Scranton, PA anti-Catholic political cartoon

American Papist posted an interesting editorial cartoon from the Scranton PA newspaper.

Remember that Bishop Martino of Scranton (where pro-abortion Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden (D-DE) is from) issued a very strong pastoral letter about the centrality of life issues.  This was to be read in all pulpits last Sunday.

Note that the cartoon has Bp. Martino saying "Thou shalt not vote on any issue but abortion."

We have to pay close attention to pro-abortion Catholics are going to be saying during the rest of the campaign.  They will be saying that there is a "fuller spectrum" of "Catholic issues" and that that "fuller spectrum" trumps the single issue of when human life begins.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. Gerard E. says:

    Thanks for the heads-up on ‘fuller spectrum,’ Father Z. No doubt our brethren for Obama will utilize it as a favorite cliche, much like ‘gravitas’ on other occasions. As for the cartoon- ho and hum. Our good Bishop Martino no doubt expects such response to his statement. In fact, I would post it in a place of honor at the chancery. Clearly the letter aggravated the right people. As for the paper itself- consider the sagging circulation numbers of most Dead Tree Journals. The Newark Star-Ledger, New Jersey’s largest daily, escaped an execution date of January 5 when the last employee group agreed to wage and benefits reduction. Fr. Z’s beloved Minneapolis Star-Tribune now has a rather creative means of handling its debt. It publisher recently announced a rather novel way to save money- no payment of its creditors during the fall months. Perhaps it is safe to state this correlation- a media organization’s support of infanticide in all its forms is directly proportional to the red ink spilling from its ledgers. Count it all joy, brothers and sisters. The Church is once more a presence in the Idea Marketplace. And another bravo to Bishop Martino, to boot.

  2. Peter says:

    I’ve seen FSSP priests take off the chasuble for the homily, but I didn’t know that many bishops were in the habit of it. Good to see him wearing the pontifical dalmatic.

  3. TJM says:

    Most of us who are sentient realize that the press is overwhelmingly Democratic and pro-abortion. But there are plenty of Catholics
    who apparently have no problem seeing their Church slandered and maligned by their fellow-travellers in the press. Tom

  4. Lucia says:

    Well that’s kind of them.

  5. Aelric says:

    Perhaps the rejoinder: The Ass (Donkey) in the newsroom ?

  6. Howard says:

    Clearly the point is that the good bishop is a fan of the Alabama Crimson Tide.

  7. RichR says:

    Well, I bet the political cartoonist reads this blog, because he took my suggestion to start reusing traditional language in reference to liturgical space. Catholic readers will be scratching their heads about the word “nave”, will go and look it up, and then realize they’ve been mistakenly calling the nave the sanctuary.

    So, even amidst the slander of Holy Mother Church, good can come from it.

    Seriously though, what’s new. Christ told us to expect attacks like this. “Blessed are you when men revile and slander you falsely on my account.”

  8. Jon says:

    My FSSP pastor here in the Diocese of Harrisburg read Bishop Martino’s letter to the congregation in place of a homily on Sunday. I wanted to do a very Novus Ordo thing.

    I wanted to stand up and cheer.

  9. Patrick T says:

    Hmmm…did the Scranton PA paper make the same harsh criticism of Archbishop Rummel when he not only preached against, but excommunicated, 3 New Orleans Catholics for opposing desegregation? Was there an “elephant in the nave” then?

    Or is the Scranton paper just mad because they love abortion so much?

    What bunch of hypocritical ——-‘s!

  10. Patrick T says:

    Oh, and Peter has the best post in these comments so far. Brilliant.

  11. Chris M says:

    Give us a halfway decent Dem candidate who isn’t gung-ho about slaughtering shildren and this wouldn’t be an issue.

  12. David Andrew says:

    I’ve just read some of the downloadable “bulletin inserts” from the USCCB that are based on their own “Faithful Citizenship” document.

    ISTM that the whole “fuller spectrum” concept, while not being given the specific label, can be directly attributable to this very document from the USCCB. Over and over again it states that we cannot vote for a candidate based on “one or two issues” and that policies regarding immigration, health care and housing demand consideration as well. Of course, the majority of the document makes it clear that life issues are the most critical, but returns to the vague concept of “common good” as a part of our formation of conscience in voting.

