August 2008
On The Wire... The truth shall be found. --Joe
Abortion Mill Charged with 12 Counts of Illegal Medical Record Dumping
DETROIT, Aug 22, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) -
A District Court has issued a twelve-count warrant against WomanCare, a Detroit
area abortion mill owned by Alberto Hodari, for illegal dumping of women's
private medical records.
Dr. Monica Migliorino Miller, Director of Citizens for a Pro-life Society, had
exposed Hodari's illegal dumping practices earlier this year when she published
a video of his abortion mill trash that contained the records along with the
remains of aborted babies. Dr. Miller reported the incident to the authorities.
While Hodari will have to appear in court on behalf of WomanCare, no arraignment
date has been set.
Hodari is a notorious abortionist who has been sued 23 times in the past 20
years and was responsible for the botched second-trimester abortion death of a
15-year old girl in 2004.
He later shocked a college campus audience when he told them that he seldom
washes his hands between patients to prevent skin chaffing even though he knew
this unsanitary practice increased risks to his patients. He also told the same
group that he believes abortionists have a "license to lie."
"Hodari joins an ever increasing list of abortionists who are facing
criminal charges across the nation. This trend demonstrates that while
abortionists believe and act as if they are above the law, states are beginning
to see how dangerous these clinics are, and are beginning to crack down on them,
with the help of pro-life whistleblowers," said Operation Rescue President
Troy Newman. "Abortionists tend to be among the most troubled and dangerous
people who prey on the vulnerabilities of women. Prosecuting them is a noble
public service."
Other abortionists facing criminal prosecutions include Howard Pfupajena of
California, who violently attacked a pro-life sidewalk counselor, Rapin
Osathanondh of Massachusetts, who is charged with manslaughter for killing Laura
Hope Smith during a botched abortion, and Bertha Bugarin of California, who
faces 28 felonies for committing abortions without a medical license.
Bugarin's associate, Laurence Riech was arrested and charged in February for
continuing to do abortions even though his license was revoked after a second
conviction of having sexually molested his patients. Two Florida abortion
workers, Belkis Gonzales and Siomara Senises were both also charged with
practicing medicine without licenses at a Miramar abortion mill. Late-term
abortionist George R. Tiller of Kansas faces 19 charges of committing illegal
late-term abortions.
On The Wire... Democrats: wolves in sheep's clothing singing false tunes. --Joe
Dems
Plan Subtle Changes to Party Platform to Lure Catholic, Evangelical Votes at
Convention
Will vote on language that calls for reducing "the need for abortions"
while ensuring the party's holy grail of abortion-on-demand remains sacrosanct
By Peter J. Smith
DENVER, Colorado, August 12, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - When the Democratic National Convention (DNC) gets underway in Denver, the party will vote on plans to adjust its platform to make its position on abortion look friendlier to Catholic and Evangelical voters without angering radical feminists.
Delegates at the DNC, which starts August 25, will vote on language that calls for reducing "the need for abortions" while ensuring the party's holy grail of abortion-on-demand remains sacrosanct.
The proposed revised language of the Democratic party's abortion plank reads:
"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives.
"We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs."
The new plank nuances the rhetoric, but otherwise retains the party's commitment to preserving abortion-on-demand as found in the language of the current platform, which reads:
"Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."
The proposed language revision is
part of a broader strategy devised to persuade Catholic and Evangelical
"values voters" to leave the GOP and support the Democratic Party's
candidates, the vast majority of whom support pro-abortion policies. At the same
time, the party cannot afford to offend the party's significant
abortion-supporting base, which is very sensitive toward any display of weakness
on the abortion issue.
Homosexual activists have also expressed displeasure with the Democrats'
proposed ideological makeover, as the new platform would say simply that the
party supports "all families," instead of explicitly mentioning
"gay and lesbian families."
