By Mary Ann Kreitzer

Faithful Catholics following the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops over the years wonder if the organization represents the views of the bishops—at least the orthodox bishops. The number of scandals emanating from the bishops’ bureaucracy is shocking! Truth and error cannot happily coincide. When the truth unites itself to the lie, it becomes a lie. So what is the proper response to the USCCB’s cooperation with evil? It may be the same one taken by another group in the Church—faithful vowed religious women who chose divorce rather than continue the connection to their sisters of the lie. Can the USCCB be reformed or should those bishops who love the truth separate themselves from what has become an evil bureaucracy undermining the Church? The precedent for such a divorce is found in the divorce of traditional religious orders of women from the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). About 15 years ago, they decided to withdraw and form their own conference. Perhaps it is time for faithful bishops who adhere to the truth to imitate them and divorce the USCCB, which has become little more than a mouthpiece for liberalism and dissent.

In many respects, the current situation at the USCCB resembles what happened to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. In 1992, the orthodox nuns abandoned the LCWR. Its leadership and the majority of orders had increasingly distanced themselves from the doctrines of the Church, and from the pope and magisterium. The LCWR drifted more and more into left-wing political and feminist radicalism. Donna Steichen described it well in her 1991 book, Ungodly Rage. After Vatican II, “LCWR encouraged the exodus from traditional apostolates, and initiated or supported many of the organizations and coalitions formed to hasten the radical ‘renewal’ of its members.” Not only did the LCWR endorse the Equal Rights Amendment, it worked actively within the Church for its passage. It became an advocate of women’s ordination, feminist translations of Scripture and feminist spirituality, including earth and goddess worship.

The group also became practically an arm of the most radical element of the Democratic Party, inviting pro-abortion speakers to address them, engaging in leftist lobbying and networking with pro-abortion secular organizations. Sr. Donna Quinn, who recently made the news for serving as a deathscort at a Chicago-area abortion mill, is described by Steichen as forming a nuns’ lobby group “to harry the bishops” at their spring 1977 meeting. These feminist nuns successfully convinced the bishops to promote “women’s issues.” Their agenda, however, reflected only feminist concerns. Mothers agonizing over the loss of faith among their children, traditional laity and religious devoted to fostering the faith were ignored. Astonishingly, it was the “suffering” of the “poor” nuns, their grievances over supposedly being disenfranchised by a patriarchal Church, that attracted the bishops’ attention.

There is little evidence that the LCWR has changed over the years. The group still supports radical environmentalism and earth worship, and demands empowerment. In 1997, Sr. Sandra Schneiders addressed the LCWR, saying that, for many nuns, “the God of Christianity seems too small, too violent, and too male; the focus on Jesus Christ seems narrow and exclusive; the resurrection seems mythological if not incredible and, in any case, irrelevant to a world in anguish.” Schneiders continues to be an influential voice for dissenting orders in the U.S., and the LCWR remains wedded to its rebellious ways, serving the politics of the world rather than Holy Mother Church. Today, it promotes comprehensive health care reform, opposes torture (except for the unborn), endorses blanket amnesty for illegal aliens and works to reduce carbon footprints. Meanwhile, it completely ignores fundamental sanctity of life questions.

Is it any wonder that orthodox orders fled this witches’ den? Traditional congregations, mostly young and vigorous, established a new conference, the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR), which was approved by the Vatican in 1995. CMSWR promotes the countercultural vision of religious life that fosters wearing the habit as a sign of vocation, communal life and prayer, Eucharistic worship and traditional apostolates. Its member orders showed wisdom and discernment when they separated themselves from the bad companions in the LCWR who had become strange bedfellows. These are the orders thriving and drawing in young women who share their vision.

Which brings us back to the USCCB? One could make a cogent argument that the same thing that happened to the LCWR is happening at the USCCB. The bishops’ conference has become increasingly problematic in its approach to many issues and more aligned with the political left than the Catholic Church. Many departments at the USCCB are mouthpieces for liberalism. Let’s examine a few to see how far astray the organization has gone.

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development is so infamous that a brief discussion should suffice. Thirty to fifty percent of its annual grants go to community organizing groups that are mainly networks of Catholic parishes and non-Catholic congregations that support abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, euthanasia and other moral evils. The CCHD funds no direct-aid agencies that actually serve the poor, but instead claims to focus on the “empowerment” of the poor. In reality, the CCHD empowers organizations like the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) and the Gamaliel Foundation, which are less concerned about the poor than achieving their own goal: power for the organizer. They use their networks to promote many issues that are diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching.

Most of the faithful don’t realize that the CCHD also funds educational efforts that work to radicalize Catholics in the pew. “Social justice” trainers use the small-group approach to educate participants in “social justice,” then funnel them into local community organizing efforts. But the social justice principles fostered are not those of Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum or Pope John Paul II in Centesimus Annus. Rather, they teach “social justice” in the image of the liberation theologians, a philosophy rejected by the Church.

The CCHD is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to advancing liberalism at the USCCB. Some of the most problematic departments are involved in communications. For years, Catholics have objected to the Catholics News Service’s left-leaning articles and terrible movie reviews. Fawning pieces on pro-abortion politicians are common. Catholic doctrine is usually ignored in articles on controversial issues and the spokesmen quoted often spout the dissenters’ spin. One example is the CNS article on Obama’s visit to the pope last summer. CNS quoted Patrick Whelan of Catholic Democrats, who endorsed Obama’s dishonest abortion reduction strategy using the rationale promoted by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG). His position was no surprise; Whelan was a signer of the Catholics United letter endorsing radical pro-abort Kathleen Sebelius to head Health and Human Services. He is also featured on the CACG blog. So CNS gave credibility to a man working with two George Soros-funded Catholic front groups to undermine the faith. The CNS articles on Ted Kennedy’s funeral were primarily puff pieces, and while his pro-abortion record was mentioned in passing, it was overshadowed by praise from people like Cardinal Roger Mahony and Fr. William Byron, S.J., both Catholic liberals. You can tell a lot about a news outlet by whom they choose to quote, and CNS regularly is a megaphone for dissent.

The only word one can use about CNS movie reviews is shameless. If it’s about homosexuality, a favorable review is pre-ordained. Brokeback Mountain, the story of two homosexual sheepherders, received an L rating (“limited adult audience”) before the Catholic outcry led to its reclassification as O (“morally offensive”). The reviewer, Harry Forbes, who regularly gushes over outrageous films, removed his name from the amended review. Forbes also waxed eloquent over Milk, the biographical film about homosexual San Francisco supervisor Harvey Milk, who was murdered in 1978.

One of the most controversial CNS reviews was Forbes’ enthusiastic endorsement of the anti-Catholic hate film The Golden Compass, whose evil organizational villain was the “magisterium,” an obvious reference to the leaders of the Church. His review created a tsunami of protest that led to its withdrawal, but not before the film company used it to promote the movie. Canon lawyer Pete Vere was quoted by LifeSiteNews.com as saying, “Several bishops have spoken to me about this review, and they are horrified at what has been done in their name.” Archbishop Raymond Burke, then of St. Louis, and Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver both publicly condemned the review. Fr. Thomas Euteneuer and other Catholic leaders called for Forbes’ removal, but he remains as CNS’ lead film critic.

CNS articles and film reviews aren’t the only source of communications scandals at the USCCB. Recently, a liberal network, So We Might See (SWMS), contacted the Federal Communications Commission asking for legislation to control “hate speech.” The SWMS coalition includes the USCCB Office of Communications and bills itself as a “national interfaith coalition for media justice.” In addition to the OC, the coalition includes the United Church of Christ, the National Council of Churches, Disciples of Christ and several other denominations noted for their liberalism. The USCCB logo is prominently featured on its web site. The petition to the FCC specifically targeted Rush Limbaugh and, on other pages of SWMS’s web site, it attacked other conservative talk show hosts for their “hate” speech. The petition was signed “by the So We Might See Coalition,” which included the bishops’ office.

