Whether it's pro-life philosophy, activism or legislation, whether it's about a current topic or a situation pro-lifers face in their own lives and work, this is the place where we'll talk about it! Please forward any comments to me, Judie Brown. Thank you!
THE CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF ROCHESTER AND THE NAZI HOLOCAUST Posted: Thursday May 21, 2009 at 11:35 am EST by Judie Brown
There have been times when American citizens have argued vehemently with me because I have compared the Holocaust that occurred during World War II with the current war on the preborn occurring on our own soil. Many of us in the pro-life movement see a stark similarity not only because of the unbelievable horror of the manner in which innocent victims were and are brutally murdered but the fact that in each of the two cases the law protected the evils being perpetrated.
When we pro-lifers talk about America’s Holocaust, we have photographs and images equally as horrific as those from Hitler’s era. Still many argue that there really is no comparison. However, as researcher Steven Kellmeyer has pointed out,
The Holocaust grew out of scientific work and legal precedent begun in England…so legal abortion expresses today’s economic and psychological science, which assume economic and psychological harm to women will be reduced if their children are killed. The rhetoric used by the advocates of legal abortion against the child in the womb (a “disease,” “bacilli,” “parasites”) repeats the Nazi rhetoric against the Jews. Both German and U.S. courts stripped their victims of all rights prior to destroying them. In both cases, medical experimentation of living and dead victims grew as time went on and the number of deaths grew….
So when I became aware of a recent event in Rochester, New York, I thought about those arguments regarding the Holocaust and I concluded that there are deeper reasons for such arguments.
Rochester New York’s Democrat and Chronicle ran a report about a month ago entitled “Rochester community seeks more interfaith dialogue.” The main purpose of the news item was to focus attention on a Jewish-Christian program, “The Two Thousand Year Road to the Holocaust.” The program marked a turning point in the cooperation occurring between Jewish organizations and interfaith organizations including the Catholic diocese of Rochester. Among those who currently participate in the program, designed to raise awareness about the Holocaust that occurred during World War II, are Catholic Deacon Thomas Driscoll, Deacon Anthony Sciolino and Morris Wortman, M.D., an abortionist.
Wortman’s medical bio states, “Dr. Morris Wortman at The Center for Menstrual Disorders and Reproductive Choice offers services such as endomyometrial resection, GYN services, and pregnancy termination.”
Dr. Wortman’s “Holocaust Road” bio states that he is a child of Holocaust survivors and the coordinator of The Holocaust Study Group.
Dr. Wortman’s professional background shocked me into wondering how he could possibly be involved on one level with a project designed to remind America of the horror of the German Holocaust, while at the same time participating in the American holocaust, which has, by far, robbed many more innocent people of their lives.
I further wondered how representatives of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, could possibly justify collaborating on a project with a man known to the community, not only as the child of Holocaust survivors, but as a doctor who makes his living killing innocent babies prior to birth.
Today’s D&C has an article about yet another interfaith collaboration in the Rochester area. This latest one involved the presentation of a program called "The Two Thousand Year Road to the Holocaust." The presentation took place at Temple B’rith Kodesh in Brighton. There are several aspects of this presentation that bear examination.
First of all, the presentation was part of a series of talks that has been spearheaded by Morris Wortman, one of Rochester’s most prominent abortionists. Wortman is not exactly shy and retiring when it comes to his advocacy for abortion. He has come out publicly a number of times in support of taking the lives of the unborn. In fact, because he is such a notorious abortionist, there is a pro-life Rosary prayed every Friday in front of his clinic. His clinic is also the destination for the annual Good Friday Stations of the Cross in Reparation for Abortion.
What is especially galling about this latest interfaith gathering was the participation of two local Catholic deacons. Both Deacon Thomas Driscoll and Deacon Anthony Sciolino were presenters at this forum. Here is what Deacon Sciolino had to say about the event:
Something then went terribly wrong for Christianity during the Holocaust. And what resulted from the obvious disconnect between Christian belief and Christian behavior was the worst catastrophe in human history. Jews ponder the Holocaust and rightly ask: Where was God? Christians must to do the same and, in addition, ask: Where was the Church?
So, there you have it: an interfaith event, spearheaded by Rochester’s most prominent abortionist, at which one of the DOR’s deacons seems to blame Christianity and the Catholic Church for the Holocaust.
Many pro-life activists have characterized the taking of innocent life in the womb as the “abortion holocaust.” How unfortunate that these two deacons fail to see the irony of their collaboration with Dr. Wortman on this project.
Sadly, I agree with every word that Mr. Michael has written, but I also feel strongly that if Deacon Sciolino truly wants to understand the tragedy of the first Holocaust, he should become familiar with the full body of facts required to support a credible presentation. As a Catholic, it is hard for me to see how Sciolino could blame Christianity for anything at all when millions of Christians were murdered during the Nazi atrocities as well.
At the same time, it is in the paradox of the collaboration between the abortionist and the Catholic deacons that the answer to this unexplainable association occurs. Their joint project is designed to raise awareness about the ugliness of murdering innocent people while avoiding the obvious contradiction that is occurring in their midst.
Sciolino, by deferring attention away from Wortman’s everyday practice and focusing in on the disconnect between Christian belief and Christian behavior, probably feels comfortable working side by side with a man who perpetrates the very same crimes against innocents that he is exposing in a partnership focused on the German Holocaust. Perhaps this same therapy of denial provides a healing salve to the conscience of the abortionist who can look the other way when confronted with the reality of what he does every day as he begs America to learn from the lessons of history and remember those who died more than 50 years ago.
Obviously, there are deep-seated reasons why some do not want to compare the Holocaust of yesterday with the Holocaust of today.
“Strange bedfellows” indeed! If I had to ask questions about this Rochester, New York conundrum, it would be Bishop Matthew Clark, shepherd of the Catholics entrusted to his care, to whom I would go for answers. I would ask quite simply
Your Excellency,
How can it be that two of your ordained deacons are collaborating with an abortionist on a project dealing with the World War II Holocaust when the parallels between the German Holocaust and the American Holocaust are so vividly evident?
What good can be accomplished as long as a perpetrator of the current Holocaust is so publicly identified with your deacons?
What sort of a message does this send to the Catholics in your care, not to mention the entire community?
Sincerely awaiting your response, I am respectfully
Judie Brown, President
American Life League Inc.
Perhaps you have the same questions. Bishop Clark’s contact information is
Pastoral Center
Diocese of Rochester
1150 Buffalo Road
Rochester, New York 14624
As a parishioner who currently lives within the boundaries of the Rochester Diocese, I wish you the best of luck in eliciting a fair response from Bishop Clark. I'm sure you've done your research and know what a terrible, rebellious mess he has made of this diocese, and I'm sure it is no surprise that my family and I choose to travel 70 miles roundtrip each Sunday to attend Mass in the Buffalo Diocese rather than walk up the road from our house to attend in the town where we live.
