• Subscribe to Crisis

  • ‘Peace and Justice’ Catholics

    by William A. Donohue

    In the summer of 1993, a young woman on my staff came back from lunch one afternoon screaming mad. I had just started as president of the Catholic League and wanted to know what her problem was. It so happened that over lunch (in the New York Archdiocese’s cafeteria) she was berated by a young man for her pro-life views. He worked for a social-justice organization.
    It is no secret that the “peace and justice” crowd is soft on abortion. Sr. Helen Prejean and others like her can get quite worked up about the rights of serial murderers on death row, but they never seem to be quite as excited about the rights of innocent unborn babies. That’s because too many of them see abortion as merely unfortunate: They positively do not believe it is “intrinsically evil.”
    On July 25, Catholics for Choice paid for an ad in Italy’s largest newspaper — the money was laundered via the Ford Foundation and other anti-Catholic establishment institutions — denouncing the Catholic Church for its teaching on contraception. One of Pax Christi’s chapters signed the ad, and so did a chapter of Voice of the Faithful. Dignity and the Women’s Ordination Conference were also signatories.
    None of these groups was founded to protest the Church’s teaching on contraception. Pax Christi professes an interest in peace; VOTF was established to address the sexual abuse scandal; Dignity is a gay-rights group; Women’s Ordination Conference wants women priests. But all are integral to the social-justice wing of the Catholic Church, and all reject the Church’s teachings on sexuality (not just artificial birth control). To top it off, they have no problem signing an ad sponsored by an organization that was twice condemned by the bishops’ conference for being a fraud.
    How can groups that are nominally Catholic join with a group that is the most notoriously anti-Catholic organization in the nation? The answer is obvious: They are ideologically compatible. They would argue, however, that their commitment to helping the poor and promoting peace makes them more Catholic than most pro-life groups. But what does their commitment entail?
    Social-justice Catholics love to tout organizations like Bread for the World. But the fact is that this group does nothing but lobby for welfare programs — it has never given any poor person a job, never helped them to get a job, and never once put food on the table for them. But it is good at lobbying, and what it lobbies for is more handouts.
    In 1996, President Bill Clinton reluctantly signed the most comprehensive welfare reform bill in American history. It is now acknowledged, even by the New York Times, that it did more to break the back of dependency than any other piece of legislation. And who worked hard against it? The social-justice crowd.
    Now these same groups are offering more propaganda by lying about health care. The lie is that we don’t have universal health care. Of course we do — we’ve had it for a very long time. The reality is that not a single person in the United States is denied health care because he is indigent — it is against the law to deny treatment to anyone. What we don’t have is universal health insurance, and that is because many illegal aliens, as well as many young persons (e.g., graduate students who work part-time), elect not to buy it. Indeed, many of these people argue that it is easier, and cheaper, to simply go to an emergency room than it is to pay for an insurance policy.
    They also lie about war and peace. Read what they say about our involvement in Iraq. They say the entire war is about oil. Really? If that were true, we would have thrown Israel overboard long ago, befriended the Arabs, and gotten all the oil we wanted. But things are not quite that simple.
    Similarly, the “peace and justice” crowd exudes a smugness that makes many veterans like me sick. Is there a cause they think is worth fighting for? Is there a war they can defend? More to the point, their very existence is due to those who enlist in the armed forces, and to the veterans before them, all of whom reject the idea that surrender is a means to peace.
    Peace through strength is the most efficacious way to avoid war. Self-reliance and hard work is the best way to help the able-bodied poor to become upwardly mobile. Laws protecting the unborn are the most reliable means of stopping abortion. This is something those in the pro-life wing of the Catholic Church already know, and it is something they can pursue without ever being bankrolled by anti-Catholic front groups.
    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Print this   |   Share this

    • Rev Michael T Barry

      Do you have a typo in paragraph 5? Did you mean “incompatible” rather than “compatible”?

    • Todd

      A most unimpressive piece, Mr Donohue. Here’s why:

      Individual persons may possess contradictory approaches to personal philosophies. A person who claims to support peace may get into shouting matches, rendering emotional violence to others. A person who claims to be pro-life may never care for family members, de-personalizing her or his view of the value of life from conception. I’ve known both types. They tend to give bad impressions to fence-sitters, and their opponents harbor grudges to use in arguments.

      In fact, what passes for debate these days is actually a search to discredit one’s opponents, to find the gotcha! episodes. It is easier to argue by subtraction of an adversary than the more difficult tack of building up by logic, reason, and persuasion one’s own arguments.

      The modern culture rewards “billable” conflict. Small differences are widened, and the internet phenomenon works in favor of those who want to get clannish with like-minded friends. It’s not unlike what happens in the media, and especially on television.