Angry Catholics responded to this with outrage, which led Archbishop Chaput to issue a disclaimer on the part of the bishops. SWMS, he said, had “misrepresented” their position, and the USCCB had not signed on to the petition drive. His statement begged the question, however. Why are the Catholic bishops networking with liberal churches who oppose central doctrines of the faith and who are clearly using the bishops? Obviously, SWMS can’t be trusted to tell the truth. Also, besides holding pro-abortion and pro-homosexual positions, these network partners are working to pass Obama’s immoral health care reform package that would mandate abortion funding and force Catholic health care personnel to cooperate with intrinsic evil. Not only that, SWMS is another George Soros-funded initiative. This leads one to ask why on earth the bishops would join this coalition in the first place? Who authorized the decision? Did the bishops vote on it?

The SWMS fiasco highlights another problem with the bishops’ bureaucracy: attributing actions and documents to the bishops without their vote or even notification. That’s how the infamous 1997 statement on homosexuality, Always Our Children (AOC), was released without the bishops’ knowledge or consent. One of its writers was Fr. James Schexnayder, a notorious dissenter from Church teaching who believes homosexual sex is perfectly fine and frequently lectures to that effect.

The firestorm over AOC led the bishops to require their vote on such documents in the future. The Vatican also mandated changes to AOC, which was amended in 1998. It continues, however, to be used by radical homosexual groups to advance acceptance of homosexual activity. The evil done in the bishops’ name often outlives their correction. But how did Schexnayder get the assignment to write the document in the first place, given his background? It is one more sign of a bureaucracy out of control and filled with moles who do not believe in Church teachings. That can only happen because many of the bishops are derelict in their duty. It also leads one to ask, “Do they really believe?”

Schexnayder is by no means the only dissenter to be supported by the USCCB. The bishops’ National Review Board was filled with Catholics working for pro-abortion politicians in 2004. Leon Panetta, Robert Bennett and Pamela Hayes were all exposed by Catholic World News for their connections and donations to pro-abort Democrats. (None currently serve.) In 2005, Catholic sources revealed that Teresa Kettlekamp, director of the USCCB’s Office of Child and Youth Protection, was on the advisory board of the National Center for Women and Policing, a division of the radically pro-abortion Feminist Majority. When her connection was exposed, Archbishop Harry Flynn leaped to her defense. Would he have done so if she was an advisor to a KKK project? Kettlekamp continues to head up the child protection office, and there is no evidence the bishops subsequently explored her views on abortion. Doesn’t child protection begin in the womb?

The fact is that Catholics in the pew, faithful clergy and orthodox bishops simply cannot trust the USCCB not to provide cover (and salaries) for dissenters working against the doctrines of the Church. During the 2004 presidential campaign, a USCCB employee told me that dozens of cars in the parking lot sported Kerry bumper stickers. No surprise. One highly placed employee was an out-and-proud Kerry supporter. Ono Ekeh, program coordinator of the Secretariat for African-American Affairs, was also administrator of the Catholics for Kerry news group. On the web site, he stated, “John Kerry has recently made it clear that he will not be taking orders from the Vatican and rightly so... Senator Kerry made a prudent decision in rejecting the Vatican’s demands. Such a rejection does not mean a lack of respect for the Vatican or the Church’s teachings. Rather, it highlights that the man understands that his obligations are primarily to the people his [sic] serves and not the Vatican.” Such doublespeak illustrates the hypocrisy of liberals working at the USCCB.

One USCCB document, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, has become a primary reference for justifying Catholics voting for pro-abortion candidates. In 2008, before the presidential election, Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pennsylvania, made the news for interrupting a pre-election forum at St. John’s parish in Honesdale, where the USCCB letter was being used to defend voting for pro-aborts. Panel members based their opinion on paragraph 35, which reads, “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.” This paragraph, like Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment” rhetoric, is commonly used to support voting for even pro-abortion extremists. Bishop Martino, who arrived while panel members were making opening statements, was angry that, while the bishops’ letter was distributed at the forum, his letter on the primacy of the pro-life issue was not. “No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese,” he told the audience. “The USCCB doesn’t speak for me. …The only relevant document ... is my letter. …There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.” Sadly, this courageous bishop has since been forced into early retirement. What does that say about the bishops’ good ole boys’ club?

One could write a book about all the egregious scandals related to the USCCB. But the biggest scandal of all may be that the bishops themselves, for the most part, do nothing about them. Dioceses continue to pour money into this bloated bureaucracy that occupies a multistory building down the street from the National Shrine in Washington, D.C. How many of its hundreds of employees at that site and throughout the country really embrace the faith? Judging from the ongoing scandals, not enough.

In 1992, the orthodox women religious took the courageous step of withdrawing from the LCWR despite being in the minority. They decided to stop supporting the majority of women religious who embrace the lunacy of the liberal left. Isn’t there at least a minority of faithful bishops who will imitate their sisters, recognizing the irreconcilable differences between what the Church really stands for and the wicked bureaucracy that claims to speak for them? If the truth is unevenly yoked to the lie, divorce is a natural and healthy choice. Silence and inaction, on the other hand, when it means cooperating with evil, is wrong. Let us pray that the good bishops of the United States, few though they may be, recognize that to continue supporting the USCCB makes them complicit in the bureaucracy’s evil agenda. Your Excellencies, it’s time for a divorce. Send the shameless hussy packing. She’s hurting the true bride of Christ.

Mary Ann Kreitzer is president of the Catholic Media Coalition and Les Femmes (a lay Catholic media apostolate in the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia), as well as editor of Les Femmes' quarterly newsletter, the Truth.  This article, along with endnotes, was originally published in the Autumn 2009 issue of the Truth and is featured here with Les Femmes' kind permission.

Responses

Dear Judie,
Thank you for sharing this article. I agree, the good Bishops need to separate from this unholy situation. The sooner the better. What a mess.

Lord have mercy,

Patty
Patty Palmquist | January 13, 2010

---

The essayist here clearly doesn't know what she's talking about.
Jenny | January 14, 2010

---

Dear Judie,

Does the USCCB need an apostolic visitation?

God bless you!

Cathy
Cathy | January 15, 2010

---

Dear Jenny

Comments like yours are always curious to me. Please give us chapter and verse if you see errors in what Mary Ann has written. Otherwise it would seem you are simply sowing sour grapes.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | January 17, 2010

---

Cathy

An excavation would be better as that would result in elimination.

Judie
Judie Brown | January 17, 2010

---

Dear Judie,
This article is another good example of how conservative people are labeled as uncaring, and liberals are labeled as loving, peaceful people. Like whitewashed tombs though, because if you look under the trees that liberals are hugging, you find the blood of the innocent unborn. Save the babies first and then even THEY will be free to hug the trees. Priorities people, priorities.
Mary
Mary Kuhns | January 20, 2010

---

An earlier commentator stated that the essayist does not know what she is talking about. I have to agree to some extent. There are factual errors and innuendos. Most importantly, most of the problems she list occurred before USCCB's recent re-formation.

The problem for critics of USCCB is that they fail to recognize that the staff is directed by committees that are made up solely of bishops now. Claims about a USCCB bureacracy run amok may have held some water ten years ago, but they don't any more.

And seriously, look at the activities, publications, statements in the last ten years and you will see a USCCB increasingly more focused on issues such as life and marriage. It is also a much smaller and more streamlined organization.
Chris | January 20, 2010

---

Dear Chris

The problem is really exactly as Mary Ann defines it. Let me be specific:

(1) the majority of bishops who direct the bureaucracy have the same agenda as the bureacracy so there is no check and balance system in plan.

(2) Priorities for these committess are money first, then maybe Catholic teaching and maybe not. The very fact that you can suggest that the USCCB's documents are slowly creeping toward Catholic teaching says it all.