If you receive a response from him, I would be most interested to hear about it, especially if he doesn't blow you off and make you seem like a crazy woman for suggesting a link between abortion and the Jewish holocaust.
All my best to you and your ministry!
Sincerely,
Amanda Amanda Cayouette | May 21, 2009
Dear Amanda
If we receive a response from Bishop Clark, rest assured we will publish it here. On the many occasions when we have written to him, his silence has been deafening.
I don't blame you one bit for travelling so far to attend a Mass at which you can feel the peace of Christ.
God be with you.
Judie Judie Brown | May 23, 2009
Judy, I lived in Rochester most of my life and Bishop Clark IS the problem. He allows these things to take place, and in some cases applauds (or spearheads) them. I believe the Vatican has even reprimanded him in the past for his actions. There is a huge Catholic population in Rochester, but I worry that many have been misled under the direction of Bishop Clark and his close supporters - which would explain this strange mesh of 'bed fellows.' And on top of it all, Wortman's office is just feet away from a Catholic high school. Thank you for giving this story the public attention it deserves. cara | May 26, 2009
Judie, your leap from asking where the church was during the Holocaust and saying that Deacon Sciolino blamed the "church" for the Holocaust is something you made up or is a delusion on your part. Deacon Sciolino did not say that!
Secondly Judie, during the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul XXIII had required inclusiveness and openness as a necessity to any meaningful dialogue. Please keep the Holocaust separate from Abortions it is not helpful and is not conducive to discussions of either cause for you confuse the two.
And finally it is just not true or delusional to conclude that to collaborate on the Holocaust means that one is collaborating on Abortion. Again that is utter fiction or a delusion on your part.
Please think rationally about the Holocaust and Abortions as two separate issues. For you to say one follows the other is pure fiction or a delusion. PLEASE WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT DEACON SCIOLINO SUPPORTS ABORTION. You can't because you created in your mind.
Do we need to have a serious dialogue with the doctor who performs abortions, yes! Can you jump from that to saying Deacon Sciolino supports abortion, no.
May Christ's peace be with you,
Diane Zemla, BSN, RN
Student of Theology & Ministry Diane Zemla | July 25, 2009
Dear Diane,
We don't make things up here at American Life League; we document each and every thing we report. I believe you should read this report at the REMNANT web site, which is one of many we have seen: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0630-alessio-news.htm
May i remind you that the Holocaust was a tragedy of enormous proportions, as millions of gypsies, Jews and Christians were murdered. But today in America, we have thusfar murdered more than 50 million citizens because they were living in the wombs of their mothers. There is a comparison, whether anyone likes it or not. INCLUSIVENESS does not preclude truth.
I recommend that you continue your studies and get all the facts before you challenge the veracity of my commentary. I do thank you for your remarks, but clearly do not agree with your conclusions.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | July 29, 2009
Julie,
May Christ's Peace Be With You! Diane Elizabeth | April 23, 2010
THE LESSONS OF NOTRE DAME Posted: Wednesday May 20, 2009 at 3:10 pm EST by Judie Brown
The events of this past weekend at the University of Notre Dame exposed the stark divisions within the Catholic Church as never before. A great deal of work needs to be done to restore the one true Church to its original design, as carefully provided by Christ Himself. To my mind, the best way to begin that effort is to understand what really happened on that campus, and I think Ralph McInerny has given us the most definitive explanation that I have seen.
McInerny is a writer of philosophy, fiction and cultural criticism. He has taught at Notre Dame since 1955. His commentary, released Monday and entitled “A House Divided,” exposes the true nature of the crisis that has existed within the Catholic Church for some years now.
A retrospective review is always good for those who wish to learn valuable lessons from painful experiences. This piece places the dramatic clash between holiness and worldliness in precisely the proper context. It is a privilege to reprint it here as a guest commentary with full attribution to the writer. American Life League is grateful to Professor McInerny for these profound words.
There were two commencement ceremonies at Notre Dame on Sunday. One was the media event in which alleged prestige trumped the truth that you cannot honor a man, president or not, whose policies are unabashedly pro-abortion without honoring abortion.
The other took place at the grotto and on the west mall, untelevised, in the shadow of Rockne Memorial, at which the Mass and prayers, principally the rosary, were offered in reparation for the administration’s unconscionable sleeping with the enemy. And speeches were made, most notably by Father Wilson Miscamble, CSC; Professor David Solomon, director of the [Notre Dame] Center for Ethics and Culture; Chris Godfrey; and Father John Raphael. The Orestes Brownson Society gave their Bishop D’Arcy award in absentia to Mary Ann Glendon.
Of course the administration has tried to call black white and portray its betrayal as somehow a statement of its largely muted pro-life outlook. The fallacious defenses on the part of a once stellar philosopher, Father John Jenkins, continued in his introduction of the president, exhibit how corruptive of clear thinking holding high office can be. Not since the local lands were wrested from the Indians has a white father spoken with such forked tongue.
It is the students who have stood tall, retained clarity of mind, and refused to accept that their Catholicism could be switched off in order to sup with the devil. Among those at the alternative commencement, the one in fundamental continuity with the noble tradition of a great Catholic university, were some graduating seniors.
It might be thought that it would require something far less momentous than this moral crisis to make absence from a commencement ceremony, even one’s own, unattractive. Nonetheless, most seniors, many with misgivings, attended the equivocal occasion under the dome of the Joyce Athletic and Convocation Center. There, smooth talk reigned and listeners were invited to view this shameful occasion as fulfilling the wishes of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. (In a later column, I will discuss the notion of "dialogue" that was invoked in the Joyce Center.) The senior class was divided by this unfortunate invitation; so was the university, so were the alumni and so were Catholics throughout the nation.
This division among Catholics has been widening for more than forty years. How did it come about that so many Catholics have such a mushy notion of what it means to be a Catholic? The teaching of the faith since the close of Vatican II in 1965 has been scandalously inadequate. In many cases it has been the deliberate substituting of stones for bread. It began with waffling on contraception when theologians, real or self-proclaimed, impudently rejected Humanae Vitae, one of the great encyclicals of modern times. The scandal of the encyclical was that it placed Catholics on one side of a line and the zeitgeist on the other. Yet dissent from it was allowed to flourish. Moral theology went into steep decline and the official body of Catholic theologians issued Human Sexual Morality in which doubt was cast on the long tradition of teaching on pre-marital and extra-marital sex, abortion, masturbation, homosexuality, divorce – a systematic dismantling of Catholic moral teaching.
All that is an old and oft-told story, still largely ignored officially. There grew up the notion that dissent from clear Church teaching was okay. With time, the difference between the moral teaching of dissenters and what was dismissively called "official" teaching blurred. Generations have been given a distorted notion of the faith. It is no wonder that Catholic politicians undertook to support policies in flat contradiction to what they purportedly believed privately. And so it was that on Sunday at Notre Dame faithful Catholics were regarded as dissenters. To such disfavor we have come.