      Another aspect of this kind of modern approach is to avoid one’s opponents’ stances, even if they are congruent to one’s own. Senator Obama supports this? I must be opposed. P&J Catholics oppose torture? I must support the Bush Administration. Hardcore anti-abortionists raise their banner? I don’t want to touch it. Seamless garmenters advocate womb to tomb? I’ll end my advocacy at birth. Silly and illogical, but it happens all the time.

      What you are picking up in your examples here is simple human nature. You suggest that it is a flaw of the Left, when in fact, it is a part of sinful human existence. A digger could surely find such instances in your own published past, Mr Donohue. I think I’ll refrain.

      Instead, I’ll point out that your suggestion that conservatives have the moral high ground in the culture wars is likely to be all wet. Individual Catholics of all beliefs and emphases lead saintly and holy lives, and give witness to Christ to other believers and to the world. Some people do less well, but are no less active. And too many Catholics aspire to do neither.

      But organizations, tribes, and political action groups possess none of these good qualities, and quite often, many of the bad. We would do well to keep this in mind before we demonize opponents based on the associations you suggest, Mr Donohue. Let’s have more vigorous discussion on the issues, and leave poor personal examples for talk shows. We should steer InsideCatholic to higher standards.

    • Joe Marier

      You know, the core of this article is about whether or not Pax Christi and others should have signed that pro-contraception ad sponsored by Catholics for a Free Choice, or not. Saying “well, you wrote a bad article” doesn’t cut it for me any more.

    • Andy

      The groups Mr. Donahue is criticizing here, Todd, are hardly normative Catholic groups.

      I also can’t help but notice that he never once used the words “liberal,” “conservative,” “Left,” or “Right” in a political context. Why are you so quick to separate by such labels?

    • Brian Cook

      Todd, I want to thank you for bringing a much-needed voice of moderation and nuance into this debate. I especially think of your remarks about the capacity for gross contradiction. I encourage all to engage the points that Todd brought up. Sooner or later, Mister Donahue will have to publicly address the accusations that he once mocked “gooks”, to name one example of flaws that some could exploit.

      Let me now address Andy. Traditionalism and Liberalism, also called rightism and leftism, are socio-political philosophies. Traditionalism seems to claim a monopoly on the Culture of Life. However, if you look at websites exposing right-wing extremism, or even websites criticizing the mainstream right’s excesses, you’ll see that traditionalism doesn’t actually have a monopoly on goodness and holiness. I’ve seen Catholic forums where people really have used the language of hate in the name of divine love. I don’t have the time or energy to pick out examples, even extreme examples. That is the main reason why I have become tired, frustrated, and angry with the increasingly polarized climate of the Culture War.

      The sooner the pro-family movement reforms, the better chance it has to witness to the Gospel. The more Christians distance themselves from either side of the ideological spectrum, the better the Church will look. I’m not talking about image or public relations–I’m talking about giving a coherent witness.

    • Howard Kainz

      Mr. Donohue, you bring up a good point. Catholics who have no problem with brutally exterminating over a million unborn infants each year will excuse themselves by saying they are for peace and justice. In this they are in the company of most secular humanists and atheists, who are also for peace and justice. You don’t have to be a Christian to be for “peace and justice,” but it does help to salve your conscience if you want to look the other way on the abortion issue.

    • Joe Marier

      Brian, I’m not sure what response is necessary. Todd’s views pretty much are what they are.

      But if you insist, let me take his first paragraph for just one second…

      Someone wrote: Individual persons may possess contradictory approaches to personal philosophies.

      For someone who criticizes his editors for their standards for publishing “unimpressive” pieces, this is an unimpressive sentence. Possessing an approach to a philosophy? What does that even mean?

      Someone wrote: A person who claims to support peace may get into shouting matches, rendering emotional violence to others.

      Except Bill isn’t criticizing him for “emotional violence” per se, he’s criticizing him for emotional violence because of his assistant’s pro-life views.

      [quote=Someone] A person who claims to be pro-life may never care for family members, de-personalizing her or his view of the value of life from conception.

      Fair enough, but “his or her view of the value of life from conception”? Is the value of life from conception a matter of your point of view?

      [quote=Someone]I’ve known both types. They tend to give bad impressions to fence-sitters, and their opponents harbor grudges to use in arguments.

      Also, fair enough. Except now we’re arguing about personality flaws and sins instead of defiance of Church teaching, which is the what the article is about.

      Is this the response you’re looking for, Brian? Would you like me to continue?

    • James DePrisco

      A few basics about the faith. Tonight pray this prayer: “Oh Lord, look at me through the eyes of Justice. Judge me by my merits.”. No Catholic would ever pray that prayer. We pray for mercy. The correct term is “Social Mercy”, not “Social Justice”. In a just world, if you screw up your life, you starve to death. It is through mercy and Charity (Caritas, not handouts) that the people that screw up their lives are helped.

