CATHOLIC BISHOPS FAIL THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES TO LIFE

Catholic bishops are meeting. The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley has spoken out about the Obama election. The Boston Globe reports that "O'Malley is visibly moved by the moment, but also horrified by what he sees as Barack Obama's "deplorable" record on abortion rights." O'Malley said:

"My joy, however, is tempered by the knowledge that this man has a deplorable record when it comes to prolife issues, and is possibly in the pocket of Planned Parenthood, which, in its origins, was a very racist organization to eliminate the blacks, and it's sort of ironic that he's been co-opted by them."

The Globe points out, "As a senator, Obama voted 100 percent of the time with abortion-rights organizations, according to evaluations by abortion rights groups."

Obama's record is worse than that. In 2001-2003 Obama was leading the fight in the Illinois Senate against the Born Alive Act that would require proper medical care for babies who survive a failed abortion, saying keeping the babies alive would put an unfair burden on the decision of the mother. In other words, even though no one disputes that a baby born alive is a baby, Obama still wanted the baby dead so that the "abortion" would be made effective.

And in 2007 he told his enthusiastic backer Planned Parenthood that he wanted his "first thing" (just think of that: his "first thing") as president to be signing legislation (Freedom of Choice Act) allowing abortions without limit, forcing hospitals and doctors to perform abortion despite their religious beliefs or qualms of conscience. Furthermore, the legislation he supports would require all taxpayers to pay for abortions and eliminate funding for pregancy crisis centers which help young pregnant women make informed decisions about alternatives to abortions. This is a Planned Parenthood priority because it will mean many more abortions; as the number one abortion mill in the country Planned Parenthood rakes in hundreds of millions from its abortions and is eager to increase its revenues.

Now, all of the Catholic bishops knew this before the election. A handful of them spoke out forcefully, such as the brilliant Archbishop of Denver Charles Caput, the archbishop of Philadelphia Rigali and the New York archbishop Egan. Most did nothing and few parish priests addressed the issue in sermons.

Boston's O'Malley only issued one ~~mild~~ weak statement in response to an inquiry from the Globe asking for his views about strong statements such as those from Chaput, Rigali and Egan. O'Malley said this:

The American people are not in favor of abortion on demand, partial birth abortion, or allowing babies who have survived an abortion to die

O'Malley, by referencing the Born Alive Act. showed he knew very well Obama's extremist position and why he is considered the most extreme pro-abortion official in the nation. While Obama was fighting that act in Illinois, the same bill passed the U.S. Congress unanimously. O'Malley deplored the tyranny of the Supreme Court, which was nice. But O'Malley also said this:

If we had the opportunity to vote as a nation, there would certainly be limitations imposed on the abortion industry that destroys not just the lives of the babies but also the lives of all involved...We pray for the opportunity to allow the American people to have a voice in such a crucial issue.

Well, Cardinal, your statement was issued on October 30th, less than a week before Catholics would have the opportunity to voice their position on Election Day, but you failed to mention that opportunity.

Pope Benedict and his predecessors have made it crystal clear that abortion is a moral evil on an unarguable level totally different from and above such moral questions as those about war, death penalty, poverty, racial preferences and so on, where Catholics and others may reasonably differ.

One Catholic priest confided he was going to vote for Obama. His listener expressed shock, saying, How can you vote for someone who had announced he will remove all limits on abortion and would force Catholic hospitals and doctors to perform abortions? Wouldn't that be a grave sin? The priest replied, "Oh, well, he'll change." Sure.

How widespread was such self-delusion? Exit polls indicate that 54% of Catholics voted for Obama/Biden. (88% of Evangelicals voted for McCain/Palin.)

So now O'Malley is "horrified." A bit late.

O'Malley heartened, worried by election Fears a loosening on abortion access By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff | November 11, 2008
BALTIMORE - Forty years ago, in the weeks just after the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, a young friar named Sean O'Malley joined thousands of other civil rights activists in a rainy vigil on the National Mall in Washington.

Today, as much of the nation celebrates the first election of an African-American as president, O'Malley is visibly moved by the moment, but also horrified by what he sees as Barack Obama's "deplorable" record on abortion rights.