If the Obama invitation has stirred such passionately prayerful reaction from an heroic band of students, from alumni and Catholics across the country, and – mirabile dictu – from more than seventy bishops, it may prove to have been providential, an opportunity for Catholics to recognize that their house is indeed divided.
Anathemas have been called for. Some long to have Notre Dame declared non-Catholic. Perhaps it will come to that, but the awakening of the laity, simple priests, a large number of the bishops, suggests that this is a possible epiphany. The sad fact is that people act contrary to the faith without realizing that that is what they are doing. A heretic chooses the opposite of the faith, but when in the present confusion as to what is in and what is out, heresy is not the appropriate word.
And so, on Sunday, surrounded by priests and all the panoply of Notre Dame, the smiling Caesar, thumb turned down on life, was engulfed in allegedly Catholic applause. Elsewhere on campus, faithful Catholics gathered and sent up prayers of reparation.
If you have not noticed my few emails from various websites that I hoped you would see, I will take this as an opportunity to let you know that what is contained in those emails is very serious and I would like my words to be recognized in some way. I have a question, now I don't know as much about theology as you clearly seem to so I would like to ask how can you claim that Catholicism is the one true church provided by Christ himself when Christ himself was a jew? Also I would like to point out that constantly referring to anybody that is not Catholic as the enemy or your opponent is not doing you or your church any good. It comes across as rude, arrogant, hateful, judgmental, uninviting, and not in the least bit humble. I expect that since you seem to know so much about who God is that you would realize that this is no way to bring others to Him. Please reply. Thank you for your time. Luke | May 20, 2009
Judi,
Thank you for having Dr. Ralph Mcinerny as your guest with his excellent comments.
One thing I pray, is the Notre Dame will continue as a Catholic Institution, by getting rid of those that are not Catholic.
You have asked we contact the proper authorities in Rome on the, matter of clerification regarding the abortions of the nine year old's twins, I have shared that request.
Wel I for one, since no one else is picking up on it intend to write the Holy Father every month with the same letter requesting those not really Catholic be not only removed from their positions as Father Charles Curren was, but they be unfrocked, as they should be. At the same time I will plead his inervention in restoring the falculties of the 1000 good priests in the country. THese men have had their faculties removed for no better reason than that they preached what Dr. McInerney iterated here. Some because they offer only the Extroidiary Form of the Mass.
I know the Church is not a democracy, but nether ist it to promote injustice. Patricia | May 21, 2009
Beautiful, beautiful commentary. Insightful, intelligent, truthful, and compassionate. I am proud of the students and faculty members who held their own kind of graduation ceremony. Thank you for sharing! cara | May 21, 2009
Dear Luke
The history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ, the Son of God and of Man. His human history and his divine history are part of the mystery of our faith for Christ is truly God and truly man.
I have never referred to anyone who is not Catholic as an enemy and have no clue where you got that idea. I do not think, Luke, that anyone knows with certainly all there is to know about God and we won't until we meet Him face to face in eternity. Let us pray for one another.
LIFE OF THE MOTHER OR LIES OF BIG BROTHER Posted: Tuesday May 19, 2009 at 1:51 pm EST by Judie Brown
The claims of our opponents always tend to mystify me because when put under the microscope of logic, they usually look very much like a fairy tale. Take for example the YouTube video that circulated last October when Colorado and South Dakota voters were getting ready to vote up or down on measures that, to say the least, would have caused big headaches for the abortion industry.
The title of the video is Anti-abortion measures can hurt ALL women. The point of the presentation is to reinforce their argument that if personhood were established for the preborn child, the expectant mother who was facing a problem with her pregnancy could die because the child would be deemed to have more rights than she had. And according to the narrator, Lynn Paltrow, this would include expectant mothers who actually wanted to carry their pregnancy to term.
The first case we hear about involves Amber Marlowe who, in 2004, was expecting her seventh baby. Amber, according to the news report on the Advocates for Pregnant Women web site, said no to an emergency Caesarean section.
After she said no to surgery, doctors spent hours trying to change her mind. When that didn't work, the hospital went to court, seeking an order to become her unborn baby's legal guardian. A judge ruled that the doctors could perform a "medically necessary" c-section against the mom's will, if she returned to that hospital. Meanwhile, she and her husband checked out against the doctors' advice and went to another hospital, where she later gave birth vaginally to a healthy 11-pound girl. "When I found out about the court order, I couldn't believe the hospital would do something like that. It was scary and very shocking," says Marlowe. "All this just because I didn't want a c-section."
Clearly, the problem she faced had nothing to do with personhood but everything to do with a hospital interfering with her rights as a patient.
The second case addressed in the video involved the 1987 case of Angela Carter, another expectant mother whose physicians sought a court order so that they could perform a Caesarean section against her wishes.
In Carter’s case she was suffering from terminal cancer but wanted to wait until her baby was at least 26 weeks gestational age before having the baby delivered because she knew that the baby’s survival rate would be much better. Her condition continued to worsen, and according to court transcripts
The court heard testimony on the facts as we have summarized them, and further testimony that at twenty-six and a half weeks the fetus was viable, i.e., capable of sustained life outside of the mother, given artificial aid. A neonatologist testified that the chances of survival for a twenty-six-week fetus delivered at the hospital might be as high as eighty percent, but that this particular fetus, because of the mother's medical history, had only a fifty to sixty percent chance of survival. Dr. Edwards estimated that the risk of substantial impairment for the fetus, if it were delivered promptly, would be less than twenty percent. However, she noted that the fetus' condition was worsening appreciably at a rapid rate, and another doctor-an obstetrician who was one of Ms. Carter's treating physicians-stated that any delay in delivering the child by [C]aesarean section lessened its chances of survival.
The court subsequently authorized the doctors to perform the Caesarean section and both mother and baby died. This case was extremely complicated due to the fact that Carter chose to ingest a palliative (pain killing) drug even though she knew it might endanger her preborn child.
At issue in this case are complex medical ethics questions about whether or not physicians should take action to save at least one of their patients. However, the personhood of the preborn would not have altered what we know in this case, so why is it being used to argue against personhood? Creating fear in the minds of those who listen would be my guess.
The third case dealt with in the video involves Laura Pemberton. This 1996 story was strange, but it seems to epitomize the notion that doctors always know better than the patient. This has nothing to do with pitting one life against another, nor does it have anything to do with abortion. This was a procedural matter dealing with doctors' opinions regarding the right course of action being imposed upon a patient, regardless of whether the patient wanted treatment or not. This sort of thing happens in cancer cases and many other serious illnesses and conditions, regardless of whether we are dealing with one life or two. The personhood of the baby is tangential to the bigger problem, which is being ignored.
When one reads the detailed account of Pemberton’s tragic experience, and how she went on, after moving away from Florida, to deliver four more healthy babies, it is clear that again what is going on with this case is medical practice run amuck!
