Forming the Consciences of Catholic Voters

Note: I just mailed this letter to my bishop with a copy for my parish priest and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. I hope to energize the Church... truly it is the one organization that can single-handedly save this country from its folly and do so by simply standing up for its values.

I have redacted identifying information for the bishop. I don't want to make this a personal issue about him.

My family and I attended the Rally for Life last fall. During the event, I couldn’t shake the realization that our attendance was more a futile gesture than a governmental engagement. While it’s true that we have the constitutionally-recognized right to peaceably assemble and petition our government, the power for change is exercised at the voting booth. Sadly, half of Catholics nationwide (including those who regularly attend Mass) vote for those who have implemented and sustained the abortion industry in this country.

I sent you an email prior to the recent November election through a link to your secretary online (printed and enclosed). My hope was that you would take notice of the policies of the political parties and help to form the consciences of Catholic voters. I noticed there was no impact on the preaching from the pulpit. Until I subsequently found your instructions to the parishes, I didn’t understand your position. From your letter:

There is only one major political party that supports abortion (including publicly-funded abortions).

There is only one major political party that supports publicly-funded embryonic stem cell research. This political party made this one of the cornerstones of the first 100 hours in the new Congress.

There is only one major political party that has threatened the tax-exempt status of Christian churches ¹. Notably, this challenge has been politically one-sided as Democratic candidates routinely visit churches during their campaigns to gain advantage while any opposing political action in churches is condemned.

Tax-exempt status is predicated on seven activities religious organizations must perform in order to qualify. I’m sure you are very aware of the seven. Are you aware, though, that the next challenge to our tax-exempt status is likely to come when same sex marriages are the law of the land? The provision “THE ORGANIZATION MUST NOT ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY OR ACTIVITY CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY” has been largely directed toward racial discrimination and advocacy for the violent overthrow of the government. When the time comes, the Church’s stance on same sex marriage could easily be the new argument for pulling our tax-exempt status. The silence of the Church doesn’t protect her tax-exempt status—Her silence threatens it!

Our silence as a Church is permitting the scourge of abortion and a host of other sins to plague our world. This silence isn’t ensuring our health as an organization, either. The fastest growing congregations in the world (this country is no exception) are those that are taking a hard line for the truth, even in the face of danger. Rather than hurting the Church by speaking out, I believe you would strengthen the Church beyond your imagination by taking a strong stand. I, for one, would fight tooth and nail to ensure the solvency of my parish in the face of governmental intrusion. You would find that I’m not alone.

In ten of the most populated states, Catholics comprise greater than 1/3 of the total population (including key states New York and California). Overall, we Catholics make up approx 25% of the total population of the United States. Considering that most elections are decided with only 50-60% of eligible voters actually participating, there is no reason the Church should find its values opposed in our government!

Laws are a moral exercise expressing the moral fiber of the nation. Concern over our tax status shouldn’t blunt the Church in its mission of forming the consciences of its members. There is no greater decision made by a congregation as a group than choosing political representatives. While I don’t advocate for the Church to hold bake sales promoting their choice of candidates, Church leaders should consider it a sacred duty to inform their flock of the wolves in wool. Failing in this duty gives us what we now see—Catholics actively supporting candidates who claim solidarity while opposing their morality.

Catholic voters have had their recent generations indoctrinated by the media (in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee, the ACLU, et al) into believing the Democratic Party is the Catholic party of John F. Kennedy. A compliant clergy in their home districts, administering the sacraments to politicians who take public positions contrary to their espoused faith, enables this fiction. Only the education, ministry, and voice of the Church can correct this lie. Please don’t allow so many to flounder for the sake of appeasing the government which continues to make war on us. Our ecclesiastical hierarchy should be at the forefront of denouncing those politicians who call themselves Catholic to garner our votes yet publicly promote policy positions anathema to our Church. Notable among these are John F. Kerry (who admitted during his second debate with George W. Bush in 2004 that under his administration public funds would have supported abortions) and Nancy Pelosi (who is the Speaker of the House pushing legislation legalizing same sex marriage and federal funds for embryonic stem cell research—and has been one of the most ardent Congressional supporters of abortion). In open scandal, Pelosi was publicly administered the Eucharist during a Mass at Trinity University in January in celebration of her elevation to Speaker of the House. It was a media-orchestrated event!

I don’t expect that you have the authority in such matters outside of your diocese. I think it would help the faithful, though, to hear denunciations of open scandal. There are scores of Catholics in this country who do not support the Church financially, many who do not attend Mass regularly, and others who even doubt their own faith. Why? Fundamentally, the root cause is a lack of leadership. If the Church isn’t scandalized and opposing those who openly sin and claim ecclesiastical support ², then the faithful have reason to doubt the faith and conviction of their Church leaders.