Rev. Jim Wallis, a liberal Evangelical activist, and constitutional law professor Doug Kmiec, a reputed conservative Catholic, both support pro-abortion Barack Obama and are behind the scheme to encourage "values voters" to turn to the Democratic Party with the idea they can support a "reductionist" strategy toward abortion and vote for pro-abort politicians.
Although Kmiec has stated that his Church would value a "reductionist" approach to abortion and that Obama is a "natural" candidate for Catholics, the US Catholic bishops and the Vatican have taught otherwise. The Catholic Church says abortion and same-sex "marriage" are "intrinsic evils" to life and family and Catholics cannot vote for politicians willing to advocate them, especially when morally superior alternatives are available.
The Catholic bishops of Kansas have also reminded voters once again that Catholics would "commit moral evil" by voting for a candidate hostile to life and family, especially when there is the opportunity "defeat one who poses an even greater threat to human life and dignity." (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081207.html)
Kmiec was denied communion earlier this year by his own pastor for causing public scandal over the Church's position on politicians and abortion for his endorsement of Obama.
Other Catholic leaders, however, have stated the time has come for Catholics to stop making excuses for pro-abortion politicians, including the Democratic party, and start withholding their votes until their beliefs are valued more than abortion advocates.
Supreme Knight Carl Anderson told the Knights of Columbus at their annual convention in Quebec City last week that Catholics must "end the political manipulation of Catholic voters by abortion advocates" whom he said entangle "Catholic people with abortion killing."
"We will never succeed in building a culture of life if we continue to vote for politicians who defend and support a culture of death," said Anderson. (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08080703.html)
"Imagine if this year millions of Catholic voters simply said 'no' - 'no' to every candidate of every political party who supports abortion," he declared.
"It's time we stop accommodating pro-abortion politicians, and it's time we start demanding that they accommodate us."
By Tim Waggoner
TORONTO, ON, July 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On July 9, 2008, CFRB talk show host, Spider Jones, interviewed former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson about his past involvement in the abortion movement and his conversion to the pro-life viewpoint.
At
one time Nathanson was deeply entrenched in the American pro-abortion movement,
having co-founded the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and
overseen 75,000 abortions as director of an abortion clinic. During the CFRB
program Nathanson recalled the deceitful and dishonest tactics that he and NARAL
relied upon to push for the legalization and acceptance of abortion.
"We claimed that between
five and ten thousand women a year died of botched abortions," he said.
"The actual figure was closer to 200 to 300 and we also claimed that there
were a million illegal abortions a year in the United States and the actual
figure was close to 200,000. So, we were guilty of massive deception."
"I mean as a founding member and chairman of the medical committee, I
accepted the figures which came from a biostatistician named Christopher Tietze
and he and his wife passed along these figures to us at NARAL. We were in no
position to validate them or not, so we accepted them in the interests of higher
standards, or at least higher objectives," he explained.
Nathanson's conversion to the pro-life movement was sparked by the advent of the ultrasound machine in the early 1970s. He related how his heart was moved to realize that a fetus is in fact a human being after he watched an unborn baby recoil from a vacuum abortion device before being sucked from its mother's womb.
Nathanson titled the video of this incident "The Silent Scream" and began using it to spread the pro-life message. Planned Parenthood, however, took a page out of NARAL's book when the abortion giant spread rumors that the video was a fake. Nathanson confirmed that these rumors, like the tactics of NARAL, were lies.
"Planned Parenthood was responsible for that," he said. "But it was not faked and what we did in order to validate it was to go to Dr. Ian Donald in Scotland, who is the father of ultra-sound, the inventor of ultra-sound and he looked at the film and he swore an affidavit that everything was as it was shown and there was no doctoring or manipulation or any changes in the speed or anything else."
Nathanson then addressed the fact that abortion is now used as a form of birth control - a result of another pro-abortion fabrication.
"One of the myths that was fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that abortions taking place illegally, would be done legally. But in fact, abortion is now being used primary as a method of birth control all over the world and in the USA. too."