Finally, there is the 2004 case of Melissa Rowland who was charged first with child endangerment, and then with murder because she was carrying twins, refused a Caesarean section, and subsequently delivered one dead baby and one living baby. The twin that was born alive had alcohol and cocaine in her system, as did Ms. Rowland. Furthermore, rumors stated that Rowland refused surgery because she didn't want to be cut, and stated that she didn't care if her preborn babies lived or died. It's interesting what you find when you put everything in context. It is also interesting that the murder charges against Rowland were subsequently dropped.
We don’t see a connection, whether discussing Marlowe, Carter, Pemberton or Rowland between the human rights of a preborn child and the current alleged right of an expectant mother to pay someone to murder her baby by abortion. What we do see in these four cases are serious medical ethics questions that have not just come about in the past couple of years, but have been confronting expectant moms for a very long time. These cases are not about personhood or abortion; they are about bad ethics within the medical establishment, pure and simple.
Lynn Paltrow, PhD, who is the President of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, and is the producer of the YouTube video in question, is totally dedicated to abortion as one of those many rights she thinks women need to have. Paltrow has had previous experience with the ACLU, Planned Parenthood of New York, the Center for Reproductive Law and is a current commentator for the Huffington Post among other leftist web sites.
Paltrow wrote, when encouraging voters to view her production
As the abortion issue takes center stage and we count down to Election Day, NAPW has produced a video about the proposed measures in Colorado and South Dakota supporting "fetal rights" – laws which assert the unborn has separate and greater rights than pregnant women – and how they are being used to punish and hurt all pregnant women, including those going to term.
Note, please, that she goes so far as to deceive the public into thinking that personhood would somehow endow the preborn with rights “greater” than those of their mothers, rights which in her view, give her free license to distort and misrepresent medical ethics abuses in the practice of obstetrics and gynecology in order to further her pro-abortion agenda.
No wonder Americans are getting wise to these deceivers. It’s about time!
These two cases really don't have anything to do with the other. They aren't even about abortion, so what are they trying to say?
Chantell Chantell | May 19, 2009
Judi,
That is why for illlness and such I let the M.D. diagnose, but I seek alternitive medicine with ny nutrition councilor. Chropractor who uses homeopath. Patricia | May 20, 2009
Chantell
Those who support abortion always reach for straws and create hysteria based on a fabrication of their vision of what the facts are. The reason Paltrow used each of these four cases was to frighten women into believing that if a personhood amendment passed, a woman's life would be diminished in value and the preborn child's life would be of great value. Ridiculous, of course, but so is everything the pro-abortion movement stands for.
A PLEA TO THE VATICAN FOR CLARITY Posted: Monday May 18, 2009 at 4:25 pm EST by Judie Brown
Two months have passed since Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, wrote a commentary for the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, in which he muddied the waters regarding the situation involving a nine-year-old Brazilian girl whose twins were aborted.
The doctors, Archbishop Fisichella noted, had said the child's life was in danger if the pregnancy continued.
"How should one act in these cases? An arduous decision for the doctor and for moral law itself," Fisichella wrote, urging respect for the inner "conflict" that the Catholic doctors must have suffered before deciding on the abortion.
Immediately after the archbishop’s commentary appeared, I wrote him a letter because, as a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, I had grave concerns. The text of my letter follows:
March 17, 2009
Most Reverend Rino Fisichella, President
Pontifical Academy for Life
Via della Conciliazione 1 - 00193 Roma
Italia
Your Excellency,
We recently read a spate of media on the case in Brazil involving a nine-year-old girl alleged to be pregnant with twins, her mother, the abortionists and the bishops of that country. It was terribly unsettling for us to see the banter between two “Vatican officials” and the subsequent decision of the Brazilian National Conference of Bishops to “back down” from the original decision to excommunicate those involved in the act of killing two preborn children.
We realize the nature of the problem, and we are well aware of Catholic teaching in the area of alleged threats to the life of the mother. As Pope Pius XII stated so clearly,
Every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life directly from God and not from his parents, not from any society or human authority. Therefore, there is no man, no human authority, no science, no "indication" at all—whether it be medical, eugenic, social, economic, or moral—that may offer or give a valid judicial title for a direct deliberate disposal of an innocent human life, that is, a disposal which aims at its destruction, whether as an end in itself or as a means to achieve the end, perhaps in no way at all illicit. Thus, for example, to save the life of the mother is a very noble act; but the direct killing of the child as a means to such an end is illicit. (“Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession,” October 29, 1951
The situation in Brazil is horrific, Your Excellency. Of that there is no doubt. But the fact is that two innocent babies were murdered by abortion. And as Pope Pius XII states, the “direct” killing of the child as a means to an end is not licit.
How then do we explain to our fellow Catholics why, in this case, the Church backed down and argued against excommunicating those directly involved in the deaths of these two babies? Wasn’t it urgent to save all three innocent lives? Weren’t the two preborn children equally to be protected by any means possible as was the nine-year-old? Why shouldn’t those who execute innocent preborn children be punished for their heinous crimes against humanity?
We ask these questions with all due respect, Your Excellency, but with equal concern over the apparent contradiction that has occurred in this case. We simply wish to understand, as many American Catholics are seriously troubled by this situation.
We seek your counsel on this serious question and your further comments.
Thank you for your attention to this matter! May the Lord be with you and bless you.
Within a week of the archbishop’s commentary being published, there were those within the "establishment" pro-abortion movement who expressed pleasure at what they had read. This commentary's overall effect has been confusion and consternation. When Frances Kissling, founder of the National Abortion Federation and former president of Catholics for a Free Choice, is pleased, those of us committed to defending the preborn child should be horrified. Just days after Archbishop Fisichella’s commentary appeared, Kissling wrote,
In an amazing shift in the Vatican’s strategy of no dissent from its position that direct abortion is never permitted, even to save a woman’s life, the Vatican’s top bioethics official, Archbishop Rino Fisichella opined that the doctors in Brazil who performed an abortion on a nine-year-old who was 15 weeks pregnant with twins did not merit excommunication... But, this modest deviation by the [a]rchbishop who heads the Pontifical Academy of Life opens the door for Catholics who follow [C]hurch teachings on reproduction to discuss the possibility that there are some cases officially acknowledged where individuals can choose abortion and have a calm conscience.
Kissling is clever, if not cunning, in her analysis of what the archbishop’s commentary means and does not mean. Clearly, as Kissling reminds her readers, the archbishop’s comments do not change the Church's teaching, but they do create a dilemma not only for Brazil’s bishops, but for Catholics around the world.
The Washington Postpicked up on this as well, and in a disturbing report entitled “Vatican Official Defends Child’s Abortion,” a reporter for the Religion News Service wrote,
Another extraordinary aspect of Fisichella's article was its frank rebuke of José Cardoso Sobrinho, archbishop of Olinda and Recife, whom it accused of having "rushed" to declare the excommunications -- "a judgment as heavy as a meat cleaver" -- when his first task should have been the pastoral care of the victim.
Cardoso Sobrinho's action harmed the "credibility of our teaching, which appears in the eyes of so many as insensitive, incomprehensible and lacking in mercy," Fisichella wrote.
