CWN: The Big Con – “Catholic” organizations giving cover for abortion

Check this from Catholic World News:

Anne Hendershott has a piece on left-wing Catholic groups who give cover to abortion supporting Catholics in the public square.

The writer some time ago gave us the WSJ article on the Hyannisport Conclave in 1964 when prominent "Catholic" priests helped the Kennedy’s in a crash course on how Catholic politicians could stuff their Catholic faith down and openly support abortion rights.

Here is the opening salvo of this piece, worth your time:

The Big Con

Special Report
Misleading “Catholic” organizations such as Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good operated as an arm for pro-abortion Democrats in 2008 and now enjoy an important role in the Obama administration.

By Anne Hendershott

Self-described “progressive” Catholic organizations, such as Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Catholics United, Catholic Democrats, and Voice of the Faithful, have successfully manipulated long-standing divisions among Catholics. In 2008, President Obama, with the help of misleading propaganda from these groups, won a majority of the Catholic vote.

Now these organizations are playing an important role in his administration.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

18 Responses to CWN: The Big Con – “Catholic” organizations giving cover for abortion

  1. JoeGarcia says:

    No argument there…but I’m somewhat surprised this comes as news to any sentient Catholic (or any halfway attentive observer).

  2. Gabriella says:

    I suppose all we can do when we read this kind of news, apart from praying, is forward it immediately to our bishops – let’s just bombard them with the things they’re not doing anything about!

  3. Scott W. says:

    Not to pretend that the stench of this is less than overwhelming, but I can’t imagine these groups being all that big. Going through some hand-wringing for show and then voting for formal supporters of abortion anyway I can understand. (It’s reprehensible, but I can understand) Actually joining or handing money to groups like this seems like a jump into the abyss that few would make. What kind of membership do they have? How big is their funding?

  4. Subvet says:

    “Now these organizations are playing an important role in his administration.”

    So now they have their thirty pieces of silver.

    I know some are mystified by mention of this, “Just how important can these groups be?” is the thinking.

    Believe it or not, a fair amount of nonCatholics look to the Church for moral guidance. I base this on purely anecdotal episodes in my own life. The completely unchurched will look to Rome for assurance when they’re in doubt. So the influence of wingnuts like VOTF, etc. shouldn’t be underestimated. They may have minimal effect on fellow Catholics but to oursiders they seem to have legitimate voices.

  5. EXCHIEF says:

    I disagree in part with Subvet who says they may “have little effect on fellow Catholics”. I think it is groups like this and their very public, though erroneous, statements that allowed so many Catholics to rationalize/justify their votes for an obvious pro-abort. I think that these same groups provide the basis for the erroneous positions of the Pelosi, Biden, Sebilius, Kulongowski type politicians. I further believe that they are the cause of great scandal among a large number of Catholics. To minimize their negative impact within the Church, not to mention without, is to underestimate the enemy.

  6. Sandy says:

    This wonderful professor (Hendershott) has unfortunately left my Alma Mater, the University of San Diego, where she was one of the very few real Catholic voices. She has just written a book exposing the “Catholic in Name Only” universities. I pray that more and more courageous voices such as hers will be heard around the country.

  7. Hans says:

    I suppose this report is in the nature of confirming the obvious, but that doesn’t make it any less important to have in print. In order to start rolling back these errors (to say it politely), they need to be called what they are.

  8. Scott W. says:

    To minimize their negative impact within the Church, not to mention without, is to underestimate the enemy.

    You make a good point that these groups (whatever their size and funding) are powerful in the sense that they provide the talking-points for dissenters. It is similar to my dissident RCIA director who, instead of refering to the Catechism, took cues from Jesuit theologian whatshisname.

    I’d still be interested in their membership and funding if anyone happens to know.

  9. Subvet says:

    EXCHIEF, you may be right. I stand corrected on the possible influence of these groups within the Church. Thanks.

  10. shoofoolatte says:

    THere is a difference between Catholic who are pro-abortion (there are not many of them), and Catholics who are opposed to the criminalization of women who have abortions.

