The Hound Of Ulster

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.

My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.

…

Even as I continue to ponder in prayer these events, which many have found shocking, so must Notre Dame. Indeed, as a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth.

Tomorrow, we celebrate as Catholics the moment when our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, became a child in the womb of his most holy mother. Let us ask Our Lady to intercede for the university named in her honor, that it may recommit itself to the primacy of truth over prestige.

January 30, 2009 

Dear Senator Casey: 

I wish to thank you for voting in favor of the Hatch Amendment to the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reorganization Act of 2009 which would have made unborn children eligible for child health assistance had it passed. I am grateful for what you have done on behalf of children in America who are without health care.

It is with deep regret, however, that I learned of your vote against the amendment offered by Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) to the same Children’s Health Insurance Act. Senator Martinez’s amendment would have reinstated the Mexico City Policy. That policy, instituted in 1984, required foreign non-governmental organizations “to agree as a condition of their receipt of [U.S.] federal funds” that they would “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning . . . .” It also prohibited them from lobbying governments to make abortion legal. In effect, the reversal of the Mexico City policy will mean that over 450 million dollars of American foreign aid will go to organizations that are militant in promoting abortion as a method of population control, particularly in countries that find abortion objectionable on moral grounds. Senator, is not this vote a contradiction of your repeated claim that you support the protection of unborn life?

Contrary to a release issued by your office yesterday, the 1973 Helms Amendment does not provide the same restrictions as the Mexico City Policy. The Helms Amendment prohibits only U.S. funds from being used to pay for abortions or to motivate or coerce anyone to practice abortions. It in no way keeps U.S. federal funds from organizations which use their own money to pay for or support abortions. Nor does it place restrictions on organizations that lobby foreign governments to reverse anti-abortion laws. While I understand that the Helms Amendment is still in place, it does not have the same effect in limiting abortions abroad.

May God reward Bishop Martino for his bravery.  And may He send us many more Martinos.  (HT: DEAL)
 

OK, I’ll admit it.  That blog title makes me feel a little bit weird.  Not quite as respectful as might be appropriate.

But it’s still a pretty accurate description of my reaction to reading THIS:

“I share the concern of all of the bishops of the United States that the administration has, at least prior to the election, given us indications that they are going to rescind some of the protections of the unborn,” Vigneron said. “And I am very disappointed in that.

…

Asked if he might do what some American bishops have done — attempt to deny the sacrament of Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, Vigneron demurred.

“I am not going to answer any hypothetical questions like that, especially from this distance,” said Vigneron, who spoke by phone from his office in Oakland. “I simply want to affirm that part of being a Catholic is having a conviction that on these moral matters, the church speaks the mind of Christ. And I want to help Catholics, especially Catholics in responsible positions, to maintain the integrity of their professions.”

The article mentions that “some in the church believe Vigneron will largely abide by Maida’s approach.”  I’m far less convinced.  THIS piece has something to do with that opinion, I suspect:

Over the years Bishop Vigneron has established a relatively firm orthodox and pro-life and pro-family reputation. Besides participating in pro-life events such as the annual Walk for Life, he has on more than one occasion used his column in the Oakland newspaper to defend the right to life of the unborn and to condemn euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research.

In an October 2004 article on voting, the bishop had firm words for pro-abortion politicians and encouraged his flock to vote pro-life.

In voting “our starting point,” he said, “is always and at all times to acknowledge and cherish human life as a gift from God, sacred and inviolable. Because every human person is created in the image and likeness of God, we have a duty to defend human life from conception until natural death.”

He went on to say that, “Whenever a politician or political party promotes the acceptance and support of abortion or euthanasia, no matter how morally compelling their stands may seem on other issues, their stand on these crucial life issues must be judged as fundamentally flawed.”

In another, more recent column, published to coincide with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the bishop specifically addressed abortion at length. In the article the bishop urged members of his flock to perform acts of penance in reparation for the sin of abortion.

“We must include in our prayer all those who have been touched by the evil of abortion,” he said, “whether by performing it, or by procuring it or just by passively going along with it. These neighbors of ours … particularly need the assistance of our prayers, because, while the preborn victims of abortion have been the object of a terrible injustice, those who participate in this evil are even more to be pitied. Their state, if unrepented, is far worse.”

He specifically urged Catholics to pray the rosary to ask for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to put an end to the evil of abortion.

Worth keeping an eye on…
 

THIS sort of thing is always mightily encouraging to us sheep:

Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester, Massachusetts is calling on the parishioners of all Catholic churches to participate in the campaign, taking place the weekend of January 24.

“See your signature on your postcard as your moral response to the words of Jesus that we will all hear on the day of our personal judgment, ‘I assure you, as often as you did it for one of my least brothers and sisters, you did it for me,’” McManus says.

The bishop tells the Catholic Free Press that FOCA must be strongly opposed because it would destroy decades of work pro-life advocates have done to limit abortions until the day comes human life is fully protected.

Another young, outspoken BISHOP, he also serves as the Chairperman of the Committee on Education for the USCCB.
 