In Brazil, however, the response to Archbishop Fisichella’s commentary was immediate and crystal clear. Several officials from the Archdiocese of Recife, who were involved in the case, denounced Archbishop Fisichella's statements and defended the actions of Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho. In part, their statement reads,
We do not agree [with Archbishop Fisichella] that the "decision is hard... for the moral law itself". Our Holy Church continues to proclaim that the moral law is exceedingly clear: it is never licit to eliminate the life of an innocent person to save another life. The objective facts are these: there are doctors who explicitly declare that they perform and will continue to perform abortions, while others declare with the same firmness that they will never perform abortions. Here is the declaration written and signed by a Brazilian Catholic physician: "...As an obstetrician for 50 years, graduated in the National Medical School of the University of Brazil, and former chief of Obstetrics in the Hospital of Andarai [Rio de Janeiro], in which I served for 35 years until I retired in order to dedicate myself to the Diaconate, and having delivered 4,524 babies, many from juvenile [mothers], I never had to resort to an abortion to 'save lives', as well as all my colleagues, sincere and honest in their profession and faithful to their Hippocratic oath.”
While this action is remarkable and represents a departure from the diplomacy usually exercised among Catholic bishops, the fact is that the Vatican has not clarified the matter and has not corrected the misperception, on the part of many, that there has been a weakening of the infallible Catholic teaching that the act of abortion is always – and in every case – wrong.
Due to the seriousness of this situation and the fact that Archbishop Fisichella's position on his original statements remains unchanged, I recently wrote to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of State for the Vatican. I have asked him to clarify the matter and have provided him with all of the information that is contained in this commentary.
It would be a great blessing if you, the reader, would do likewise. Please send your letters to this address:
His Eminence Tarcisio Bertone, SDB
The Secretariat of State of His Holiness
Apostolic Palace
00l20 CITTÀ DEL VATICANO
Roma, Italy
Awful Judie! How could a Archbishop do this? BTW: Since this girl was so young, was she raped? I'm just curious. Also, I'm in the process, of becoming a Catholic!
You ROCK Judie!
Chantell Chantell | May 18, 2009
Judie,
My question is spurred by reading of the abortion case in Brazil, but is not about that actual case. I have understood that in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, removal of the fallopian tube (and with it, the unborn baby) is morally acceptable with the logic of double effect. Is this true? Is this not also taking the life of the preborn child to save the life of the mother? The answer I have heard is that it is different because the mother would die if the fallopian tube ruptured and it will because the baby will continue to grow....Thank you for your work and for your thoughts if you have time to get to this. maureen murray | May 19, 2009
The Church does acknowledge clear conscience in cases where mother and child are at immediate risk and neither has chance for survival. The medical reality of a nine year old carrying a child, let alone twins, before she is full formed into an adult, involved serious immediate risk to her and her children, as she her body is not yet able to handle carry the babies to term, despite her fertility. Things like her bones not being strong enough to support the strain, and her increased need for nutrients which are all taken over by the baby/babies, indicates a high risk due to almost necessary malnurishment. Among others. clearly you're line about the innocent unborn is somewhat true, but the question is when does the 9 year old loose it's innocence and it's right to protection. a 9 year old child does not understand even what it really means for her own parents to have sex and have a child, clearly she is unable to understand if those things are happening to her. Her brain hasn't laterized. it is the responsibility of older people to make those judgements for her. But she is clear equally innocent to the children conceived inside of her. a majority of pregancies do not come to term, and it is hard to assess what the individual risk of the each mother is to carry a child, it's not small. but in cases like these, which are extreme, if it is judged that the likelyhood of survival of any of the people invloved mother or child, focus goes on maintaining the life of that person who is most likely to survive. this IS a deep heavy moral, dilemma and i undesirable place for any conciencious doctor to be, however to stand blindly by allowing for preventable occurances to happen without intervening is also a morally wrong. God wants us to do his will, and wants us to allow for his full participation in our lives, however he has also given use talents and allowed us to garner positions of power in our lives so that he may work through us in a very specific way, if we allow him to do so. Every life is sacred, especially those unborn, but the preservation of life is scared even it saving one means the loss of another. these things happen, and decisions have to be made, this case isn't so much about not recognizing the unborn as having the rights of the born and the same status of the born. It's more like seeing three children drowning in a river, but being only able to save one. What do you do? Obviously you try to save all three, but in the end you save the one you're able to rescue, and pray for the best. Irena Pawlowski | May 20, 2009
Dear Chantell
We praise God that you are coming into the Church and promise to pray for you with all our hearts.
The young girl in Brazil who was carrying twins at the age of nine was the victim of sexual abuse by her step-father.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | May 21, 2009
Dear Maureen
In an ectopic pregnancy one of two things can happen. The fallopian tube can become infected, thus threatening both mother and baby which is why the tube would be removed at that point, or the embryo would dissolve and the ectopic pregnancy would end naturally which is what occurs most of the time.
However when an infection does occur the preborn child is attacked first, and then as the tube expands the mother's life is threatened so chances are the child has died before the surgery actually takes place.
A doctor must ALWAYS do everything he can to save both patients, and if he should lose one, that is a tragedy but the death was not INTENDED and intention is the key.
MALIGNANT LANGUAGE Posted: Friday May 15, 2009 at 12:17 pm EST by Judie Brown
Every once in a while, those dedicated to advancing the culture of death get their ire up and just can't enunciate facts. This is usually because there are no facts to support their position, having said that, we know that we can always expect rants from such people. There have been a couple of doozies this week.
Both of those bellowing are female, both have a long record of pro-abortion fanaticism, but both, in my humble opinion have gone off the deep end.
Missouri State Senator Joan Bray, for example, took off after pro-life male politicians in a manner that I have not heard about in a very long time.
The debate that occurred in the state senate focused on a piece of legislation that was originally supposed to protect the expectant mother seeking an abortion from coercion by the abortion provider. The current bill is so weak that pro-life activist/lobbyist Sam Lee has asked legislators not to vote for it. But that has not deterred Senator Bray. Bray was incensed by the very idea that such a law would even be proposed. During the debate, Senator Bray said, "A vote for this bill is a vote for the state to lie to these women in print. I'm sick of women being treated like they're so stupid that they can't be responsible for their own reproductive decisions."
Note that Bray did not expound on the reasons why expectant mothers do not need to know the dangers of aborting a child, but rather focused her comments on gibberish. We've heard all this before; it only occurs when pro-abortion zealots cannot defend their position.
Let's see what else Bray had to say: "I'm sick of women having no options, and being coerced to give birth."
Coercing a mother to give birth to her own child is a ridiculous premise. If the woman in question does not wish to bear a child, then she can take steps to avoid the situation that brings about pregnancy. Bray is the one insulting women, at least in this case:
"I'm sick of a bunch of men around here, year after year after year, piling up restriction after restriction after restriction on women who found themselves in a very unhappy, unpleasant circumstance of an unwanted pregnancy."