      A few more basics. If you practice contraception, and don’t repent, you will burn in hell. If you support abortion, you will burn in hell. If you vote for a politician knowing that he supports abortion, you will burn in hell. For all of these, you will burn in hell if you do not repent and confess your sins. That is the Catholic Faith. If you don’t believe this, then you are no longer Catholic. I suggest visiting an Anglican parish.

    • Todd

      “What does that even mean?”

      It means what I said it meant. I gave four examples. People sometimes claim they have one position, but their political or emotional opinions and actions betray the primary claim.

      “Except Bill isn’t criticizing him for ‘emotional violence’ per se, he’s criticizing him for emotional violence because of his assistant’s pro-life views.”

      We don’t know that. We have what Mr Donohue said his assistant said about another exchange. This passes for a reasonable argument? For all we know this fifteen-year-old argument was about two young people miscommunicating over lunch. I’ve known many P&J Catholics who took a beating from secular contacts for anti-abortion views. What is this kind of a thread about, that I have a story or two that will trump Mr Donohue’s? What kind of discussion is that?

      My position on Mr Donohue’s essay is that he’s allowed caricature to be the foundation for his argument. His piece would be better and more provocative if he consulted with Mark Shea about pro-torture Catholics, and if he broadened his observations into the pro-life movement itself.

      Abortion is a horrific choice for individuals and human societies. But just because Mr Donohue is right on one issue doesn’t merit him a free pass on criticizing others unfairly. He can do better. IC does better by offering us comment boxes to refine and direct these discussions.

    • Colin

      Beware, everyone. Bill Donahue tries to represent himself as some kind of supra-clerical figure who is the last line of defense for Catholics, but this piece betrays his core beliefs. He is a partisan. He is not a Catholic in the truest sense of the words. Just like the so-called “social-justice Catholics” he tries to paint as a splinter faction of the Catholic church, he has his own selective agenda for Catholics: abortion, gay marriage and school vouchers. But, unlike “social-justice Catholics” who have never defended abortion, have never said it wasn’t an intrinsic evil, he actually denies Catholic teaching in his assault on this “group.”

      Those Catholics and Catholic interest groups, like Pax Christi and Bread for the World, who have focused their time and energy on specific issues, peace and welfare, respectively, are working hard to achieve goals in the interest of Catholic teaching. No catechist or clergyman could objectively argue that church is not striving for a robust safety net for the disadvantaged and downtrodden (who Donahue assumes are all “able-bodied”) or for increased diplomacy in place of unilateral, thoughtless wars like the one in Iraq. Rather, these groups are in the same vein as groups like the National Right to Life Committee, which works on behalf of the Catholic interest against abortion. Just because these groups do not work against abortion does not mean they are not against it, just as the NRLC could not be labeled as pro-poverty or anti-peace because they do not explicitly work against those evils.

      These truths are clear to Donahue, but he denies them because he is singularly focused on one thing: partisan agendas. He’s not a Catholic advocate, he’s a Republican advocate. This is eminently obvious when he makes such blatantly un-Catholic assertions such as that issue groups advocating on behalf of the impoverished are looking for “more handouts.” So, be careful folks, not to get to rapt by his Republican diatribe, because as Catholics we are called to have a more thoughtful, inclusive, and comprehensive sensability than he does. It’s a shame he’s allowed to parade himself as a Catholic advocate, much less a Catholic.

    • Patrick Hall

      Anyone and everyone that is directly associated, in any way, with the promotion of murder (“abortion”) can not be in Communion with the Bishop of Rome. They are still Catholic, in that they have access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, but nothing else.

      Also, one can not support murder by unjust war…

    • Joe Marier

      Someone wrote: We don’t know that.

      We don’t know who said what to whom, but we do know what Bill Donahue is criticizing the “who” for.

      Someone wrote: His piece would be better and more provocative if he consulted with Mark Shea about pro-torture Catholics, and if he broadened his observations into the pro-life movement itself.

      That’s an editorial criticism, not a substantive one.

      Someone wrote: Abortion is a horrific choice for individuals and human societies.

      Abortion is a horrific action.

    • Joe Marier

      (it’s sometimes a choice, and it’s sometimes coerced)

    • James DePrisco

      Colin,
      Many Catholic priests would argue against a government-run “safety net”. Taking money from people at the point of a gun and doling it out to buy votes is not charity. Social Mercy is best administered by the Catholic Church. The government should not be involved in this business.

      Second, would you vote for someone like Barrack Obama knowing that he supports abortion? If you do, you are automatically excommunicated.

    • Stan

      I will vote for Barack Obama AND I will not be “automatically excommunicated.”

      Catholics are a lot of things, but we’re not all stupid. We aren’t all suckered into the so-called “pro-life” (but, not ALL life) hysteria. MY conscience tells me that there are many critical issues, some of them social justice issues, at play during this election cycle, not just one or two or three. When I cast my informed vote for Barack Obama, I WILL be voting my conscience.

