Diocese targets Granholm on abortion

The Detroit News ^ | Friday, January 9, 2004 | Kim Kozlowski

[nickcarraway]

Detroit Cardinal Adam Maida will challenge the state

[fishbabe]

as a pro-choice catholic,jennifer granholm believes in the santicity of a minority life,but as a politician she will not foist her beliefs on others....since all white liberals,white democrats,white feminists,ku klux klan,and black leaders want to kill off all the minority babies,she is more than happy to oblige.....she would NEVER,NEVER,NEVER foist her beliefs on them....

[Jim Noble]

How is that opposing Granholm?

When my Catholic grandfather married my Lutheran grandmother, he was publically excommunicated, his name read out in church in front of his mother and his cousins.

Why don't they do the same to this baby-killer?

And what does it mean that she is a "pro-choice Catholic"?

Isn't that impossible?

[I still care]

Thanks for the information.

[sitetest]

Dear Miggsathon,

It is the consistent teaching of the Holy Catholic Church that, in principle, the state may execute offenders under certain circumstances. Even the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, a document which takes the most extreme position on the death penalty permitted by the consistent teaching of the Church, allows that the death penalty can sometimes be the moral choice.

As to enlarging the welfare state, authoritative Church teaching does not require acceptance of specific political programs or policies. Read the actual teachings of the Catholic Church, and you'll find that the Church sticks to general principles about how the economic ordering of a society ought to occur, without ever endorsing specific systems of ordering, or policies and programs related thereto. In fact, you will find, in reading the actual teachings of the Catholic Church, that the only sorts of systems that are totally condemned are collectivist in nature. The Church has authoritatively taught that socialism, communism, and other thoroughgoing, systematic collectivist systems are inherently evil, and are not legitimate for the ordering of society.

As for war, again, the Church limits herself to explication of principles. Regarding the current efforts in Iraq, Catholics have applied these principles and come up with differing conclusions. So, some Catholics think the war is unjust, according to Catholic principles. Others think that it is just according to the same principles.

But the Church teaches that it is those who hold legitimate authority in civil societies who must make the final judgement as to whether a war is just or unjust. It is a "prudential" decision, and prudential decisions lie with the individuals most competent to make them. On matters of faith and morals, and Church discipline, the individuals to whom these decisions are left are our sacred pastors, our priests, bishops, and most especially, our Holy Father. On matters of war and peace, civil order, economics, etc., the legitimate competent authorities are our political leaders. In a representative democracy, like the United States, the individuals who may legitimately make these prudential decisions are our elected leaders, in conformance with our own constitutional system of government.

Thus, a particular cleric may have an opinion of the justness of the current war, and he may express it. But his opinion isn't dispositive, and the decision for war is not his to make.

On the question of abortion, on the other hand, it is the consistent teaching of the Church that procured abortion is intrinsically evil, and can never be justified. It is the consistent teaching of the Church that it is a grave crime, and that it violates that right of the unborn human being to live. It is the consistent teaching of the Church that a just social order must not permit abortion in law, and that Catholics are always and everywhere obligated to enact just laws which protect the lives of unborn human beings.

For Catholics, the questions which you have tried to blur do, indeed, differ. Considerably.


sitetest

[sboyd]

To everyone on these subject:
I would argue that God is in favor of the death penalty. He allowed his only son to be executed by men. He also destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah using the death penalty. There are so many scriptures where death is used for punishment. Even when Moses lost his temper he was not allowed into the promised land and died before crossing the Jordan. What has changed in modern times from the past that makes the death penalty not necessary? On welfare. The Biblical philosophy has and always will be "give with thine own heart." This does not mean take. The Bible is very clear that the welfare of the people is the responsibility of the church or "faith-based." The Bible clearly defines life as starting in the womb. "I knew ye in thine mother's womb" Jeremiah 1:5. What is more innocent than a child in the womb? A convicted murderer? A rapist? The Catholic Church itself needs to deal with these subjects in their respective churches, but do not turn into an Episcopalian debating society. And one more side note, the Bible is very clear about its stance on homosexuality. What it shows here in the Canadian governor of Michigan's case is that she lacks conviction on the abortion subject. In other words, elect someone that is actually from Michigan.

[NYer]

“Please ... help preserve the greatest treasure God has given us, the gift of life itself,” Maida said in a letter to be read during Masses in Metro Detroit and 500 churches throughout the state.

Thank you, Cardinal Maida, for acting on your faith!

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[luckymom]

"a pro-choice Catholic who personally opposes abortion"

How can you be for something but against it at the same time? I know I'm simplifying the issue, and I've heard this type of claim many times, but it's hogwash. What does it mean to "personally oppose" something? That you wouldn't do it yourself? Then say that. Maybe they're afraid someone might have the cojones to publicly ask why the "personal opposition" if it's an okay thing to do, or "define what you mean by personally oppose". Could they be cornered into saying that they wouldn't "personally" kill their baby but a woman should be ABLE to do so if she wants?

[JohnnyZ]

I'm against abortion too, but would you say someone's not Catholic if he supports the death penalty? Or supports the war in Iraq? Or opposes welfare? The Catholic church talks about all those things.

For the millionth time: not equivalent.

Abortion & euthanasia: killing an innocent human being. Unquestionably great evil. Fundamental violation of natural moral law.

Death penalty: Church says govt has the right to use the death penalty, but judges life without parole better if society is still safeguarded. Gray area, judgement.

War: wars must meet just war criteria. Leaders directed to use prudential judgement. Obviously if we nuked Canada tomorrow that would be wrong, but most wars fall in gray area.

