Skip Navigation Links
Home
Donate
Free News via Email
Subscribe for a Friend
Send News Tip
Contact Us
Search
About Us
Is California Catholic Daily important to you?
You can help keep us online!
Advertise with us
Currently more than 150,000 visitors read CalCatholic.com
Churches Worth Driving To

* Submit Your Church *

News from the Trenches
I Couldn’t Do It...
Notes from a
Cultural Madhouse
The End...
Theology. Learn it, live it.
Speech Police! Destruction of language.
St. Joseph. Getting to know him.
CLASSIFIED ADS
San Jose & SF Bay Area - Catholic Funeral and Cemetery Preplanning: Reasonable costs and pay...(read more)
For Sale, burial plot, San Jose: Rare, very exclusive double internment burial plot. Fo...(read more)
Federal Nursing Home Reform Act: A summary of long term care laws regarding the aged and inf...(read more)
See All Classified Ads
Submit Classified Ad
CALENDAR
Covina - A Catholic Men's Conference - from Boys to Men: Presented by St. Joseph Commun...(read more)
Yorba Linda - 16th Annual Mary’s Shelter Golf Tournament: Wedn., Sept. 15, Black G...(read more)
Big Bear - Sacred Heart Retreat Camp Family Work Weekend: Fri., Sept. 3 - Sun.read more)
See All Calendar Items
Submit Calendar Item
LATEST FEEDBACK
Local Martyr I don't know about all of you, but I usually don't wear a dr... [RR - 9/2/2010 4:38:02 PM]
Anti-Catholicism of another era? Yes, Mother Mary has a special love for Muslims, as She does... [C.B. - 9/2/2010 3:48:11 PM]
How to Avoid Witchcraft or X-rated Films for Your Kids Dennis B: you wrote that if parents could afford Catholic sc... [Sawyer - 9/2/2010 3:34:56 PM]
Don Bosco relics to stop in San Francisco JLS, actually I try to stay away from political discussions ... [Mark from PA - 9/2/2010 3:29:37 PM]
“Clearly at odds with fundamental Catholic teachings” Some people idolize professors!! Yuck!!!... [Ski Ven - 9/2/2010 3:15:02 PM]

Links to Other Sites
Prior Site Archives
Article Archives

“My Obama-heresy”

Catholic law professor who endorsed Obama talks to national press about California incident in which he was denied communion


An April incident in which a priest denied communion to Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec at a Mass for the Ventura/LA North chapter of Legatus, a group made up of well-to-do Catholics in business, has made it onto the pages of the Washington Post.

Kmiec, a former legal counsel to presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and who once served as dean of the law school at the Catholic University of America, stunned many of his Catholic colleagues in March when he endorsed Barack Obama for president in an article written for Slate magazine.

On April 18, less than a month after Kmiec’s endorsement of Obama appeared on the pages of Slate, an unnamed college chaplain refused to give him communion at the Legatus meeting. “Kmiec said Catholic bloggers told him he had excommunicated himself for supporting Obama,” wrote syndicated religion columnist Cary McMullen on May 24, citing a Kmiec essay elsewhere on the Internet. “Then, at a Mass before a dinner at which Kmiec was to speak, he said, ‘a very angry college chaplain excoriated my Obama-heresy from the pulpit at length and then denied my receipt of communion.’”

On June 3, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne joined the fray with a piece entitled, “For an 'Obamacon,' Communion Denied.” ‘Obamacon’ is a phrase coined to describe conservatives who support Obama.

“Word spread like wildfire in Catholic circles: Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied Communion,” wrote Dionne. “His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president. For at least one priest, Kmiec's support for a pro-choice politician made him a willing participant in a grave moral evil.”

Dionne described the Kmiec incident as “the opening shot in an argument that could have a large impact on this year's presidential campaign: Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny Communion to those supporting candidates who favor abortion rights?”

Kmiec, says Dionne, “is supporting Obama despite the candidate's position on abortion, not because of it, partly in the hope that Obama's emphasis on personal responsibility in sexual matters might change the nature of the nation's argument on life issues.”

Kmiec told Dionne: "To think you have done a generous thing for your neighbor or that you have built up a culture of life just because you voted for a candidate who says in his brochure that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade is far too thin an understanding of the Catholic faith."

According to Dionne, Kmiec told him the name of the priest who refused to give him communion, but asked that he not be named “to protect the cleric from public attack.” And, although the column did not name the group Legatus, Dionne said Kmiec showed him “a letter of apology from the organizers of the event.”


READER COMMENTS

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 4:55 AM By Eileen
This absolutely proves that a Catholic in name only law professor, has either never grasped or has shamefully abandoned the interpretation of God's Laws. How can Douglas Kmiec ignore the fact that pro- death Obama wants helpless little babies, (who have survived a first attempt of being killed by abortion) killed more effectively? Look at the evil veil that supposedly learned men have placed over their eyes and hearts. The exemplary priest who denied Douglas Kmiec the Blessed Sacrament did the "spiritually correct" thing not the politically correct charade that offends God's Laws. I don't even believe Mr.Kmiec's claim that he wants to "protect the cleric who denied him Communion, from public attack". Mr. Kmiec supports the "public attack" on every helpless babiy when he endorses Obama. Was that letter of apology to Mr. Kmiec from Legatus members? I hope not. "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet lose his very soul in the process". Mr. Kmiec is the one who has "far too thin" an understanding of the Catholic faith and the highest laws that are legislated by Almighty God, the ultimate Proffesor of Truth.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 5:25 AM By Nigel
I was very saddened to hear of Prof. Kmiec's endorsement of Obama. Even if he were anti-abortion, Obama is singularly unqualified to be president of the United States. That aside, and not being a theologian or canon lawyer, it seems to be that the chaplain overreacted. Prof. Kmiec's endorsement of Obama explicitly noted that he hoped that his involvement in the campaign would help move the senator's thinking in the direction of Church teaching. I believe that is a fatuous hope, as Obama has shown himself to be singularly incapable of accomodating ideas or policies that do not reflect his existing world view (which is more pro-abortion than any other member of Congress). It seems to me, therefore, that however wrong headed, Prof. Kmiec's reasons for supporting Obama do not constitute a deliberate or even sophistic rejection of the Church's teaching on abortion. The one's who should not be receiving communion are the Kennedys, Kerrys, Cuomos and others who flaunt their positions on this issue.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 5:26 AM By Mary Ann Kreitzer
Well, good for the priest. It is refreshing to know there is still one man left in the California priesthood!

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 5:33 AM By WB
There may be a candidate somewhere who supports the legalization of pedophilia or slavery. According to Kmiec, it would be fine to vote for that person if he opposed the war in Iraq. That's moral relativism. It may be "conservative" (whatever that means) but the priest was right to forbid him from receiving Communion. Kmiec tries to joke about his "Obama heresy" -- but it's sad to see that he doesn't have much depth in his grasp of the Faith. Like a lot of "well-to-do Catholics in business", its about power, politics, prestige and advantage of some kind -- the Faith takes a back seat.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 5:52 AM By Dave
Seems to me that his deceit on the understanding of "Remote Material Cooperation" in a public forum, while perhaps not enough to justify the denial of communion, is certainly enough to justify his bishop taking a look. At any rate, it is the bishop, not the Washington Post or the NCR that has the say in the matter.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 6:18 AM By Cyrus Johnson
This man Kmiec seems to be very good at publicizing himself. Sad that he does not realize he is an implement. He is intent on achieving his objectives. Meanwhile he is supporting evil.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 6:18 AM By E. Mae
Thank God for this priest. We need our priests to be courageous to stand up and deny communion when needed. What Kmiec did is a scandal. If he felt that way about Obama, Kmiec should have kept silent. Obama's pro-abortion stance is just one of many reasons not to vote for him.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 6:34 AM By Grisha
Given that pro-life efforts on a policy level have largely failed for decades, Kmiec's exploration of a new direction my have merit.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 8:17 AM By Maria C
.” ‘Obamacon’ is a phrase coined to describe conservatives who support Obama. You can't be called a conservative and support Obama. There is no such thing. Obama, in my opinion, is the most liberal and most dangerous candidate next to Hillary. Praise God for these truly hero's of the church who deny communion to people in high postions. To deny communion is actually doing them a favor because you cannot receive our Lord when one is in grave sin.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 8:39 AM By Tom Byrne
Why does a chaplain have to do the job the bishops should have done long ago? Until the Democratic Party at least de-sanctifies its support for the mass murder of infants (and in charity we must so hope), voting for a modern Democrat is no different than voting for a Nazi. Or do we really believe abortion is as evil as it is?

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 9:01 AM By Patrick
ABOUT TIME...

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 9:24 AM By John L. Sillasen
*** Like a lot of "well-to-do Catholics in business", its about power, politics, prestige and advantage of some kind -- the Faith takes a back seat.*** (WB): Which seems to say that these people use Catholicism as their slave.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 9:26 AM By Vincent DiCarlo
Kmiec is probably not as stupid as his reasons for supporting Obama sound, so he's either got a screw loose or he's being dishonest. Charity requires that we assume the former until proven otherwise, but the apparently lighthearted approach that Kmiec is taking toward this whole thing is not encouraging.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 9:32 AM By garvan
It should serve as a wake-up call to Kmiec that he was denied Communion. That said, can anyone cite just one instance in which a well-known liberal Democrat politician was similarly denied Communion?