It is very sad, of course, but obvious none the less that the best thing that could happen for Catholics in this country is for the USCCB to disappear. let bishops be bishops, for crying out loud, instead of politicians and fundraisers.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | January 21, 2010

---

This article is clear and presents evidence. Thank God for the internet. RealCatholictv.com has sighted many of these scandals. One that touches me as a teacher is the National Catholic Education Associations choice this year as key note speaker - Garrison Keiller. He is not even a Catholic and he describes most of the supporters of life as "shrieking ninnies". Well, that's just about every faithful Catholic. Why is he allowed to be the key note speaker at a convention intended to guide Catholic School teachers who are forming the minds of our young people? I hope more Catholic educators speak out against this.
David Maciborski | March 8, 2010

---

Dear Judie,
Divorce is never a good thing for any of the parties involved. To suggest that the bishops follow the course the sisters took, to me, would be misguided. All we need do is look at the confusion that has occurred during the recent health care reform discussion. The Liberal politicians and abortion proponents used the LCWR, and other prominent so-called Religious Catholics, as a means to convince Catholics and non-Catholics alike that the proposals were in accordance with God's will. Sadly, most of these misguided individuals did not hear the Truth either because they do not attend church regularly or because many priests and bishops did not show the strength, courage, necessity or interest in educating their flock as to the evil inherent in the proposed legislation. No, we don't need divorce. What is needed is for those bishops who know and accept the teachings of our Lord and Mother Church to follow the advice offered in the January 2010 article on Excommunication posted on this website. Those holy Bishops who are in accordance with The Church should bravely challenge their brothers to reform and conform to Church teachings; first privately then publicly, if necessary. And we, as Catholics, are called to both support that challenge and voice our disapproval of the clergy who are guilty of misguiding the laity. And if that fails then the Bishops and the laity should petition Rome to intercede. There should only be one voice representing our Holy, Catholic Church in America and that Church must always be in accordance with the one, true, apostolic church presided over by Peter's successor, our Papal Father, Pope Benedict XVI.
We must also remember that we, too, are called to spread God's word. We are remiss if we sit idly by and rely on others to protect and defend our faith. We have a duty, as Christians, to ensure that the Truth is proclaimed and lived in accordance with Scripture, Holy Mother Church and the Magisterium. At times, that may require making difficult decisions and taking equally difficult actions. But it is our duty none the less.
Yours in Christ,
C B Nicholson
Life is a precious gift from God from conception through natural death. Pray for a return to a Culture of Life.
C B Nicholson | July 25, 2010

---

Dear CB,

Thank you for your wise comments. There is clearly a need for restoration of holiness among our shepherds and a dissolution of the bureacracies that create or provide cover to the confusion and scandal that is rampant today within the Church.

God bless you.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | July 30, 2010

---

America’s growing fascination with what constitutes a living, breathing human being is a constant amazement to me. This idea was brought up again in the New York Times last month. Entitled “When does death start?,” the article by Darshak Sanghavi provides a lesson in how easy it has become for man to dismiss acts of terror as simple practices involving medical decisions to end a human being’s life.

Using the real-life experiences that followed a tragic accident rendering a fifteen-year-old girl named Amanda nearly dead, Sanghavi involves the reader in the emotions this young girl’s mother was experiencing. Having hooked the reader into sympathizing with the mother, he carefully turns the corner and addresses different ways of donating organs once a patient is subjectively defined as nearly dead.

In Amanda’s case, there was a challenge to the treating physician. Upon examination of the child, whose own reflexes indicated that her brainstem was still working, Dr. Monica Kleinman decided that she could not pronounce the child brain dead. Clearly, the organs could not be taken from a patient who did not meet the brain death criteria. But there were other ways of getting those organs and the doctor understood what they were:

To diagnose brain death, doctors typically go through a checklist of about a dozen items, including assessing reflexes like blinking, coughing and breathing, which are all controlled by the brainstem. The criteria are extremely strict, and only a tiny fraction of severely brain-injured people meet them. Kleinman realized that Amanda, despite her severe brain damage, was not one of them. There was, Kleinman told Beaulieu, another option — one that was still controversial and had never been pursued successfully at Children’s Hospital. The procedure was called donation after cardiac death, or D.C.D., and it would exploit the other way the law defines death: as the “irreversible cessation” of the heartbeat.

Before delving into this matter, that involves the desire among some physicians, ethicists and others with a vested interest to redefine death in such a way as to provide the most bang for the buck in the organ donation business, one thing must be made perfectly clear. Amanda was severely brain damaged, she was not terminally ill, she was not at death’s door, she was inconveniently clinging to life as far as the organ vultures were concerned.

Once a decision is made to get the organs, the alternatives are readily at hand. To further justify the taking Amanda’s organs, and the possibility of countless others in similar condition, Sanghavi reports,

With modern technology like respirators and tube feedings with synthetic formulas, [Amanda’s mother] Beaulieu might have kept her unconscious, brain-damaged child alive indefinitely. But as she sipped coffee in her apartment from a mug reading “#1 Mom,” Beaulieu told me that if Amanda had lived, she could “never bike, rollerblade or go out with friends, and she’d never want that.” If people with no hope for meaningful recovery can be kept alive artificially, shouldn’t they also be permitted to die artificially?

And therein lies the rub. The subjective judgment of an agonizing mother reinforced by a medical team was all that was required. Once everyone was in agreement, taking the organs commenced without a hitch. 

If one studies the entire history of man’s efforts to redefine what it means to be dead, starting with the Harvard Criteria of 1968, it is all too clear that medical ethicists, bioethicists and clinicians have been attempting to serve the growing needs of the organ transplant advocates for years. They continue to do all they can to expand the definition of death in a way that, one assumes, will relieve the anguish of a family whose loved one is in a bad situation while helping someone else to live longer. It is perceived to be a very noble idea, but it is anything but.

As Paul Byrne, M.D. points out: 

In medicine we protect, preserve, and prolong life and postpone death . . . Our goal is to keep body and soul united. When a vital organ ceases to function, death can result. On the other hand, medical intervention can sometimes restore the function of the damaged organ, or medical devices (such as pacemakers and heart-lung machines) can preserve life. The observation of a cessation of functioning of the brain or some other organ of the body does not in itself indicate destruction of even that organ, much less death of the person.

But the slippery slope keeps sliding, paying little to no heed to Byrnes and others like him who understand that a human being is alive until he dies, not until someone hastens his death by whatever means appears to be appropriate.

Practicing nurse and medical ethics writer Nancy Valko has had a great deal of experience with patients like Amanda and with the subject of non-heart-beating organ donation, or NHBD. She writes, 

In cases of severe head injuries, strokes or other critical conditions that can qualify a patient for NHBD, it is virtually impossible at the beginning to accurately predict whether the patient will die or what level of recovery he or she may eventually attain. As a nurse for 34 years, I have personally seen many such patients, who initially needed a ventilator and who were even expected to die, go on to completely recover.

However, for those who advocate the subjective art of deciding who should live and who should die based on a sliding scale of what it means to be a human being, the redefinition necessary to excuse some people from living is not a problem. And if enough concur in such a view, and a consensus is created, then no one need feel guilty about the matter.

Sadly, in addition to cases like Amanda, we have another focus of attention, as Wesley J. Smith pointed out recently regarding the subject of “palliative sedation” (a nice set of words for early imposed death):

A hospice nurse correctly points out that PS [palliative sedation] is a rarely needed last resort:

Too often, palliative sedation is used as a first-line therapy rather than a therapy of last resort. In some units, palliative sedation is used on one-third to one-half of patients. That is far too often. Most expert providers will use palliative sedation extremely rarely in a 20- to 25-year career. Further, expert providers do not use palliative sedation lightly. They consult with colleagues to make sure that all other means of symptom management have been tried.

But when cost cutting is high on the agenda, and there are too few beds in a critical care unit, a consensus can provide the protection needed to intentionally sedate a patient to death. And who’s going to ask questions, call for an inquiry or otherwise discuss the possibility that a crime might have been committed? 

Clearly, health care doesn’t always mean what we think it means. That’s the bottomline when discussing what it means to die in America today.

The most disturbing aspect of all this recent reporting on brain death, non-heart-beating death, palliative sedation and terminal sedation is not that it is happening, but that those who are its staunchest advocates apparently have no pangs of conscience about what they are literally imposing on the vulnerable. It is as if any thought of sinful acts simply isn’t entering the minds of such people.