      NO ONE has the right to judge me or my vote but God. NO ONE knows whether my vote will be right or wrong in God’s eyes but God.

      Kindly spare me the “you must not have been properly formed” diatribe/hysteria.

    • Carlos Echevarria

      I think that, once again, William Donohue makes very valid and fundemental points about those who puportedly want “peace and social justice” but create & advocate “solutions” which only exacerbate those problems!

    • R.C.

      My only question is…

      …is Bill Donahue’s article about anything?

      That, is, does it proffer and then defend any kind of thesis?

      He gives a vignette.

      He says the Peace & Justice crowd is soft on abortion.

      He says a bunch of borderline (in the sense that they oppose teaching which, by extension of its claim to infallibility, is central to Catholicism) Catholic groups took out an add indicating their opposition to a particular Catholic teaching, financially assisted by an anti-Catholic group.

      Then we get what sounds like the start of a thesis: That these particular borderline Catholic groups can find common cause with anti-Catholic groups because their philosophies are so borderline that they’re compatible: That these groups would be more at home persecuting the Church than being part of it.

      Okay, now, that would be an actual assertion: Something to be defended if one proffers it, or argued against if one disagrees.

      But do we get a defense of that topic? No; Donahue continues as follows:

      He says Social Justice (not quite identical to Peace and Justice) groups opposed welfare reform, and that they were wrong to do so, because it actually helped the poor, but they’re more worried about lobbying for expanded entitlements;

      He says the same groups distort and exaggerate problems with health care in the U.S.;

      He says the Peace crowd lie about, and make obviously false accusations about, the motives and methods of the war in Iraq;

      He comes back to the newspaper ad and says that groups which don’t have as their raison d’etre opposition to Catholic orthodoxy don’t have to seek funding from anti-Catholic groups.

      And then he’s done.

      I see clearly that what these complaints and criticisms have in common is that they involve groups who claim Catholic identity in one way or another but oppose fundamental teachings, and who sometimes find common cause with anti-Catholic organizations.

      Beyond that, is there any more concrete organizing principle, here? Or is it just a stream-of-consciousness collection of “things that make Bill D. frown?”

    • Policraticus

      Well, the perpetuation of stereotype, the ignoring of negative evidence, the transformation of fridge exceptions to the standard rule, and the blatantly ignorant take on Catholic social teaching are the hallmarks of Inside Catholic. Welcome home, Bill Donohue!

    • Policraticus

      Someone wrote: Beyond that, is there any more concrete organizing principle, here? Or is it just a stream-of-consciousness collection of “things that make Bill D. frown?”

      It’s funny you say this here because it likewise characterizes Deal Hudson’s typical article. Hudson and Donohue are a new type of Catholic that we haven’t seen prior to the 1960′s. They reduce Catholic action to the secondary plane of political involvement, disavowing, it seems, works that are essentially apolitical. Hence, their constant criticism of other Catholics who do not vote or hold their basic political contentions. Really, it is sad to see this because I thought that the reductionism which followed the Second Vatican Council wherein faith became in some circles a mere expression of counter-cultural expression, political protest, and pure social concern. With Hudson and Donohue, the surface has shifted to conservativism, but the substance remains the same. Their idea of Catholicism is symmetrical that of the reductionism of the 1960′s and 1970′s, just simply occupying the opposite political coordinates. They love the John Paul II of Veritatis Splendor and Theology of the Body, but they ignore the John Paul II of Puebla and the social encyclicals. They love the Paul VI of Humanae Vitae, but they ignore the Paul VI of Populorum Progressio. They love the Pope Benedict XVI of Deus Caritas Est, but they ignore the Pope Benedict XVI of environmental concern and criticism of consumerist capitalism. Importing terms like “prudential judgment,” which were invented by their liberal counterparts to dismiss other sets of Catholic teachings, Hudson and Donohue likewise portray themselves as “real” and “orthodox” Catholics. Essentially, Hudson and Donohue, like their liberal counterparts, advocate a fragmented Catholicism of minimal works and attenuated faith, but are too blind to recognize it as such. Fortunately, their corner in American Catholicism remains small and tight, and in the coming years their influence will dim.

    • Joe Marier

      If you can’t argue the facts, or the law, you put the prosecutors on trial.

      Lame.

    • Colin

      Joe,

      When the proesecutor is so flagrantly flouting Catholic teaching in the name of his narrow agenda and castigating well-intentioned Catholics for not totting his proscribed line, then the prosecutor deserves to be held in contempt. In this case, Bill Donahue did all those things and deserves to be held in contempt.

      I wish the Catholics on this comment section who are well-meaning, stand-up Catholics but who identify with Donahue because of his staunch pro-life position would recognize his other warts and that his approach is not the only one.

