’s supposed consultation of canon lawyers, or rather ND’s decision to follow their lawyers’ supposed counsel, only aggravates ND’s failure to think with the Church in this matter.

    I still maintain that, had ND said right from the get-go that theirs is a standing invitation to newly-elected presidents and their award the traditional honor the university bestows on the officeholder as such in recognition of the dignity the presence of the office brings to the occasion, then they might have avoided this whole sad episode.

    Instead, they dug their own grave.

    Best,
    C.

  30. Dear Fr. Zuhlsdorf,

    With regard to the “Sarkozy Defense” as I have dubbed it over at mine ( click here for link to page ), I have a slightly different take. The argument is valid as far as it goes. It is simply not applicable to the present case.

    When I was advancing the Sarkozy defense, it was not perfectly clear that ND was honoring the man, rather than following standard practice in inviting the incumbent POTUS. [I think it was clear.]

    Best,
    C.

  31. When all other arguements fail, accuse someone of being racist.

  32. jacques says:

    Pdt Sarkozy’s stance on abortion isn’t well known: Officially he is neither pro nor against abortion:
    He contents himself with keeping unchanged the current state of the issue like he inherited it when coming to the power.
    I suspect that he is intimately pro-life but not courageous enough to say it aloud.
    He has got enough worries with a number of crucial matters in France for not lighting a new turmoil in the opinion.
    Anyway I never heard him promoting a further liberalization of abortion.
    Thus his case is far more different from that of Pdt Obama.
    His stance on religion and peculiarly on the French and Catholic roots was more courageous and welcome by the Pope in his last trip: The opponents supporters of laicism and the media ostracized him.
    I was scandalized by that of Pdt Chirac who strived and succeeded to erase the mention of Europe’s Christian roots in the EU constitution because (I quote):”I don’t want Europe to become Christian club” Sad… Sad…

  33. Stalinism is alive and well in the American Left, especially, it seems, the Catholic Left.

  34. Dear Fr. Zuhlsdorf,

    In any case, it was not clear to me that they were honoring the man, until they came out and said repeatedly that that was what they were doing, and proceeded to try to justify the unjustifiable.

    It became clear to me only after ND inanely reiterated its attempted justification in lamer and lamer terms.

    Even after their first statement, I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say something to the effect of, “Well, they were caught off guard but the vehemence of the backlash, and did not think their way through their response.”

    Instead, they became entrenched.

    Worse, they tried to snark and sneak and slither their way out of the difficulty.

    By then, it was clear that the ND authorities were not caught in the always awkward position of having to defend and justify a clean conscience in the face of unexpected suspicion; rather it was clear that they were not willing to recognize as such, much less back away from their ill-advised line of conduct.

    I sincerely wonder whether much of the unpleasantness and many of the ill effects of this sad business (some of which are grave and enduring) might have been avoided entirely or at least attenuated, had the reaction been different at least in tone.

    Best,
    C.

  35. Ron says:

    “The Catholic Right is caught in a web of the political Right”

    Okay, this drives me crazy. Can someone please tell me what a Catholic Left and a Catholic Right are?!? It sounds as if they are two parties warring for control of the Faith, just as the way most people view modern politics. The Church isn’t a democracy with warring parties (although surely there are battles being fought). There is orthodox and heterodox (even if the lines aren’t always 100% clear on all issues) but we know those who adhere to what the Church believes and those who do not.

    It amazes me especially in this article because the author aligns the Catholic Right with Republicans, as if the “Catholic Right” as the political right – none of this makes mention of what the truth of the Faith is, who is being faithful to it and who is rejecting it.

    Pax Christi tecum.

  36. Paul Haley says:

    One argument they cannot refute is the official teaching of the Catholic Church, to wit: “human life is sacred from the moment of conception to natural death” and to honor a politician who openly and consistently opposes this teaching is not the “Catholic” thing to do. That’s it, in a nutshell, and nothing the political Left says can obfuscate this point. They avoid official catholic teaching like the plague because it destroys their arguments completely.