That is the core problem with pro-death advocacy. There is no guilt experienced for having committed a wrong because in their world there is no right or wrong, only opinions that sometimes are in disagreement. Sadly, the idea of feeling guilt for having done something as horrendous as killing another person or arguing in favor of doing so is not even a consideration.

But wait! The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us: “Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.”

And Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, expanded on this teaching in a speech entitled “Conscience and Truth.” Quoting psychologist Albert Gorres, he reminds us:

Whoever is no longer capable of perceiving guilt is spiritually ill, a "living corpse, a dramatic character's mask," as Gorres says. "Monsters, among other brutes, are the ones without guilt feelings. Perhaps Hitler did not have any, or Himmler, or Stalin. Maybe Mafia bosses do not have any guilt feelings either, or maybe their remains are just well hidden in the cellar. Even aborted guilt feelings ... All men need guilt feelings."

If there is an antidote to the escalating trend to kill those perceived to be inconvenient, unwanted or otherwise expendable, it is guilt because without it, man can perpetrate any horror you can think of and the acts committed will soon become commonplace practice. Clearly, terrorism comes in many forms—not the least of which is direct killing of the vulnerable.

Responses

Dear Judie, this seems like something from a scary movie, not something from real life. It is horrifying for those of us who realize what is going on, who recognize the value and sacredness of life. We will never run out of people to pray for, and especially those who lives are taken by force, the weak, the vulnerable, the unborn. In the case of killing for organs, the murderers are also thieves.
A MAN WHO HAD FALLEN AMONG THIEVES
a man who had fallen among thieves
lay by the roadside on his back
dressed in fifteenthrate ideas
wearing a round jeer for a hat

fate per a somewhat more than less
emancipated evening
had in return for consciousness
endowed him with a changeless grin

whereon a dozen staunch and leal
citizens did graze at pause
then fired by hypercivic zeal
sought newer pastures or because

swaddled with a frozen brook
of pinkest vomit out of eyes
which noticed nobody he looked
as if he did not care to rise

one hand did nothing on the vest
its wideflung friend clenched weakly dirt
while the mute trouserfly confessed
a button solemnly inert.

Brushing from whom the stiffened puke
i put him all into my arms and
staggered banged with terror through
a million billion trillion stars

E. E. Cummings
Mary Kuhns | January 13, 2010

---

In a May 10, 2004 letter to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, 48 pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians, including the ever-puerile Nancy Pelosi, wrote, “If Catholic legislators are scorned and held out for ridicule by Church leaders on the basis of a single issue, the Church will lose strong advocates on a wide range of issues that relate to the core of important Catholic social teaching.”

This infamous letter came to mind in light of the current debates over “health care reform” and the seeming lack of proper instruction by some Catholic bishops in their communications with these pro-abortion “Catholics” and other supposedly Catholic public figures. If one examines statements such as Pelosi’s recent erroneous claims or the statements in this 2004 letter, it is obvious that something has gone awry in such individuals’ thought process.

Or maybe it hasn’t. At the time the letter was made public, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus was quick to point out that  

this message from 48 Catholic Democrats in the U.S. Congress is a classic case of political obfuscation by those who see nothing beyond politics and believe in nothing that transcends politics. They seem not to understand that if the Church is to bear any sort of credible public witness, she must begin by protecting her own members from the confusion caused by the public scandals of her politically wayward children. And she must end by doing everything in her power to save these same children’s wayward souls.

It seems unlikely that that these politicians are simply ignorant about the fact that, through their support of aborting children, in a sense they are already separated from the Church by their very actions. While one could also suggest that they are either unaware of the reasons why they should be refused Holy Communion until they repent of their sinful support of abortion, or that they have no clue that abortion is an act of murder and thus intrinsically evil, these possibilities are even more unlikely.

Whatever explanation is given for the persistent pomposity of such wayward public figures, the fact is that our nation’s Catholic bishops have a solemn obligation to instruct the wayward, not only for their own good but for the good of the Catholics entrusted to the bishops' care who are negatively affected by the insolence paraded before them, especially when it is accompanied by silence from the pulpit about what is—and is not—consonant with Catholic behavior and teaching.

The wayward “Catholic” elected official who is denied such education is not going to benefit in any way from the silence, but rather is going to further jeopardize his or her soul while continuing to create scandal that can and does drive many away from the Catholic Church. Every ordained Catholic priest (which includes bishops), knows that admonishing a public sinner instructs him/her in what it means to be faithful versus what it means to be separated from the faithful. Saint Paul makes this point in his teaching to the Corinthians: “Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drink his own condemnation” (1 Cor. 11:28–30).

Whether the wayward “Catholic” in question is aware of this is really not the issue, but rather whether the Church’s teaching is publicly stated and reinforced with action, because that is what is needed. The lack of such definitive leadership on the part of many (but certainly not all) bishops is taking a tremendous toll on the faithful.

Many rank-and-file Catholics are appalled by many bishops’ apparent unwillingness to publicly repudiate these pro-abortion “Catholic” public figures, and thus many of them wind up disgusted with the Church. This too is a tragedy that must and can be averted, if only the courage is mustered to publicly clarify what it means to be a faithful, practicing Catholic.

As the Diocese of Baker, Oregon’s Bishop Robert Vasa recently pointed out, “Failing to name error because of some kind of fear of offending the person in error is neither compassion nor charity. Confronting or challenging the error or evil of another is never easy yet it must be done.”

There’s something else afoot in disobedient “Catholic” public figures’ recent shenanigans that many bishops may not have noticed: a brand of anti-Catholicism that is especially toxic because it is bubbling up from the very people who claim they are “faithful” Catholics but simply disagree with a few Church teachings here and there.

While this argument may sound downright silly, it appears to be the way culture-of-death Catholics are playing their hand. Deal Hudson pointed out that pro-abortion “Catholic” members of Congress are the very ones leading the charge to ensure that “health care reform” is passed into law with abortion funding as a key component. 

This is just the tip of the iceberg. These pro-abortion Catholics are aware of the Obama agenda, which is totally focused on cost cutting rather than affirming life. So the Forbes report that most insurance companies would rather pay for an abortion than a live birth plays right into their ghoulish goal of preserving taxpayer funding for abortions and, in fact, increasing them. The numbers make the case for those who wish to carry on with the status quo in matters of protecting the human person versus killing him. Add to all this the fact that some allege that Obama has been dealing behind the scenes with insurance companies from the very beginning, even though he disparages them in public.

The scenario is not a pretty one for the Catholic hierarchy, but it is a problem of such great proportions that it must be addressed publicly, quickly and resoundingly. The reasons why such actions cannot wait are made more than painfully clear by Rev. Michael Orsi in “Fourth-stage anti-Catholicism,” published in the current issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review. He addresses such grave concerns as the possibility of conscience protection laws being eliminated and the state doing its utmost to manipulate and control the Church, as it recently attempted to do in Connecticut. After outlining these examples he writes,

The Second Vatican Council challenged Catholics to act as “leaven in the dough,” providing a moral presence—an evangelizing witness to the truth concerning human life and living through good citizenship and personal example—that could both inform and reform society. It was by such methods that the early Christians converted the Roman world from paganism.

But society, as it is today—a moral/political milieu that seems increasingly to presage an explicitly anti-Christian ‘new world order’—is clearly not hospitable to such leavening, no matter how civil or restrained. … If the Church insists on this evangelizing witness, in opposition to the mores of modern, secular society, then society’s call is Delenda est ecclesia—the Church must be destroyed.

Father Orsi makes it clear that the best tacticians in the effort to silence the Church or simply render her irrelevant are and will be those “Catholics” who dissent from her teaching and do so diligently and persistently.

The only appropriate response to this fourth-stage cancerous malady infecting many Catholics today is a public, courageous, consistent, insistent declaration by Catholic bishops that rings with truth, clarity and principle. Among Father Orsi’s list of recommendations are these:

• “Catholics must get more involved in the political process. Pastors must make the faithful aware of these current legislative attempts to destroy the Church in America.”