Pro-abortion advocates "refuse to see what most people are now conceding, that the fetus is a human being and we have no business massacring it in large numbers," concluded Dr. Nathanson.
From the File Box... This reprint courtesy LifeSite News. --"Joe"
Fathers Join Women, Unborn as
Third Victim Of the Abortion Industry
by Carey Roberts
August 7, 2007
As with all
editorials LifeNews.com features, the comments are solely the views of the
authors and not necessarily representative of the views of LifeNews.com.
Why are men reflexively treated as the fall-guy in the abortion debate?
Recently National
Review Online convened
a group to opine what would happen in a post-Roe v. Wade world to women who
might obtain an illegal abortion. The panelists reveal that before 1973, women
who sought an abortion were not subject to criminal prosecution. So overturning
Roe v. Wade would not fill our jails with post-abortive women.
One theme surfaces
repeatedly in the commentaries: feckless boyfriends who abandon their partners
in their hour of greatest need.
Hadley Arkes of
Amherst College describes women having an abortion as routinely “Abandoned by
the man.” And Dorinda Bordlee from the Bioethics Defense Fund obliquely refers
to fathers as “those who should be caring for [the mothers] and their unborn
children.”
So does research
back up these broad pronouncements of male abandonment?
In their book Men
and Abortion: Lessons, Losses, and Love, Shostak and McLouth report that 44% of
single men offered to marry the woman, 18% of the couples had discussed
adoption, and half the men accompanied the woman to the abortion clinic –
hardly the image of wholesale male abandonment.
When these men show
up at the clinic, they are met with a chilly reception. Two-thirds of the
fathers want to accompany their partner throughout the experience, and nine out
of 10 hope to hold the hand of their partner in the recovery room. But in most
cases abortion clinics prohibit men from such expressions of support.
But the NRO panel
reserves it harshest criticism for men who force their girlfriends to abort.
Walter Weber at the
American Center for Law and Justice claims that “many” women (we aren’t
told the number) obtain abortions because “they are coerced by boyfriends,
bosses, parents, etc.”
Joseph Dellapenna of
Villanova University states, “Significant evidence led one sociologist to
conclude that ‘the attitude of the man is the most important variable in a
woman’s decision to have an abortion.” Dellapenna does not cite, however,
the name of the sociologist or explain what constitutes “significant
evidence.”
And Frederica
Mathewes-Green recounts the tales of two women who were undergoing an abortion.
As they lay on the clinic table, both of them were praying that the boyfriend
would burst through the doors and say, “Stop, I changed my mind.” Mathewes-Green’s
imagery of the angelic woman succumbing to the spell of the conniving male is
unmistakable.
But research paints
a very different picture.
Several years ago
Carol Gilligan’s acclaimed study, In a Different Voice, examined the dynamics
of the abortion decision. She found in only one-third of cases did the father
have any influence on the woman’s decision to abort.
Likewise, professors
Arthur Shostak, Ross Koppel, and Jennifer Perkins recently
summarized several large-scale surveys of men in abortion clinic waiting
rooms. They reported that only 19% of men in waiting rooms affirmed the idea of
abortion in general, and fewer than 5% of men “may have cajoled their partner
into having the abortion.”
The conclusion is
clear: men are not dragging their pregnant girlfriends willy-nilly into abortion
clinics against their will.
Abortion is one of
those moral and social tragedies that seems to invite simplistic explanations.
But the reality is far more complex.
For example, none of
the NRO participants mentioned the fact that thanks to the 1992 U.S. Supreme
Court decision Casey v. Planned Parenthood, women are not required to inform the
father of the impending abortion. That’s an important omission -- according to
clinic workers, in 15% of abortions the man never finds out, or learns of the
deed until it’s too late.
I once met such a
man – years later he was still grieving the silent loss of his precious
innocent.
A growing body of
research reveals that fathers suffer a variety of ill-consequences following the
abortion. Dr. Catherine Coyle recently reviewed 28 studies that reveal men often
suffer regret, sadness, and depression. One-third admit to a longing to see the
fetus.