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 9:33 AM By John L. Sillasen
The Obama, Clinton, Clinton triumvirate ... well, who would not want to jump aboard for the noble purpose of infusing Catholic values into it? After all, the conversion of these people is only a click away, right? This politician is the one who will save the world by making the next regime a loyal servant of the Church. Once he gains Obama's ear, you will see Obama don sackcloth and ashes and paddle a rowboat over to the Vatican to receive absolution from the Pope.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 9:40 AM By John L. Sillasen
More accurately, it is "obama-com", the "com" standing for communist. These people actually are conservative in the sense that conservatism refers to a government leader, whether bad or good. Liberalism refers to everyone being a leader. Obama is part of the movement that merges the two concepts, changes it from the traditional way of looking at polarized politics, and it becomes tyranny politics, where ideas such as liberal and conservative can be found in the dumpster, no longer having any practical value to the ruling elite. The "American Experiment" differed only in having rulership elected by the public with a written foundation. It has ceased to be this other than in name only. Call it DINO (democracy in name only), or RINO (republic in name only), or OTPBTPFTPINO (of the people, by the people, for the people in name only), or FINO (freedom in name only), ETCINO (etc in name only).

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 10:01 AM By Mark Gauer
You obviously only want to print pro-catholic comments. You are as gutless as the so-called leaders of the catholic church

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 10:06 AM By Papamac
Thank God a Priest has stood up for the Catholic Faith. Babblingbabama and the friends we now know he hangs out with are the most dangerous people America has ever had to deal with as a Presidential candidate, his biggest supporter, SATAN. MGB

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 10:09 AM By Cyrus Johnson
Many are not "Obamacons" but Obamacons some.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 10:19 AM By Jan Wnek
John Sillasen, MP and Chris Zehnder: who are you voting for in the presidential race? I'd love to know, because I'm sure your candidate would meet all of Jesus' "standards" as interpreted by you.......please tell us, so that we can all be voting in accordance with the "magisterium" .....pace e bene, Jan

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 10:57 AM By Christopher Zehnder
It is far from clear to me that the priest in question had any right to deny communion to Dr. Kmiec. I've written about this on CCD's weblong, Notes from a Cultural Madhouse -- not the communion incident, but the reasons why the Church does not necessarily forbid voting for or endorsing a pro-abortion candidate under certain, limited circumstances. I think Dr. Kmiec is quite wrong-headed in endorsing Obama -- and, for that matter, he would be quite wrong-headed in endorsing McCain, a man who believes it permissible to kill babies for stem-cell research. Anyway, the Madhouse article is "A fatally flawed and fatuous judgement," at http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=0e24cc28-c021-4db8-8162-cf1eb90a1610. (Or go an click on "Notes from a Cultural Madhouse" in the left bar on this page, scroll down to the tenth article from the top.)

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 11:00 AM By David ND
Jan, Why don't you tell us who you are voting for? Then we can all debate about which politician is less evil than the other. Or how about this why don't we all get together and argue about which politician wants to de-value life more. Then we can all get together and blame the Pope, the Church, God and everything in between...except ourselves. Why do people insist on arguing for the support of evil regardless of which side of the aisle supports their pocketbook? Jan it is called denial in case you were wondering.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 11:07 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Wnek, I could very easily reply, "it's none of your business whom I'm voting for." We do have a secret ballot, you know. But I shall indulge your sincere interest. I'll not vote for Mr. Obama. I'll not vote for Mr. McCain. I'll not vote for any third party candidates, nor shall I write in your name, Mr. Wnek. I shall vote (drumroll, please), for Mr. Joe Schriner of Cleveland, Ohio -- the only presidential candidate ever to eat supper in my home and to hook up his van conversion to a plug on my front porch. You may read about Joe at voteforjoe.com. Or, if you are interested, I wrote an article about him in 2006 ("Not a Stunt, Catholic Presidential Candidate Takes the Back Roads"), which you may read at http://www.losangelesmission.com//ed/articles/2006/0606cz.htm

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 11:48 AM By Jan Wnek
Christopher, David, et.al.: As a Christian anarchist, whose only allegiance is to the kingdom of God, I'm a "conscientious abstainer"...I'm also one of those disciples of Jesus who is really "pro-life"..both "in utero" and "extra utero"...those who are only "pro-life" when it comes to abortion (in utero) should properly call themselves "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life"...calling them "pro-life" is a misnomer.... Pace e bene, Jan

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 11:55 AM By WB
The bishop or parish priest is permitted by Canon Law to withhold communion from a member of the faithful -- as was done in this case. The Canon Lawyers at the St. Joseph's Foundation point this out. It's perfectly legitimate. http://www.sffaith.com/ed/articles/2003/0403gn.htm Since the option to vote for a pro-abortion candidate is only permitted in rare and limited circumstances, the faithful should consult with their priest or spiritual director before making a decision like that. Is it worth risking one's salvation merely to have your own choice in an election process? When one considers that a vote for a pro-abortion candidate contributes to the murder of many children, the answer to that question for myself is very easy.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 11:57 AM By WB
--- Which seems to say that these people use Catholicism as their slave. --- excellent point, John Sillasen. Agreed, that is what they do. Using Christ for the cloak of respectability and prestige -- so that He would obey them. It's quite similar to what Herod and Judas wanted also.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 12:42 PM By John F. Maguire
The yahoos--by my present count almost a dozen of them--have it wrong again. In the internal forum, only the voter knows whether he or she is voting in a manner that extinguishes the life of grace in the soul, say, (1) by voting for a candidate *because* that candidate is an abortocrat on the question of preborn life, or (2) by voting against a candidate on account of that candidate's ethnicity. Both (1) and (2), every Catholic should know, are mortal sins. What precisely then is the error of the yahoos? They fail to acknowledge that in the process of conscience-formation there is always the possibility of bifurcation: namely, between the veridical (or true) conscience, on the one hand, and the upright (but possibly not true) conscience, on the other hand. Furthermore, in their naivete, these writers fail to understand that in the practical order (the practical political order) this divergence in conscience-formation (Is my judgment both upright and veridical, or only simply upright?) is highly problematic. From within this perspective, Douglas Kmiec is well within his rights to take up the political position that he has. Moreover, to require such certainty in the contingent order of politics that would go beyond moral certainty itself--simply for the purpose of jawboning Catholics against voting for Obama--constitutes a grave misunderstanding of the Catholic theology of conscience-formation.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 12:55 PM By Elizabeth
May all Bishops and other Priests follow the wonderful example of this true shepherd!!! ALLELUIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 12:56 PM By Christopher Zehnder
WB, But Dr. Kmiec seems to think that this election presents us with one of those "rare and limited circumstances." That is a prudential judgement -- perhaps a wrong-headed one -- bua permissible one for Catholics to make. We do not know if Dr. Kmiec consulted a confessor or not; but he is not required to. A layman can be capable of making a right prudential decision without the aid of a clerical advisor.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 2:23 PM By Ted
I guess most of the above commentators have never heard of the USCCB pasoral letter on conscience formation and the political decision making process. While emphasizing the importance of abortion and the life ethic, it points out that many other issues of social justice also need to be considered. Kmiec is well within that teaching. The priest was wrong to deny him communion for his political choice.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 2:40 PM By Kurt
With the reports of this incident now making the general media, this priest has driven more votes to Barack Obama than Kmiec and twenty Democratic precinct captains ever could hope to. Dionne and other liberal reporters are working overtime to spread this story and looking for more such incidents to fill the pages of the daily newspapers. By January, we will have the smaller and more orthodox church the Pope made reference to, and an Obama presidency.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 2:42 PM By WB
If Dr. Kmiec is wrong then he is so on a very serious matter. To be a public figure as he is, and to make his political decisions a matter of the public record -- defending himself in the media, one can say that is is a "prudential" matter but it is not entirely subjective. Ignorance plays a part. The conscience may be misinformed and the person believes there is no choice but to vote for the pro-abortion candidate. Objectively, this may be an error. A person is not strictly required to seek clarification. But how does the person claim to be fully informed enough about the decision without seeking guidance from the Church or one's confessor? If the argument that one uses to justify voting for a pro-abortion candidate is faulty on moral or other grounds, the person can still be free to make the decision because of a mal-formed conscience. But it will be the wrong decision (not sinful) in its effect. One cannot form a true consicence independent from the Church. I'd question Mr. Kmiec's sincerity if he refused any spiritual counsel before going public with his support for a rabidly-pro-abortion candidate.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 2:57 PM By WB
Again, in the extreme examples that I used -- a candidate that supports the legalization of pedophilia, slavery, genocide against the Jews ... a high degree of moral certainty in the contingent order of politics is very easy to attain. One can look at the history of government persecution of the Church to see other examples. The German bishops excommunicated all members of the Nazi party (early on). Catholics cannot join the Freemasons for good political reasons. White supremacists have been excommunicated (Leander H Perez). In 1949 the Holy See stated that communism's denial of the existence of God posed such a threat to the faith that Catholics who collaborated with communism were automatically excommunicated. Apparently, this was done by "yahoos" that didn't respect the internal forum of Catholics at the time.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 3:09 PM By John L. Sillasen
Priests are ultimately carrying out the will of Christ, and are secondarily subject to the Law. How do we know that the priest was not obeying the real time command of God to withhold Communion? I'd go with the priest in this case; since withholding would not really jeopardize Kmiec. If the unlikely case of Kmiec dying before his next Communion, then God would judge him on his heart; if, he did not die, which is the case, then he had the option of going somewhere else to receive Communion, either later that day or anytime following. So, the way I see it is that the priest was making a public statement regarding sin and salvation in relation to a public figure aligned with a politician hostile to the Church. If the politician was embarrassed, so what.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 3:24 PM By John L. Sillasen
Yet, there is an attractive side to Kmiec's position. It is the embodiment that there is something for Catholics to hope for in Obama to a much greater extent than in McCain. But this is merely Obama's touted "JFK charisma". Kmiec comes across as a lawyer, not an idealist. If the nation could be quickly ruined by Obama, then the same could also be said of McCain. I think those of practical and immediate persuasions are lining up in such ways to control damage while at the same time influence their man towards the better goals. In this sense, I wouldn't advocate denying Communion to an otherwise faithful Catholic. Unless Kmiec has issues contradictory to faith, such as with Kennedy and that bunch, then his position is tenable. It would be also tenable if he were to have endorsed McCain. Both are high risk candidates, who need all the rational support possible to keep their anticipated destruction to a minimum. I think it is a sound decision, a viable opinion upon which he acted. Yet, I would not dismiss the possibility that the priest, in his dimension "in persona cristi", was not obeying a direct order from God ... he had the canonical option under Church law and guideline. To judge him according to what is written that governs his decisions is one thing; but not the only thing.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 3:32 PM By Ann
Benedict XVI gave some guidance voting: As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today: - protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; - recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role; - the protection of the right of parents to educate their children. Also Mr. Kmiec did all very publically. Public Cathilic plus public Obama supporter equals scandal.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 3:41 PM By Margaret
Ted: The USCCB made itself irrelevant by trying to equate the killing of the unborn with capital punishment. The "consistent ethic of life" was nothing more than an attempt by the Conference to make it OK for Catholics to keep voting for Democrats. Abortion and capital punishment are not morally equivalent and my Catholic high school freshman can explain to you and Dr. Kmiec why this is so.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 3:42 PM By Miguel
Please tell us the priest's name so that we can honor him!! If only we had more Bishops like him!!

