Pro-abortion “Catholic” group endorses pro-abortion candidate Coakley (D-MA)

Massachusetts WDTPRS readers… you decide.

Are these guys obtuse or just plain wicked?

The pro-abortion "Catholic" group called "Catholic Democrats" have endorsed pro-abortion Senate candidate Martha Coakley (D-MA).

Here is their press release:

Catholic Democrats Endorses Martha Coakley to Represent Massachusetts in the United States Senate

January 17, 2010

Coakley Best Represents Values of Catholic Social Justice

Boston, MA – Catholic Democrats is endorsing Attorney General Martha Coakley to fill Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat [Please explain… was it the late Senator’s seat by divine right?  How does it qualify as being "his"?] in Tuesday’s special election. 

[Watch this weasel language:] "This is a critical election for advancing Catholic Social Justice priorities," [advancing what?] said Dr. Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats.  "Martha Coakley supports expanding access to health care, protecting our natural environment through the creation of a strong green economy, and helping to alleviate poverty through greater economic opportunity.  Her record as Attorney General demonstrates that she is a tough but fair voice for all of our citizens." [All except perhaps the unborn?  If you killed before you are born, you won’t need health care and won’t care for the "environment".]

Conservative abortion groups [What is a "conservative abortion group"?] working with the campaign of Republican Scott Brown, including Massachusetts Citizens for Life, [Perhaps they meant pro-life groups.] have targeted Catholic voters with misinformation regarding Coakley’s record. [Oh?  Tell us, then, what the truth is…]  Brown has adopted the Democratic platform to reduce the numbers of abortions[ROFL!  That means the promotion of abortion!  There is no other way to see that platform.]  Massachusetts Citizens for Life has leafleted cars at Catholic parishes during Sunday Mass claiming he is ‘pro-life’ because he is opposed to health care reform. [I seriously doubt that Brown is against "health care reform".  I suspect he is against forcing tax-payers to pay for abortion, abortifacients, and the removal of conscience clauses for health care workers.  Am I wrong?  Or is he simply against "health care reform"?]  Additionally, voters have received recorded calls from purported Catholic organizations distorting Coakley’s record on these issues. [What organizations?]

"This has become a national election with the outcome of health care reform in the balance.  Scott Brown says that he will work to kill the health care bill if he gets elected," [Is that the case, or was there some sentence or two left out?  Did what Brown say he will work to kill the bill if X or Y is in it? What is the truth here?] said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats.  "It is hard to understand how killing a bill that will afford more Americans access to health care, thus lessening the estimated 40,000 people who die annually because of a lack of health insurance, is a ‘pro-life’ position."  [Because an even more fundamental social justice position must include the right to be born.]

It seems to me that some clarifications of Brown’s positions here could help us understand whether or not the people behind "Catholic Democrats" are daft, wicked or smoking weed before issuing these statements.

In the meantime, this watchdog site, On The Issues, says that pro-abortion candidate Coakley:

  • helped minors get court orders without parental consent
  • spoke out strongly in 2007 against a ban on "partial birth abortion,”
  • and supported 35-foot buffer zone at abortion clinics.

Massachusetts WDTPRS readers… you decide.

If I were a Massachusetts resident and voter, I would let nothing keep me from the polls tomorrow, and I would help people get to the polls.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. Choirmaster says:

    Daft, wicked, or smoking weed?

    If they were daft they would have gotten somebody’s name wrong (like “Marsha” instead of “Martha”).

    If they were wicked they would have done the exact same thing.

    If they were smoking weed they would be less wicked and more daft.

    I’d say they were wicked.

    It’s too bad that there probably is no way the Church could force “Catholic Democrats” to stop using the name “Catholic.”

  2. KAS says:

    WOW. that press release has an amazing amount of SPIN on it. They actually manage to imply pro-lifers could vote for Coakley and that Brown is for abortion though really sneaky wording.

    How can anyone be ignorant of Church teaching on life and thus push for Coakley?

    I think they are choosing to be wicked.

  3. TonyLayne says:

    I’d say these guys are very reliable. First, they lie. Then they re-lie. So thy’re nothing if not re-lie-able.

    (So okay, I stole it from Abraham Lincoln; let HIM sue me!)

  4. robtbrown says:

    IMHO, such endorsements do little for Coakley–and might even hurt her with independents.

  5. TomG says:

    Fr. Z: No sarcasm intended here, but can a Catholic vote for Scott Brown, as he is apparently “pro-choice”?

  6. SonofMonica says:

    Don’t you get it, Father? Democrats have a plan to reduce “the need for” abortion. It’s called have more abortions. You see, the more babies we abort, the fewer will grow up to have unwanted pregnancies, and thus we will have fewer abortions. It’s so simple! That’s why we must all vote for Democrats across the board.