How did these expectant mothers find themselves in this circumstance? I think we know exactly how it happened, and again, we know that people of both sexes know how to avoid it. The preborn child is not the cause of unhappiness, unpleasantness or unwantedness; he or she did not have a say in the matter. However the female and the male did, Senator Bray. Think about it.
Senator Bray again: "I am sick of the disrespect for women who come to the Capitol defending a woman's legal right to choose an abortion."
Aha! You see, we finally got to her point. Bray is not going to advocate abstinence until marriage, fidelity within marriage or any of the qualities that predispose self-respect and respect for the other person. No, Bray just wants unrestricted access to abortion on demand.
Yes, Senator Bray is sick, but not because of the defense of preborn children that she is hearing and not because of the sincere concerns some lawmakers have about expectant mothers whose health and well-being will be at risk if they decide to abort their children. In fact, it seems to me that Senator Bray is sick to death of the growing number of pro-life advocates in the state legislature and has chosen to lash out at them in a manner similar to a cat fight … though there is but one of the usual two feline contenders in this fight.
The idea of tying "responsibility" to the notion of solving a problem by killing a person has been around since the struggle between pro-life and pro-death forces began. But now that the pro-life movement is making appreciable gains in public sentiment and political commitment, things are looking bad for the Brays of the world. I think the poor lady needs a vacation.
Using a single speech to attack her peers, suggesting that they are disrespectful toward members of the opposite sex smacks of disingenuousness.
Perhaps Senator Bray's bigotry against pro-life men comes about because she is too committed to rhetorical zealotry and has lost her ability to be civil. I don't know, but it certainly appears that way.
And then there's the case of Frances Kissling, the second bellowing female. She was president of Catholics for Choice for 25 years until 2007, and currently is visiting scholar at the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.
Frances got her nose out of joint because a group of Catholic leaders, including yours truly, signed on to a letter asking President Barack Obama to remove anti-Catholic hypocrite Harry Knox from the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
In our view, you cannot have a Catholic-hater involved in advising the president regarding faith-based questions because the man is already predisposed to be a religious bigot. Harry Knox attacked Pope Benedict XVI regarding the use of condoms in Africa. On the subject of the Wyoming bishop who would not give the Eucharist to a lesbian couple, Knox wrote:
In this holy Lenten season, it is immoral and insulting to Jesus to use the body and blood of Christ the reconciler as a weapon to silence free speech and demean the love of a committed, legally married couple. The Human Rights Campaign grieves with the couple, Leah Vader and Lynn Huskinson, over this act of spiritual and emotional violence perpetrated against them.
Even though such public pronouncements are clearly antagonistic toward moral sensibility and logic, the signers of the letter wanted to be sure that specific documentation accompanied the letter. In fact, the Media Research Center did its homework for the express purpose of doing all they could to avoid the controversy we all knew would erupt. And erupt it has.
Frances writes
A rogue's gallery of some of the most vicious and marginal figures on the Catholic right have sent a letter to the President calling on him to oust Harry. Who are these guardians of civility in religious discourse? … Judie Brown, of the American Life League, a group so virulent in its own anti-Catholicism that it attacked D.C.'s former Cardinal McCarrick during the 2004 election campaign for not denying Communion to pro-choice John Kerry. Brown claimed McCarrick was not obeying the pope who had, according to her, demanded that Catholic legislators who were pro-choice must be denied Communion.
Frances, the truth is that the pope did not demand that anyone obey him, but rather that they pay close attention to the 2004 memorandum sent to the bishops by the Vatican. In that memorandum
they are urged, after careful examination of the situation with a particular pro-abortion public figure, to take proper action to deny Holy Communion to such people. Church law does not exist to be ignored; it exists to be enforced and there are no exceptions.
Frances Kissling, like Senator Bray, is up in arms. She is all about name-calling, denigrating those with whom she disagrees and lobbing verbal cannon balls toward those of us who truly understand the difference between good and evil. Truth makes Frances uncomfortable in the same way it makes Senator Bray uncomfortable.
The truth about which I write does not belong to me; it belongs to no human being but is, rather, that truth that is written on the heart of every human being by God Himself.
This is the fundamental difference between these two ladies and those of us who are committed to that truth. Frances cannot articulate a strong, viable defense of Harry Knox in view of the documentation that was provided to President Obama. And so, like Bray, she resorts to vilifying the messengers so that she can ignore the message.
Disrespect, bias and twisted zealotry grow in a garden sown with seeds of deceit. Such language maligns, but never counters, intellectual honesty. The Kisslings and Brays of our world are sad figures, not only because they have resorted to tactics like those noted here, but because they are human beings who are loved by God and who have somehow lost their way. Let us pray for them and for those who accept what they say without questioning it.
Dear Mrs. Brown,
I think someone is working against you and your cause. I just finished a message to you and followed all the instructions for sending it, and it was rejected. Rev. Robert J. Donnelly | May 16, 2009
This woman truly needs to watch an actual abortion and then say thats its just a womans choice. These babies are human beings just like you and I. It's truly disgusting how people think like this elisabeth | May 16, 2009
Dear Father Donnelly
I am shocked to read this. Please send me an email privately to jbrown@all.org. Thank you and God bless you.
SUPREME SPECULATION Posted: Thursday May 14, 2009 at 1:11 pm EST by Judie Brown
Over the past few months, since President Obama took over the reins of power, I have seen a mixed bag of responses from allegedly pro-life Americans. Some argue that we should not criticize the man but understand that he honestly wants to find common ground between those who favor killing and those who oppose it. Others point to his record, and carefully document the reasons why he never met an abortion he did not like. The leader in all this documented evidence, in my view, is well known pro-life blogger Jill Stanek, who not only witnessed the abomination of Obama's position, but did her level best to get the word out before this man was elected.
[T]he No. 1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:
1. Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade.
During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:
Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe v. Wade. ... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.
This was a lie on two points.
First, there was no such amendment.
Second, both definitions of "born alive" were always identical. The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois' version in 2003, refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it.
By his own admission, Obama supported acts of infanticide because he was afraid that the so-called born alive bill was nothing more than a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade! And now, he has the golden opportunity to appointment a justice to the Supreme Court who may be just as rabid about killing the innocent as he is. This is why the speculation about the Supreme Court nominee is gaining momentum and is really quite interesting.
Realizing that the president has such affection for abortion and distortion makes me wonder about people. What is it about the man that continues to attract people who say they are pro-life, but cannot identify the real Obama beneath all the rhetoric? I have no idea, but when Douglas Kmiec wrote these words about Obama in March, I really had to take a seat before I fainted!
Politics is the art of compromise and candidates are the embodiment of it. But there's the rub, the Catholic Church is the foremost defender of unborn life, and properly, uncompromising about it. Obama is more pragmatic, accommodating other religious and scientific views that see the origin point of life differently. Obama may thoughtfully call reducing the "moral tragedy" of abortion a top priority of his faith office, but this is not absolute legal protection, and the Catholic hierarchy has not been shy about raising moral objection, for example, to the president's new direction on embryonic stem-cell research.