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 4:12 PM By Anne
Thank God for this anonymous priest. May God give us more of them. He is one of my heroes.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 4:44 PM By Jackster
God gave us the right to choose life or death, blessing or curse. The Professor choose death, so he cannot partake of life unless he repents. Kudos to the priest for protecting Jesus in the Eucharist

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 4:54 PM By Mark M.
Hooray!! A priest with some backbone!

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 4:55 PM By John F. Maguire
WB appears to suppose that Professor Kmiec would not have formed an upright conscience had he not availed himself of "spiritual counsel" beforehand. This "clericist" misapprehension is mistaken for several reasons, not least that it scants the special competence of the laity in political matters. Where, as here, not a single member of the Supreme Court has deigned to recognize preborn infants as "persons" for the purposes of constitutional law; where, as here, the Court at best is inclined to return the matter to the states (as if the states had standing to strip preborn infants of legal personeity); where, further, there is some indication of a qualitative distinction between the Terry McAuliffe/Hillary Clinton position on abortion and that of Barack Obama, then yes, as Grisha puts it, Professor Kmiec's "exploration of a new direction may [indeed] have merit."

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 6:20 PM By WB
The priest can make a prudential judgement as well in this case. Kmiec could be seen as being in violation of Canon 1389 -- "A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church." Mr. Kmiec has recourse to a canonical inquiry if he thinks he has been wronged. He's a lawyer so he should know that.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 6:52 PM By AnnCA
Here is an old letter on denial of Holy Communion by one Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger *ahem* http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=27852&wf=rsscol

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 6:53 PM By BJ
Absolutely ridiculous. Are Catholic priests in Germany going to deny communion to those who supported Hilter? This is mixing religion and politics in the worst way. And where did this worthy obtain his permission to act in such an unchristian manner and abuse the power of his priesthood? From the Bishop? From the Pope?

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 6:57 PM By AnnCA
This is a very strict interpretation of the policy on denying Holy Communion. I suspect it is because Prof. Kmiec is so high profile. Perhaps there is additional behind the scenes information of which we are not aware. The situation is difficult because politicians like Pelosi and friends receive despite actually voting for abortion legislation. That aside, I cannot see how a Catholic could in good conscience vote for Obama. He is a the opposite of many things for which we stand. There is zero chance the most vehement supporter of abortion in Congress is going to "change his mind."

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 8:09 PM By Jack Ripper
About DAMN TIME!!

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 8:22 PM By John L. Sillasen
Kmiec is not heading up a new direction. He is certainly a secular leader, but he cannot be considered a Catholic leader. As has been stated, the Church has the responsibililty to protect life. The political choices at this time do not. There are no viable choices for a Catholic to vote for at this time, viable in the sense of being able to win the presidency. Whose fault is this? It is the laity who has put their false hopes in false prophets. Why is this? Obviously it is because they have allowed themselves to be led astray from the truth. Now the consequences are at hand. If Obama wins, we will be under greater subjectivity to communists, muslims, and perverts; same with McCain. There are those who entertain the fantasy that the Republican party is pro-life, pro-family, and pro-U.S.: there is no evidence to demonstrate this hope. The public does not as a voting bloc desire to protect these things. If it did, then it would do so, as the Constitution gives the power to Congress to make laws and restrict Court jurisdiction ... the fact we have abortion in this nation is the fault of the voters and those they have elected to Congress. The same fault for the terrible choice for president holds. No words can change this fact. Kmiec is not heading up a new direction. We see today a restricting of free speech ... this move is coming to the fore just in time to protect the tyrants who will soon be leading the empire. Maybe the priest was given the go ahead by the bishop.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 9:33 PM By John L. Sillasen
Religion and politics cannot be separated; believing so is the cause of the pathetic state of moral affairs of this nation today.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 10:03 PM By John L. Sillasen
Studying into it a bit further, what appears to be shaping up in this election run is an interesting reshuffling of strategies. Responsible ruler types see that, as I mentioned previously, both candidates carry signicant risk; one is a communist and the other a classic warrior. Either one could sink this nation in a flash. Neither one seems to have the authority apparatus necessary to present more public confidence than the low amount visible now. So, what is to be done? There is, in other words, a big opening in both campaigns for policy counselors. Since Obama is so off the board radical, and the public loves it, whether responsible or not, those like Kmiec would tend to try to fill the void. That is what Kmiec in effect says, that he wants to help direct Obama's policies and executive decisions. Both candidates have little going for them other than rhetoric and anything is ok deal making. They both are leaders in this kind of thing, because that is what the public wants. Regardless of which one we're strapped with, we are going to survive as a nation according to the minds and morals most influencing the one in the big chair. Relating this view to the topic of the priest denying Communion to Kmiec ... let's see how Kmiec handles this, his first test.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 10:28 PM By Joseph
Abortion Kills. Obama Supports Abortion. One Cannot be Both Catholic and for Abortion. For the sake of millions of unborn children and our immortal souls, CATHOLICS MUST VOTE NO BAMA IN 2008 !

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 12:14 AM By j
The saddest thing to me is that Kmiec sites Obama's "willingness to reach across the aisle" as one reason why he supports him. What, specifically has Obama done to reach out to conservatives? He is all rhetoric, no substance. Sad that Kmiec has gotten caught up in the hoopla so easily. You would think he would know better.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 3:21 AM By Terry Washington
Depends how you see it. If you believe that supporting a "pro-choice" politician is morally reprehensible even if you are anti-abortion ( as I am), then the Church in order to be morally consistent across the board has to refuse communion to "pro-choice" politicians irrespective of partisan affiliation. As California's Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is avowedly pro-choice(and has NOT been threatened with denial of the sacrament), that priest's action smells sharply of partisan prejudice! The whole business of excommunicating people for politics is arguably skewed by political prejudice( ie. in 1949, Pope Pius XII excommunicated Catholics who publicly supported or were members of the Communist Party but declined to do so for the Nazis including Adolf Hitler).

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 4:32 AM By Chris
Thank God for this Priest who is protecting and defending our Lord in the Holy Eucharist! He is following the Holy Father, who stated that, according to Canon Law 915, those who publically persist in manifest grave sin (supporting those who support or commit abortion) should be denied Holy Communion. The Bishops have yet to get in line with the Holy Father. How long will they remain disobedient without consequences?

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 6:00 AM By Madeline
As the bumpersticker on the back of my car says, "You Can't Be Christian and Pro-Abortion." It's really that simple. God bless that priest. We need more like him.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 6:48 AM By 4unborn
Cardinal George should not allow Fr. Pfleger to give or receive Holy Communion.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 8:11 AM By richard
I am trying to figure out why a "conservative" is supporting barack hussein obama. Not to mention the "conservative" is a "catholic." Do people not realize that if you are catholic you are not permitted to endose a pro choice candidate?