Coyle sums
up the research with this observation: “Several authors have noted a
tendency among men to defer the abortion decision to their female partners as
well as a tendency to repress their own emotions in an attempt to support their
partners.”
Many argue that women are the second victim of the grisly abortion industry. Clearly men can be victims, as well. So when will we stop treating fathers as social pariahs?
On The Wire... From LifeSiteNews. --Joe
African-American Pastors Demand Candidates Reject Planned Parenthood Campaign Money
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
WASHINGTON, DC, June 26, 2008 (LifeSIteNews.com) - A group of African-American pastors are in Washington today to demand that candidates from both parties reject money from Planned Parenthood, claiming the abortion provider promotes a racist agenda.
The pastors, who will be led by the niece of Martin Luther King Jr., Alveda King, plan to march to the Washington offices of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee where they will hold two separate press conferences.
"We are very concerned that Planned Parenthood is targeting African American communities and African American babies," said Alveda King.
She and Day Gardner, of the National Black Pro-Life Union, are leading the coalition of more than 50 pastors, who represent churches and anti-abortion organizations.
"Any candidate who continues…by accepting campaign contributions says that you're not as concerned about civil rights for all people," King told FOXNews. "It's an anti-civil rights act to support Planned Parenthood."
The group said Planned Parenthood plans to pump $10 million in campaign funds into the November election.
The pastors will be joined by pro-life students from Students For Life of America, an organization that coordinates 441 student pro-life groups across the US.
A news release from the group of pastors noted that, apart from the majority of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics being located in minority neighborhoods, the abortion provider is also currently under criminal investigation in Kansas for falsifying documents and performing illegal late-term abortions. The group also observed that the former Vice President of Finance and Administration for the Los Angeles Planned Parenthood has accused California Planned Parenthood of defrauding US taxpayers upwards of $180 million.
The pastors also called attention to the investigation by pro-life students at the University of California at Los Angeles newspaper, The Advocate, who taped a conversation between an actor posing as a racist donor and offering money to be directed toward aborting "black babies", and an Idaho Planned Parenthood employee (a development director) who said she was "excited" at the possibility of taking money specifically earmarked to kill black children.
"The Idaho Planned Parenthood development director expressed excitement," Kristan Hawkins, the executive director of Students for Life, said. "She said she wanted to make sure she was getting everything down because this was the first time this had happened to her and she was very excited. She also laughed when the actor said 'the less black babies out there, the better,' and said 'understandable, understandable'." (See the video of the conversation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LJVPVh5TWo)
The Idaho branch of Planned Parenthood later apologized, saying their employee showed "a serious lack of judgment," but no disciplinary action was taken.
Planned Parenthood also complained that they had been set up, saying that "had the employees been properly prepared for this kind of attack, they would have figured out that the calls were nothing short of a cruel hoax, designed to portray Planned Parenthood as money-grubbing racists."
Colin Mason, media director of the Population Research Institute, commenting on this, said, "In other words, Planned Parenthood is claiming that the student investigators (mean and spiteful right-wingers) somehow tricked its sophisticated fundraisers into sounding like 'money-grubbing racists.' To which we say 'If they sounded like money-grubbing racists,' this is because they probably are money-grubbing racists. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..."
The African-American pastors said the investigation proved abortion and race are inextricably linked.
Commentary by Bobby Schindler
June 16, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Recently, yet another situation similar to that of my sister Terri Schiavo has made headlines. In West Palm Beach, Florida, Raymond Weber is asking the court to dehydrate his disabled wife, Karen, to death.
If you have read any of the reports in mainstream media, it’s just another case of a husband looking out for the “best interest” of his spouse. And just as in Terri’s case, Raymond Weber is asking the government to deliberately kill his wife who is not dying and is guilty of nothing more than having difficulty swallowing and therefore needing help, in the form of a feeding tube, to eat.