The collective silence of the Church in the 2006 election took one of the single greatest arrows from our quiver—judicial nominations. In the face of a Congress unwilling to criticize and rein in an out of control judiciary, the nomination of Constitutionalist judges was key to overturning the landmark abortion case Roe vs Wade. The Democratic takeover of the Senate last year essentially assures that President Bush will make no more replacements on the Supreme Court—despite expected vacancies. Although untested in this area, his selections of Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito appear to be steps in the right direction. When our Constitution is strictly adjudicated as written, the right to life is assured.

Throughout Church history, the members of her hierarchy have had to educate the ruling elites and nobility regarding ethical and compassionate governance. In this country, that education is better directed at the voters who choose their representatives in government. When we “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” it is important to remember that in this country, we are Caesar. We won’t win our fight against the evils of abortion, homosexual marriage, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia demonstrating on the grasses of the square. We will win when our priests have the courage and authority to denounce the elected officials and political parties who champion these programs.

A simple reading of the major party platforms shows which party deserves to be rejected by Catholics with formed consciences. You don’t have to endorse one party to point out the flaws of the other. You don’t have to take direct advocacy of any position other than that of the Church and Her Teaching Authority. If either major party believed they risked alienating 25% of the voting population, they would be more mindful of their policies—and conform. If the Church would focus Her efforts on real change through thorough voter education, we would be able to devote more time and effort to worship and works of mercy rather than holding impotent rallies to protest public policies which should never have been.

I would welcome the chance to discuss this with you more, as your schedule permits.

Footnotes:
1. www.lifesite.net, Friday April 21, 2006 “Howard Dean to Churches: Give up Religion or Stay out of Politics to Keep Tax Exempt Status”

2. www.lifesite.net, Tuesday, January 16, 2007 “HLI Leader Says: "I don't believe Archbishop Wuerl is doing his job"

We are headed into a contentious and consequential election. Although we would all like to look at our elected representatives as individuals and not make decisions based on party affiliation, I feel the need to share some basic truths about the parties that you may have overlooked in your individual focus. It is a fact that the victorious representatives will in all likelihood vote for their own party leadership in Congress. Therefore, a vote for a Republican is a vote for Republican leadership and a vote for a Democrat is a vote for Democratic leadership--Nancy Pelosi would be second in succession to the Presidency. Additionally, a vote for a Republican enables the GOP platform to find its way into public policy while a vote for a Democrat is a vote for their party platform to carry the day.

Please take a few minutes to read what I have compiled below. There are five moral issues enumerated in "The Voters Guide for Serious Catholics" that are considered non-negotiable by the book's researchers. The write-ups on the particular issues are taken from their guide--with embellishments by me in some cases. I'm sure that my Protestant friends will recognize that we don't disagree much on these issues. The additional work I have done is to research the party platforms in relation to these issues. Note that the party platforms change at the parties' national nominating conventions when they choose their presidential candidates. Therefore, the current platforms are from the 2004 election cycle.

When reading below, remember: a vote for a Democrat is a vote for their national platform...

According to the Church, abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide. The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins.

Page 38, para 4: "Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

Page 84 (under the primary heading "Promoting a Culture of Life"): As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."

Page 25: "Republicans continue to oppose the ideological campaign against participation by the Vatican in United Nations conferences and other activities. The United Nations was created to benefit all peoples and nations, not to promote a radical agenda of social engineering. Any effort to address global social problems must be firmly placed within a context of respect for the fundamental social institutions of marriage and family. We reject any treaty or convention that would contradict these values. For that reason, we support protecting the rights of families in international programs and oppose funding organizations involved in abortion."

Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia is also a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person. In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person.

Page 84: "We oppose the non-consensual withholding of care or treatment because of disability, age, or infirmity, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which especially endanger the poor and those on the margins of society."

Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo". Recent scientific advances show that medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells have not shown promise. Rather, scientific work with adult stem cells have shown promise in treating 72 conditions--without doing harm to another human being. There is no valid argument (neither moral nor scientific) in favor of using embryonic stem cells. Even if there were, it would still not justify destroying one group of humans to cure another.

Page 31, para 5: "President Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve and Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy."

Page 67, para 1: "We strongly support the President's policy that prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to encourage the future destruction of human embryos. In addition, we applaud the President's call for a comprehensive ban on human cloning and on the creation of human embryos solely for experimentation."

Attempts... for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through 'twin fission', cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union. Human cloning also involves abortion because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" embryonic clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.

The 2004 Democratic Platform is silent on this issue. The GOP Platform is not, as shown in the previous section.

