Bp. Serratelli: FOCA – an alarm for decent Americans to wake up

From the website of the Diocese of Patterson straight talk to your computer screen.  His Excellency Most Rev. Arthur Serratelli has something to say about the election.

WDTPRS has written about Bishop Serratelli before.  You will remember his series of articles on the sense of the sacred

Folks… this is a great piece.  We need more men like Bp. Serratelli.

My emphases and comments.

A Politician’s Promise: No Right to Life! No Freedom!

After committing a murder in Rome, the famous 17th century Italian painter Caravaggio went to Malta to avoid the death penalty. While there, the Great Master of the Order of the Knights of Malta commissioned him to do a painting for the chapel of the Co-Cathedral of St. John in Valletta. Caravaggio chose as his theme the martyrdom of John the Baptist. He produced The Beheading of St. John, his largest work, the only one he ever signed. No doubt the scene touched him personally. 
Herod was married to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. Because John the Baptist preached against this sin, he incurred the hatred of Herod’s wife. The day her daughter Salome delighted Herod with her seductive dance, Herodias had her make Herod promise to kill John the Baptist. Within the severe architecture of a 16th century prison, Caravaggio vividly depicts the grisly moment when Herod kept his promise.
Caravaggio’s work, considered his greatest masterpiece, immortalizes the misguided fidelity of a ruler to his gruesome promise. With the stroke of the soldier’s sword, John dies and so does freedom. Freedom is based on the truth of the human person as created by God and protected by his law.

When a ruler can decide against God’s law, true freedom is sentenced to death. [Now we are getting into it!]
Recently, a politician made a promise. Politicians usually do. If this politician fulfills his promise, not only will many of our freedoms as Americans be taken from us, but the innocent and vulnerable will spill their blood.
On April 18, 2007, in Gonzales v. Carhart, The Supreme Court upheldthe Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. The very next day prominent Democratic members of Congress reintroduced the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). The bill is misleadingly packaged as a freedom bill. It is not! It is a clear act of unreasoned bias to end abruptly and brutally the debate on the pressing and fundamental moral issue of the right to life[I believe it would completely derestrict all forms of abortion.]
For thirty-five years, Americans have been wrestling with The Supreme Court’s decision legalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade.  Most Americans now favor some kind of a ban on abortion. Most who allow abortion would do so only in very rare cases. In fact, in January, 2008, the Guttmacher Institute published its 14th census of abortion providers in the country. Its statistics showed that the abortion rate continues to decline. Abortions have reached their lowest level since 1974. There is truly a deep sensitivity to life in the soul of America. 
 The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would mortally wound this sensitivity. In effect, it would dismantle the freedom of choice to do all that is necessary to respect and protect human life at its most vulnerable stage. FOCA goes far beyond guaranteeing the right to an abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy. It arrogantly prohibits any law or policy interfering with that right. While advocates trumpet this law as the triumph of the freedom of choice, they hide the dark reality that the law would actually inhibit choice.
Laws protecting the rights of nurses, doctors and hospitals with moral objections to abortion would no longer stand. [Did you get that?  No freedom to object?] Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics would also vanish. Gone the freedom of health care professionals to be faithful to the Hippocratic Oath “to prescribe regimens for the good of …patients…and never do harm to anyone, to please no one [by prescribing] a deadly drug nor [by giving] advice which may cause his death.” Gone the freedom of conscience so essential for a civil society!
If a minority of avid abortionists succeed to impose this law because of the ignorance or apathy of the majority, the law would force taxpayers to fund abortions. Gone the freedom of taxation with representation! [Not just avid abortionists.  Also the politicians who support it.]
In its 1992 Casey decision, The Supreme Court ruled as constitutional state laws requiring that women and young girls who seek an abortion receive information on the development of the child in the womb as well as alternatives to abortion. The ruling also determined that a period of waiting, usually 24 or 48 hours before making a decision about an abortion is not an undue burden. The Freedom of Choice Act would nullify these laws immediately. Gone the freedom of women and young girls to have all the information they need to make their own choices!
In about half of the States, there are parental notification or consent laws in effect for minors seeking an abortion. The Supreme Court has ruled that these laws are permitted under Roe v. Wade. With the stroke of a pen, these laws would be abolished. Gone the freedom of parents to care for and protect their children and grandchildren!
Advocates of FOCA redefine a woman’s “health” so as to expressly permit post-viability abortions. Thus, a child who survives an abortion can be left to die for the health of the mother. [Amazing, no?] No politically correct word can mask this reality for what it is. This is infanticide. Gone the freedom for a baby, once born, to live!
Science does not dispute that the child in the womb already has all the characteristics that he or she will develop after birth. Notwithstanding, abortionists obstinately refuse the right of the child within the womb to live as a fundamental human right. They are not happy that Americans have not swallowed their distorted propaganda that denies the dignity of the human person from the first moment of conception.
Pro-abortion advocates close their eyes to the fact that abortion even hurts women as it undermines the very fabric of our society. Their zeal for the Freedom of Choice Act sounds the alarm for decent Americans to wake up! The more the right to life is denied, the more we lose our freedoms. [Without the life to life, no other right can be defended.] The “pro-choice” movement is not pro-choice. It stands against the freedom to choose what is right according to the truth of the human person.
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, the present democratic candidate voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act. [That candidate is Sen. Obama (D-IL)]  This law was meant to protect a baby that survived a late-term abortion. When the same legislation came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served, he held to his opposition. First, he voted “present.” Next, he voted “no.
Along with 108 members of Congress, the present democratic candidate for President continues his strong support for the Freedom of Choice Act. [Sen. Obama supports FOCA.] In a speech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year, he made the promise that the first thing he would do as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. What a choice for a new President[As president the FIRST THING he would do is sign FOCA.]
At the time when Herod murdered John the Baptist because of his promise, Rome practiced the principle "one man, one vote." Whoever the emperor in Rome placed in authority over a subject people, ruled. Today we live in a democracy. We choose our leaders who make our laws. Every vote counts. Today, either we choose to respect and protect life, especially the life of the child in the womb of the mother or we sanction the loss of our most basic freedoms. At this point, we are still free to choose!
Bishop Serratelli…. you da’ man.
WDTPRS kudos to Bp. Arthur Serratelli.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. Thomas says:

    God Bless Bishop Serratelli! He’s in for some vile responses from the Left just like Cardinal O’Malley received unanimously in today’s Boston Sunday Globe op-ed page for these comments he made at the Pro-Life March in Boston:

    “I very seldom get to see any television, but I did watch part of the political conventions, and for me the star of the conventions was Trig Palin, whose mother said that he was ‘beautiful’ and ‘perfect.’ And when his little sister used that spit to slick his hair down, I mean, I stood up and applauded.”

    The Cardinal was ripped for “using” Trig Palin for his “anti-choice politics” and the writers challenged the Church’s tax-exempt status. Mark my words, if we let the current economic crisis sweep liberals into overwhelming majorities in Washington, including the presidency, the Church and Her faithful will come under attack. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, and even priests will be forced to choose between violating their consciences or incurring oppresive penalties.

    Obama IS an antichrist.

  2. EDG says:

    Great and forthright statement! But I don’t know how much longer bishops will be able to say things like this. This morning they read a letter in church (Diocese of St. Augustine) that came from the attorneys for the USCCB, the Florida council of bishops, and the bishop of this diocese. It was a very firm letter about how no parishioner should distribute or be seen near the church with any literature that might be construed as endorsing or not endorsing a candidate or urging voting on a particular issue. Apparently some parishioner had handed out a guide to issues published by Priests for Life. The letter actually came out and said that the Church is worried about investigation by the IRS.

    I realize that a pastor (well, unless he’s a black Democrat) can’t endorse a candidate from the pulpit and be considered non-political, but I think the Church is muzzling itself by fearing the IRS so much that it is now giving people the impression that they are not supposed to say or even hear anything about an issue that might have a political impact. Abortion is NOT a political issue. But one’s belief about it will inevitably have a political impact. Does this mean that any discussion or teaching about the matter is now being forbidden by Church authorities themselves?

    I think we are fools to go down without a fight. If we don’t resist now it will soon be too late. Bishops and priests have every right to teach the truth about abortion and it is inevitable that this is going to lead to discussion of a law that would virtually impose abortion and destroy all Catholic charitable and social activities and, essentially, result in persecution of the Church and of individual Catholics.

    If the IRS is being used to harrass Catholics, for one thing, the agency still has to prove that Catholics have done anything wrong, and the Church should fight this fight. Of course, the other thing we have to ask ourselves is if we believe that the only thing that keeps the Church alive is its tax exemption. If we do, we’re in bigger trouble than I realized.

  3. TNCath says:

    As Fr. Z said a few days back, “I have the sense that the world, right now and more than usually, has dire need of prayer. I think some hard times are ahead.”