Not surprisingly, in a story by the AP, was a quote from the husband’s attorney who so touchingly referred to his client’s brain-injured wife as a “vegetable,” thus offending the tens of thousands of people and their families who do live with a profound brain injury.
The reporter also wrote that the decision whether Karen should live or die will depend upon whether or not a committee finds her “competent” to go on living. Yes, that is correct, competent enough to live. I guess passing an IQ test will be next.
Factors such as what is being taught in our medical schools, the breakdown of our health care system, the powerful influence of assisted suicide organizations, and the propaganda of our mainstream media have taken their toll.
As a result, the physically and mentally “inferior” are being denied the most basic care—food and water—in our nation’s medical facilities every day. (Thank goodness we have laws making it a felony if we do the same to an animal, although I would expect there would be a greater outcry if it were the family pets at risk.)
Equally as disturbing is the fact that our politicians, including our two presidential candidates, ignore this issue and because of it are failing in one of the most important responsibilities they have as leaders—to protect our most vulnerable citizens.
Perhaps our general public doesn’t have a clue as to how widespread this problem is in our nation today. This ignorance is in large part because of a stealth and powerful lobby who support patient dehydration based on quality of life judgments. This has slowly but surely changed our laws regarding food and water. Nutrition and hydration through a feeding tube, once considered basic care, are now recognized as “artificial nutrition and hydration”—and therefore a form of “medical treatment.”
Because of this, people have the right (this now includes hospital ethics committees under the banner of “futile care”) to refuse medical treatment (food and water via feeding tube) either for themselves or for others, which is often based on “best interest” scenarios. Denying the disabled food and water has become a routine part of medicine that only becomes an issue when family disagrees, as in the case of Karen Weber and my sister Terri.
If you need proof, read what was recently written in a March 18 New York Times article. In this column by Jane Brody, Judith Schwarz, a registered nurse and clinical coordinator for “Compassion & Choices” of New York was quoted as saying the following: “1.3 million people die each year in American hospitals as ‘a consequence of someone’s decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment.’”
If this is accurate, these numbers are staggering. Although there are no statistics available to indicate exactly how many of these 1.3 million are simply being starved and dehydrated to death because a “loved one” doesn’t feel like taking on the “burden” of caring for these individuals, it is safe to say that dehydrating the disabled to death is happening every day in our country—in fact thousands of times daily, if the figures are to be believed. During Terri’s battle, Michael Schiavo’s attorney admitted that his effort to kill my sister by denying her food and hydration is a widely practiced “medical treatment.”
How have we sunk so far as a nation to become so desensitized and disconnected to the value and dignity of our most vulnerable, that dehydrating the disabled to death has become about as ordinary as buying a loaf of bread?
Someone once said that when your life becomes difficult, change your life, not your morals. Faced with difficult life choices today, too many have become too comfortable acting immorally.
By Tim Waggoner
WASHINGTON, May 23, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- Father Francis G. Morrisey, who for years opposed the denial of communion to
pro-abortion politicians, has recently told the Washington Times his position on
the matter has changed. This comes on the heels of numerous other canon
lawyers uniting around outspoken clergymen on the issue.
The Washington Times reported that Father Francis G. Morrisey, a
highly-respected canon lawyer who taught canon law at St. Paul's University in
Ottawa, Canada, has admitted he now advocates refusing communion to pro-abortion
politicians, but maintains an individualistic application of canon law 915:
"we have to look at the individual conscience of each politician, and just
when a person has overstepped the line." He also asked, "Is the
politician ready to look at things and reevaluate certain situations, or has the
politician simply closed the door and said mind your own business?"
Father Morrisey additionally reflected on the fact that abortion is not the only
life issue to be considered in the matter. "There's a contradiction
being opposed to abortion but being totally in favor of the death penalty,"
said Morrisey. However, the Church's teaching on capital punishment is not
anywhere as precise and condemning as that against abortion which results in the
death of vastly greater numbers of always completely innocent humans.