    • Jesse

      As then-Cardinal Ratzinger said in his 2004 Letter to the US Bishops: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. [...] There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” [Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion Catholic Culture Libary http://tinyurl.com/5kshlv ]

      Herein lies the issue Donohue was addressing. Some folks elevate the “peace and justice” issues, where a diversity of opinion is allowed, to non-negotiable status. This peace and justice dogmatism at best ignores and at worst is hostile to pro-life non-negotiable issues. For example, Alan Keyes caused some controversy with some peace and justice priests after being chosen to speak at the a pro-life conference in 1998. [LA Catholic Mission http://tinyurl.com/6cuz9f

    • Joe Marier

      BTW, He’s not flouting Church teaching in the article.

    • Sam

      In a recent homily, our parish priest brought up the duty of “speaking truth to power” as St John the Baptist or St Thomas More did (a valid issue), but to illustrate it, he used a litany of “peace and justice” issues which sounded more like a Democrat Party platform than a truly Catholic list: speaking truth to those who would advocate “pre-emptive war,” speaking truth to power about those who advocate for the death penalty, speaking truth to those who would discriminate against immigrants, speaking truth to those who would rather maintain our consumptive lifestyle rather than fight global warming, etc. I left thinking, How about speaking truth to the powers that wish to keep abortion legal and taxpayer-supported (Planned Parenthood), push homosexual propaganda on our children at younger and younger ages through the public school system, advocate embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, and advocate euthanasia? It hit me that every one of the issues our priest mentioned as “speaking truth to power” were prudential issues vs intrinsically evil issues. Let’s review:

      1) Death penalty — The Catechism of the Catholic Church #2267 states that the death penalty, while not excluded from the list of options to preserve public safety and correct the social injustice caused by murder, is less preferable than non-lethal means of meeting the same end. This is not an absolute prohibition nor has it always and everywhere been taught as such (unlike abortion, contraception, homosexuality, etc).
      2) Pre-emptive war (and war in general) — Again, there is a just war theory in Catholic moral teaching. Catholic theologians of good will can and do disagree whether, say, our decision to invade Iraq to pre-empt the use of weapons of mass destruction was a sound application of just war theory or not. Like abortion, contraception, homosexuality, etc, war is not intrinsically evil always and everywhere taught as such.
      3) The environment — Catholics of good will can and do disagree about the prudential means of best protecting the environment for which we are all stewards. Some want command and control, bureaucratic solutions (like Kyoto) to be mandated upon us. Others want free market solutions which preserve our standard of living and allow the market to find innovative solutions to price pressures caused by oil shocks (domestic drilling, alternative fuel sources, smaller cars, etc).
      4) Immigration — Catholics of good will can and do disagree about prudential means of balancing two competing goods: the need to allow immigrants to come here in search of a better life for themselves and their families and the need to protect our borders and not allow potential terrorists into our country. Nowhere in constant Catholic teaching does it always and everywhere say that the state may or may not erect border fences, define who comes here legally and who does not, deport those who break our laws, etc.

      The unspoken issues I left pondering from his homily are issues that the Church has said are intrinsically morally evil and cannot be supported by Catholic politicians and voters alike.

      I apologize for the long post, but this to me is the heart of the matter. In their understandable zeal to help the poor or the environment, the P&J crowd relativizes or ignores life, bioethics, sexuality, and family issues while it absolutizes prudential issues about which Catholics of good will can and do disagree.

    • Sam

      Jesse,

      You said in a much shorter way what I had been writing at the time. Great job, and thanks for the CDF quote to back it up.

      God bless,
      Sam

    • Joe

      Mr. Donahue,
      I have a number of points. Firstly, you attack Sr. Helen Prejean, a wonderful woman who has given her life in service to the Church and the defense of life. Why do you mock justice? Are you not aware of Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes? The preferential option for the poor? Catholics are pro-life, stand strongly against abortion. But they also stand against all life issues such as unjust war, capital punishment, and embryonic stem-cell research. Catholics stand with the poor in solidarity and love, and fight economic and governmental oppressions. Your article, and your Catholic League as a whole, is a divisive presence in the Catholic Church.

      Secondly, I am a peace and justice Catholic. I am also pro-life. Go figure. You say, “Peace through strength is the most efficacious way to avoid war.” I think Pope John XXIII would disagree with you when he says, “Thus, in this age which boasts of its atomic power, it no longer makes sense to maintain that war is a fit instrument with which to repair the violation of justice” (Pacem in Terris).

      Mr. Donahue, thank you for your fight against the evils of abortion. But please do not do so at the expense of other important Catholic issues. Do not distort Catholic Social Teaching to promote your republican agenda.

    • RK

      Neo-conservative Catholics like Bill Donohue are clever to dismiss any opposition to the travesty in Iraq. By linking the pro life agenda with support for U.S. foreign policy he preemptively dismisses any opposition to the war from conservative Catholics. This tactic reads more like a GOP talking point than a well thought out Catholic position. Unfortunately for him and his neo-con friends we’re tired of being lied into supporting fool wars.