  7. C. says:

    The current health care bill would fund abortions using federal money. This would increase the abortion rate by at least 10% (do the math), particularly among the poor, and encourage repeat abortions. Imagine the damage to our culture.

    If Brown is elected, that bill gets killed.

    Brown is also against partial-birth abortion, is in favor of informed consent and parental consent, and a conscience clause. On all the issues that could come up in the current Senate, Brown would vote pro-life, and Coakley pro-abortion.

  8. Melania says:

    I highly suspect this is another George Soros effort. I know of two “Catholic” political organizations that he helps fund and, as I understand it, partially initiated. Just as in the 2008 election, this is a deliberate, highly conscious attempt on the part of the Democratic Party to confuse and mislead Catholics. Certainly a wicked thing to do.

  9. Patrick J. says:

    Re: Brown- pro life?

    He would almost certainly vote for a strict constitutional constructionist juror for the Supreme Court, ala, those who would reject/dismantle the “made up” law that is Roe v. Wade decision and other such revisionist court positions. So, that argues for the pro-life “effect” if not the actual philosophy. @ C. – yes, exactly,

    and to go a bit further,

    I would rather have the actualization of pro-life principals put back into our current constitutional interpretations, vis-a-vis the courts, rather than some absolutist philosophy that would ultimately derail/foil the realization of those principals in the practical, real world effect.
    And, in the political realities of the day, we could probably not hope for that sort of pro-lifer (on all issues) being electable in a, sorry to say, “Catholic” state, ironic as that sounds, but Catholic states (high percentage of pop.) vote pro death more than your “evangelical” states, i.e., Texas, Oklahoma, etc.

  10. Ame E. says:

    Very good reason to vote for Scott Brown (in response to the person asking if one can vote for him in good conscience since he is pro-abort. This is from Bill Cotter of operation rescue in Boston. I think the quote by Pius XII is particularly relevant.


    On Tuesday, January 19 I’m going to vote for Scott Brown for senate.

    Unfortunately, Brown is NOT pro-life, contrary to what others have said or implied, by omission or commission. Essentially, he is pro-abortion but favors restrictions, e.g., parental consent and non-funding.

    So, why vote for him? Because of the importance of derailing Obamacare — he’s promised to be the decisive 41st vote against it — which is VERY BIG. Not only does Obamacare mean abortion funding, it also puts into place and enormous beaurocratic structure that is deadly to freedom and medical care.

    Very important, too, is avoiding Senator-for-life Martha Coakley, a nightmarish prospect. She favors numerous hard-Left positions which maintain the forest within which is the tree of abortion — a tree that probably cannot be cut down while the forest is intact.

    But this election reaches far beyond Massachusetts. Obama and the Demon-crats have already suffered two crushing, surprise defeats in recent months — the races for governor in New Jersey and Virginia. Ted Kennedy ally Chris Dodd has already thrown in the towel, and others are rumored to be heading for the exits. A failure by the Democrat party to hold this senate seat — which they presumed to be theirs! — will be cataclysmic for the Left and could start a stampede.

    Very likely it will also be a catalyst for real conservatives — and those who fund them — in parts of the country where voters are at least partly sane.

    As for Brown, he will probably be in office for more than one term. So, if Obama is replaced by a Republican, Brown may well be able to vote for a Justice — perhaps the most crucial pro-life vote that a senator can make. Plus there is the machinery of power. Republican majority means committee chairmanships are removed from Democrat hands — thus delaying their agenda. [Regrettably, Republicans often enact it anyway, if more slowly.]

    But isn’t voting for the “lesser of two evils” still an evil act?

    A fundamental moral point is that it is always wrong to offer “formal” support for evil — i.e., to agree with an evil, such as abortion, and vote for the advocate of the evil because he supports it.

    A less clear case is when we oppose abortion and disagree with a candidate’s pro-abortion (even if it’s only partly pro-abortion) stance. May we vote for him to avoid the election of his far worse opponent?

    Yes, we may. Otherwise, we would have to abstain from most, if not all, elections until an angel or a glorified saint was the candidate.

    This can [already has?] become a very drawn out epistle if I were to attempt a more detailed discussion of this. I’ll conclude with a couple of citations. As a Catholic, they happen to be the ones I’m familiar with. Others can probably be cited, too.

    The first is Pope Pius XII, summarized by Father Tom Carleton:

    This moral principle, applicable in the political realm was explained and approved by Pope Pius XII.
    When we are not able to completely eliminate an evil, as we would wish, we, nevertheless, must attempt to limit the evil as much as possible. Limiting evil is already a positive contribution. It is already doing something good. No one can say that “because I can’t completely solve a problem, therefore I’m not going to do anything.” This is especially true, when “doing nothing,” is actually going to help the greater evil prevail.
    Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
    “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
    I submit the that we have “proportionate reasons” to vote for Brown and defeat Martha Coakley!