    Thank you Bishop Serratelli!

  4. Volpius says:

    God bless Bp. Arthur Serratelli.

  5. Hettie B. says:

    A most excellent and powerful statement from Bishop Serratelli! He does us all proud! I hope to hear more bishops and clergy speaking out against FOCA.

    I’ve been imploring my senators and representative not to support this Act; mostly, though, I’ve been praying very hard! I see it as an act of tyranny that will trample the rights and freedoms of the states as well as individuals. That alone alone makes it gravely wrong. The fact that it will bring death to countless innocents makes it entirely unspeakable. I’m appalled that anybody could propose it, much less support it, but unfortunately, that’s what our great nation has come to.

    Mary, the Immaculate Conception, our great Patroness, pray for us!

    I’m going to pray my Rosary now.

  6. Brian says:

    It is deeply tragic that the only way that pro-abortion candidates can win and pass such evil laws is by the vote of people who call themselves Catholic.
    Thank you Bishop Serratelli for this powerful wake-up call.
    Wake-up deluded “People of God.”

  7. Greg says:

    I’m very fortunate to have Bishop Seratelli as my shepherd. He has been a breath of fresh air in the Diocese of Paterson. He has been stalwart in his defense of the unborn and in the defense of tradition. He has celebrated on more than one occasion the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form at the FSSP chapel in Pequannock.

    I know it’s speculation, but I have heard on more than one occasion that some very visible appointments to certain dioceses might be in store for his Excellency. I know that the faithful of the diocese have been enriched by his leadership and I can only hope that at some point in the future another great diocese can benefit from it. We need shepherds like Bishop Seratelli to be in positions where their voice in defense of the Church and the unborn can be heard by more. With the diocese of Paterson being only 15-20 minutes from the great Archdiocese of New York…can we only hope??

  8. Howard says:

    The key thing is that in spite of the known, real danger, St. John the Baptist *still* spoke out against the incestuous marriage of Herod. How disgusting that so many churchmen today refuse to speak out for fear of *losing money* to the IRS or even being perceived as “offensive” (see Matthew 15:12-14 to see how Christ reacted to that argument). In the days to come, we will need good shepherds, not hirelings who will say only what some Chinese-style, government-run US Patriotic Catholic Association will authorize them to say.

  9. Thomas says:

    Hmm, as an aside:

    Coincidentally, I see that Bishop Serratelli’s motto is the same as my own former archbishop, Cardinal Law.

    Vivere Christus Est, To live is Christ.

    A fitting motto for two warriors for the pro-life cause. Certainly we desire to go to our eternal reward, but there is still work to be done in this life. To live is Christ.

  10. Anthony says:

    Somewhat off topic, but Bishop Serratelli has on several occasions offered the Pontifical TLM.

  11. Fr W says:

    God bless Bishop Serratelli. God help America.

  12. Thomas says:

    If anyone doubts that a democrat president would attempt (maybe successfully) to crush our first and second amendment rights, one only has to observe the anti-speech tactics being employed by their campaign.

  13. Charles Ryder says:

    Hooray! Bishop Sarratelli will be instituting me and my classmates to the ministry of Acolyte on Sunday. We could not ask for a better man!

  14. Irenaeus says:

    Ja, er ist zwar da Mensch.

  15. I’m praying for Bishop Sarratelli to be the next Archbishop of New York.

  16. Margaret says:

    This bill is actually the thing that has me the most depressed, in the short run, at the prospect of an Obama victory. Every inch of hard-fought legal and political ground in the pro-life movement that has been gained in the last 30+ years will go up. in. smoke. Nothing left except the crisis pregnancy centers, and I’m sure after FOCA there will be attempts to dismantle those as well. So many tears and prayers have been poured into the pro-life effort over the years… And Obama may well just snap his fingers and make it all disappear. :-(

  17. (doh! …in the meantime I’ll be working on spelling his name right.)

  18. Anthony says:

    Margaret, you are 100% right, but I wonder how it is that Obama has the power to make this happen, yet President Bush does not have the power to do the same in defense of life. There is no way he could use some type of executive order?