From a Catholic World News ARTICLE, courtesy of IC’s MARGARET:

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City has announced that Governor Kathleen Sebelius should not receive Communion because of her support for legal abortion.

In a column appearing on May 9 in the archdiocesan newspaper, The Leaven, the archbishop said that Governor Sebelius has sent a “spiritually lethal message” by implying that she could remain a Catholic in good standing while supporting abortion on demand.

Of particulary interest to me was the Archbishop’s account of the “pastoral” approach he’d taken to the matter:

He reported that he had met with her “several times over many months to discuss with her the grave spiritual and moral consequences of her public actions.” Because the governor has now rejected his pleas and her public stand constitutes a scandal to the faithful, the archbishop said that he has now directed her to refrain from receiving Communion. Archbishop Naumann reported that he has asked Governor Sebelius to accept this directive, so that she will “not require from me any additional pastoral actions.”

Another key point:

The governor will be welcomed back to Communion, the archbishop wrote, if she acknowledges her error, goes to Confession, and makes “a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.”

THIS is the article that “started it all.”  (And HERE’S a sample of the “reasoned response” it’s generating.)
 

THIS is most encouraging:

Rudy Giuliani should not have received Holy Communion during the pope’s visit because the former presidential candidate supports abortion rights, New York Cardinal Edward Egan said Monday.

Egan says he had “an understanding” with Giuliani that he is not to receive the Eucharist. The Catholic Church teaches “that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God,” Egan said.

The cardinal said Monday that Giuliani broke that understanding when he received the Eucharist during Pope Benedict XVI’s visit earlier this month. He received Communion during the April 19 service from one of the many clergymen who offered the sacrament.

Egan says he will be seeking a meeting with Giuliani “to insist that he abide by our understanding.”

As the head of the Archdiocese of New York, Egan’s a trendsetter by default. Hopefully, others will pick up on the trend.  (Also nice to see that he first spoke with Giuliani in private, as a prudent shepherd should.  And it was only after Giuliani went back on his promise that Egan spoke out.)

“America’s Mayor’s” mealy-mouthed response:

Giuliani’s spokeswoman, Sunny Mindel, said Monday that he is willing to meet with the cardinal but added that his faith “is a deeply personal matter and should remain confidential.”

Please.  I’ve had enough of that.  Who exactly is it that caused this to become public, again?

(And I wonder if it’s connected to THIS.)
 

The Archbishop of St. Louis SAYS “No” to Sheryl Crow, and it has nothing to do with her recent environmental comments.

A native of Kennett, Mo., Crow has been an outspoken supporter of keeping abortion legal. She also supported Amendment 2, a Missouri initiative passed last fall that constitutionally protects human cloning and embryonic stem-cell research.

“The Church can never give the impression for any reason that it’s acceptable to take innocent human lives through abortion or embryonic stem-cell research,” he said.

“That’s the contradictory message that’s given by having Sheryl Crow, who is public and active in her support of abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, associated with a Catholic hospital,” the archbishop said.

The archbishop said he had submitted his resignation earlier this week as chairman of the board of governors of Cardinal Glennon Children’s Foundation, the benefit’s sponsor and fund-raising arm of the medical center.

The archbishop also asked that his name be removed from any materials promoting the upcoming benefit.

STLtoday’s Tim Townsend has a bit MORE, and so does WHISPERS.

The Archdiocese has quite the news RELEASE on the matter.

Q. Since the performer is just singing and not promoting her beliefs, why don’t we allow her to help raise money for a medical center that helps children with cancer?

A. Our judgment in the issue does not rest on the nature of the performer’s beliefs, but on the public advocacy for actions which result in the deliberate killing of innocent human beings. The performer’s appearance at an event whose principal purpose is to raise funds for a health care apostolate “guided by the moral tradition of the Church” (Ethical and Religious Directives, no. 1) casts doubt on the consistency of the commitment of the Church to the fundamental right to life. When that inconsistency occurs, the Church is required, through the Archbishop, to clarify or correct the misunderstanding out of respect for the spiritual well-being of the members of the Church and others. This is the motivation for his public statement.

Q. Why is the Archbishop coming out against it now?

A. As soon as he was made aware of this event, he began private conversations with the president of the Medical Center and the President of the Board of Governors of the Cardinal Glennon Children’s Foundation. Only after the Board of Governors of the Foundation informed him they would not address the issue did it become necessary that he carry out his pastoral responsibility to communicate to the local Church and community about the matter.

Sounds like a prudent approach that was unsuccessful. After the Board decided to avoid the issue that he had raised in private, he was unable to keep it “behind closed doors” any longer. (The key step there is the decision that the principle is more important than the privacy. I wish we could get more folks to see that.)

Pro Ecclesia LINKS to a fascinating TALK delivered by Denver’s archbishop at The John Cardinal Krol Conference in Philadelphia this past Saturday. The whole piece is well worth reading, but I was particularly struck by one thing: the good archbishop is tired of being told to keep quiet. And he’s even more tired of people actually staying silent when they should speak out.