    — Bill

  11. Father with all due respect:

    #1: Are all Republicans pro-life? The answer is no, they are not. #2: Can we, if we were standing before God Himself, explain why we voted for someone who would accept the murder of fewer babies than soemone else?

    When one is speaking about the direct act of murder, there is a second person involved … the child who will die because he was conceived through an act of rape or incest. Can we justify condemning him to death?

  12. Some one asked whether we can call candidate Scott Brown “pro-life”.  

    It is pretty hard to do that, I think.   I checked the site On The Issues

    While I don’t think we can call him “pro-life”, he seems to be a better choice on pro-life issues than the other candidate.

    Take a look for yourselves and make up your own minds. 

  13. Thomas S says:

    I can’t wait for tomorrow. Never thought my vote would count in this wretched state, but it will now!

  14. C. says:

    @romancrusader: Can we, if we were standing before God Himself, explain why we did not vote for someone who would accept the murder of fewer babies than soemone else?

  15. TJerome says:

    Looks like Cardinal O’Malley has his work cut out for him there. I wonder if he will say a Mass in celebration if Brown wins? Tom

  16. MargaretMN says:

    The pro-life battle, like many other policy battles will be conducted not as one single debate or question but as many smaller battles. Scott Brown supports the pro-life position on many of these specific questions as opposed to Coakley who opposes all of them. If it’s not possible to get a pro-life candidate in a statewide race in MA, then obviously, Pro-Lifers should continue to work to change hearts to make that happen, not simply try to get a pro-lifer on the ballot, to get shellacked. It’s the challenge and the promise that democacy offers, to change things by convincing other people that you are right.

  17. Charivari Rob says:

    Ame E. – “As for Brown, he will probably be in office for more than one term.”

    Well, there’s substantial doubt as to that.

    First of all, this election is merely to seat a Senator to complete the term that Ted Kennedy was elected to (replacing Kirk, the interim appointment). So, if Brown does get elected, it’s not a full term.

    Secondly, there is no way of knowing his prospects for re-election at this point. All we do know is that one of the reasons Brown is doing as well as he is in these preliminary polls is the unusual date for this special election had led to low-turnout projections for the democratic party. In a regular, general election, that will likely not be the case.

  18. Girgadis says:

    Few, if any candidates in either party, would qualify for what I would call pro-life. I never thought I’d see the day when I would sit out an election, but that’s just what I’ve done in the past year or so. However, I would be compelled to vote for someone who would at least maintain the conscience clause for healthcare workers. In Philadelphia, the kind of politics that Chris Matthews was pining away for still exists. I think corruption is probably even more entrenched here than it is in places like Chicago. Lest anyone forget, this was the metropolis that the City Council had the audacity to proclaim, through legislation ,a “pro-choice” city. It was quickly overturned, but still…

  19. EXCHIEF says:

    Same lies, different day, different group. What’s in common? They label themselves Catholics but aren’t.

  20. JonM says:

    By the looks of it, Ms. Coakley’s chances of winning this race are low.

    With that said, Mr. Brown is going to have to do more than show an affinity towards the likes of Mr. Giuliani in order to demonstrate his conservative principles. A nice start would be strong marriage and life perspectives.

  21. robtbrown says:


    Mostly, the pro life question for any senator is whether he will vote to confirm a pro life judge. Ted Kennedy wouldn’t–and led the effort against Bork, whose confirmation would have resulted in overturning Roe.

    My guess is that Brown would.

  22. “Are they obtuse or just plain wicked?”

    Well, they could’ve just been very ill-formed (doctrinally speaking) in their 1960’s childhood, although they may have also broken away from Mother Church on purpose too.

    But really, we need to pray for these Catholic Democrats. They have been seriously misguided not only by Catholic dissidents but by themselves and by their party and by their culture for too long. And besides, the only way to solve this long-term is to change the culture of death, one at a time, through prayer and much sacrifice not only from without (i.e., “the system”) but from within (i.e., “ourselves and those close to us”).

    And it can start right now in Massachusetts by having Scott Brown sitting in Ted Kennedy’s seat. Indeed, I’m sure that if we lift this evil cloud from Boston that Massachusetts can be a better place — not only for the unborn but for those who are already here as well.

    God help save the Catholic Democrats from themselves.