  19. Mary says:

    I’ve said it many times I love my bishop!. The Diocese of Paterson’s website allows you to e-mail the Bishop, feel free to pass along your thanks, support and encouragement to him or even do it via letter to the editor in the Beacon, which is where the article appears as well. I know he does read his e-mail, at least he’s read the one’s I have sent him. I had the joy and privilege of having Msgr. Serratelli just before he became bishop for a class, so he gets a few prayer requests from me, helps that his current priest secretary was parochial vicar at my parish until last year when Bishop “took him from us.” I too have heard that there’s a spot higher up on the chain for him, for now I’m just glad to have him in Paterson. Under him, our numbers for vocations to the priesthood have tripled, still small numbers, but better than none. ;) He has made a pastoral visit to the FSSP chapel in Pequannock, I believe the small chapel was overflowing that day.

  20. “Laws protecting the rights of nurses, doctors and hospitals with moral objections to abortion would no longer stand.”

    Even stronger provisions are included in legislation passed in Victoria, Australia last Friday. The Sydney Catholic Weekly summarised them as follows:

    “Under the legislation doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion would be required to refer a woman to doctor [sic] who didn’t. They would also be obliged to perform abortions in an emergency if necessary to protect the woman’s life.”

    So those who are supposed to be most strongly in favour of ‘liberty of conscience’ are the very ones to defy it. This produces the remarkable result that a Catholic confessional State would be more pro-conscience than secular liberal democracy, since it is a basic principle of moral theology that one can only co-operate in disobedience of conscience if the co-operation is purely material, remote, and involves a grievous proportional cause (and a direct order to disobey one’s conscience, as in this case, can hardly be considered remote).

    How can we Catholics go on pretending that secular liberal democracy can ever be compatible with the Social Reign of Christ?

  21. Kay says:

    I am so glad that this bishop and others are finally speaking out on this issue.

    Besides the fact that a culture that kills its offspring in the womb has sunk to the lowest levels of
    degradation, it is really not very smart economically to kill over a million people per year when our Social Security and other economic systems are set up to rely on GROWTH. This sounds really callous, but this selfish, affluent, and pleasure-oriented nation is killing off its tax base.

    In Russia where over 50% of pregnancies end in abortion, the decrease in population is creating a demographic problem and the government now offers financial incentives for childbearing.

    It’s odd that in all the screaming about “choice” and “privacy” we never hear about the demographic and financial implications down the road as a result of killing our unborn.

    It makes no sense at all to me that people who clamor to save wildlife, (and I also believe in saving wildlife) think nothing of killing unborn children. It is so basically wrong that I think I would still think it wrong, even if I were not a Catholic or Christian. It is an inconceivably heinous act.

  22. Ron says:

    God bless this wonderful Bishop! One question though, how can he point out Obama like that? Isn’t that against all of this tax exempt hogwash?

    Pax Christi tecum.

  23. Dr. Eric says:

    Why doesn’t the Church just drop it’s tax exempt status (religious orders can keep theirs) and start speaking out?

  24. Ron says:

    I agree, Dr. Eric. And maybe a poorer church would be a bit purer in the long run. Maybe getting Bishops out of mansions and Cadillacs wouldn’t be so bad. How much would it really hurt the Church to drop the tax exempt status?

    Pax Christi tecum.

  25. Lori says:


    I don’t think the problem would be the mansions and Caddies…it would be getting the parishioners to continue tithing without getting a tax break for it, unfortunately.

  26. Anne-Marie says:

    In addition to the callousness toward the unborn, also remember the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. With a democratic president and a democratic-led Congress, there will be no one to stop any judicial appointments and anti-life bills.

  27. Ron says:


    Oh, I never thought of that. Half the time I never submit my giving for tax breaks because I don’t have documentation or whatever. But good point I guess (sadly).

    Pax Christi tecum.

  28. Ohio Annie says:

    I tithe and take the standard deduction because I don’t want Big Brother to know how I spend my money. Though I realize that others might feel they can’t do this. How much do you save, really?

  29. Margaret says:

    Ohio Annie–

    Those of us with “ginormous” mortgages because we live in a housing bubble in California would lose a frightful amount of money by not itemizing our deductions. Once you’re itemizing, anything you don’t specifically include (like charitable and church contributions) just don’t count. So we include all of it.

    My guess is, though, that the people who sacrificially donate to the church, as an actual % of their monthly budget (rather than just feeling generous for throwing a fiver in the basket) would continue to do so with or without the tax deduction.


    The key to Obama getting FOCA passed is that he would sign it. The Dems may or may not have enough numbers to get the bill through Congress, but they certainly do not have the numbers to override a Bush veto. Obama would change that whole dynamic.