Patricia M. Dugan, a Philadelphia lawyer who practices both canon law and civil
law, also observed the need for consistency in the application of canon 915,
which states that those, "who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin,
are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."
"We need to be more definitive in how we spread this and how far we allow
this practice to go," Miss Dugan said. "Denial of the sacraments is
the equivalent of being shunned in the Amish community, or being expelled from
your Jewish congregation."
"Eight or ten years ago, when people first started advocating on this, they
were voices crying in the wilderness . . . What we're seeing is a consensus
emerge; it's more of a discussion now than a debate," added Morrisey,
commenting on the fact that numerous canon lawyers, who operate in the Church's
internal legal system, are rallying behind those clergymen and laity who are
upholding and supporting the proper application of canon 915.
One such advocate is canon lawyer and vicar general of the Diocese of Lincoln in
Nebraska, Monsignor Timothy Thorburn, who identifies a possible lack of respect
for the Church when a politician, who knowingly disagrees with a serious Church
teaching, attempts to receive the Eucharist: "If a person identifies
himself as a Catholic, yet holds a position that is directly contrary to the
Catholic faith in a very serious matter - the killing of innocent children by
means of abortion - it would seem that they should have the respect for the
Church to refrain without coercion from receiving Holy Communion."
"That some do not [refrain] seems to indicate almost an intention to insult
the church," added Thorburn. An example of this can been seen in
April when at least five pro-abortion politicians received Holy Communion during
Pope Benedicts U.S. visit.
Furthermore, after Archbishop Naumann privately told pro-abortion politician
Governor Sebelius to refrain from receiving Holy Communion, she publicly
received the sacrament shortly after.
A common argument that opposes the position of these canon lawyers and of the
Catholic Church, suggests a separation of Church and State, saying a politician
should represent their constituents in office rather than their personal
beliefs. Yet Monsignor Thorburn addressed this concern, asserting,
"If they are representing citizens, they should represent all citizens -
including the most defenseless, who are children in the womb."
Archbishop of St. Louis Raymond Burke, who is a Member of the Supreme Tribunal
of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court in the Catholic Church, which
would oversee any complaint over pro-abortion politicians being denied
communion, has over the years been outspoken in favor of applying the canon.
According to lay canon lawyer R. Michael Dunnigan, as reported in the Washington
Times, Archbishop Burke has gained tremendous support from other canon lawyers
and Bishops surrounding the application of canon 915, especially when Archbishop
Burke opposed presidential candidate John Kerry on the issue in 2004.
Father William Woestman, a retired professor of canon law, also agrees and
trusts in the bishops' ability to uphold canon 915: "They have the grace of
state and they have to make the judgment," Fr. Woestman said. "Each
bishop knows what is more beneficial for the welfare of the faithful in his
diocese."
For more on the issue see:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/02/political-state-...;
on the wire... more from American Life League's Judie Brown. --joe
A
TALE OF TWO CATHOLIC BISHOPS
By Judie Brown
When I read the special
news report by John–Henry Westen on Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, the
Cathoic bishop of Kansas City, Kansas, I said a silent prayer of
thanks to God! Just one day before the holy feast of Pentecost, when the Holy
Spirit descended upon the Apostles in the form of flame, the Kansas bishops,
under the leadership of Archbishop Naumann, agreed to take a stand in defense of
Christ in the Eucharist.
Archbishop Naumann has directed Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a pro-abortion
Catholic, "to refrain from presenting herself for Holy Communion until
she takes 'the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a
public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and
policies sanctioning abortion.'"
Archbishop Naumann’s entire
column is well worth reading, but the following excerpt speaks volumes about
the role of a bishop and the sincere concern he should have for the souls of
those who have strayed:
Since becoming archbishop, I have met with Governor Sebelius several times over many months to discuss with her the grave spiritual and moral consequences of her public actions by which she has cooperated in the procurement of abortions performed in Kansas. My concern has been, as a pastor, both for the spiritual well-being of the governor but also for those who have been misled (scandalized) by her very public support for legalized abortion.