Give me a break, Doug! The science is not debatable and the Catholic teaching on the humanity of every person is not debatable. So where could there possibly be room for anyone to get away with arguing that "reducing the 'moral tragedy' of abortion" was a priority?
One has to wonder if Kmiec has lost touch with reality or perhaps chosen to ignore what many of us see with clear vision. Who knows? One thing is for certain, though. We are all about to learn the grim truth together, whether we like it or not.
Commentators are weighing in with their Supreme Court nominee speculations already. Some of them strike a frightening similarity to voices from the dungeons of the culture of death. For example, columnist Ruben Navarette, Jr. believes that Obama owes it to Hispanics to select one of their own because more than two-thirds of Hispanic Americans voted for him. And of course, Navarette recommends sitting judges like Christine Arguello or Ruben Castillo.
Arguello, who has the support of the Feminist Majority Foundation, was first nominated to a lower court by President Bill Clinton and is at the very least questionable regarding her views on abortion because of her history.
Castillo, also appointed by Clinton, is also on several short lists that are currently being circulated by unknown sources. While one could not readily say that Castillo is or is not an abortion advocate, they could not say it about Arguello either, and my money is on the Obama agenda. When you couple that with the fact that Arguello and Castillo already won approval from President Clinton, there really isn't much speculation needed.
The feminists would be much happier with a woman to replace Souter, of course. And we have seen several suggestions in that vein such as Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Diane Wood or Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who is already part of the Obama administration, as is Mrs. Clinton. Wood hails from the president's home city of Chicago and in the past, worked for President Clinton.
We've also seen mention of a possible Jennifer Granholm nomination.Granholm is, of course, the pro-abortion Catholic governor of Michigan whose credentials are clearly not as lofty as some of the other females being mentioned.
But one thing is clear, regardless of whom the nominee may be. President Obama owes it to the pro-abortion cartel, all of whom unified to support his election, to choose someone who meets its criteria. As Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America wrote in an editorial recently,
Much has been made of the fact that although Justice David H. Souter was opposed by many pro-choice groups, including the one I led, he has been a staunch defender of the freedom to choose. His integrity and independence will be greatly missed. But it was not Souter's substantive views that drew our opposition. It was the impossibility of knowing them. The health, lives, and freedom of millions of American women were and are too important to risk on a gamble.
Judges, like all thoughtful people, should be open to the possibility of argument changing their minds. They should certainly be neutral toward the parties or circumstances in any given case. But before a new justice places his or her hand on a Bible and swears to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," the American people are entitled to know what he or she thinks that document means.
Michelman believes that abortion is a right already guaranteed by the Constitution. She has said this on numerous occasions and it is perhaps a position that President Obama holds as well, and thus would demand from any nominee he chose for the Supreme Court. At the very least though, Michelman is giving us a clue regarding the process that in my view is going to be followed by this president. I doubt quite seriously that he would ever admit to having a "litmus test" for selecting a nominee to sit on the Supreme Court, but then again, he told America his pay grade was not high enough for him to know when a baby gets human rights. We all know he could have asked any tenth grader that question.
On top of all this, we learn from the St. Louis Post Dispatch that the White House has tapped pro-abortion Catholic Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and pro-abortion Catholic Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) to help guide the choice for the Supreme Court nominee.
So regardless of what he says publicly, one has to keep close watch on what he does. Words are, as usual, very cheap.
So get ready, America. The stars will align with Jupiter and King Obama will have his way. That seems to be the way he likes it.
NOTRE DAME, TRUSTEES AND FATHER JENKINS’ FINAL WORD Posted: Wednesday May 13, 2009 at 2:07 pm EST by Judie Brown
Our good friend Frank Walker has written one of the most insightful analyses of the University of Notre Dame’s Board of Trustees that I have ever seen. In fact, we are reprinting it below in full so that you can gain a better understanding of the foundational problems that the University of Notre Dame’s leadership is actually dealing with today and has been since the Hesburgh reign. He writes:
No Likely Support From Notre Dame's Board of Trustees For Rescinding Obama Invite
By Frank Walker
May 10, 2009 - A great deal of criticism has been leveled at Notre Dame President, Rev John I. Jenkins, for his choice to honor President Obama at this year’s commencement. But Fr. Jenkins, like all university presidents, must consider the will of the school’s governing board. The Notre Dame Board of Trustees is a powerful organization, comprised of top international business owners, chairs of rich endowments, academic leaders, judges, attorneys, faculty, and prominent clergy. These individuals are typically very wealthy, well-connected and highly accomplished; many with broad interests outside the university. A closer look at the board and its affiliations might shed light on just how Notre Dame came to this decision.
Many of the influential alumni on the Notre Dame board are from the nearby Chicago area, and are part of the same Chicago power structure that President Obama ascended. Richard and Peggy Notebaert are leading members of the ND community, and Notebaert is chair of the Notre Dame trustees. While Obama served in the senate, the Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum, received federal funding earmarked by Obama.. Key Obama campaign fundraiser, Frank Clark served on the board of the Notebaert Museum at the time. The Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, where ND trustee Arthur Velasquez is on the board, also received millions in earmarks. Velasquez contributed to Obama’s campaigns in ’04 and ’08.
Chicago power at Notre Dame extends to political posts as well. Justice Ann Claire Williams was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1999 to the U.S. Court of Appeals 7th District. In 2004, she ruled that the Department of Justice could not subpoena hospital abortion records to enforce the ban on partial birth abortions. Left-leaning Chicago politics has a place on the Notre Dame governing board. Currently Ann Claire Williams is receiving serious attention among the top three possible Obama replacements for retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.
Some Notre Dame board members have made ethical misjudgments in the past. Chicago trustee Philip B. Rooney, Chairman of Claddagh Investments, is former CEO of Waste Management Inc., the world’s largest waste services company. In 2002, Rooney and Waste Management, along with Arthur Andersen, Enron and others, were indicted by the SEC in a massive fraud case. WMI management eventually settled for 30.8 million in penalties. The SEC barred Rooney permanently from being an officer in a public company. He divested most of his own stock before the investigations caused shareholder assets to plummet. Despite this history Rooney retains his board position at Notre Dame today.
ND Trustee Douglas Tong Hsu is chairman of Far Eastern Group, a $32 billion dollar Chinese conglomerate. Hsu’s strong political connections in Taiwan lean toward unification with mainland China. He recently stated that democratic governance is a hindrance to investment, and praised communist China's system for being more favorable to business with its staunch system of rule. In 2006, Hsu was indicted for breach of trust and forgery in connection with a major department store takeover. These charges also involved the Taiwanese first lady, Wu Shu-chen. With Douglas Tong Hsu, the political and business interests of the PRC have influence at Notre Dame. In 2006, ND President Jenkins led a small delegation to East Asia, where they met with Hsu, and travelled to communist Beijing to develop partner programs for the university.