• “Catholic politicians must be called to task if they support legislation that implicitly or explicitly attempts to undermine the Church or its teachings.”

• “Difficult as it may be, any individual threatened with a loss of job for refusing to take part in morally illicit acts must be willing to suffer the consequences—to the point of heroism. Pastors should instruct them in the acts of the martyrs. As Jesus asked, what good is it to gain the whole world and lose one’s soul?”

• “Catholic attorneys should make themselves available, pro bono, to defend fellow Catholics from unjust discrimination and job loss because of their conscientious beliefs.”

• “Catholics involved in the media need to alert the Catholic community about impending legislation or gov¬ernment action designed to curtail or destroy the Church’s divine right to hierarchical governance and freedom to evangelize (it was quick and concerted action on the part of Catholic leaders and believers that sidetracked the anti-Church bill in Connecticut).”

I agree with Father Orsi’s assessment that the Church is undoubtedly under attack, her leadership is being intentionally humiliated into silence by the media and, most tragically, the silence is resounding at this crucial time in the Church’s history.

He concludes as only he can: “The enemy stands at the gates, and in some cases is already within.”

There is no doubt that action is needed now. Pray for all of our bishops, respectfully communicate your concerns to your bishop and your priests, and be a stalwart defender of the faith in every aspect of your daily life, both publicly and privately.

The alternative is unthinkable. 

Responses

I resolutely agree with the following statement by Bishop Robert Vasa: ???Failing to name error because of some kind of fear of offending the person in error is neither compassion nor charity. Confronting or challenging the error or evil of another is never easy yet it must be done.???

Implementation of the above principle requires excommunicating pro-abortion politicians to counteract effectively the terrible scandal that they are causing, and to save the lives of the unborn children whom they are endangering.

How can we expect legislators to use civil laws to protect the unborn if bishops refuse to use the Church's laws to safeguard those children?

Keep and spread the Faith.

Stephen M. O'Brien | January 12, 2010

---

To Steve,

"How can we expect legislators to use civil laws to protect the unborn if bishops refuse to use the Church's laws to safeguard those children?"

I say they cannot. Each of us meet our own responsibility, and trust it to God that others will meet their's. The Church leadership seems to have been abdicating their responsibility for too long.
David Volk | January 13, 2010

---

By William A. Stanmeyer, Esq.

This is a true story. In May 2001, sudden frightening dramatic symptoms prompted me to seek immediate medical consultation and treatment. At the time, I was 66 years old. As I tell my story, count how many doctors, hospitals and medical procedures—all during a mere five weeks—were necessary to save my life.

Central to President Obama’s health care proposal is the power of government to ration care. It can ration by outright refusal of a needed operation or procedure. It also can ration through lengthy delays in approving, until it’s too late for the patient. Often doctors must act quickly, but government bureaucracy almost never acts quickly. Ask yourself whether the government would have approved any and all of these steps quickly enough—if at all—to do any good.
 
Look at the dates:

1. Monday, May 21—I am given a two-hour examination by Dr. Christopher McManus in     Arlington, Virginia.
    
2. Wednesday, May 23—I undergo a CT scan at Arlington Hospital (now known as Virginia Hospital Center), ordered by Dr.  McManus.
    
3. Thursday, May 24—I have a consultation with gastroenterologist Dr. Suresh Malhotra, set up by Dr. McManus.
    
4. Friday, May 25—Dr. Malhotra performs an endoscopy on me at Inova Alexandria Hospital in Alexandria, Virginia. He discovers a golf-ball-sized tumor blocking the bile duct near the pancreas. Toxins are seeping into my blood because bodily plumbing is blocked. The tumor is cancerous, and death is certain in two–three months unless the tumor is removed by major surgery. Saturday–Monday, May 26–28, 2001 is Memorial Day weekend.
    
5. Tuesday, May 29—Early that day, Dr. Malhotra calls Dr. John Cameron, chief of surgery at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and nationally recognized expert in performing the Whipple procedure (a complicated pancreatic cancer surgery that requires removing various parts of the digestive system). Dr. Malhotra asks Dr. Cameron to remove the cancerous tumor and adjacent lymph nodes.
    
6. Thursday, June 7—I have a consultation at Hopkins with Dr. Cameron, and the surgery is scheduled.
    
7. Monday, June 25—I undergo major surgery at Hopkins to remove the tumor, etc. It could have taken as long as 13 hours, but this operation took only four. Dr. Cameron is among the best! I stay in the hospital stay six more days.
    
8. Sunday, July 1—I am released from the hospital and go home to recuperate.
    
9. Sunday, July 29—My recovery is complete. I am weak, but able to walk.  My family and I leave for our annual week-long summer vacation.

Summary: In barely more than a month, I consulted three different doctors … underwent four vital procedures … at three different hospitals … in two different states.

I would be dead today if, as was proposed in 1993, it were illegal to go to a physician outside of one’s government-directed group. But this really is not about me; I’ve already run my gauntlet and won my race.

This is about you and any other American who, in the future, might face a medical emergency that requires rapid decisions and actions, and the performance of difficult procedures (such as an endoscopy that not only views the tumor but also takes a sample for the pathologist to examine, and use of the Whipple procedure to remove a tumor), without government employees second-guessing what the physicians want to do. Go through the dates above. In each case, the doctor was free to follow his own professional judgment— and not required to get permission from a government bureaucrat—to refer me to the best professional at the next level … and to the medical facility where the specialist could act. And do it immediately. No delay. This is an emergency…

Obama’s proposed plan would have government bureaucrats decide whether all these steps would be “cost-effective.”  In most cases, they would be likely to veto them. In all cases, appealing a refusal—if even permitted—would take months. I had two months to live. Obama’s plan would kill thousands of citizens, because they would lose the race against time that the doctors and I won in May–June 2001. In many cases, delay would amount to rationing. As with justice, health care delayed is health care denied.

William A. Stanmeyer, Esq., of Great Falls, Virginia, is a retired attorney and former law professor.  He taught law at the Indiana University School of Law and constitutional law at Georgetown Law Center. Mr. Stanmeyer has written five books, including Clear and Present Danger: Church and State in Post-Christian America and The Seduction of Society: Pornography and Its Impact on American Life. This guest commentary is featured with his kind permission.

When I first heard of the Montana Supreme Court’s Baxter v. Montana decision, I was somewhat comforted to read Alex Schadenberg’s statement that the decision had actually rejected the pro-death Compassion & Choices (formerly the Hemlock Society) organization’s claim that a “right” to “aid in dying” is consistent with the state’s constitution. But Schadenberg was also quick to point out that the decision 

“ignores the practical realities of ensuring patient safety from over-eager heirs, new “best friends” and others who might benefit from the patient’s death. For example, physicians who malpractice and who want to hide their mistakes can now say: “It was what the patient wanted.” The evidence against the physician dies with the patient. If the patient has no family or other advocate, who will know?

A bright spot in the decision is that it does not give physicians the “right” to prescribe a lethal dose, but only suggests that circumstances may exist to give them a defense to prosecution for homicide.

As is always the case with such decisions, we have to look at the pro-death movement's history to see what effect Baxter could have if state lawmakers refuse to act. It was over a decade ago that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously, in Vacco v. Quill, that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. But in the Montana Supreme Court decision, the majority of justices apparently rephrased the question and concluded that assisted suicide does not violate any state law.  Remember that this case started when only one judge in one case ruled for the terminally ill man and the Compassion & Choices supporters who brought that case. No vote, no legislation.

The entire Baxter ruling is available online, but the following excerpt (pp. 24–25) actually says all one needs to know:  

In conclusion, we find nothing in Montana Supreme Court precedent or Montana statutes indicating that physician aid in dying is against public policy. The “against public policy” exception to consent has been interpreted by this Court as applicable to violent breaches of the public peace. Physician aid in dying does not satisfy that definition. We also find nothing in the plain language of Montana statutes indicating that physician aid in dying is against public policy. In physician aid in dying, the patient— not the physician—commits the final death-causing act by self-administering a lethal dose of medicine.