    • Miguel Miramon

      Hmmmm………I tend to agree with you!

    • T

      I may not always agree with Mr. Donahue on some of his statements, but he is right to consider the “life issues” paramount. As has already been noted here in the comments, Cardinal Ratzinger stated this clearly.

      Yet, as has been noted by many other commentators, you can’t chuck the other issues, either, because they too are important. As one person said, you can’t agree with the JP II of Veritatis Splendor and ignore the JP II of Laborem Excercens.

      How are we to solve this dilemma, then? How are we to reconcile the idea of a hierarchy of issues with the idea of an equality of issues?

      I suggest it begins by remembering and possessing a clearer understanding of the Church, which means going back to the person of Christ.

      Christ reconciles in himself the greatest contradictions known to man, in particular the idea of being fully divine and yet also fully human (an appropos point as we celebrate the declaration of the Theotokos today). The Church, as his Mystical Body and spouse, therefore also possesses that same ability. Like Christ, she possesses and lives out the Truth, wherever it can be found. In that sense, then, Catholicism has always been regarded as a “both/and.”

      Of course, I don’t mean here the “both/and” of the Anglican Church, where you have your own way and I have mine and they can all fit under the same circus tent independently of each other and possibly in opposition. I mean the “both/and” that recognizes the truth in both positions and attempts to bring those truths together into one coherent position (because truthful positions must ultimately be one and not contradictory). Just as Christ Himself possesses the seemingly contradictory natures of being both fully human and fully divine, the Church also can call for a hierarchy of truths while at the same time requiring that all of those truths be respected and protected.

      Please continue into the next post…

    • T

      This, I think, is what Joseph Cardinal Bernardin meant when he talked about the “seamless garment” and a “consistent ethic of life,” a theological opinion that has been very misunderstood since he presented it. So many people believe that Bernardin was putting all issues on the same plane. I don’t think that is what he was doing at all.

      Bernardin was attempting to say that those who claim to be “pro-life” must attempt to be consistently pro-life across the spectrum of issues. In essence, I believe, he was saying that those who claim to be pro-life in terms of abortion should also be pro-life regarding issues of war and capital punishment. Bernardin would not, I think, deny the possible moral rectitude or the Church’s tradition of allowing capital punishment, but his argument would be the argument made by JP II in EV and in the CCC, that we as a society should be moving in a direction away from using it and respecting the lives that it takes.

      On the other hand, Bernardin’s argument would also be a challenge to the “peace and justice” crowd, for Bernardin would say to them that, if they clamor for issues like poverty relief, the reduction of nuclear arms, etc, then they must also be moving toward a consistent pro-life emphasis across the spectrum, including on issues like abortion. He would argue, I think, that it’s not enough to be content with the life issues inherent in wanting to limit war and capitl punishment, but one must be actively seeking to outlaw abortion as well.

      For me, at least, this seems to be what all of us have to grasp a little better. We all have to be searching for the Truth and bringing it together into one coherent principle by which we can live and inform our actions. If Mr. Donahue wants to focus on bringing abortion issues to the fore, then I applaud him, so long as he also speaks out on the other issues as well. If others want to focus on bringing issues of war and enviornmentalism to the fore, I applaud them, so long as they speak out against the inherent evils of abortion and seek to end it.

    • Guillermo Bustamante

      Mr. Policraticus:

      Please allow me a foreign Catholic perspective:

      Your “fridge exceptions to the standard rule, and the blatantly ignorant take on Catholic social teaching are the hallmarks of… Fortunately, their corner in American Catholicism remains small and tight, and in the coming years their influence will dim

    • HA

      It’s funny you say this here because it likewise characterizes Deal Hudson’s typical article. Hudson and Donohue are a new type of Catholic… With Hudson and Donohue, the surface has shifted to conservativism… Hudson and Donohue likewise portray themselves as “real” and “orthodox” Catholics. Essentially, Hudson and Donohue… advocate a fragmented Catholicism of minimal works and attenuated faith…

      Policraticus, one of the co-contributors of your own blog has become notorious for his schoolboy-like crush on Obama (a politican who, we are told, “radiates truth and goodness”), and even praises Obama

    • Rick Gibson

      My hat is off to many of you who have commented. This is a very intelligent and well-informed discussion. I think the central point that should come across in all of this is that politics and religion are not the same subjects. I spent many years in the Episcopal Church. I ultimately had to leave, because that church has hopelessly confused politics and religion. The agenda of the American Episcopal Church is now set by a liberal political philosophy, not by the Gospel. One can agree or disagree with these political positions, but everyone in the Church should see that seeking social justice, as the Left understands it, is a secular venture, not a religious one. When these things are confused, and politics takes over a Church, then the Gospel is soon gone. I remember a Christmas sermon by a female priest on saving the whales. Even on Christ’s birthday, she could think of nothing religious to say, so she preached on politics, in an absurdly shallow way.