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 9:14 AM By Jim
At this point in our Nation's history, a well informed, practicing Catholic, may not, in good conscience assist, aid, abet or vote for any Democrat politician -- even a purported, wrong thinking, Catholic politiciian. The Democrat Party represents: 1. Pro-Abortion policies inclusive of Partial Birth Abortion 2. End of Life practices such as Assisted Suicide 2. Increased taxes (some of the proceeds to be applied to furthering their Abortion as well as Assisted Suicide) 3. The filling of Judgeships, at all levels, with Judges favoring broaded Abortion practices as well as broadened Same Sex Marriage laws. 4. A reduction in Personal responsibility as well as personal freedoms and an increase in Public responsibiltiy 5. An increase of Government at all levels of Education And on and on and on ------- I end as I began, yone can not be a Catholic and, with a clear conscience, vote for a Democrat James P Sammon Seattle, Washington sammonfish@hotmail.com

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 9:26 AM By Barbara
I am sending a copy of this news article to my bishop in Idaho. I hope he will write letters to certain city, county, state, and federal candidates that they can not be a Catholic in good standing with the church and be pro abortion / Obama. But I am not holding my breath. He is spineless.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 9:51 AM By TotaTua
This is another instance of the near-occasion of scandal. While a "regular" person could make a conscious choice to vote for Obama, those in a perceived or actual position of power may not make their choice known publicly. this is in particular why there is not to be any candidate/party preference expressed from the pulpit. there are many who will say, "Well Father or Mrs. Someone Special or Dr. Kmiec says..." and that is where the problem lies. In this particular group it is a MAJOR deal to deny this person communion.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 10:49 AM By John F. Maguire
(1) A priest violates the canonical right of a Catholic in good standing to receipt of communion, and what do no less than twelve CCD posters do? They applaud the violation, thereby compounding the spirit of its error. (2) In 1960, the editors of secular newspapers, annealed as they were in the ethics of responsible journalism, refused to publish letters to the editor denouncing John F. Kennedy as, for example, "a son of the whore of Babylon"; yet 48 years later, what do the editors of CCD do when they receive a rancorous denunciation of Barack Obama as--quote--conniving with "his biggest supporter, SATAN"? They publish it, quite as if candidate Obama's own deficiencies on the question of abortion did not suffice. And (3): Shouldn't we ask whether it is bad strategy all 'round for Catholics to fight the good fight in but one political party? Might not the common good of persons and institutions better be served by ensuring that neither political party take the Catholic vote for granted?

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 11:05 AM By Betty
Mary Ann, your statement about "still one man left in the priesthood. How sad. Abd ti all you other people who are arguing about whether a priest can refuse Communion - can a priest consult a lawyer to get a restraining order against one of his parishioners. Because that's what our parish priest told my husband that he was going to try to get against me. There was a sign on the bathroom door in the church which I strongly objected to so I took it down. Then it came up again, this time screwed to the bathroom door so that I couldn't take it down. so I covered it with blank labels which were labelled "Permanent", That's when he told my husband (he never talks to me) that he was consulting a lawyer to get a restraining order with the charge of defacing church property. Can he do that?

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 11:20 AM By John L. Sillasen
"Catholics who vote for political candidates supportive of abortion rights have committed a grave sin in the eyes of the church, and should confess and do penance before receiving Communion., Archbishop Burke, 2004"

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 1:08 PM By John F. Maguire
For the record, the Archbishop of Saint Louis, Raymond L. Burke, in his pastoral letter on _Our Civic Responsibility for the Common Good_ (October 1, 2004), squarely poses the issue that is before us: "Is a choice to vote for a candidate who actively promotes grave injustices always sinful?" In Sections 37 and 38, Archbishop Burke gives the following answer: "Certainly, it is never right to vote for a candidate in order to promote the immoral practices he or she endorses. In such a case, the voter, who assists the candidate in fulfilling his or her agenda by getting into office, intends the same evil endorsed and promoted by the candidate." Such assistance is called formal cooperation and is never permissible. "The Church, however, also recognizes that it is sometimes impossible to avoid all cooperation with evil, as may well be true in selecting a candidate for public office. In certain circumstances, it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices. Catholic moral teaching refers to actions of this sort as material cooperation, which is morally permissible when certain conditions are met. With respect to the question of voting, these conditions include the following: .... " [See post below for the list of these conditions.]

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 1:38 PM By John F. Maguire
Here, in identifying the conditions under which it is permissible to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices, Archbishop Burke comes to the crux of the matter. The conditions for such "material" cooperation on the part of the voter, the Saint Louis Archbishop teaches, include the following: "(1) there is no viable candidate who supports the moral law in its full integrity; (2) the voter opposes the immoral practices espoused by the candidate, and votes for the candidate only because of his or her promotion of morally good practices; and (3) the voter avoids giving scandal by telling anyone, who may know for whom he or she has voted, that he or she did so to advance the morally good practices the candidate supports, while remaining opposed to the immoral practices the candidate endorses and promotes." In a contest, then, between two abortocratic candidates, it is "not a question of choosing the lesser evil, but of limiting all the evil one is able to limit at the time."

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 1:46 PM By Ruthie
Betty - What sign did you take down? I'm curious. And that spawns a quick little story. The high school I attended has to this day a policy that we aren't to wear clothing with offensive slogans, which I have no problem with. Well, on the 'right to life' day, the pro-life group on campus wore shirts that say 'abortion is murder' and 'abortion is the leading cause of death among infants', among other quips. Several members therein have chosen to wear this shirt on other days. To me, this is offensive and agressive. However, I chose to be the bigger person and not raise a fuss. Instead I popped in to a Pro-Life-Club meeting, had some interesting conversations about why I choose to support the right to choice, though as an ex-fetus I am against abortion. The president of that club, a dear friend of mine, suggested ot me kindly that the moderators thought it would be best if I didn't return. My views were not in accordance with what they wanted to promote. Free thought, free will, apparently not there. Oh well. Oh, and ... Ahem. Separation of Church and state. Hem hem.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 3:14 PM By The other Mike
Casting a vote for a candidate in the privacy of the voting booth is vastly different from publicly and prominently endorsing that candidate. In my opinion, both Obama and McCain are undesirable for many reasons; their support and promotion of abortion being the most important. However, those are the two primary choices we have and I will hold my nose and vote for one of them because I think the other one is capable of even greater death and destruction. As far as Prof. Douglas Kmiec's endorsement of Obama goes, I think he'll enjoy his tenure as Attorney General Kmiec in the Obama administration....

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 4:43 PM By Gloria
Please tell me why a high ranking member of the Roman Catholic Faith has not publically admonished Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg for being the first to endorse Obama?? She supposedly is a practicing Catholic. The same for her Uncle Ted Kennedy. All the Kennedy families that have publically endorsed Borack Obama, should be denied Holy Communion by their parish priests according to RCC standards. Double Standard or what? How does a priest deal with those who he doesn't know about their sins regarding communion?

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 5:13 PM By GHS
I think every person at Mass should be required to complete a survey each week regarding their political and theological beliefs prior to the reception of Holy Communion. That would take care of all of this confusion.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 6:26 PM By John L. Sillasen
We are being given a legal treatise without precedent. Where is an example of someone like Kmiec who succeeded in moving a ruler towards morality of the scale at issue? No one has succeeded since Roe v. Wade, and it is getting extremely worse. The exceptionally intelligent sector of the Church has also a severe disadvantage to carry, and that is one of relying too much on their intellect and not enough on faith in God. The very simple answer to the current political predicament is to jettison the harebrained ideas of legalism and gamesmanship and "just say no". Catholic leaders need to lead Catholically, as that is what they are for. That means banding against the foes of natural law and of the Church. There is actually precedent for this. But there is no precedent for any man who sells himself to a ruler with the rose colored optimism of righting that ruler. That is what bishops are for, to right the rulers from a position that is not in debt to the ruler. Go over to Catholic Online and read Deacon Fornier's position against his friend Prof. Kmiec. Although it is wordy, because that is the meat of lawyer talk, it nevertheless puts down the foot of the Church, just like the priest who withheld Communion.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 6:36 PM By John L. Sillasen
In 1984 or 85 or thereabouts, the then governor of New York gave a speech at Notre Dame University Law School. He was stumping for the presidential nomination. The question of abortion was hot, and he silver tongued it to the Law faculty and students. I read the speech and immediately saw the forked tongue ... literally. The Governor was trying to say two contradicting things at once. I pointed this out to people in a national pro-life organization, but they simply could not see it, and instead thought it was a ray of hope speech. I persisted, but at the time I had no means of expressing insights beyond that office. Yet within days, after the media had begun to trumpet this bright NY politician and his brilliance at presenting a situation which was "morally" acceptable to the Church ... less than a week and the big names of Catholic pro-life began to publically reveal the deception in that governor's pitch. Not long after that he dropped out of the contest, and never rose to that height again. If Kmiec wants to end up like Jerry Brown or Ted Kennedy or some other disreputable character hiding under the skirts of pretention, then that is his business.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 6:41 PM By John L. Sillasen
***in identifying the conditions under which it is permissible to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices, Archbishop Burke comes to the crux of the matter.*** Read further to see how the manipulation of the Church takes place. If this practice were stopped, and Catholic united behind the issues and did not cooperate with evil, then obviously we'd have a better state of affairs. But it is common sense to see that a line has to be drawn in the sand at some point ... more and more are standing fast for Jesus and the unborn, come Hell or highwater. But Kmiec and his followers are rolling along in the optimism explained as folly by the late Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand, who put it clearly that hope and optimism are two different things. Hope is good, optimism is ruinous.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 7:15 PM By WB
I like GHS's idea. An oath of fidelity should be required -- essential doctrines laid out clearly and then signed and made public for anyone in parish to see if desired.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 8:23 PM By Grisha
All this withholding the sacraments business is a very sliperry slope. "As ye sow... etc.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 8:36 PM By emmie
Politicians are supposed to chose who they feel to be best for the country, in said persons entirety. It isn't right or fair to discriminate because of faith. If you are against the beliefs of a certain candidate, that is your choice; do not condemn them for not believing the same as you. That's just plain stupid.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 8:54 PM By Tommy
We're so concerned about pro-choice and pro-life. God died on the day George W. Bush wore a flag pin and a Cross and announced we're going to war with Iraq. A million dead non-christians? No problem. God would've killed 'em anyways, right? Instead, the church has laid so little moral ground to the war, but here we are denying communion. So sad.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 9:07 PM By John L. Sillasen
So, Grisha, you're saying that excommunication is powerful?