Furthermore, the Montana Rights of the Terminally Ill Act [emphasis added] indicates legislative respect for a patient’s autonomous right to decide if and how he will receive medical treatment at the end of his life. The Terminally Ill Act explicitly shields physicians from liability for acting in accordance with a patient’s end-of-life wishes, even if the physician must actively pull the plug on a patient’s ventilator or withhold treatment that will keep him alive. There is no statutory indication that lesser end-of-life physician involvement, in which the patient himself commits the final act, is against public policy. We therefore hold that under § 45-2-211, MCA, a terminally ill patient’s consent to physician aid in dying constitutes a statutory defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician when no other consent exceptions apply.

The District Court’s ruling on the constitutional issues is vacated, although the court’s grant of summary judgment to Plaintiffs/Appellees is affirmed on the alternate statutory grounds set forth above. The award of attorney fees is reversed.

Using existing state law as a basis for this egregious ruling is not all that surprising, as Julie Grimstad, a long- time pro-life advocate for the vulnerable, makes clear. She put the Montana decision in the proper context in an e-mail she sent to her contact list:

Perhaps some of you will remember 1985, when, for me at least, the anti-euthanasia battle began. My late, wonderful friend Anna Belle Lincoln and I began a campaign to repeal the Montana Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. We started a new pro-life group called The Center for the Rights of the Terminally Ill (CRTI) and set to work on our kitchen tables in Great Falls, MT, and Billings, MT, respectively. Rita Marker, Dr. Joseph R. Stanton, Mary Catherine Senander, Msgr. William Smith, and several other pro-life stalwarts helped us strategize. We were having remarkable success convincing many key Montana legislators that they had passed a deadly bill and, in fact, we had about 10 sponsors for a bill to repeal the act based on its numerous fatal flaws. However, we ran into a roadblock when another “pro-life” organization claimed that a small section of the bill merely needed to be amended and all would be well. The legislators jumped on this chance to save face. The amendment failed when the authors and original supporters of the bill -- including the Montana Nurses Association and AARP -- stated for the record that the original intent of the bill was to permit people to refuse food and fluids in order to die, claiming that there is a “right to die.”

Now a court decision in favor of physician assisted suicide has been partially based on the Montana Rights of the Terminally Ill Act creating “legislative respect for a patient’s autonomous right to decide if and how he will receive medical treatment at the end of his life” which “explicitly shields physicians from liability for acting in accordance with a patient’s end-of-life wishes...” Back in the 1980s, Rita Marker, Mary Senander and Dr. Stanton explicitly warned that living will laws such as the Montana Rights of the Terminally Ill Act were the foot in the door for full-scale euthanasia and assisted suicide.

What we need to do now is convince the legislators in Montana that this is so and ask them to enact legislation to explicitly prohibit assisted suicide. If you know anyone in Montana, call them and ask them to contact their legislators in order to educate them about this crucially important issue and urge them to oppose assisted suicide with strong legislation prohibiting the practice.

The Montana decision and the “foot-in-the-door” state law that preceded it are potentially far more deadly that most care to admit. There was a very similar chain of events concerning abortion many years ago when, slowly but surely, state after state passed laws permitting a “little bit of killing.” This trend culminated in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions in 1973. Interestingly but not surprisingly, pro-euthanasia forces are using the same approach. The problem is that most lawmakers do not see that this is a pattern, or they choose to ignore it because they believe that doing so will improve their chances of being re-elected. Sad but true.

But perhaps Montana will stop repeating this pattern. Right now, the state’s residents are confronted with two starkly contrasting occurrences. On the one hand, they face the court’s arrogant condemnation of certain individuals to death if a physician or family member wills it. On the other, many Montanans are working feverishly to pass a human personhood amendment that would protect all persons and respect their human rights, regardless of age, health or condition of dependency. It would, in essence, stop the culture of death in its tracks and could help to eliminate the serious dangers posed by Baxter.

Let us not forget that the Baxter ruling states clearly, “The Terminally Ill Act explicitly shields physicians from liability for acting in accordance with a patient’s end-of-life wishes, even if the physician must actively pull the plug on a patient’s ventilator or withhold treatment that will keep him alive.”

In the same way that an abortionist is shielded from liability when he murders the preborn, so too the physician who kills the dying is shielded by the law. On the one hand, the physician is purportedly acting in accord with a patient’s wishes; on the other hand, purportedly with the expectant mother’s wishes. The similarities are too glaring to be ignored.

Not only that, but the “right to decide” to kill one self sounds quite similar to the “right to choose” to end one’s child’s life prior to birth, doesn’t it?

Without a doubt, legal recognition of human personhood is the proper response to the slide toward total dehumanization of the human person that is occurring in Montana at this moment. It is our hope and prayer that every pro-life Montanan will put their Big Sky attitude to work to undo this horrendous decision through state legislation while simultaneously pressing on toward protecting the personhood of each and every one of Montana’s vulnerable human persons from their biological beginning until their natural end.

Contact information:

• Personhood Montana
• Montana Catholics for Life 
• Find a Montana legislator

Over the years, it has become common practice among most members of the media elite and the bureaucracies of major medical organizations — not to mention the U.S. Congress and state legislatures — to ignore the reality of what abortion is while also glossing over the actual harmful effects of medical, chemical and surgical abortion. Why this is so does not need explanation; it’s called power over people conjoined with financial profit.

Here is where a little history makes my point for me. There have always been little blips of truth in the media, but none that lasted longer than a soundbite. For example, one blogger on the Chicago Sun Times web site reminded us about investigative journalism in 1978 when the paper ran a series entitled “The Abortion Profiteers”:  

In 1978, the Chicago Sun-Times wasn't interested in the morality of abortion when it spent five months looking at the procedure. The paper wanted to know: Were women who had abortions here receiving the safe, competent care the U.S. Supreme Court said they were entitled to back in 1973?

What Sun-Times investigative reporters Pam Zekman and Pamela Warrick -- working with the Better Government Association -- found in their series "The Abortion Profiteers" was, in some cases, downright terrifying.

The Sun-Times/BGA team had people work undercover in six Michigan Avenue clinics. The team uncovered incompetent and unqualified doctors who performed abortions without giving their patients anesthetics. Sometimes, it made no difference if a woman was actually pregnant -- she'd still be sold an abortion.

In one truly horrifying case, a couple was sent to a disreputable Detroit abortionist whose dog accompanied the nurse into the operating room -- then lapped up blood from the floor.

The series prompted immediate action.

In 2008, the Los Angeles Times could not ignore the tragic treatment of expectant mothers by abortionist Bertha Bugarin, telling its readers: “By the time paramedics arrived, the patient was lying in a pool of her own blood, her pulse racing and her blood pressure dangerously low.”

As tragic as these two examples are — and there have been many over the past 36 years — the crux of the problem with abortion and its risks never seems to get the sort of attention that would create concern among average folks who are really not quite sure why abortion is bad or why pro-life groups are constantly focusing attention on it.

A recent case in point that does not involve a bloody mess in a filthy abortion mill is Dr. Julian Little’s “Invited Commentary” in the American Journal of Epidemiology. Little discusses the various causes for premature birth, and among them he lists abortion. Little is not, however, the first researcher to have made this connection.

Time magazine uncovered a similar finding two years ago when it reported on the work of researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University: 
 

The study not only found a link between abortion or miscarriage and low birth weight, but it also found that the risk appears to increase with every subsequent miscarriage or abortion. The accruing risk, says co-author Tilahun Adera at Virginia Commonwealth University, suggests that termination of pregnancy is a true cause of low birth weight and preterm birth rather than a variable associated with such conditions.
 

Researcher Brent Rooney has reported on the connection between previous abortions and cerebral palsy, suffered by children born after their mother aborted a sibling. He wrote,  
 

So how many cases of abortion-related cerebral palsy occur yearly in the U.S.? If just 20 percent of U.S. women giving birth yearly had a previous induced abortion, this represents 800,000 women. The 1999 Danish study reported that a previous induced abortion doubles the risk of a very preterm birth. It is reasonable to assume that the risk of very low birth weight is also doubled. The 800,000 women will give birth to about 19,360 very low birth weight (VLBW) newborns, with about half of the cases (9,680) being due to a previous induced abortion.