  11. Scott W. says:

    THere is a difference between Catholic who are pro-abortion (there are not many of them), and Catholics who are opposed to the criminalization of women who have abortions.

    No, they are both dissenters. Evangelium Vitae is explicit that firm and unequivocal opposition to legal abortion is a duty. And the whole criminalization of woman thing is a canard. If one looks at the history before RvW, women procuring abortions were rarely charged. Rather, the punishment fell on the hit man…err…doctor performing it.

  12. jennywren says:

    Shoofoolatte – there is no difference…one is just more palatable than the other, but both are wrong. Actually, I would rather meet a pro abortion individual in a dark alley, than someone who disguises themselves as having(or maybe even believes they have)good intentions, but are clearly endorsing evil.
    I am praying for you shoofoolatte. You are clearly sticking around this blog for a reason, even though, as you have discovered, most of the content and comments are different from your own understanding of the faith. I hope you stick around for a long time and come to see that being faithful to the Magisterium is being faithful to God. And there is a difference between right and wrong…no matter how you dress it up or describe it.

  13. robtbrown says:

    THere is a difference between Catholic who are pro-abortion (there are not many of them), and Catholics who are opposed to the criminalization of women who have abortions.
    Comment by shoofoolatte

    I think that’s irrelevant.

    Before Roe v Wade it was the doctor who was prosecuted, not the woman.

  14. Jordanes says:

    shoofoolatte said: THere is a difference between Catholic who are pro-abortion (there are not many of them), and Catholics who are opposed to the criminalization of women who have abortions.

    A distinction without a difference. “Pro-abortion” means believing that abortion should be legal. It’s unintelligible to claim to be opposed to abortion but to believe people should be free to kill unborn children. Anyone who says they’re against abortion but don’t think it should be illegal isn’t really against abortion at all.

  15. MichaelJ says:

    Why shouldn’t a woman who has an abortion be prosecuted? Is this really different from a woman who restrains her infant while a “doctor” dismembers it?

    The only way I can make sense of this opinion is if the one holding it does not truly believe that a baby in the womb is a human, made in God’s image.

  16. robtbrown says:

    Why shouldn’t a woman who has an abortion be prosecuted? Is this really different from a woman who restrains her infant while a “doctor” dismembers it?

    The only way I can make sense of this opinion is if the one holding it does not truly believe that a baby in the womb is a human, made in God’s image.
    Comment by MichaelJ

    Non compos mentis.

  17. Scott W. says:

    Why shouldn’t a woman who has an abortion be prosecuted? Is this really different from a woman who restrains her infant while a “doctor” dismembers it?

    Here is a link that talks about pre-RvW prosecution and the reasons for them: http://www.lifenews.com/nat4513.html

    It’s important not to let pro-abortionists (or pro-choicers or whatever magical word-game dodge they are using) get the discussion bogged down in the “where is your comprehensive legal formula for criminalizing abortion?” These are usually tossed out to paint pro-lifers as cruel folk who want to crush women with burdensome punishments and to suggest such laws would be ineffective. It’s bogus and as one commentor put it:

    Reality 1: Difficulties at implementing law is always a problem, and should not prevent us from making evil things illegal. That applies to abortion, murder (the complexities of dealing with murder and all of the possible mitigating circumstances is beyond most peoples’ pay-grade), slavery, drugs, whatever. Making reasonable, effective, and compassionate decisions of law is a darn difficult thing to do no matter what the issue is.

    Reality 2: Concern about effectiveness is always a problem and should not prevent us from making something illegal. Especially when the crime is the killing of innocent human beings.

    Reality 3: Coming up with solutions that implement the law in reasonable and compassionate ways requires the cooperative effort of a lot of people. Most of the interlocutors here would probably be willing to examine various possibilities of enforcement with varying focus upon the “class” issue. Most of them would also probably be too humble to insist that their solutions were the complete and best answers. Everybody knows that there will be challenges to the prospect–deal with it.

    Asking for the all the specifics isn’t an argument. It’s just a way to make the obvious problems that we always face seem somehow more pertinent to abortion than to any other law that has ever been made.

  18. Scott W. says:

    Italics should have run all the way to the end starting at “Reality 1″.