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 9:08 PM By cjo
God Bless Fr. "Anonymous". Not mentioned anywhere above is that the LA Archdiocese's, giving it the benefit of the doubt, "Newspaper" .."The Tidings" --- published Kmiec"s article, several months ago, rationalizing why he supported the most "liberal" and pro abort Senator....Obama. There was no comment by the Archdiocese. That figures. It takes a courageous priest to do the right thing. [And BTW, it is incomprehensible how a "conservative?"-Kmiec could support Obama. Check Obama's record, his "Catholic" supporters, and his 20 years under Rev Wright's mentoring ].

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 9:16 PM By JPeterman
What a great and courageous priest. Obama is the most radical pro abortion politician in the US Senate. In his voting record, he voted against bans on late term abortions, partial birth abortions and any restrictions on abortions on demand. My question is this: Which Catholic in their right mind would vote for a man to be President who approves of birthing a baby partially and then crushing the childs skull to kill them? This is SICK and EVIL! All you Obama supporters out there think about that when you push the button to vote for him. And this had nothing to do with Repub/Democrat. McCain is nothing great but at least he has never supported slaughtering innocent babies.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 11:36 PM By John L. Sillasen
So, emmie, you're saying that religion (faith) has no meaning.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 11:39 PM By John L. Sillasen
Obama may have to beat a McCain-Hillary ticket. Where will that leave Kmiec?

Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 12:07 AM By The other Mike
Obama will vote against everything Catholics stand for, so why would any Catholic for Obama?

Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 7:36 AM By Jean
Take a look at Matthew's Gospel, ch. 26. It would appear that Jesus gave communion to Judas, who had already taken money for turning Jesus over to the people who wanted to kill him...Worthy for some very careful thinking here.

Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 7:41 AM By RR
JPeterman: No, McCain doesn't approve of abortion, BUT he approves of fetal stem cell research, which comes from the death of fetuses. These fetuses(babies, not tissue) have a soul. Using these helpless babies to leach from for scientific or any other purpose is just sickening, morally wrong, and unethical. Benefittting from these helpless souls is disgusting and should not be an option just to make someone elses life better. If I had Parkinson's Disease I would rather suffer excrutiating pain than benefit from an innocent baby's soul. I would offer the pain up for my soul and not leach off of a baby's soul. I know you didn't say you approved of stem cell, BUT, a vote for McCain would be approval for this.

Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 8:06 AM By Grisha
John L: I think we're talking here about on-the-spot denial of communion, not excommunication. People write that a good Catholic can't support Obama over his stand on abortion, yet McCain favors stem cell research. Does that mean as Catholics we must eschew electoral politics or can only support candidates such as Christopher's choice, Joe Schriner? ( BTW he has some very good ideas and innovative approaches to our nation's problems. Check out voteforjoe.com) Back in the early 80's, a woman was attending an American Association of University Women convention and went to mass at a nearby church. The priest saw her pro ERA button (He called it an "Error button") and told her it meant she was pro abortion and was denied communion. She protested to the local bishop that 1) She was anti Abortion and 2) she was Catholic in good standing and, in fact, a eucharistic minister in her own parish. It was reported that as a result of the incident, the bishop sent father off for a little stress reducing R&R. My point John, is where does it stop? Next, will some priest decide you and I are violating the 5th commandant because we keep firearms in our homes and therefor unworthy? Will the pastor at St. Mulcahy's deny Christopher the Body of Christ because he disagrees with him about the architecture of the new church? At the 11:00 mass today, I expect to see "Bill" receive communion. A few years ago "Bill" committed what I think was a viciously uncharitable pubic act toward both another family in the parish and our pastor. No one will deny him the Eucharist, nor should they.

Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 2:03 PM By emmie
John: no. Faith has meaning, but I think religion has lost any. Especially seeing as it has been corrupted by arrogant, hateful people who cling to the 'title' of Catholic (or Protestant or Anglican or Jewish [though I've never met a hateful Jew] or Daoist or anything else). Don't be a push-over, but learn that there's a time and place for everything. And religion shouldn't have a huge sway in politics. Morality should and morality DOES NOT neccessarily come STRICTLY from _your_ religion. Young as it is.

Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 2:22 PM By RosieD
What Catholic can vote for Obama, Mr. Infanticide? He supports not just abortion, under every and any circumstance, including partial-birth abortion, he thinks you should get what you pay for: if a viable baby is born after a botched abortion, then kill the child! No issue trumphs abortion...on numbers alone. 49 million dead and counting. And please don't bring up McCain's less than ideal status as a pro-life candidate. He is not a baby-killing fanatic like Obama--which makes him at least an option that can be considered. Also, to Grisha--this priest denied Communion to a man who had just endorsed Mr. Infanticide--and was encouraging others to do so. In 1940, if a Catholic had urged his fellow Catholics to champion Hitler's cause b/c he was bringing economic recovery to Germany (never mind all those innocents he was killing), I'd expect his priest to deny him Communion as well.

Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 2:56 PM By JPeterman
RR, I agree with you.In fact I say vote for NEITHER! Who is the libertarian candidate?

Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 3:09 PM By John L. Sillasen
Grisha, there are several independent political parties waiting in the wings for when the two big ones unite ... which we may see if McCain puts Hillary on his ticket. My choice is the Constitution Party ... check it out. It has courted both Keyes and Buchanan and maybe other high level people. These organizations are structuring up so that when the time comes, a high profile moral candidate will have a platform.

Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 3:12 PM By John F. Maguire
Although Keith Fournier disagrees with Douglas Kmiec's endorsement of the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama for President, that disagreement is neither categorical nor indictatory; to the contrary. Deacon Fournier writes: "I for one am glad that thoughtful Catholics like Professor Kmiec, Senator Bob Casey, and former Representative Tim Roemer are at least advising [Senator Obama]. I pray they will influence him toward the recognition of the rights of all persons, at every age and stage."

Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 3:19 PM By John L. Sillasen
On the denial of Communion ... read St Paul. It is the responsibility of the Church to withhold Communion from a soul in mortal sin; otherwise, that soul is condemning itself profoundly. Look what happened to Judas Iscariot. Did God want that to happen? No. Did God know it would happen? Yes. Then why did Jesus give Judas Communion? I've never encountered this question, and as the poster above points out, it needs some thought and study. In the particular case of Kmiec, there is no reason for a priest not to deny him Communion. There are other parishes and priests for Kmiec to resort to, if that's what he wants. The authority of the Church comes through the ordained, not through what we vote is best, not even if our case is stated in the most perfect language ever created by man ... the priest is in persona Christi at that moment, and the authority was there at that moment, in the priest. Unless the priest defied God, and so far no bishop seems to have said this, then it was and act of God. And being such, Kmiec has been put on notice. Comparatively, St Thomas Aquinas spoke of his works as being little compared to those of God; and his works are among the greatest ... so where does this leave Kmiec with his wishful thinking type works which have no comparison to those of the Saints?

Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 6:54 PM By John L. Sillasen
Legal power has its limits. To rise beyond these limits requires one to set the law aside for the moment. The Church has provided for this in the Sacraments. But the best example is in St Paul the Apostle, who was a lawyer of lawyers, yet that availed him nothing in terms of salvation, and so he assented to be raised beyond the limits of law. I used to watch the TV program with Deacon Fornier and Jay Sekulow, and their law sense is certainly without question. And perhaps this is the case as well with Kmiec. But the Catholic religion provides us with the means to rise above the limits of legal bargains. "The law kills, but the Spirit gives life": The Church is wise as the serpent", but we are not meant to be in a stalemate condition, that is why the Church is also "peaceful as the dove": Peace, unlike law, is not achieved by a legal (or political) contract ... but by a more powerful way, the way of the Cross. To recap, the best the law can do is stalemate the devil; it takes more than the law to rise to victory. Even as Jesus was carrying his Cross up the avenue of sorrows, there were others continuing to ply Him with strategies for what they perceived as salvation -- His disciples were still reeling at His arrest because they continued to trust in the law, which is the nature of politics, or worldly government. It is vain speculation to close one's eyes to the inevitable; even though we do not know the hour or day, we need to be ready for it ... meaning ready to give up everything ... ie trade our plans for the Cross. We have to retain this disposition in our souls. Who is to say that this time has not come? Deacon has an advantage in the dispute, simply due to his ordination ... is he speaking his opinion or God's demand?

Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 7:59 PM By JPeterman
All kidding aside, a vote for a third party candidate is a vote away from McCain thus ensuring the abortionist becomes President. I'll vote for McCain and at least I'll know I'm not automatically excommunicated by voting for Obama.

Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 8:51 PM By RR
John L. I agree on the Constitutional Party. I have been reading about Chuck Baldwin and I think he is a pretty moral guy, mainly with his views of abortion. I'm not keen on a couple of his foreign policies, but he seems very moral on many issues like abortion, stem cell research, the definition of family, etc... He also is a big supporter of homeschooling, which would make me very happy. JPeterman: Bob Barr,(Libertarian) from what I have heard and read, thinks that each state should determine what is best as far as gay marriage is concerned. As far as my vote, I won't be voting for President. I choose not to. People may say I'm crazy, but I'm just going to put all my trust in God and let His will be done. He is in control, not us.

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 9:50 AM By John F. Maguire
He is free to vote for whomsoever he deems the best candidate, but J. Peterman has got the ethics of voting wrong when he pleads that his intended vote for Senator McCain will "at least" save him from "automatic excommunication." Good grief, what a misunderstanding. If one votes for any candidate *because* that candidate is an abortocrat, yes, one commits a mortal sin, but such a vote does not incur excommunication, automatic or otherwise. Moreover, as explained by Archbishop Burke, there is a distinction between (1) formal cooperation in evil (as in voting for an abortocratic candidate *because* he or she is an abortocrat), which is always impermissible, and (2)material cooperation in evil (as in meeting the three conditions required for such cooperation, listed above). Such material cooperation is keyed to casting a vote that in one's studied judgement best limits "all the evil that one is able to limit" at the time of the vote. In no way can such a vote be regarded as sinful. ~There is one more problem in Peterman's post: Peterman's decision to refer to Barack Obama as "the abortionist" would constitute libel were Senator Obama not a public figure. Peterman, evidently, is neither Petrine in his understanding of the substance of voting ethics nor Petrine in his diction. The appropriate diction here requires us to distinguish between a legislator who is an *abortocrat*, on the one hand, and the *abortionist* around the corner, on the other.

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 10:41 AM By John L. Sillasen
But, Mr. Maguire, there is legal-speak and there is free-speak. This is what I've been trying to point out in several posts. The domain of law is sin; whereas, the domain for free speech is Jesus. If someone contributes to abortion, there are two domains involved. Law handles the governments interest; whereas, God handles the freedom interest. Restraining oneself to the government domain keeps one materially solid (pun intended) but unable to stop an errant government. Freeing oneself for speaking of God's domain may cost one his life in this world, but has the power to move the government out of its sin. Reiterating my position: the status quo legal system in this nation does not have the power to stop abortion. But what to do continues the question: In this I can see some value in Kmiec and your position ... which can only be, as you suggest, to wait for a savior and minimize the damage during the wait. But, on the other hand, this nation is fat, and with an Obama in charge, it can sustain a lot of damage before the public wakes up and returns to morality. Also, the issue of automatic excommunication remains to be clarified in this thread. Also, Peterman could simply rephrase "abortionist" if pasting it on a private person, and avoid litigation ... there is an art to the First Amendment. *** RR, God is in control and has given us the steering wheel.

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 11:43 AM By Michelle Hourie
It is written, that each life is fearfully and wonderfully made, knit and formed in our mother's womb. It is written in the ten commandments: "Thou shall not kill" This is an absolute commandment, leaving no room for subjectivity or opinion. Jesus, being the Son of Man, the only begotton Son, incarnated by the Holy Spirit in the virgin, Mary given to the world to show us how to live in communion with God, the Father, by grace through receiving forgiveness for our sins because Jesus received judgement on the cross at Golgatha, descended into Hell for 3 days and 3 night, rose again and defeated death. Praise God. As Ambassadors of Christ, ministers of reconcilliation, our first and foremost allegiance is to the authour and the finisher of our faith, the one who has the only authourity to give and to take life.

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 11:44 AM By David
As a pro-life Democrat, I cannot support Obama. One might argue that McCain's position on embryo research (among others) would also prevent me from voting for him, but I am forced to vote for McCain to prevent Obama from bringing his Planned Parenthood politics back to the White House. Any other vote or non-vote helps Obama and Planned Parenthood. At the same time, I am working very hard to get pro-life Democrats elected and to get our voice heard at all levels of politics and government. I am proud that nearly every major pro-life success has included support from pro-life Democrats. Check us out at democratsforlife.org I am from North Carolina where our chapter is quite active.

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 1:29 PM By Pat R.
Kmiec is a firm foe of abortion, says the article. Although he supports Obama, Kmiec is not commiting a grave sin. Refusing communion to Kmiec was an error. I'm sure there were plenty of people at that Mass who WERE pro choice and who received communion. We cannot know a persons heart. Unless he/she comes out and states firmly they are proChoice, we must give them the benefit of the doubt. SORRY....I disagree on this one.

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 1:36 PM By Fred V.
Could it not be said by reasonable people that the war in Iraq is a "great moral evil"? Or that voting for a candidate who has been divorced and admits to adultery would be morally wrong? If we start denying communion to everyone who supports any candidate who holds any position that deviates from doctrine then the church would save lots of money on wine and wafers.

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 1:44 PM By Susana
Thank God for priests with courage!

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 3:10 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to John L. Sillassen: To go around saying someone has committed a mortal sin, as you and I have seen more than twelve CCD posters do--and we have seen them do it (1) without just cause and (2) when the person to whom the mortal sin has been imputed committted no such sin--no, Mr. Sillasen, all this constitutes the sin of calumny. When calumny is committed on the internet, the calumny is ever-weightier in its negative impact. When editors, moreover, agree to publish such calumny--as if it were fair comment on an event--they also violate the speech-ethics that governs all of human speech, not just the ethics of journalism. Why? Because: "Respect for the reputation of others [including law professors--JM] forbids...calumny," which is committed by anyone who, by making "remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them." ~No invocation of a heterodox counterposition between "God's domain" and the domain of the moral law can gainsay the basic norms that govern speech-ethics--norms that protect the reputation of others as a human good.

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 3:56 PM By John L. Sillasen
Mr. Maguire, I just read a treatment on calumny. There is a lot to be said here. The most immediate thing is that calumny requires intentional use of falsehood. That is not my intent. Nor is it yours, as far as I can see when you make your accusation. More later on this important point ... There is a current article in Homiletic and Pastoral Review on Calumny, linked by Catholic Online.

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 5:02 PM By Anne
John F. Maguire, I don't know how many politicians I have seen betray both John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. When Pope John Paul II came to the U. S. one time he was pleading for the end to abortion and the killing of unborn babies on one channel. I turned the channel awhile later, and a well-known catholic politician was telling us how much of our tax dollars he was going to put into abortions for the poor. The first thing that went through my mind was this, "What a Judas!."

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 5:43 PM By John F. Maguire
My thanks to John L. Sillasen for referencing the article on calumny that has been published recently in the _Homiletic and Pastoral Review_. I am confident that this article will provide useful insights into the problem of calumny in the context of political-campaign speech. I look forward to reading it. ~In this same connection, I share Anne's strong sense of incongruity upon witnessing the depredations of abortocratic politicians, not least those who associate themselves in a self-contradictory manner to the tradition of moral reason as confirmed by Church of Christ in accord with her essential Catholicity.

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 6:52 PM By AnnCA
**Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 7:36 AM By Jean Take a look at Matthew's Gospel, ch. 26. It would appear that Jesus gave communion to Judas, who had already taken money for turning Jesus over to the people who wanted to kill him...Worthy for some very careful thinking here.** Yes, it is. Scripture tells us that those who are not worthy to receive and do, eat and drink their own damnation. Judas betrayed our Lord, committed suicide and is in Hell.

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 7:51 PM By Anne
Thank you John F. Maguire, I have never forgotten what the scribes, pharisees, Herods, Pilates and Caiphases did to John Cardinal O'Connor in New York, a good and holy man. Not for one moment will I forget. And I will read, God willing, the article in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review--an excellent Catholic magazine.