  30. John Enright says:

    Other than being a cruel and horrible attempt by the liberal elements of our society to institutionalize infanticide, it may not have much of an actual impact because the FOCA is founded on a dubious use of the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce pursuant to Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Those were the precise grants of power relied upon by Congress to enact the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 ostensibly to protect a woman’s constitutionally recognized right to be free of violence. In United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), the United States Supreme Court determined that a woman’s private right of action in a Federal Court for abuse exceeded the power of Congress.

    Since FOCA and VAWA are both based on the interstate commerce power to “protect” the bodily integrity of women, FOCA could well be struck down. Roe v. Wade might still be the law of the land, but I don’t think Congress has the power to codify the decision.

    Parenthetically, it’s interesting to note that the commerce argument was not used to attack the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act before the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart. I guess the libs didn’t want to attack the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act on commerce clause arguments because it would come back to haunt them.

  31. Ave Maria says:

    God bless this bishop and others like him and may He grant us many more. One day–perhaps in the not too distant future–some of these good priests and bishops will go to prison for making use of the present freedom to speak up. Where sin abounds, grace all the more abounds. And we know that none of us have yet resisted the evil unto the shedding of blood.

    The battle grows fierce. On this anniversary of the Great Miracle of Fatima, we must acknowledge that even 91 years later, there still are not enough souls to adhere to Our Lady’s plan of peace. And so, as she told B. Jacinta, many souls go to hell for sins of the flesh.

    The financial crisis is global and the ‘answers’ may also be such.
    One world?

    We continue to pray and seek strength.

  32. John Enright says:

    Ron asked this question: “God bless this wonderful Bishop! One question though, how can he point out Obama like that? Isn’t that against all of this tax exempt hogwash?”

    This is a thorny question. Church endorsements of candidates and statements of opposition to candidates are forbidden by IRS regulations and can result in revocation of a church’s tax-exempt status. As far as I know, only one church lost its tax-exempt status; a congregation in New York that urged voters not to vote for Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential race. ( The Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, N.Y., lost its tax-exempt status in 1995 after the IRS determined it had violated federal tax law by publishing a full-page ad in USA Today in late October of 1992 advising people that voting for presidential candidate Bill Clinton was a sin. The church sued in federal court to regain its tax-exempt status but lost in court.)

    However, clergy don’t surrender their First Amendment rights to freedom of political expression and they may endorse candidates as individuals in forums outside the church or work on behalf of candidates during their personal time.

    Having said all of that, I just wish that Bp. Serratelli would’ve used a private website rather than the site for the Diocese of Patterson. Of course, the Bishop didn’t SAY “don’t vote for Obama.” He only pointed out facts about Obama’s record on abortion. That’s probably fair game in any forum.

  33. Mark says:

    This comes from http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id15.html

    When the Nazis came to power in 1933 one of the first acts Hitler did was to legalize abortion. By 1935 Germany with 65 million people was the place where over 500,000 abortions were being performed each year. Although Hitler and his government encourged Aryan women to produce a lot of children, he left the matter of abortion and all its facets in the hands of a decidely pro- abortion medical establishment. Even in the midst of Nazi propaganda aimed at increasing the Aryan population, scores of Aryan women still chose to abort their unborn children. The medical publication Deutsches Aerzleblatt reported the abortions in Germany each year reached a half-million.

    Further, a Nazi decree of October 19, 1941 established abortion on demand as the official policy of Poland. Hitler, however, expressed dissatisfaction with this policy. Abortion, he believed, should NOT be limited to Poland. He therefore ordered that abortion be expanded to all populations under the control of the “Ministry of the Occupied Territories of the East.”

  34. Dr. Eric says:

    Yes, our diocesan contributions would not be tax-deductible, but our contributions to the Religious Orders (why I wrote keep them tax-exempt) and to the local soup kitchens, birthright centers, etc…

  35. Patrick says:

    Can someone help me?

    I understand that we Catholics cannot vote for Obama. Really, I do. And I agree with it.

    What troubles me is the alternative: in voting for McCain, which I plan to do, are we comitting a sin?

    What I mean is that McCain is not 100% pro-life either, though he is light years away from Obama.
    But in supporting McCain, am I guilty of the same thing the Obama voters will be guilty for?

    Or perhaps is it morally ok to vote for McCain, even with his flaws, given that a vote for him essentially is a vote against Obama?