      A point that a number of prior commentators have made, but which needs underlining is that, on most political issues, the Catholic Church does not — and should not — take a stand. Politics is a secular matter and Christians of good will can disagree legitimately. While all Christians wants to end poverty and war, for example, both the Right and the Left have defensible positions on these issues, upon which the Church really has no business opining.

      LIfe issues are in a separate category, however. There are at least two reasons for this. First, the moral issue of protecting the helpless is in a category by itself. The moral imperative is simply much stronger.

      Second, it is a matter of authority and tradition. The Church has been against abortion and contraception since the earliest times. We are not free to re-define the Faith every 15 minutes. If, for example, you asked me — on a blank slate, with no prior tradition — should women be priests, I would, of course answer “yes.” That is the modern view, and I share it. However, we do not write on a blank slate. We have a tradition to preserve. And while one might think that you can pick and choose, between which traditions to preserve and which not to, the recent history of the Episcopal Church shows what happens to you when you take that approach. Once you start to dismantle the Faith, bit by bit, you soon discover that the Faith is nothing but a mirror of the outside culture. And once that happens, then the Church is effectively gone.

    • Jeannine

      Over a million unborn babies are killed in abortuaries in the United States every year. One-third of my children’s generation was destroyed by abortion. There simply is no more important issue. Our life and culture are deformed in so many ways by this cult of Moloch in our midst. I don’t think that Americans could be so ready to kill the disabled and the elderly through “futile care” policies, for example, without the witness of the abortion holocaust.

      Where have the “peace and justice” Catholics been? Most Catholics are Democrats. Why haven’t they taken back their party? Instead the prominent Catholic politicians have let their party take them.

      It would be such a pleasure to have ALL political candidates be anti-abortion. Imagine a world with truly pro-life leaders! Then we could debate the MEANS to promote peace and justice; in my view, peace and justice are not the results of socialism. However, I’m not holding my breath. It would take great courage to try to wrest our elite leaders away from the culture of death, but we must try and not give up. Meanwhile, we should not be electing pro-death leadership in either party.

    • Bruce

      …since Roe v. Wade.

      And growing daily.

      So let’s agree on the idea of porportionality and stand any other issue up to the life issue of abortion.

      As for me, I will happily change my vote based on an issue that outweighs 50 million innocent dead.

      Got one?

    • John Jakubczyk

      …and I agree.

      Let’s stop the killing of the innocent unborn. Let’s offer real hope to women and their unborn children.

      You may complain about Deal and Bill,but if you all would get involved and demand from the P&J crowd a singular commitment
      to stop the killing, then we could address the other problems that need a Catholic perspective – not a liberal one or a conservative one, but a Gospel driven one.

      But until we stop the killing, how can we ask God to heal our land?

      Stan, if you do not care about ending abortion, then go ahead and vote for Obama – because he wants to expand abortion through his friends at Planned Parenthood.

      Todd, Colin et al – Are you so angry at guys like Deal and Bill because deep down you really wish that the liberal Catholic groups would actually do something to stop abortion as opposed to give comfort to the enemy?

      Look, 60 million dead – on our watch – believe me when i say that i am asking for God’s mercy in this.

    • Charles Miller

      Wow…I just spent an hour composing a post and it disappeared. Let’s see if I can get close:

      First point is one of coded language. The two parties in this discussion, let’s call them “Seamless Garment” and “Pro-Life” tend to see the other’s position as staking out the politics that go along with it. Among each other it’s a manner of secret handshake. If I say I am radically pro-life, it makes is pretty clear at least who my candidate for President is going to be this election. And it evokes winces in the “Seamless Garment” crowd because it’s not the guy who “radiates truth and…”

      Problem is one of primacy of the issues. I know of no one in the “Pro-Life” crowd who will say that peace and justice issues are not important. My experience has been that the more radically pro-life I have become, the wider the net of “life” issues is cast. Surely that is not some kind of individualistic response. And yet, my paradigm is radical pro-life: What is this candidate/organization/etc.’s stand on abortion? It is a lens to focus on everything from my Church to my phone company. Yes, I am a simpleton, but I am also adopted. Tell me that doesn’t influence your mindset on abortion!

      Unfortunately, it still comes back to coded language. Mr. Donohue’s article asked the question: How can groups that are nominally Catholic join with a group that is the most notoriously anti-Catholic organization in the nation? And suddenly off we go with ad-hominems and “conservative” and “liberal”, “neo-cons” and anon. The thing is that it is really hard to separate the politics from belief. I know it is for me. The truly unfortunate thing is that people let politics color belief.