"When I was in high school, I joined the NAACP and did voter registration in black neighborhoods when I wasn't old enough to vote myself, and I was there at Resurrection City after Martin Luther King was murdered, and living in the mud with thousands of people on the lawn of the Lincoln Memorial and having off-duty redneck policemen throwing canisters of tear gas at us and shouting obscenities," O'Malley, now the cardinal-archbishop of Boston, said in an interview yesterday, his eyes welling with tears.

"So, to me, the election of an Afro-American is like the Berlin Wall falling. I mean, for my generation, I suppose young people today can't appreciate that, but to me it is something very big."

But O'Malley, an ardent opponent of abortion, made it clear that he is aghast at the specter that Obama might ease access to the procedure. The cardinal made his comments on the opening day of the semiannual meeting of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in Baltimore.

"My joy, however, is tempered by the knowledge that this man has a deplorable record when it comes to prolife issues, and is possibly in the pocket of Planned Parenthood, which, in its origins, was a very racist organization to eliminate the blacks, and it's sort of ironic that he's been co-opted by them," he said.

"He is the president, and everyone wishes him well, and we will try to work with him. However, I hope he realizes that his election was not a mandate to rush ahead with a proabortion platform."

His allegations about the organization's racist history are a subject of dispute in the debate over abortion.

In several local newsletters, Planned Parenthood has denied the suggestion by abortion rights activists that it is racist. A New York State affiliate, for example, wrote this spring that "such race-baiting tactics are the most cynical form of politicking. Planned Parenthood has a proud history of social justice."

The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, has been the subject of controversy because of her interest in eugenics, or selective breeding. Sanger died in 1966, and her attitudes on race have been debated by historians.

Planned Parenthood spokespeople in Washington, D.C., and Boston and the Obama office in Chicago did not return calls seeking comment on O'Malley's remarks yesterday.

The bishops are meeting one week after voters chose Obama, a Democrat who supports abortion rights, over Senator John McCain, a Republican abortion foe.

Dozens of bishops spoke out in recent weeks, urging Catholic voters to make opposition to abortion their top priority, but exit polls suggested that a majority of Catholics voted for Obama.

As a senator, Obama voted 100 percent of the time with abortion-rights organizations, according to evaluations by abortion rights groups.

The bishops are planning to discuss lessons learned from last week's election today, as commentators and bloggers are routinely declaring the bishops among the election's losers.

But yesterday, in speeches, interviews, and at a news press conference, the bishops made clear that most of them see the election as a reflection of the economic downturn, and not a referendum on abortion.

"In working for the common good of our society, racial justice is one pillar of our social doctrine," Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago, who is the president of the bishops' conference, said in an opening address. However, he said, "The common good can never be adequately incarnated in a society when those waiting to be born can be legally killed at choice. . . . Today, as was the case 150 years ago, common ground cannot be found by destroying the common good."

Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Providence, who before the election wrote, "I could never vote for a candidate - of any party for any office - who supports laws that promote or allow the death of thousands of children in the hideous crime of abortion," yesterday offered the rosiest analysis of the election, saying, "There's a possibility it could have been worse if the bishops weren't speaking out."

Although a handful of bishops have suggested that Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be denied Communion, most of the big-city bishops have not taken that step, and there is no indication of a major shift on that front.

Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl of Washington, whose archdiocese in January will become home to the first Catholic vice president, Joseph Biden, said he would not seek to deny Communion to Biden, who supports abortion rights. "I have never thought that that was the way to proceed," he said.

And O'Malley, whose archdiocese is home to two prominent abortion-rights supporting Catholics, Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, said, "We do not want to make a battleground out of the Eucharist."

Both Wuerl and O'Malley said Catholics should be grappling with their own consciences to determine whether they are worthy to receive Communion..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Boston's archbishop, political outcome is no indication of a changing tide
By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff | November 11, 2008

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Boston, spoke about abortion and the election of Barack Obama in an interview yesterday in Baltimore, where O'Malley is attending the fall meeting of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Following are excerpts.

Q. So many bishops spoke out on abortion in recent weeks, and yet a majority of Catholics voted for Barack Obama. What do you make of that?