The odds of a VLBW newborn having CP is about 9.34 percent. This yields 904 VLBW newborns with CP due to a mom's previous induced abortion. A similar calculation for moderately low birth weight (between 3 lbs, 5 oz. and 5 lbs., 8 oz.) births to women with prior induced abortions yields an additional 185 newborns with CP born to moms with prior induced abortions.
 

In addition, there is the undeniable connection between abortion and breast cancer, which dedicated people like Karen Malec and Dr. Joel Brind have been researching and reporting on for years. 

But these reports and statistical facts, all easily verifiable, are not questions that interest most mainstream media. Nor do they interest the very people on Capitol Hill who tell us health care costs are running wild and need to be controlled. When it comes to the act of abortion, we run into a brick wall because, for too many in positions of power, abortion is viewed as above scrutiny, particularly if all the facts would render it unacceptable to the populace.

At the end of the day, it’s all about the money and controlling the lives of women and their preborn children; it’s about marketing despicable acts as nothing more than an aspect of “women’s reproductive health care.” Those who take such a position cannot acknowledge the fact that abortion is harmful, regardless of the women and children who suffer as a consequence of their deceit. 

The marketing of abortion, whether by chemical, medical or surgical means, has never been about protecting women’s health. It’s never been about acknowledging the preborn child’s humanity. It’s never even been about being fair so that the people of this nation can be confident that the way they think of abortion and its availability is based on having all the facts at hand.

This is why the occasional death, premature birth or case of breast cancer or cerebral palsy will never be tied directly to the culture of death’s single most important product … abortion. When abortion is considered to be invulnerable by those in power, nothing but heartache, devastated families and dead babies will result.

This is also why American citizens are so dreadfully confused. Leonor Vivanco, reporter for the Chicago Tribune’s Redeye, took the time to study current polls and what they tell us about where we stand when it comes to abortion. Her bottomline: Inconclusive. 

Of course it is! But the most important aspect of her comments prior to displaying the actual polling tables was this piece of journalism:

Questions about the legality of abortion seem more relevant than asking people to label themselves "pro-life" or "pro-choice" because it's more neutral and related to social policies, she said.

Here is a perfect example of the problem. Abortion is, in the eyes of many, nothing but a subject that should be treated in some way in formulating “social policy.” It is not perceived to be an act of murder, which is why the quest to protect the preborn as human persons is all the more urgent. But read on:

Sotirovic [associate professor of journalism analyzing results] said she could not make a strong conclusion about a possible shift in attitudes based on a few polls. Several polls need to have results that move in the same direction over a certain period of time to show a trend, she said. "We really do not expect very dramatic changes in a relatively short amount of time," she said. If there are dramatic changes, they should be confirmed in other polls, she said.

Clearly, there is a disconnect when it comes to understanding what abortion actually is versus how it is perceived by the folks who appear to have the upper hand in telling us what we should think on the subject.

This is why, as never before, we need to be specific in our speech. Abortion kills people; maims mothers, destroys our appreciation of our fellow human beings and kills the spirit of love that is the basis for real growth in a culture. When mother turns against child, willing to kill that child rather than sacrifice to affirm him or her, what else can we expect? There will be more bloody floors that rarely receive a blip on the news; more premature babies that will end up dead because it’s cheaper to do away with them; more violence in general as America is desensitized due to viewing criminal acts of murder as mere social policy questions.

Human personhood is the key to changing this discussion, converting the confused and thus saving the children. Please join us in this quest to revitalize our dying nation.

Responses

The public school board, here in Peoria, IL, has had to close several primary schools, and just recently a high school. I submitted a letter to our local paper suggesting these school closings are the inescapable consequence of classrooms of children having been killed in our local abortion mill over the years. The responses of incredulity were hard to believe themselves, one reader even leaving a voice message for me.
David Volk | January 6, 2010

---

Dear Judie,
I just want David and folks like him to know that I am praying for them and I hope they are praying for me too because it isn't easy to get that response of incredulity when you speak out against abortion. People look at you like you're from another planet. It's girl scout cookie selling time here at work, and when people ask me to buy them I tell them I don't want to contribute even one penny that could go to racist pro-abortion Planned Parenthood, and show them an article documenting the link between PP and the girl scouts all over the country. The response I get cuts straight to my heart, the same response I've gotten when I tell why I don't participate or donate to the Komen Foundation. Going against the flow is not easy. That's why I go to Judie's blog so much, because I feel the strength from others who care about life.
"When I am down and oh my soul so weary, when troubles come and my heart burdened be then I am still and wait here in the silence until You come and sit awhile with me" -You Raise Me Up by Josh Groban
I heard on a Christian radio station one time that if you really truly try to follow Christ, then you are most likely the only one in your immediate circle of influence. Not to say there aren't Christians around you, but ones that really follow Him are few and far between.
Mary
Mary Kuhns | January 11, 2010

---

It is a sad commentary on the times in which we live when some self-described Catholics in public life, such as Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, can receive plaudits from the media for being nothing more than an arrogant woman who chooses to flaunt her pro-abortion position while claiming she is a Catholic in good standing.

Eleanor Clift, columnist and contributing editor for Newsweek, recently interviewed Pelosi and commenced with this softball, “America loves you, Nancy” statement: “You are seen as this far-out liberal, when you actually are quite traditional in your lifestyle. I feel like the country doesn’t really know you.” Geesh! How gushy can an interviewer get? It was during this interview that Granny Nancy said,

I have some concerns about the [C]hurch’s position respecting a woman’s right to choose. … I am a practicing Catholic, although they’re probably not too happy about that. But it is my faith. I practically mourn this difference of opinion because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that is that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have that opportunity to exercise their free will.

Can’t you just hear former president Ronald Reagan saying, “There she goes again”? And mind you, the former president wasn’t a Catholic, but he knew the difference between truth and falsehood when it came to the act of abortion, which he never defined as "a woman’s right to choose.”

Indeed, President Reagan became the first U.S. president to endorse human personhood when he issued the now-historic Personhood Proclamation. It seems that, even in 1988, this politician knew that truth trumps politics.

However, for Pelosi, quite the opposite is the case. The record is clear on that point. Pelosi’s public statements are not only an insult to Catholics who know and understand the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching, and strive very hard to be faithful to those teachings, but far worse is the fact that her statements are literally akin to slapping Christ Himself in the face.

But really, this is nothing new for Speaker Pelosi. Sad to say, she has been travelling down this road to you know where for quite some time. During an August 24, 2008 interview on Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw asked Pelosi to explain to him when a human being’s life begins. She responded, 

I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator—St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s [sic] very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and—to—that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god [sic]. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

Pelosi’s imitation of a modern-day Martin Luther spouting dissenting theological views inspired the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to correct her egregiously inaccurate claims in a media release that said in part, 

In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” (No. 2271)

In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church’s moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.

The bishops went on to explain that, with the advent of scientific discoveries made over 150 years ago, the Catholic Church recognized that a human being begins at his biological beginning and made that quite clear. Apparently, Pelosi missed that chapter during her studies and today she is, as she was two years ago, defying the Catholic Church and treating Christ Himself with contempt.

Pelosi was wrong in 2008 and she’s wrong now, even though Eleanor Clift is more than happy to give ink to what is patently false and misleading when discussing the Catholic Church’s teachings. Pelosi’s interview is a perfect example of a brand of hubris that defies logic, common sense and basic morality.

Politics Daily columnist Elizabeth Lev wrote the following about the Clift interview in her column titled “Nancy Pelosi, Catholic Without a Clue”: 

Pelosi’s Catholic-lite construct here suggests that free will means the ability to judge what is right and wrong, with each person’s conscience being the final arbiter. Coherency in her concept of Catholic teaching would mean legalizing rape and murder and allowing each person to choose and then take responsibility for his or her own actions. More than the far left liberal that many claim her to be, Pelosi seems to favor anarchy.