    Am I reading the statements of the USCCB wrong?

  13. dcs says:

    Catholic readers will be scratching their heads about the word “nave”, will go and look it up, and then realize they’ve been mistakenly calling the nave the sanctuary.

    Or they will mistakenly conclude that the bishop is preaching from the nave of the church.

  14. JohnE says:

    “The fuller spectrum of Catholic issues trumps the single issue of when human life begins!”, they shrieked after meeting the holy innocents and fading into Hell.

  15. Brian says:

    If all Catholics adhered to clear Catholic moral teaching, which forbids voting for candidates who support abortion; such candidates would not win elections, the Democratic party would drop legalized infantacide from their platform, and abortion would be illegal in every state within a year.

    In a nutshell, abortion is legal because of unfaithful Catholics who are supporting the legalized murders of these unborn innocents.

  16. Luke D. says:

    God forbid there be a cartoon making fun of Mohammed, but this…this…is ok. I think a letter to the editor is in order.

  17. David Kastel says:

    Brian, even if 100% of elected officials were against abortion, it would still be legal.

    The Supreme Court, filled with Republican appointments, has so ruled for 40 years straight. Elected officials are not allowed to determine the legality of abortion. To vote based on that issue is plain foolish.

    If the bishops wish to do some productive good, it may be time for them to explain to the faithful, most especially to Catholic elected officials, about the virtue of obedience. They need to explain that the disregard of the unjust laws, commands, and orders of superiors, such as Supreme Court rulings like Roe v Wade, does not violate the virtue of obedience, and that therefore, the Governors have the right and obligation to enforce their states’ abortion laws, regardless of what the Court says.

    This blatant electioneering on behalf of the GOP is quite distasteful, especially given that McCain voted to approve Judges like Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter to the Supreme Court.

  18. Patrick T says:

    With Archbishop Burke now in Rome, don’t be surprised if a stunningly clear teaching is issued from the Holy See instructing the faithful that: 1.) voting for a pro-abortion candidate is immoral; 2.) One CAN vote for the less pro-abortion candidate when the choice is between two candidates who hold abortion views contrary to the Faith; and 3.) holding that abortion is a “choice” and can be moral is a heresy, and those who espouse it could be excommunicated.

    The time is coming when there will be no confusion. The US bishops will line up behind this teaching. Some Catholics will continue to disobey, but many will follow.

    That’s my prediction anyway.

  19. Brian says:


    This is not complicated. If 100% of Catholic voters and elected officials voted against abortion, the next Supreme Court appointments would also be against abortion. The Supreme Court would then overturn Roe v Wade. Then abortion would be made illegal in every state.

    Because of the moral failure of Catholics, millions of innocents continue to die.

    The fault lies with deluded and unfaithful Catholics.

  20. Jordanes says:

    David Kastel said: This blatant electioneering on behalf of the GOP is quite distasteful, especially given that McCain voted to approve Judges like Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter to the Supreme Court.

    I don’t know who you think is blatantly electioneering on behalf of the Republican Party, but since the only realistic alternative to McCain choosing the next Supreme Court Justices is Obama choosing them, it’s quite clear what our options are. Voting for Obama or Barr or Nader, or abstaining from voting, while hoping the bishops to instruct governors to disregard Roe vs. Wade, is plain foolish. Take a wild guess what will happen to any governor that tries something like that. Your approach will only ensure a continuance of legal abortion, indeed a solidifying of federal law in support of abortion, and an end to health care workers’ religious freedom rights, which will mean the end of Catholic health care. Faced with a choice between bad and unspeakably rotten, we have to accept bad.

    The same goes for voting for Congressman. If we want good Supreme Court Justices who would be likely to overturn Roe, a Democrat-majority Congress is something we can’t have. For all the Republican bungling and corruption of the past eight or more years, we now have four good justices on the Supreme Court. That couldn’t have happened if the Democrats had controlled Congress then.

    Your proposed alternative – bishops instructing governors to ignore Roe (most governors aren’t even Catholic, you know) – is a nice fantasy, but we have to vote in the real world.

Comments are closed.