There are Notre Dame trustees who directly support [sic] Obama administration goals. Dr. Mary Anne Fox is chancellor at U[niversity of] C[alifornia] San Diego and Vice-Chair of the National Science Board. Recently Fox announced the opening of a new research facility where the school will cultivate and experiment on human embryonic stem cells. The laboratory will partner with Scripps Research and the Salk Institute in La Jolla, CA where Fox also sits on the leadership council. In 2007 the Institute hosted a stem cell ethics conference. R. Alta Charo, bioethicist and advisor to the Obama transition team was a key speaker. At UCSD the bio-engineering department has just established a partnership with Tsinghua University in China, to further their research.
Raymond G. Chambers, co-founder of anti-poverty organization Millenium Promise, serves on the ServiceNation leadership council. ServiceNation is a political group that supports the enormous multiplication of federal national service programs in the Obama agenda, including the just-passed Kennedy Serve America Act. The Kennedy act was touted as the “largest expansion of community and national service since the launch of the Civilian Conservation Corps.” In September, Chambers was a panelist at the ServiceNation Summit as special envoy for malaria, United Nations.
Several Notre Dame board members lead American banks and major investment houses, where the federal government has sunk billions in bailout funds and stock purchases. Robert Conway was head of Goldman Sachs (AIG). Philip J. Purcell was formerly CEO of Morgan Stanley and COO of Dean Witter. Enrique Hernandez, Jr. is on the board of Wells Fargo Bank. Business leaders in this sector are under increasing pressure to appeal to the Obama administration, the Treasury Department, and the U.S. Congress for their survival and direction.
In conclusion, a review of the Board of Trustees at Notre Dame does NOT reveal a particularly strong Catholic identity. There are board members whose actions and associations put them in a position directly at odds with Church teaching and in line with the Obama administration. At the Notre Dame board, we see a group of well-connected well-heeled individuals from all sectors of society, and at the most prominent levels. Taking a stand against inviting the President of the United States would likely jeopardize membership in the elite club where they travel. Therefore it is highly unlikely that there will be any movement from within the board to rescind invitation to President Obama.
When I first read this article on May 10, I reflected on the challenge that is currently being faced by those at Notre Dame, both among the faculty and the student body, and it occurred to me that nothing is ever over until the final moment is at hand. But then I read the May 11 letter that Father Jenkins wrote to each of those who will graduate this Sunday, as well as an obviously much wider audience and I realized that the hour has passed. In that letter Jenkins said:
Notre Dame has a long custom of conferring honorary degrees on the President of the United States. It has never been a political statement or an endorsement of policy. It is the University's expression of respect for the leader of the nation and the Office of the President. In the Catholic tradition, our first allegiance is to God in Christ, yet we are called to respect, participate in, and contribute to the wider society. As St. Peter wrote (I Pt. 2:17), we should honor the leader who upholds the secular order.
At the same time, and born of the same duty, a Catholic university has a special obligation not just to honor the leader but to engage the culture. Carrying out this role of the Catholic university has never been easy or without controversy. When I was an undergraduate at Notre Dame, Fr. Hesburgh spoke of the Catholic university as being both a lighthouse and a crossroads. [emphasis added] As a lighthouse, we strive to stand apart and be different, illuminating issues with the moral and spiritual wisdom of the Catholic tradition. Yet, we must also be a crossroads through which pass people of many different perspectives, backgrounds, faiths, and cultures. At this crossroads, we must be a place where people of good will are received with charity, are able to speak, be heard, and engage in responsible and reasoned dialogue.
Much could be said about this letter, but focusing on the entire message that St. Peter was teaching the Disciples of Christ, one could take away an entirely different interpretation. For example, the Jerusalem Bible, 1 Peter 2:16-17 actually reads as follows:
God wants you to be good citizens so as to silence what fools are saying in their ignorance. You are slaves of no one except God, so behave like free men, and never use your freedom as an excuse for wickedness. Have respect for everyone and love for our community, fear God and honor the emperor.
Father Jenkins may have a different translation, but clearly honoring a leader does not equate with ignoring Catholic identity in the process. More than 70 Catholic bishops have basically said what St. Peter said, and they have done so without compromising a Catholic’s call to remember that he or she is a slave to no one except God.
Perhaps the lighthouse is now so dim that the crossroads have become impossible to see. Only God knows.
After reading the article by Frank Walker it is certainly clear how right you are in asking Bishop D'Arcy to remove Notre Dame from the Registry of Catholic Colleges and Universities.
There are so many other still faithful Catholic Colleges and Universities that need and deserve our support - including our financial support.
I hope this article receives wide spread circulation. It is such an eye opener.
Laurie Forfa | May 13, 2009
Sadly, most bishops in America are silent on this controversy, and most students of Notre Dame support President Obama's visit. Cardinal Ratzinger, before he became Pope, wrote that 'filth has entered our church'. We can see this at Notre Dame.Frank Walker's article is illuminating, but not surprising. Now, I do think Notre Dame is no longer Catholic. God Bless, Dave DAVE | May 13, 2009
Judie,
What is the most important thing for me to do about this issue with Notre
Dame University?
I am a Convert and frankly I never expected Catholics to be voting in such large numbers for a Democrat so pro choice as Pres. Obama.
I can write fairly well I am told. I know first hand; however, the sting of having my heartswell in writing crushed by anti-life legislation that passed anyway.
You could help me by directing me to an address to which I can respond whether online or by land mail to go to those responsible at Notre Dame University for the final decision on the commencement and honorary degree matter.
I would appreciate any prayer or word of encouragement as well.
Notre Dame President Sits on Board of Directors of Pro-Abortion, Pro-Contraception Organization
Fr. Jenkins must have a much tougher time justifying this on grounds of 'dialogue'. David Volk | May 14, 2009
Elaine
Sorry but your comments make no sense. There has been dissent in the Church ever since there has been a Catholic Church; not to mention betrayal of Christ. Remember Judas?
Judie Brown Judie Brown | May 15, 2009
Dear Shirley
We have, on our website, all of the contact information for Bishop D'Arcy and for Father Jenkins. It occurs to us that the Bishop should take the steps needed to remove Notre Dame from the Catholic Directory because these actions are in direct defiance of Catholic teaching.
For the contact information you requested, please see http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2539
Judie Brown Judie Brown | May 15, 2009
"Follow the Money" my father always said. You have clearly defined the problem with Notre Dame in exposing the trustees. What a sad end to a great university. It is obvious that prestige has taken precedent over principle. Only a strong stand by the hierarchy can save this institution and it just may be too late. Thank you for your time and effort in uncovering the truth. Ann Carolan | May 19, 2009
Pro-Life Story: My baby, the angel! Posted By Stephanie Payne on Feb, 8 2008 I had been with this guy for over a year and when I was 17, I got pregnant. Absolutely scared out of my mind and at the time having everything going for me, I was going to go ... Read