  23. TJerome says:

    Let’s call a spade a spade. The Catholic Church in Boston is gutless and materially cooperates with evil all the time, e.g. the public spectacle of a Catholic Cardinal officiating at the funeral of Mr. Abortion aka Ted Kennedy and allowing the funeral Mass to be used for political purposes. If the Church there was strong, Senator Kennedy would have either accepted the Church’s position or been excommunicated. I feel for the few genuine Catholics still there but the Church there needs to be reformed from the top down starting with that weak gutless wether of a Cardinal. He was a terrible appointment. Tom

  24. maynardus says:

    “Looks like Cardinal O’Malley has his work cut out for him there. I wonder if he will say a Mass in celebration if Brown wins?”

    This remark is totally uncalled-for – I doubt that his handlers have even told the Cardinal Archbishop about the election yet!

  25. Ed the Roman says:

    “Can we, if we were standing before God Himself, explain why we voted for someone who would accept the murder of fewer babies than soemone [sic] else?”

    Sometimes – see below.

    “… the child who will die because he was conceived through an act of rape or incest. Can we justify condemning him to death?”

    This is not an election where that issue is being addressed. Nobody running for office in Massachusetts says they will protect those poor innocents. There is no prospect of anyone running for office who will say that they will protect them in the near future.

    There are bloggers who reject voting for candidates who don’t meet an (admittedly quite low) standard of support for life. But those candidates are the only ones running an awful lot of the time. Not voting on principle is an option, and while you might be noticed if you do this consistently, you will get noticed like any principled non-voter: as a weirdo who won’t participate in government. You will be written off by the people who have any reasonable chance of being elected.

  26. MargaretMN says:

    And how do you know that God won’t call us out for not voting when we could have prevented the murder of twice as many innocents as would have died, when Martha Coakley votes for the healthcare bill, bans pro-life health care workers and Catholic hospitals and removes every restriction and provides every incentive for abortion.

  27. Peggy R says:

    I agree that Scott Brown is not quite pro-life. I have read him say that RvW is “settled law”. I presume (hope) that to be an evasive position. I have read he supports Plan B for rape victims, but also supports religious conscience rights. That’s what the nasty Coakley ad was about–twisting things. He does support numerous restrictions as other posters have mentioned. He also opposes public funding of abortion, I understand.

    I understand him to oppose the health care bill because it is awful in general. I would guess based on his stated positions that he’d oppose public funding provisions a la carte as have other GOPers. They have held the line very well on that point in the legislation–and on the whole thing, frankly.

    Opposing the health care monstrosity, its usurpation of liberties, its cost, etc., and opposing the big spending and one party rule in DC is “conservative” enough to win right now. We do need Brown to win even if he’s not ideal. For ALL American lives and liberty. He’s got the “happy warrior” thing going very well too.

    If Brown can win in Mass, then there’s hope for us in IL, this year! [Is Brown’s likely victory what the Buddhist’s would call “karma” for T Kennedy?]

  28. Massachusetts Catholic says:

    “Catholic Democrats” are indeed wicked, and they’re here in Massachusetts churches. A related group, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, is promoted by several pastors in my area. (All those pastors are big on social justice, all violently against the TLM).

    I voted for Scott Brown this morning. I sought the advice of the best priest I know beforehand. He told me a Catholic couldn’t vote for Brown BECAUSE of his pro-choice views (NEVER an issue) but could vote for Brown to limit the damage the much more extreme Martha Coakley would inflict.

  29. John 6:54 says:

    Neither candidate is “pro-life” but on top of that it seems Scott Brown can respect the consciences of those find abortion to evil, while Coakley thinks Catholics who know and respect their faiths teaching on abortion should not work in emergency rooms.

    Also who gets an abortion in an emergency room anyway? Isn’t that where someone women end up after having and abortion?

  30. j says:

    I have mixed feelings about even publicizing “Catholic Democrats”. It is a sham organization, which represents no-one, set up solely to confuse Catholic voters as to what the Catholic Church says.
    Not even slightly hyperbolic – it’s founding was part of pre-Obama political strategizing.

  31. robtbrown says:

    Also who gets an abortion in an emergency room anyway? Isn’t that where someone women end up after having and abortion?
    Comment by John 6:54

    The reference is to the use of abortifacients in rape cases treated in emergency rooms.

  32. robtbrown says:

    Some friends, originally from Mass, told me this morning that a lot of Massachusetts voters have been sick of the Kennedys for some time, but Teddy’s momentum (including Irish loyalty) kept him in the senate.

  33. Frank Doyle says:

    Why anyone would trust any politician, especially one from
    Massachusetts, is beyond me.

    If Brown does get elected, I suspect it won’t be too long
    before he betrays the trust of the people who voted for
    him. One of his own campaign spots shows Brown saying that
    he would work with Democrats to work for a better solution
    to healthcare. Get that folks? Brown’s not opposed to national
    healthcare, he just wants to retool it. Oncemore, he is willing
    to work the Democrats to get the job done. And people are willing
    to trust this man? Amazing.

Comments are closed.