A. It was a very complicated election. I don't think that the abortion issue is what decided the election. It was more the economy, the war, and the dissatisfaction with the present administration.

When I was in high school [in Ohio] I joined the NAACP and did voter registration in black neighborhoods, when I wasn't old enough to vote myself. And I was there at Resurrection City after Martin Luther King was murdered, and living in the mud with thousands of people on the lawn of the Lincoln Memorial and having off-duty redneck policemen throwing canisters of tear gas at us and shouting obscenities. So, to me, the election of an Afro-American is like the Berlin Wall falling. I mean, for my generation, I suppose young people today can't appreciate that, but to me it is something very big.

My joy, however, is tempered by the knowledge that this man has a deplorable record when it comes to prolife issues and is possibly in the pocket of Planned Parenthood, which, in its origins, was a very racist organization to eliminate the blacks, and it's sort of ironic that he's been coopted by them. However, he is the president, and everyone wishes him well, and we will try to work with him. However, I hope he realizes that his election was not a mandate to rush ahead with a pro-abortion platform.

Q. There's been a lot of discussion about whether the bishops' teaching on voting is too nuanced, because it was used in all kinds of ways by all kinds of groups during this election, because it said Catholics are not single-issue voters. What do you think?

A. I think that most Catholics understand what the church's teachings are and those voter guide things are always problematic, but I think, in general, people understand. It was interesting, if one considers Massachusetts, which is so overwhelmingly Democratic, and eight years ago [Vice President Al] Gore got 75 percent of the Catholic vote and, four years ago, [Senator John] Kerry, who is Catholic and from Massachusetts, got 50 percent of it, so they lost 25 percent of the vote in four years, and I think a lot of that was the influence of people's concerns about life issues and things like that. And obviously when you look at the difference between the way that Catholics who are church-going Catholics vote and those who are not church-going Catholics, I think that the Catholics reflect the church's teaching. Not as much as we'd like them to, but certainly this last election there were many other factors that intervened.

Q. You just alluded to the fact that many of the people in your archdiocese are Catholics who support abortion rights, including leading politicians, and both US senators. What is your position on whether they should present themselves for Communion, and whether you should be giving it to them?

A. The church's teaching on worthiness for Communion and proper disposition is in the Catholic catechism, and it's no secret, and I support that. There is perhaps a teaching where we have not done as good a job of late as we used to. . . . Today, I think we need to reinforce that teaching a lot. And once that teaching is better understood, then, I think, it will be obvious as to who should be coming to Communion and who shouldn't. But until there's a decision of the church to formally excommunicate people, I don't think we're going to be denying Communion to the people. However, whatever the church's decision is, we will certainly enforce.

Q. There's been a lot of conversation about whether there's another strategy on abortion, whether trying to reduce the number would be more effective at this point. What do you think about that idea?

A. We're always for reducing the number. But we cannot turn our back on the obligation to work for just laws that protect human life, from the first moment of conception until natural death. So obviously we want to do all that we can to reduce the number of abortions, but as long as those unjust laws are on the book, human life is threatened.

Q. Is there anything you would like to see the conference do? Is there some action that you think should be taken?

A. I would just like to see us have a united voice, and a strong response, one that will reinforce that there's no new way of being prolife, and that we must work on both tracks, trying to reduce the number of abortions and trying to change the laws

The bishops are under pressure from all sides. Antiabortion organizations, led by the American Life League, are planning a prayer vigil outside the bishops' hotel tonight to push for a "crackdown" on Catholic politicians who support abortion rights.

"It's time the bishops set the record straight - you can't be Catholic and proabortion, no matter how many politicians masquerade otherwise," said Kathleen Walker, a spokeswoman for the American Life League.

But liberal groups are urging a different approach. Patrick Whelan, of Catholic Democrats, said the bishops should "recognize that there's no place at the table for groups that peddle hateful labels like 'proabortion politician' or advocate using the Holy Eucharist as a political weapon on behalf of the Republicans."

Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, said the bishops "now must figure out how to rebuild bridges they have burned with the incoming administration and the Democratic Party, and how to recover lost good will with the millions of Catholics who clearly do not recognize bishops' moral authority in political matters."