  37. As a secretary in the parish office I received a phone call from a self indentified non Catholic Christian, she did not know where to call or write to express her support for both the students of Notre Shame who oppose the invitation to the POTUS to speak and Amb. Glendon. She wanted these young people and the Ambassasdor to know how proud and supportful she is of their stand. They all have set the example of what \”Catholic\” is and people are noticing. I do not know where to go with this information but if I post here perhaps some of them will read it and get the word out. As a Catholic I too am proud of these people, it isn\’t always easy to stand with Jesus…Bravo to you all and keep fighting the good fight!! I hope this isn\’t too far off topic Fr.

  38. Jason Keener says:

    The Catholic Democrats have not only taken leave of the Catholic Faith; they’ve taken leave of their rational nature, too. The natural moral law, which we discover through our human reason, tells us that abortion is a heinous evil that is totally incompatible with the common good of society. No other issue can outweigh the killing of millions of innocent people. One does not need to be a Catholic to understand that abortion is a deplorable evil that must be fought at every turn. Any open-minded person of good will who takes the time to understand the rational arguments against abortion in the natural moral law should see this.

    I also wonder how the Catholic Democrats can be so concerned about racial equality, yet they overlook the fact that so many people of color are the victims of abortion.

  39. Joe bis says:

    Catholic Democrats seem to disagree with the Catholic church’s position on abortion. Perhaps they could clarify this by speaking as strongly to fellow Democrats about how their party has banned Democrats for Life.

  40. Doc Angelicus says:

    Cardinal Rigali has also recently thrashed Kmiec on Obamba’s embryonic stem cell policies. Sort of undermines Whelan’s attempt to say, “See, even the Hierarchy appreciates Obama’s social agenda.” see http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15826

  41. TJM says:

    This is pretty transparent. Joseph Goebbels would be proud! Tom

  42. Ioannes Andreades says:

    When I was a kid, I realized that the difference between the crayons green-yellow and yellow-green was that the color of the crayon seemed to be more like the second named color than the first. Same goes with Catholic Democrats.

  43. Not Getting Creaky Just Yet says:

    ““Catholic Democrats is like many liberal political Catholic groups – two people with a fax machine, a website and a blog”

    Even any half-baked shtick is going to registered with the Secretary of State, have a Board of Directors, Officers and By-laws. Whelan and Krueger are two people with poor discretion and judgment, a fax machine and a voodoo doll named Catechism.”

    While I haven’t gone and traced it all (follow the money!) I strongly suspect that “Catholic Democrats” is just astroturf: paid shills pretending to be grassroots activism.

    Astroturf, of course, is what the Alinskyites specialize in. Just sayin’.
    Best to all.

  44. quiet beginning says:

    The Catholic Church has never (and can never) change its position on abortion. Because of their aiding individuals in the commission of the mortal sin of abortion, these “Catholic” Democrats have already incurred statim, ipso facto excommunication (a jure, latae sententiae). That said, I’m not so sure that most conciliarist communicants know (or would care even if they did know) that this is the case. I pray for the Holy Father.

  45. Mitchell NY says:

    The more they say publically the more I know that the effects of their (Notre Dame’s) decision are being felt. Maybe it has something more to do with the millions in lost donations to the University that is irking them now, and Ms. Glendon is taking the hit for it…Regardless she is to be admired and supported vocally by the people with the means…

  46. tertullian says:

    “Catholic Democrats believes that the national debate on this controversy epitomizes the divisiveness in our Church”

    The only party being divisive is the catholic democrats,who are neither Catholic nor Democrats. Last time I looked, the Church was of one mind on abortion.

  47. Maureen says:

    In his press conference yesterday President Obama said that reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is a good way to reduce the number of abortions. Surely, better access to birth control for women–both married and unmarried–would reduce the number of abortions; NFP should be one of those options.

  48. Colm says:

    Catholics who vote and support republicans are hypocrites. They only care one issue, abortion. [?] They completely ignore Catholic teaching on taking care of the poor, immigration, war, and the death penalty. [?!?] I understand abortion is a big issue, but it shouldn’t be the only one Catholic voters are concerned with.

  49. wsxyz says:

    Colm, Catholic teaching on war is that it is sometimes justified, sometimes not. Catholic teaching on the death penalty is that it is permitted under certain circumstances, but is not necessary in most cases these days. Catholic teaching on abortion is that it is always evil, never justified, and may never be tolerated by a Catholic for any reason.

    See a difference?