    I ask this in all sincerity. Please help and thank you

  36. Jackie says:

    If I am wrong, please anyone correct me, but I believe the teaching is that if the choice is between two evil (Obama’s radical pro choice, pro partial birth abortion, infanticide etc stand vs. McCain’s pro ESCR but mostly pro life stand) you can choose the lesser of the two evils. So voting for McCain would not be a sin because you are trying to limit abortion using the most prolife candidate, although not an ideal one.

  37. Ohio Annie says:

    Jackie is correct. And there is the additional factor that there is a possibility that Mr. McCain will change his views on stem cell research wereas it is highly unlikely that Mr. Obama will change his views on abortion.

  38. Miseno says:

    I want to echo the sentiments said above: May Bishop Serratelli become Archbishop of NY! I am praying.

  39. Dr. Eric says:


    I am voting 3rd or 4th party. My one little vote doesn’t compare to the 10,000,000 people who will be voting for Obama in the Megalopolis in the Northeast corner of my state. Obama will definitely carry Illinois.

  40. Dr. Eric says:

    Correction, the people of Illinois will overwhelmingly vote for Obama. That seems clearer.

  41. Jordanes says:

    Dr. Eric, I think either of your statements is clear and accurate. Illinois is doomed, and in that case one can justify voting for a decent third party candidate since there is no chance Obama won’t win Illinois. I still think McCain/Palin makes a better protest vote than third party/write in, but a vote for Obama cannot be justified.

  42. Joseph says:

    Thank God for Bishops like Bishop Serratelli who aren’t afraid to speak the truth out of fear of offending some people. I pray that Doug Kmiec will heed the Bishop’s words.

  43. Sean says:

    In Australia, the Victorian parliament last week provisionally passed a bill legalising abortion on demand to 24 weeks, and abortion to 40 weeks (yes, folks, 40 weeks – full term) if TWO doctors sign off on it (is there an abortion clinic on the planet with less than two doctors working in it?).

    Even more appallingly, the bill compels a doctor who refuses to perform the abortion on conscientious grounds to refer the woman seeking the procedure to another doctor who will.

    Victoria therefore has gone the whole way – not only is abortion to full-term legal, it is actually illegal for a Catholic Dr NOT to be complicit in it. So much for freedom of religion.

    The brand new shiny bill of rights passed in that state only 6 months ago purports not to apply to legislation relating to abortion or “the destruction of children” – yes, someone was wicked eneough to actually insert that expression into a piece of legislation.

    Nazi Germany here we come.

    Please pray for this country.

  44. Mary says:

    Bishop Serratelli doesn’t mention Obama by name nor does he endorse a candidate, that’s how he and many others get around that issue. The parochial vicar at my parish does the “this is how I’m voting and why” speech, at least he did that for the embryonic stem cell research question NJ had last year. Haven’t hear too much about this election, but we are having Holy Hours for “respect life” and vocations at the parish, so they may not be preaching on it weekly, but there has been mention of it. Bishop Serratelli tries to get a respect all life comment in his homilies and comments along with a vocations prayer. ;)

  45. TAAD says:

    All the US Bishops need to make it known now that anyone Congressman or Senator who
    votes for the Freedom of Choice Act will be publicly excommunicated for that vote.
    Their vote for this act is proof that they have left the church by their free
    choice in this matter, in direct opposition to Church teaching and is as
    serious as racism or any intrinsic evil. The time is now to put this line in the
    sand and let the chips fall where they may.

  46. Carlos Artieda says:

    God Bless all the bishops that with parental authority show courage and make public their defense for the most vulnerable among us.

  47. paul says:

    I agree 100% with TADD, any congressman who votes for FOCA automatic excommunication. Remember excommunication is an act of charity- it shows concern for the soul of the sinner- calling him or her to repent.

  48. dcs says:

    I still think McCain/Palin makes a better protest vote than third party/write in

    – unless one is also protesting McCain/Palin –

    but a vote for Obama cannot be justified

    I don’t think this is true. I would definitely never vote for Obama, but it does not follow that a vote for Obama could not be justified, if one believed in conscience that a McCain administration would be more evil than an Obama administration.

  49. Ohio Annie says:

    Annie (duh, Annie, duh) of course is a renter!

    And dcs, what trumps the infanticide issue? We must vote the priorities as Holy Church has determined we must. Infanticide or other forms of murder of innocents trump everything else. If a baby doesn’t have a right to be born, nobody has any rights at all. If an old person doesn’t have a right to a natural death, nobody has any rights at all.

Comments are closed.