When Cardinal Rigali first invited me to come to Philadelphia to talk about religion and the common good, I accepted for two simple reasons. First, I’m tired of the Church and her people being told to be quiet on public issues that urgently concern us. And second, I’m tired of Christians themselves being silent because of some misguided sense of good manners. Self-censorship is an even bigger failure than allowing ourselves to be bullied by outsiders.

…

In her short story “Greenleaf,” Flannery O’Connor once wrote about a widow called Mrs. May who owned a large dairy farm and who thought faith should be a very private matter. O’Connor described her this way: “Mrs. May winced. She thought the word, Jesus, should be kept inside the church building like other words inside the bedroom. She was a good Christian woman with a large respect for religion, though she did not, of course, believe any of it was true.”

If Mrs. May sounds familiar from daily life, she should. The deepest tragedy of our age is how many of our own people who claim to believe in Jesus Christ, really don’t prove it in the way they live their lives—and don’t like the inconvenience of being asked to prove it.

The “common good” is more than a political slogan. It’s more than what most people think they want right now. It’s not a matter of popular consensus or majority opinion. It can’t be reduced to economic justice or social equality or better laws or civil rights, although all these things are vitally important to a healthy society.

The common good is what best serves human happiness in the light of what is real and true.

…

We most truly serve the common good by having the courage to be disciples of Jesus Christ. God gave us a free will, but we need to use it. Discipleship has a cost. Jesus never said that we didn’t need a spine. The world doesn’t need affirmation. It needs conversion. It doesn’t need the approval of Christians. It needs their witness. And that work needs to begin with us. Bernanos said that the “scandal of Creation [isn’t] suffering but freedom.” He said that “moralists like to regard sanctity as a luxury; actually it is a necessity.” He also said that “one may believe that this isn’t the era of the saints; that the era of the saints has passed. [But] it is always the era of the saints.”

The only thing that matters is to be a saint. At least we can try. And if we do, God will take care of the rest.

Sorry for quoting so liberally, but it was difficult for me to even make the few cuts that I did. The entire piece is a gold-mine, and very timely. For some reason, the American Catholic Church seems to be moving heavily into the “mildly affirmative” side of things. And as Archbishop Chaput reminds us, conversion is not always (in fact, is almost never) meek. Saint Paul, anyone?

The same bishops keep cropping up in these “Brave Bishop” rankings, which should come as no surprise. Amy’s got the LATEST on Bishop Olmstead, courtesy of a GROUP called Children of the Rosary:

We have been greatly blessed with Bishop Olmsted’s presence at our prayer vigils sice he first came to Phoenix in December 2003. Just days after arriving, he came to our annual Christmas Eve prayer vigil and attracted 200-300 hundred of the faithful. Typically, only 50-100 people would come to this vigil. Then on Good Friday of 2004, Bishop Olmsted drew our largest crowd (approx 1200).

He has consistently attended 3-4 vigils every year. He must be one of the busiest bishops in the country as he travels frequently outside Arizona for a number of other organizations he is involved with.

Pretty amazing. It’s hard to quantify just how much the Bishop’s presence means in this sort of endeavor. (Sort of like Bishop Finn’s participation in the Anti-Two prayer walks.)

I am not the world’s biggest Cardinal Mahony fan. Sure, there are SOME more critical than I, but that’s mostly because they know more. (And probably because they’re a bit more willing to break eggs than I am.)

But in the interest of fairness to the Cardinal, I think THIS story needs some significant attention. (HT: CAFETERIA and PRO ECCLESIA)

He leveled unusually sharp criticism at one of the bill’s prominent sponsors, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, who recently met with the Cardinal to discuss the proposal. Nunez’s support is viewed as crucial if the bill is to reach the governor’s desk.

Mahony said he was saddened and confused by Nunez’s decision to endorse a plan that would allow the terminally ill to obtain life-ending drugs from their physicians.

“We should be troubled that Fabian Nunez – who has worshipped here in this cathedral, is a Catholic – somehow has not understood and grasped the culture of life but has allowed himself to get swept into this other direction, the culture of death,” said Mahony, whose archdiocese is estimated to have more than 4.3 million Catholics.

…

One of the bill’s co-authors, Assemblywoman Patty Berg, D-Eureka, said in a statement, “This is how the church has always reacted to the pro-choice debate. And, frankly, this is why so many people can’t relate to their message.”

Mahony’s criticism follows a letter written last month by Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco, who asked Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, to withdraw her support from the bill. “Legalization of assisted suicide … victimizes our poorest, weakest and most vulnerable members of society,” Niederauer wrote.

Strong comments from Mahony and Niederauer on a pro-life issue? And to Californian politicians at that? I’m still trying to figure out why they’d be willing to make a public statement on this matter, but reluctant to say anything about Miz Nancy and her pro-death minions. (And yes, I’m a bit unhappy with the idea that assisted suicide victimizes “our poorest, weakest and most vulnerable members of society.” That’s the way I would describe the unborn, myself. The ones that haven’t even gotten a chance to live yet.)

Still, that’s all a bit academic. The fundamental point is: Good for them!