Had Pelosi chosen to do a minimum of research before speaking, she might have consulted the users’ manual for the Catholic Church, the Catechism, which some American bishop or other must have sent her as a stocking-stuffer this year. There our aspiring theologian would have found a different definition. Freedom, according to the Catholic Church, (CCC article 3) is the person’s ability to choose between good and evil. He can choose to do something good or something evil but he cannot choose to make evil good. To take responsibility for one’s actions is to recognize that one has chosen evil and to accept the consequences both in this world and the next.

The Creative Minority Report blog provides this perspective of the interview: 

What we know is that Nancy Pelosi continues to publicly represent herself as a faithful and practicing Catholic while continuing to publicly oppose the Church on grave moral matters. We also know that her [b]ishop has apparently contacted her privately to try and change her mind, to which she has responded publicly by saying she will not be swayed. This is a textbook definition of scandal and should, at this point, be dealt with in a direct and public way lest no one else think that you can hold these positions and consider yourself a “practicing” Catholic.

This is exactly what I think. It’s time to lay down the law in a way that Pelosi— and the American public—will understand. Pelosi needs to be publicly excommunicated with the unanimous agreement of the entire U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

This is why I believe the following tongue-in-cheek tale is so very appropriate. Oh, and in case I didn’t mention it, this bit of humor was sent to me by one of my favorite Catholic priests, who is extremely witty and quite joyful:

The pope and Nancy Pelosi are on stage in front of a huge crowd…

The pope leans towards Mrs. Pelosi and says, “Do you know that, with one little wave of my hand, I can make every person in this crowd go wild with joy? This joy will not be a momentary display, like that of your followers, but go deep into their hearts, and for the rest of their lives, whenever they speak of this day, they will rejoice!”

 Pelosi replied, “I seriously doubt that; with one little wave of your hand? Show me.” 

 So the pope slapped her.

Responses

God, in His wisdom, knows whether excommunicating Pelosi is what is required. The bishops must be more in tune with God's will than me. It certainly seems to me that this is long overdue, and not only Pelosi. Other candidates: Joe Biden, Barbara Mikulski, Susan Collins, Charles Rangel, Patrick Leahy, John Kerry, Patrick Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Tom Harkin, Phil Hare, Dick Durbin - your own Canon 915 Project website lists all of these and more.
David Volk | January 6, 2010

---

Judie,
I admire your tenacity and willingness to speak the truth. However, as much as we may get incredibly frustrated with Congresswoman Pelosi's words and actions, i don't believe it does any good to demean her with the above joke/story/tale. I think Father Caropi has said it best, that when we joke or make a tale of someone, we are acting in a way as to be a false witness to someone. Our mothers always told us that if we didn't have something good to say about someone, than we shouldn't say anything at all.
God Bless, keep up the good work.
Keith Shonnard | January 6, 2010

---

Dear Judie, I am afraid, given the gravity of the scandal created by such as Pelosi, et al, we may have passed the time for not only Canon 915 to be enforced but also the stronger, hopefully medicinal, sanction of officially pronounced excommunications. Observations of Pastors in the field, results of scientific polling regarding practice and belief, the number of Christians (esp. Catholics) whose votes continually advance the most unspeakable of crimes, and so many other strong indicators, point to the reality there is great confusion over the most basic of moral principles. And, despite the Church's firm teaching regarding life issues, for many of the faithful it is obviously difficult to discern the truth when so many of the main teachers of the Faith in their respective dioceses seem to be preaching (by silence or not using appropriate means of discipline commensurate with the extreme gravity of the crimes being committed) from the same "gospel" as Pelosi, Kerry, Biden, Sebelius, et al. I can't help but wonder how history will judge us when it looks back at these treacherous times and considers our actions (& inactions) against the gravest of evils. How will they judge our Faith in the Real Presence, the Bread of Life as He gives Himself to us at the Altar each day? Will our Faith, even in the midst of "vibrant" liturgies, be found wanting - as we allow Our Blessed Lord to be used as a political tool at the Altar rail by those who obviously should be denied this unfathomable Gift because of their continued siding with Herod in the war against the child? "And a voice came out of the cloud, saying: 'This is my beloved Son; hear Him.'"
Fr. William J Kuchinsky | January 6, 2010

---

Dear Judie,
When I read what Fr Kuchinsky said about how history will judge us, it reminded me of the holocaust museum, and perhaps every Catholic Church should have in its vestibule a "future" holocaust museum, showing under glass the instruments of torture used to kill babies, and pictures of some of the tortured babies and heartbroken mothers and fathers. Hopefully one day soon that will be all that is left of abortion, museums dedicated to the remembrance of what this current uncivilized nation has tolerated.
Mary
Mary Kuhns | January 7, 2010

---

Judie,
That joke is funny, it reminds me of when we grew up being afraid of our Confirmation "slap". It was the talk of our class whether it would hurt or not. I for one know that a good slap on the face from a Bishop might have helped put some sense from the Holy Spirit into me. Maybe her Bishop should have slapped her face a bit harder back on her Confirmation day also.
Mary
Mary Kuhns | January 7, 2010

---

Judie, one more comment please, it is a wise thing Fr Kuchinsky said about action and "inaction". Even now, by all of your "action", you and ALL are starting your own "Schindler's List", saving lives, not able to save all of them, but able to save some, and we can all do the same, even if it is comforting the men and women hurt by abortion, that is saving lives too.
Mary
Mary Kuhns | January 7, 2010

---

The unborn human rights movement, with all pro-life organizations not just in America but around the world doing this together, should launch an all-out effort, starting immediately, to convince the Vatican and all the national bishops' conferences to excommunicate IMMEDIATELY ALL criminal abortionist politicians in every country who are masquerading as Catholics.

These "Catholic" politicians have given us the deaths of 1,600,000,000 (one billion six hundred million) human beings around the world the last 45 years or so!

Enough is enough! I mean, what will it take for the Church to do this? What will it take for our movement to start demanding this?

The Church has NEVER, to my knowledge, EVER excommunicated any anti-life politician for supporting or committing any crimes against the unborn anywhere. The leaders of the unborn human rights movement in America and elsewhere have NEVER, to my knowledge, EVER demanded or requested that the Church do this.

Why not? When will we do this? What will it take?

The time has come to try to get this done. Since I believe that this is necessary for strategic victory for our cause, I think all pro-life organizations and all pro-life political leaders, not just Catholics, should join in this effort.

We could send a delegation to the Vatican. We could send one to the Papal Nunciate in Washington. We could send one to the USCCB. We could do the same in every other country in the world.

Judie, do you think this is something which can be achieved? Is this something which you and ALL would be interested in pursuing?

I would love to have your opinion on this suggestion.



Joe | January 9, 2010

---

Dear Judie, I agree with Joe. Not only is it a good idea, it is their duty. Maybe they just need to know that they have millions of Catholics supporting them in carrying it out. If there is a petition for this please count me as signed.
Mary
Mary Kuhns | January 11, 2010

---

Judie, I also have to wonder if the reason there doesn't seem to have been any public excommunications for politicians publicly promoting abortion is because even the Vatican may not fully see the personhood of the unborn. I heard the Pope asking those at war to stop and think of what they are doing. He may be assuming that those promoting abortion know he's talking about them, too. But I don't know of any fiercely anti-war people that are also fiercely anti-abortion. It seems certain that if there was a Catholic politician publicly promoting euthanasia or the death of any other "adult" person, that the Vatican would publicly excommunicate that person. It does come back to teaching everyone about the personhood of the unborn, like you've said, and said, and said. And we obviously need to keep saying.
Mary
Mary Kuhns | January 11, 2010

---

Dear Joe and all your fans

I too agree with you. I think we have a very sad state of affairs within the Church in America today. Our leaders our political, not shepherds, and the few who are strong are made to feel like lepers by their fellow bishops.

Yes, excommunication is long overdue, but when the vast majority of Bishops will not even enforce their own law, Canon 915, which requires denial of Holy Communion to public sinners, then what can we expect.

We need to lay this tragic truth at the foot of the Cross and entrust our worries and sorrows to Christ, Who is, after all, the Truth.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | January 17, 2010

---