True marriage, as ordained by God at our creation, is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

Page 38, para 7: "We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families."

Page 83: "We strongly support President Bush's call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage. Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states."

Although the guide from which this information is culled extols its readers to not choose a candidate based on party affiliation, I think you can understand my reasons for using it in this way. Your vote will help determine the agenda this country will pursue... and which party platform will set that agenda. This election is too important to the future of our country! The next Senate will either consent to President Bush's Constitutionalist judicial nominees or block them until the next administration is sworn. It will either promote our Christian values or oppose them.

In addition to what I have written here, I encourage you to review your state party platforms. Here is the contrast in North Carolina:

NC Democratic Party Platform includes the following: "We believe that we should focus on preventing unintended pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion through increasing access to family planning services, access to affordable birth control including emergency contraception and by providing comprehensive age-appropriate sex education. Furthermore, abortion must be safe, legal, accessible to all North Carolina women regardless of ability to pay; therefore, the State abortion fund should be fully funded and accessible to indigent women.

2. The ideal environment for raising children is a two-parent family where a husband and wife live in harmony in one home. We support all reasonable efforts to help families remain intact. We praise the courageous efforts of single parents who work hard to provide stable homes. We recognize that single parents often succeed and that two-parent families sometimes fail.

3. We believe homosexual behavior is not normal and should not be taught as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle either in public education or in public policy. We do not believe public schools should be used to teach children that homosexual behavior is normal. We do not believe that taxpayers should fund benefit plans for unmarried partners. We oppose special treatment by law based on homosexual behavior or identity. We support federal and state constitutional amendments to ensure that marriage is limited to the union of one man and one woman. We oppose attempts to legitimize homosexual relationships by placing such relationships on an equal footing with marriage. We oppose the adoption or foster parenting of children by same sex couples.

2. We believe unborn children have constitutional rights to life and liberty, and we therefore urge the Supreme Court to overturn its decision in Roe vs. Wade. We also support the adoption of a human life amendment to the constitution. We stand with the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose efforts to mandate legalized abortion or to fund local, national, or international organizations that provide or promote abortion services. Abortion is never an acceptable method of birth control.

"The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights--for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture--is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination" -- Pope John Paul II, "Christifideles Laici"

"While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." -- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (before he was Pope Benedict XVI)

Encourage your bishops, priests and pastors to educate their flocks. Then think... and pray... before you vote.

then you are doing Gods work. And you are saving your own Church at the same time.

Its not as though becoming ordained gives a person political intelligence or insight after all. And, like all men, they are flawed and do wrong. I only get involved when they prove that they will not seek redemption for no longer representing their congregants and their faith and seek instead to represent a political agenda.

I’ve been in the employee of two former member of the US Catholic Council. They were very good men. And they were completely uninvolved with politicians about anything that didn’t affect the Church in the U.S. or the ability of the faithful to safely practice in the U.S. or elsewhere that we could create influence. We were way, way, way too busy to be getting involved in things like immigration, welfare, the death penalty or even abortion.

also, let me apologize because I said that ‘the church has decided that increasing the number of illegal aliens....’. That is a misstatement of the truth and also of my views. (Hey, I’m not the first person to misquote myself).

What I meant and should have typed was ‘some Priests in the Church have decided...’. While the idea of not recognizing borders is something the Vatican does practice regularly, it is not advocating anarchy in any specific case and has not (to my knowledge) made a statement that the US should open its border and bend over for Mexico.

I would like to see the Los Angeles Archbishop move to Mexico City though. He seems to be very concerned for the welfare of all people south of our border and I think he would be much more effective if he went to them instead of trying to get them all to come to Los Angeles to join him. And it would be nice if he’d stop hanging around with socialists and abortionists.

there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.

Clearly no one in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church ever read Ludwig von Mises. If they did they'd know how wrong this statement is.

No. Considering I was raised Protestant and would not consider myself a Catholic, but I have learned much about my faith by reading the words of Pope Benedict XVI and John Paul II.

Unless you filled out a pile of paperwork and had a hearing in front of a panel.........you are still a Catholic.

You can come back to the Catholic Church at any time. Sounds like you need to sit down with a priest who knows a lot about adult formation and ask him your questions.

There are also classes for returning Catholics in many parishes. No strings are attached. You can attend the classes and get updated.

Now............what is it that had you so angry that you made this (supposed) move away from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church?

No thanks. I haven’t considered myself as a Catholic for over 20 years and don’t intend on ever returning. The more I learn about God the more I realise what a sham the Catholic Church is.

**If Catholics were as solidly Republican as white Baptists, then New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts would be among the most Republican states in the nation. If only it were true.**

From your lips to God’s ears. I think all the Catholics here on FR feel the same.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.