    What’s worse, living in poverty, or being dead?
    What’s worse, being deported, or being murdered by your mother?
    What’s worse, executing the guilty, or slaughtering the innocent?
    What’s worse, killing enemy soldiers in battle, or ripping babies limb-from-limb and throwing them in the trash?

  50. Ricky Vines says:

    These Democrats position us to appear like an extremist position in the Church so that they can assure others that their position is acceptable and convince them to ignore us as politically motivated.

    How many times have these pols given interviews and presented erroneous interpretations of the Church’s teaching. They either do not know the teaching or pervert it to suit their agenda. Only God knows what is in their hearts. But they have the obligation to seek the truth and form their consciences. So, these folks are not naive. They know what they’re doing and that is scary for them because their guilt will be heavier.

    It appears that their mind is made up and there is no concern for the truth. So, they try all sorts of tricks and lawyering to win the argument and make themselves look like the reasonable middle ground.

    Regardless, we have the truth on our side. They have lies on theirs. They can spin and frame. We can proclaim our side in every forum that we find ourselves. I am happy with how the bishops are doing an excellent job in immediately call them out whenever they lie.

    I think a lot of faithful Catholics are energized, involved and empowered to defend the faith as shown by the results in the polls and the online discussions and blog posts.

    Long post, I know. If God is for us, who can be against us? If demons cannot defeat us, then pols, lawyers and feminists and Catholic Democrates can all jump in a lake.

  51. Something I just remembered: according to canon law, you cannot use “Catholic” in the name of your organization without the express permission of your bishop.

    Just sayin’.

  52. Maureen says:

    Bravo for Colm’s comments.

  53. Girgadis says:

    I wonder why groups like Catholic Democrats haven’t jumped ship to another
    denomination that would support their beliefs. But I would like to say this:
    one can be opposed to abortion AND war AND the death penalty and still be a
    faithful Catholic. And I would throw torture in there, too. I think there are
    a lot of people in this country who have used the abortion issue as a shield
    to promote THEIR agenda of death. Yes, abortion is always evil, but that
    doesn’t make the so-called negotiable life issues always right. And the labeling
    and name-calling is by no means restricted to those on the left. I take the
    view that only God has the right to take a life, except in valid cases of
    self-defense ( and this would ALWAYS exclude abortion) but you wouldn’t believe
    how many times this has caused someone on the right to call me names like
    immoral and leftist. And the politicizing goes on and on and on, as does the
    number of abortions performed in this country. I do not accept for one minute
    that being 100% consistent on the protection of ALL life in any way detracts
    from or diminishes the importance of protecting the unborn. Other strategies
    have failed to date. Why not give consistency a try and see what happens?

  54. tertullian says:

    Colm, any guesses who wrote the following? Hint, it wasn’t a hypocrite Republican.

    “While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

    [Okay... DNFTT!]

  55. MAJ Tony says:

    If Catholics are “hypocrites” for supporting Republicans, then they’re even bigger ones for supporting Democrats. Abortion IS the biggest issue, as it involves innocent life. Nothing else compares. As far as war and the death penalty (somewhat), to use a quote from a T-shirt from my last tour of duty in Mosul, “Special Forces, because some people just need to be killed.” It’s an ugly truth.

  56. RBrown says:

    Bravo for Colm’s comments.
    Comment by Maureen

    Yes, but it’s a shame he doesn’t have clue. [DNFTT!]

  57. Colm says:

    If you vote for the Republican Party, you are NOT protecting innocent lives. 100s of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens have been killed, their lives are just as valuable as ours. The Republican Party supports an illegal war that the Church has opposed from the beginning, yes there is a such a thing as “just war” but the the Iraq war is not. They also do not give a damn about the poor, those who need the most help in our society. Republicans support racist immigration policy, another issue on which they disagree greatly with the Church on. The only major issue on which Republicans are in agreement with the Church is Abortion. Voting solely on one issues is idiotic. And for the record, I do not support the Democratic Party and did not vote for Obama.