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 9:39 PM By John L. Sillasen
What I'm seeing as one of the serious problems working against Catholic unity is the sectors we each operate in. I've been trying to differentiate the legal/political sector from the religious sector ... looking at it from a "Venn Diagram" sense, there is overlap. But we all have to know that ultimately it is not might, nor power but the Word of the Lord which triumphs. The politics have been playing out in this situation of abortion for over forty years in California ... no one has solved the problem. No new strategies have emerged. Some of the pro-life political rhetoric is stale, and was not exactly true thirty years ago, let alone today ... I informed Priests for Life who was supporting Sen. Sam Brownback last year that one of the stock pro-life pitches he was using was not true; what did they do in the correspondance I attempted? I was told that I was the enemy. Well, Brownback played out and fell out of the race. The only way the pro-life war can be won is by means of the absolute truth. The hostile forces perceive the tiniest incorrect assumption, the tiniest misrepresentation ... after all, gues where they get it from? And for the "truth" people to use disengenuous techniques is a hoot to our enemies ... it gets them rolling in laughter. I think the ideal polititian would identify the limits of politics and refer the rest to the Church for one of the bishops to handle. Yes, I know what this would mean to the politician, but it is the only way to win. And if enough truthful people joined the effort, then one of these days we'd see one of the bishops take up the Crossier and lead the flock in the truth ... with all the assertiveness of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is the way it works. Damage control during the wait ... compare this idea to the destiny of the soul who attempts it. And on the calumny thing ... it is a point of truth to be studied by every mortal. St Thomas More exhausted the argument perhaps completely.

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 11:55 PM By John L. Sillasen
I just read some of the bishops' instructions for voting. Essentially what they appear to have published is an edict of popular primacy ... ie, they appear to have abdicated their leadership. How have they done so? By putting forth the idea that the moral state of candidates is relative to a relative Catholic conscience. It's like an inkblot test, where you can interpret it any way you want. It's the theory of relativity applied to truth, a turning of the tables. And what this means practically is that there won't be an investment beyond the intellect of man. For example, why open up one's heart to faith when natural law keeps one in good stead? Remember, natural law can be seen, and thus is not of the domain of faith. Yet faith is greater. Hope is greater also, and both of these shall pass away. Natural law does not compare to charity which will never pass away ... Why has God not raised up anyone to lead us?

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:22 AM By JPeterman
Mr McGuire should understand this is a forum where opponents can be addressed directly and not in the third person. Mr McGuire should also know that voting for an known, outright abortion supporter is "formal cooperation" with sin. Mr McGuire should avoid inventing words such as "abortocrat" and accusing others of potential slander when such is not the case. Further, Mr McGuire should know "According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 1857: For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin (1) whose object is grave matter, (2) is committed with full knowledge and (3) deliberate consent." Pope John Paul stated that abortion is a grave moral disorder. All Catholics should know that abortion is prohibited by the Church, and when they vote for a pro-abortion candidate they do so willingly and deliberately. When a person votes for a pro-abortion candidate they are cooperating with that candidate in the continuation of abortion, therefore, all three conditions for a mortal sin are met." Mr McGuire should note this paragraph was used courtesy "Catholic Truth" website. Mr MgGuire should further note that St Peter was a hot tempered, zealous, man thus JPeterman is Petrine indeed.

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 7:49 AM By Grisha
This is all very interesting, however, I truly believe that whether Obama, McCain, Ron Paul or Joe Schriner is elected in November, it will have little or no affect on the number of abortions performed in the U.S.

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:16 AM By John L. Sillasen
I think Mr. Maguire is deploying the idea that one can interact with a sinner in such a way, not to further the sin, but to restrict its damage. It would be maybe like Christians in a lion's den, where one Christian is trying to hold back a lion which is munching on someone else. There is certainly merit in playing doctor like this, but in Kmiec's case, where is the merit? What can even a Pope do to persuade Obama? Why does Kmiec think by being a card carrying supporter of Obama that he would be helping the cause to stop abortion? Why does he think his route is better than just standing his ground against abortion and leading others to do the same? I do not see the advantage he espouses ... furthermore, it looks like it's nothing but a deception. No matter how Catholic Kmiec claims to be, we have Scripture and testimony from saints to reveal the pitfalls, snares and other traps of evil. It comes back to St Thomas More ... I think that lawyer exhausted all the strategies in politics ... has Kmiec studied them?

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:41 AM By Fr. M.P.
Grisha says that it really doesn't matter who wins. No one should have such hopelessness. John F. Maguire and others debate the merits of how much material cooperation in evil is OK. (BTW, in summary, calumny is a deliberate trashing of reputation, not reporting on what a public figure is doing in public). What do we know publicly from Obama? Pure pro-death voting. No ifs, ands or buts. Right? Any responsible and prudent person would look at the public voting record. Simple. Anyone who fails to do that sins via imprudence, especially for electing leaders, which is a very serious matter. So how does Kmiec believe that his support of Obama is "partly in the hope that Obama's emphasis on personal responsibility in sexual matters might change the nature of the nation's argument on life issues." We can look to Church history for examples. What did St. John do when he met heretics? He avoided them. Did the early Christian martyrs try and "work with" the emperors who demanded worship? (hint: no - read the martyrology) What does the Church teach? Attempt to correct evil doers in three stages, and if that fails avoid them. In prudence, what has Obama done or said that makes one believe that he will support any form of Catholic life principles? Dancing with the devil, and his minions, is not prudent. Let's not forget that abortion is a greater evil than even an immoral war in Iraq, both in principle (abortion is always wrong, war is not) and in evil effects (deaths and mindset effects, like leading to euthanasia). So the priest, who is informing his own conscience and then acting to protect Eucharistic Jesus from abuse, was doing his own duty as he believes according to Catholic principles. Why don't most Bishop's refuse Communion to politicians who support abortion? Because they fail in their duties. Sad but true. I haven't found any Church teaching with "abortocrat" so I refuse to use such a term. Lastly, Jan W, who are you voting for?

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:54 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to J. Peterman: On the one hand, I spoke of potential libel, not potential slander, see _Black's Law Dictionary_ for the difference between libel and slander; on the other hand, I spoke of (actual) calumny, see_The Catechism of the Catholic Church_ or Thomas Aquinas's _Summa_ for the full definition. ~If a person, for example, commits a mortal sin, and--without just cause--I, for my part, knowingly and deliberately broadcast the fact, I've committed the sin of detraction. By contrast, if a person has not committed a mortal sin, yet contrary to that truth I knowingly and deliberately broadcast my claim that he or she did, then I've committed the sin of calumny. (There are of course ways of committing the sin of calumny not involving a false imputation of mortal sin.)

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 2:11 PM By John L. Sillasen
So, we're comparing calumny to abortion. Moreover, it has yet to be shown that there is actually any calumny, libel or slander in any of these posts. So, what we are doing is comparing the possibility of detraction, slander, libel, calumny and possibly brake dancing since that might (arguably) constitute a false image of God to abortion.

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 2:40 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Fr. M.P.: My thanks for your raising the question whether the word *abortocratic* has been used in official Church teaching. I am strongly inclined to doubt it. Still, even if, for example, the word *plutocratic* can be shown not to have been used in official Catholic teaching, we know that the Church's teaching on distributive justice runs contrary to the misappropriation of state power by plutocracy (Gk *ploutokratia*, equiv. to *plouto(s)* wealth + *kratia* -cracy [rule]). Likewise, granting that the word *usurocratic* has never been used in official Church teaching, we can still say that usury--understood as the exorbitant exaction of interest on loan contracts--is not only a personal sin but also a practice that is often protected by state power. As for the phrase *abortocratic rule*, I would venture to say no more than that (1) I find this term useful, especially in the context of comparative studies of abortion laws across a variety of nations; see, for example, Mary Ann Glendon's _Abortion and Divorce in Western Law: American Failures, European Challenges_ (1987); and (2) I would think that this term is useful pastorally, as distinguishing the abortionist-practitioner from the abortocratic legislator.

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:09 PM By John L. Sillasen
Making up words is what poets do. "Abortocrat" is a good one. Here's one: "Catholocrat", or should it be spelled, "Catholicrat" ... sorry for the irony or whatever this kind of humor is ... cynicism probably. But forewarned is forearmed: If the words are "out there" to be made up, then it's best that the Church gets ahold of them first.

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 6:40 PM By JPeterman
Thank you for pointing out my error J Maguire but no Black's needed thank you very much, rather a hasty morning post before heading off to work is to blame for the mistyped word. In any case, by not directly mentioning the candidate in the same sentence with the word "abortionist" there was never any "potential" libel but thanks for your concern. And thank you for your concern for my spiritual welfare but I'll trust my own confessor to decide whether I've committed calumny. You might check with your confessor if your semantics and their potential to lead people astray might in themselves constitute mortal sin.

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 7:17 PM By WB
Fr. M.P.'s wise words cut through the semantic fog and provided excellent guidance for us. Thank you, Father, for that. “Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it,” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, art. 80, q. 6, sed contra

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:21 PM By NB
I regard most of this thread of commentary as temptation to abandon the church. Argh! I'll try to withstand the temptation, with God's help. MP, moral error cannot be "in principle" -- only in fact. Further, counting up bodies doesn't make one sin 'sinnier' than another. With all due respect, please think harder.

Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008 6:16 AM By Grisha
Fr. MP: I didn't say it doesn't matter who wins. I believe an Obama administration will extract us from this disaster in Iraq sooner rather than later. A McCain administration will keep trying to salvage the unsalvageable at a cost of the lives of our troops and the position of our country as a leader in the world. That matters. Some causes can be won by gaining political control of the levers of state power. Abortion isn't one of them.

Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008 6:51 AM By M.J. Ernst-Sandoval
People seem to have neglected reading this document: http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:34 AM By John L. Sillasen
NB, the principle of moral error is a fact and also an error aka a sin. Some sins are greater than others. And finally, why think "harder" when you've got God thinking for you? What I'm saying here is this, just let God do the thinking and keep your seatbelt fastened during the ride.

Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:40 AM By John L. Sillasen
Grisha says ***Some causes can be won by gaining political control of the levers of state power. Abortion isn't one of them. *** But this is manifestly false. The US Congress has merely to set aside the issue of abortion from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction ... and then outlaw it. Ever read the Constitution? There is a reason the Congress will not talk about this, but they will use this aspect of their authority in small ways on other issues. In other words, the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the right to a very limited scope of jurisdiction, the rest being at the pleasure of Congress. So it is not the Court to blame, but Congress, that we have legal abortion; and who elects the Congress, but the voters. Where is the Catholic vote on abortion? Well, because of brilliant ("brilliant" in the sense of "Lucifer" which means "brilliant") legal strategies such as suggested by Douglas Kmiec, it is in the cesspool.

Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008 10:59 AM By John L. Sillasen
This issue is identical to the issue of homosexual "rights" laws. What they both have in common is the dogged belief that the issues can be resolved by means of exploring ever more complex "details", technicalities. Harkening back to a couple of long threads on transexualism, and I argued it then, is the exclusive use by the opposition to God to search for the solution in "medical" technicalities such as dna and ever new surgical techniques. It is the same thing with these kind of legal/political gambits ... call it the insistence of the "robo-soul", the soul manufactured by either "medical" science or legal/political maneuvering: they both depend upon taking the issues out of the moral sphere and into the technical world, the world devoid of both common sense and divine guidance. It is nothing new; Jesus takes us through the course in the Gospels, and the doctors of the Church have continued teaching us. All we need do is unravel the latest hype and see the motives. When, at some point, a holy bishop at the cardinal level is held up to the public in an act of utter govt persecution, then we will witness the crowds hollering to throw him to the lions. Why? Because the crowd will have long bought into the hype, and thus will have merged its soul with the "robo-soul", a means to utter confusion.

Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:10 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to J. Peterman: At least this: we agree, in the first place, that there is such a thing as the ethics of voting. Unfortunately, a segment of our political elite is vague on the point. ~Confession is always salutary, so any reminder to me to repair there is most welcome.

Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:48 AM By John L. Sillasen
Some matters are difficult to see in terms of sin, and even more difficult to put words to, to define. The devil is subtle, and that is one reason it is such a joyous occasion to see the puff of white smoke from St Peters, to know that Christ continues to give us His vicarious leadership in a living human being who can cut through the tangle better than Alexander cut through the Gordian Knot. All that conqueror got was a golden fleece (just one more situation of the ancient world being fleeced); whereas, Christ gives us His House of Gold.

Posted Thursday, June 12, 2008 5:46 AM By Fr. M.P.
Grishsa you said "Some causes can be won by gaining political control of the levers of state power. Abortion isn't one of them." That's clearly 'it doesn't matter'. Don't give up. All you Catholics keep persevering in the fight! And Obama will not only avoid "salvaging" baby's lives, he will ensure that more and more - far far far far more than deaths in Iraq - little children will be killed, which includes sticking scissors in the back of their heads to suck out their brains. If a baby survives, ah, do whatever is needed to kill them! And then throw 'em in the dumpster. Obama is a great salvager, eh Grisha?

Posted Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:57 AM By John L. Sillasen
There is a move afoot to negotiate with "the world, the flesh and the devil". Did Jesus negotiate with that which did not intend to strive towards holiness? Has He changed? Is God going to marry the devil? These are preposterous questions, yet at this moment (as in many others recorded in history) this blasphemous call can be heard all over the place. What role, therefore, is the Church invested with in this regard?

Posted Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:16 PM By NB
Mr. Sillasen, you wrote: "And finally, why think "harder" when you've got God thinking for you? What I'm saying here is this, just let God do the thinking and keep your seatbelt fastened during the ride." .... So then why did God provide us with brains and why does God bless us with wisdom? So then why am I reading all these comments? I'm thinking maybe God would like us to use the gifts we've received. Or if we don't need to think, then maybe we don't need to use any of our other gifts either?

Posted Thursday, June 12, 2008 3:58 PM By John L. Sillasen
So we could fasten the seatbelt, why else? Seriously, NB, I was just being metaphorical. Yet, when in union with God through Jesus Christ, we share in the mind of Christ in all ways, do we not? Maybe it's like a little kid learning how to hold on to the hand of his or her parent; maybe that is how it is when using our brains with respect to God. Several Scripture accounts show us how God converses with man; and we have prayer, which can be conversational with God. St Paul tells us to "tighten our belts" for the spiritual warfare ... "spiritual" means we need to heed the living God, of which reading is part. Some people actually ... well the example that comes to mind is St Francis of Assisi ... I don't recall him doing all that much reading to find out what God was saying to everyone including him. So, how did he use his brain? And Blessed Mary Ever Virgin, did she read the script in the New Testament and recite her answer on cue? So, what I am saying is that my metaphor points to something we should think about ... namely riding in the cheriot with God. To note about the blessing of wisdom: Solomon said in Proverbs: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." If I were in that cheriot, I wouldn't be trying to take the reins.

Posted Saturday, June 14, 2008 10:55 PM By J.A.
Has Kmiec explained how he went from endorsing Romney to endorsing Obama? Perhaps CCD can give him space for such an article. I don't believe it's purely for ambition to get a seat on an Appelate Court. Notre Dame Law Professor and McCain advisor, Prof. Gerald Bradley, posted on the National Review Online Bench Memos blog: "The priest has (again, reportedly) been upbraided by Cardinal Mahony for doing so. Cardinal Mahony is right. A priest would be wrong to deny Communion to any Catholic just because he or she supports Barack Obama [...] at least so long as the Catholic supporter took reasonable steps to avoid scandal by making clear that his or her support is notwithstanding Obama's (or anyone else's) pro-abortion views and acts. Doug Kmiec, to his credit, has made that clear enough."

Posted Sunday, July 13, 2008 3:30 PM By Luis Contreras
Abraham Lincoln said,"the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.'' Those words are true forever. Vote for who you want. This is America. Your vote is important. Would you vote for one like McCain, who is willing to put his life on the line for your freedom?Or for one like Obama, who talks a lot; but has not put his life on the line for your freedom?

Posted Sunday, July 13, 2008 4:36 PM By Norm
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Lincoln quoted Thomas Jefferson.

Posted Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:06 PM By Norm
"I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855), p. 323.

Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 1:10 PM By Luis Contreras
McCain and Obama are unexperience,except for McCain' Military experience.McCain has put his life on the line for our freedom. Has Obama done the same? Obama does not want his patriotism question,took 20 years to find out his preacher,retains double duel citizenship from Kenya in SE Africa where his father is from ,etc.Vote for who you trust or don't trust.This is America. Your vote is important.One who tells you what you want to hear or one who risks his life as others have for you and me? Most soldiers don't like war. But they answered the call when their country calls them.Sorry I cannot say that of military dodgers.

Posted Sunday, August 03, 2008 7:22 PM By Eileen
Are you people all insane? To read the comments, I have to wonder how we can be worshiping the same God or have been brought up in the same tradition. I understand that pro-life issues may drive some voters, especially Catholic ones. What I don't understand is how you seemingly cut off all discussion or conversation beyond that one issue. What about caring for the poor? What about war? In the world today, how can you limit your views to just one topic? You guys are scary.

Posted Monday, August 04, 2008 9:13 AM By Anne T.
Eileen, pro-llife people have done and do plenty to take care of the poor. What are the so-called pro-choice people doing? Are they taking from their OWN pocket to help the poor?

Posted Monday, August 04, 2008 9:17 AM By Anne T.
I will add that one mother of about 10 children, some adopted, told me: "You do not help the poor by killing their children." I never forgot that.

Posted Monday, August 04, 2008 10:00 AM By Anne T.
A correction: I think the children of the lady I mentioned were all from her husband, not adopted, but she and her husband did a lot of wonderful pro-life work, helping others. Never-the-less, I know and have known many pro-life people who have adopted children, even those with special needs. Pro-life people also help get through laws that protect children in other ways. Now I will get off of this computer because I need to do my own work.

Posted Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:32 PM By Luis Contreras
There are more babies killed through abortion than the wars this country has been in. How can you help a dead person, rich or poor? Helping the poor is comendable, if they are alive. Helping the dead, cannot be help with material things.

Post your Comment
Name:
Email: (Optional: Will not display)
Comment:
 
Comments are limited to 1500 characters, and cannot contain offensive or libelous language. For security, comments cannot contain html tags, including < and > symbols - and NO URLS or LINKS. Comments will appear after they have been approved by the editor. Inclusion of your email address is optional so the editor may contact you.



Calcatholic Mobile
Optimized for your
mobile device











Visitors since January 1st, 2009:
javascript hit counter

website created by Vigil Studios © 2006 -  www.vigilstudios.com