Welfare: society has a responsibility to take care of the poor. How they do that is left up to judgement. FYI, the Pope has spoken disapprovingly of "welfare state" type programs, which have demonstrably negative consequences.

[livius]

Actually, another bishop in another state has told pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians that they will be refused Communion, so progress is being made on this.

But what Maida is trying to do is actually reverse Granholm's veto of a law meant to prevent partial birth abortion. If the Cardinal is successful in this, it will be a real demonstration of pro-life committment (not only the Cardinal's, but that of Catholics in the pews). And it will save some young lives.

Of course, expect the Cardinal to be attacked for "interfering in politics," something that never seems to happen when a Dem candidate takes over a black church to make an election pitch.

[netmilsmom]

>> but I have not met any that, for instance, do regular scripture study with their kids or homeschool. <<

You just met one. How are you?

[Dajjal]

Take the next step. Deny her Communion and threaten excommunication.

Dittoes!

[Delphinium]

As a pro-choice Catholic

No such thing.

[ninenot]

Looks kinda like the Bishop Burke Flu is catching among the RC Ordinaries.

This is a nice move on Maida's part, without going quite to the position that Burke took. Of course, that's always in the quiver...

If you stop to think about this, the campaign is very well-organized and strategically elegant.

Daschle's Bishop tells Daschle to stop calling himself "Catholic" in campaign lit.

Burke explicitly denies Communion to active pro-abort legislators.

Maida goes with initiative referendum to over-ride a serious threat to human life.

All spaced out in time with PLENTY of time for the actions to 'sink in' ...

Methinks there's more to come, like open 'excommunication' letters.

TORQUEMADA LIVES!!!! LONG LIVE TORQUEMADA!!!!

[St.Chuck]

What does it mean to "personally oppose" something?

I think to personally oppose something, but publicly favor it, is to reveal an innate contempt for your fellow man. One who would not participate in something they deemed immoral, yet allow others, encourage others, make it as easy as possible for others to commit the deed is the epitome of selfishness. They acknowlege that said act is damaging to their own soul, but don't care enough about their fellow man's soul to publicly act in accordance to their own conscience's dictates. That glaring flaw in an aspiring public servant's personality should prohibit their ever attaining office. Fact is that they care nothing for the public.

[B Knotts]

You are confusing the personal opinions of some heirarchs with Catholic teaching.

You are mistaken about Church teaching (or lack thereof) on a number of issues. Nothing personal, as many, many Catholics are likewise mistaken.

[RobbyS]

The Catholic Church is against abortion because it has always been against it. Although the prohibition is not in the New Testament, Christian documents as old as the books of the New Testament explicitly treat abortion as a sin. Individual Catholics have allowed early abortion because of the mistaken belief that life began with "the quickening." Some still argue a like point, holding to the dubious doctrine that the fetus does not become a human being until its brain develops sufficiently. But this does not speak to the point that America abortion law is indifferent to the actual development of the fetus and allows the abortion even of late term fetuses. So really, men like Clark and Kerry have no relgious cover at all. They are publicly opposing one of the most ancient moral teachings of the Catholic Church.

[Miggsathon]

Absolutely. I, too, am opposed to abortion. To my knowledge, there isn't a religious doctrine anywhere that promotes "choice" in this regard.

You are wrong, though, about American abortion law being indifferent to the development of the fetus. Roe v. Wade does not guarantee the right to third-trimester abortions. That ruling takes into account the age at which fetuses could live outside the mother's womb. I still think the ruling was a sham, but you are wrong on that.

[RobbyS]

The [rtoblem is not
"Roe"but Doe vs. Bolton, which was decided the same day. "Doe" introduced the famous "health"exception, which was needed to overide the rather liberal(and recent) Georgia law. Abortionist propoganda pretended that Blackmun's famous trimester schools had effect, but as Casey makes clear, American law permits an abortion right up to the moment of birth. Ours is far more permissive than the abortion law of any European state, including Sweden.

[Miggsathon]

Specious reasoning.

"Abortion & euthanasia: killing an innocent human being. Unquestionably great evil. Fundamental violation of natural moral law."

By and large I agree. I do think euthaniasia should be allowed if (a) it involves merely taking someone OFF artificial life support, AND (b) the person made crystal clear that he didn't want his life to be prolonged artificially if he fell into a coma or some other state in which he could no longer communicate.

"Death penalty: Church says govt has the right to use the death penalty, but judges life without parole better if society is still safeguarded. Gray area, judgement."

That's about as gray as what the definition of the word "is" is. If one can receive a life sentence without the possibility of parole, then society is almost always safeguarded; therefore, in any system where such a sentence is possible, a true Catholic would never, ever support the death penalty. If one were to do so, he would have to prove that a life sentence was not sufficient to safeguard the rest of society from the criminal. Hardly anyone ever attempts that line of reasoning.

"War: wars must meet just war criteria. Leaders directed to use prudential judgement. Obviously if we nuked Canada tomorrow that would be wrong, but most wars fall in gray area."

The Pope said explicitly that the war in Iraq was wrong. How is that a gray area in any but a Clintonian way?

"Welfare: society has a responsibility to take care of the poor. How they do that is left up to judgement. FYI, the Pope has spoken disapprovingly of "welfare state" type programs, which have demonstrably negative consequences."

Yes, the Pope has cautioned about the excesses of the welfare state, yet the Pope has also envisioned a marketplace "appropriately controlled by the forces of society and the state."

Again, I'm not Catholic. I just don't like Clintonian hypocrisy.

[Miggsathon]

I didn't know about Doe! That's repugnant.