  58. Indelible Inkstain says:

    Colm,

    Whatever the number of killed might be in the entire war, they pale against the number killed each year through abortion. The attempts to equate the antiwar effort, as important as it might be, against the anti-abortion effort just don\’t ring true. And the fact remains and is indisputable, the Church\’s position is that abortion is intrinsically evil, there is no wiggle room there. War is not in the same category as there can be some circumstances where it is permissable, and thus can be argued as acceptable in certain circumstances but abortion is always evil. Yes charity is good but trying to achieve it through big-government-managed social programs is not necessarily the way to go and has been shown again and again to just not work well. But this latter is a political consideration, abortion for us is something much more.

  59. Charivari Rob says:

    Colm,

    You might also consider that the child in the womb, besides being innocent, has no means to defend himself or herself. No chance to preserve their own life.

    An innocent in a war zone might be able to attempt to preserve their life by defending themselves, fleeing, or surrender. An innocent facing a death penalty might have recourse to legal counsel and an appeals process. Even if the innocent’s chances are miniscule in these circumstances, they are still orders of magnitude better than a child targeted for abortion.

    When a child born from the womb into the world is abused and menaced, there are legal means in our earthly societies by which those who see the danger can advocate for that child’s safety from the perpetrator, even if it is the parent. Our societies recognize (mostly) that that child has a right to life. When a child in the womb is abused and menaced, however, our societies cloak the perpetrator with a right of privacy that somehow trumps the child’s right to life!

    That doesn’t mean the other issues (poverty, immigration) aren’t important. If one does not have the right to live long enough to be born, however, they are somewhat academic. Where there is life, there is hope to solve the others.

    Rob

    p.s. – Like the others have said: Intrinsic evil. Impermissible. That would be true even if the war killed 7×70 times as many as abortion.

  60. Luke says:

    Spot on as always, Father. You are a blessing.

  61. TerryC says:

    I take exception to the oft repeated, but unproven statement that the Iraqi War was unjust. Requirements for a Just War:[Edited out. Closing this rabbit hole... hmmm... badger hole...]

  62. balthasar says:

    “The Holy Father could, of course, rescind that, but there would be diplomatic repercussions between states…” But surely the defence of a fundamental moral position must take priority over any repercussions that might arise from the rescinding the honour? And in fact B16 could have made an example of Sarkozy in this case – wisely he did not.In any case what “repercussions” could arise today?? Believe it or not the world has moved on from 1604.

  63. Kimberly says:

    They have lost the sight on what it means to be Catholic. Thanks for the info Father, very helpful when conversating with others.

  64. Scott W. says:

    Granted: Catholics supporting Republicans is a dicey proposition. Granted: I believe the Iraq War was unjust.

    HOWEVER the idea that one can rebut Obama’s abortion record with Bush’s Iraq War record is nonsense on stilts. Bishop Martino said it well:[Edited out... this hole is closed.]

  65. Ricky Vines says:

    Re: “I understand abortion is a big issue, but it shouldn’t be the only one Catholic voters are concerned with.
    Comment by Colm”

    Who said it was?

  66. Kimberly says:

    Colm – It may not be the only issue but it is THE issue. I don’t understand why people can’t see that without life, there is nothing else. Simple.

  67. Larry says:

    Every single accusation made by Colm was a lie. Every single one.

    [Edited out. We are not feeding the trolls anymore. - Fr. Z]

  68. Larry says:

    One more thing regarding Iraqi civilian casualties. Regrettable as they are, fewer Iraqi’s have died since the US coalition invaded in 2003 than typically died under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein in a single year. So, irrespective of your opinion towards the war, the civilian situation has improved demonstrably since Saddam Hussein was removed from power.

  69. Jordanes says:

    Maureen said: Surely, better access to birth control for women—both married and unmarried—would reduce the number of abortions

    And yet it has never worked out that way in real life . . . more contraception in a society always goes hand in hand with more abortion. If we are serious about reducing the number of abortions, then we have no choice but to ban contraception. Anyone who supports legal contraception isn’t really serious about reducing the number of abortions.

    Also, NFP is not “birth control.”

  70. Colm says:

    [Edited out.... trolls don't get to post new comments to provoke more responses.]

  71. Colm says:

    I’m not a troll Father, I just simply posted my opinion. You may not agree with it, that’s fine. [Okay. But let's not drag things down the holes, ok?] I’m a daily reader of your blog, and a practicing Catholic who attends the TLM every Sunday.