It has been my hope that through this dialogue the governor would come to understand her obligation: 1) to take the difficult political step, but necessary moral step, of repudiating her past actions in support of legalized abortion; and 2) in the future would use her exceptional leadership abilities to develop public policies extending the maximum legal protection possible to the unborn children of Kansas.
Having made every effort to inform and to persuade Governor Sebelius and after consultation with Bishop Ron Gilmore (Dodge City), Bishop Paul Coakley (Salina) and Bishop Michael Jackels (Wichita), I wrote the governor last August requesting that she refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.
Recently, it came to my attention that the governor had received Holy Communion at one of our parishes. I have written to her again, asking her to respect my previous request and not require from me any additional pastoral actions.
This action on the
part of the archbishop teaches us two things about those Catholics in public
life that have chosen to support the dastardly act of abortion. The first is
that appealing to truth and to their individual sense of humility often fails.
Even when the bishop is loving and discreet with the offending public figure,
the result is far from what we wish to see.
The second thing this situation shows is the arrogance that seems to overtake so
many Catholics in public life. It is as though their public actions have nothing
whatsoever to do with the ultimate salvation of their own souls. What a tragedy
this is.
But I cannot tell you how privileged the Catholics of Kansas and the Archdiocese
of Kansas City, in particular, are to have someone like Archbishop Naumann who
loves souls first and foremost. His desire to protect Christ from sacrilege
while at the same time working quietly to teach truth is so obvious and we
praise him for that.
Sadly, this adulation cannot be extended to every Catholic bishop, and the
second part of my tale deals with one of those for whom I am praying with
fervent and constant appeals to Christ. I am, of course, speaking of Archbishop
Donald Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.
In an April 30 commentary
for the Archdiocese of Washington D.C.'s newspaper, the Catholic
Standard, he wrote the following:
A decision regarding the refusal of Holy Communion to an individual is one that should be made only after clear efforts to persuade and convince the person that their actions are wrong and bear moral consequences. Presumably this is done in the home diocese where the bishops and priests, the pastors of souls, engage the members of their flock in this type of discussion. In the case of public figures who serve in Washington as representatives of other parts of the nation, this dialogue and any decisions would take place within their home diocese.
This is a polite way
of telling the Catholic people of Washington, D.C., including pro-abortion
Catholic public figures, that as far as he is concerned, the scandalous behavior
of pro-abortion Catholic politicians willfully supporting the aborting of
preborn children while at the same time receiving the body and blood of Christ
in Holy Communion is not his problem!
Or as the ever-wise blogging champion and pro-life heroine, Jill Stanek, wrote
in reference to Archbishop Wuerl’s comments,
On one hand I think Wuerl expressed a valid concern of not wanting to usurp the authority of a politician's own priest or diocese. He is in a unique position as head of the Catholic Church in D.C., where so many out-of-town infamous Catholics work.
On the other hand, this could read like a cop out....
If a Catholic politician spends a significant amount of time between two parishes, doesn't the parish where pro-abortion actions are committed bear some responsibility, even if not the home parish?
And Julia Duin of
the Washington Times, upon reading what Archbishop Wuerl had to say
about the jurisdiction of the bishop from whatever diocese the pro-abortion
Catholic public figure came from, wrote this: "The
Washington Times
Well, my response to
such non-response, regardless of what the archbishop has said about not wanting
to step on anybody's toes, is simply this: The fact is, and I say this with
complete and utter confidence in the proper meaning of Church law, specifically
Canon 915, that regardless of the bishop or parish in question, every single
ordained priest, deacon and extraordinary Eucharistic minister has a moral
obligation to protect Christ from sacrilege. It matters not who an errant
Catholic politician’s bishop is – defiling Christ is what it is.
Judie Brown is president of American Life League and a member of the
Pontifical Academy for Life.