      Finally, I don’t have a clear answer to this question, but how did we get so polarized? Is it the “Religious Right” or the “politics of abortion”? My own experience of alienation came in Chicago in the 1980s, where I was told from the pulpit I was a bad Catholic for supporting my country and even worse that was a military officer. By the way, I recall that to be the Cardinal himself who said that. I walked away for nearly 20 years, only to realize late what a revolution John Paul the Great had wrought within my Church. Actually, I would think that would be a great article here in Crisis…a point – counterpoint piece. Can I nominate Deal Hudson for point man?

      Okay, I tried to re-create it. Too bad it’s no less disjointed this time around.

    • RK

      Anyone who believes McCain offers a greater likelihood for the elimination or reduction of abortion in this country is sailing on the Good Ship Lollipop. Abortion is an industry not just for abortionists, but also for abortion opponents. The two major political parties have long ago split the ideological pie on this issue. McCain, like the Bushes and Reagan before him, will make a few pious comments about reducing abortion and nominating certain judges and all the Catholics and fundamentalists will fall in line, thus securing a predictable voting bloc for the GOP. In the end nothing will change.

      My recommendation to my fellow Catholics: Stop voting, it only encourages them.

    • Andy

      RK wrote: The two major political parties have long ago split the ideological pie on this issue. McCain, like the Bushes and Reagan before him, will make a few pious comments about reducing abortion and nominating certain judges and all the Catholics and fundamentalists will fall in line, thus securing a predictable voting bloc for the GOP. In the end nothing will change.

      My recommendation to my fellow Catholics: Stop voting, it only encourages them.

      Your recommendation for Catholics to betray their civic obligations notwithstanding, how is your “ideological pie” analogy any different on welfare? The environment? Taxes? Any issue at all?

      Neither party particularly cares about solving issues, but darned if I’m going to vote for Obama, who promises to enshrine abortion in law by signing the so-called Freedom of Choice Act.

      The millions of unborn slaughtered every year would beg to differ whether it’s a “non-issue” or not.

    • RK

      how is your “ideological pie” analogy any different on welfare? The environment? Taxes? Any issue at all?

      Neither party particularly cares about solving issues, but darned if I’m going to vote for Obama, who promises to enshrine abortion in law by signing the so-called Freedom of Choice Act.

      The millions of unborn slaughtered every year would beg to differ whether it’s a “non-issue” or not.[/quote]
      There’s probably no difference on those issues either. There’s a tacit agreement that politics won’t change the status quo in any appreciable way. If this is true, why would I have any obligation to contribute to the charade by voting? Since “neither party cares about solving issues”, isn’t voting one of the most useless things I could do for the “millions of unborn slaughtered”?

    • James DePrisco

      Stan wrote: I will vote for Barack Obama AND I will not be “automatically excommunicated.”

      Stan, study up on the Catholic Church. It is automatic .
      Since you know full well his position on abortion, even partial-birth abortion, you will be automatically excommunicated.

      Protestant wrote:
      NO ONE has the right to judge me or my vote but God. NO ONE knows whether my vote will be right or wrong in God’s eyes but God.

      It looks like you already lost the faith. So the Church has no authority to judge you?

    • James DePrisco

      Time for a trip down memory lane. Remember the term “red-lining”? Ring a bell? Remember during the Clinton years when Jesse Jackson and the ACORN social “justice” boys were clamoring for more sub-prime loans? They accused banks of being racist for redlining neighborhoods and refusing to give out loans to welfare queens? Did you know they got the regulations passed and banks were forced to hand out sub prime loans? Of course the local banks knew what would happen, so they packaged them up and sold them off — to your pension fund. So now the welfare queens have all defaulted, homes are being auctioned off, builders are bankrupt, and we are heading for the Greater Depression as everyone’s home is dropping in value due to the foreclosures. On the bright side all of the neurotic social “justice” fools felt good because they could force the successful business men to give out loans to those poor welfare queens and their bastard children. Doesn’t that make you feel better as you watch your pension implode and you lose your job? And it gets even better. Now ACORN and the boys are accusing the banks of taking advantage of the welfare queens by giving them loans! My point? In the late 90′s, the social “justice” crowd was arguing that you could vote for a politician who supports abortion if he also fought against red lining. The Church disagrees, and my example shows the Church is right.

    • John Jakubczyk

      that RK is not only jaded but clueless as to the thousands of people who are involved in efforts to save the lives of women and children from this barbarism called abortion?

      And would RK casually dismiss the energy of those who without any form of compensation dedicate countless hours each week to offer real help and concrete assistance to women and children at risk from abortion?

      Sure there are those who have exploited the issue. Welcome to the human race. But even they are saving lives in their own inept ways.

      and what is that old Jewish saying? “He who saves one life has saved the entire world.”

      Abortion is not a “non-issue.” To everyone of the babies killed in the womb, it is their crucifixion. It is very real to the women who live with the specter of their abortion decision every day of their lives.

      So please in this discussion, do not insult the men and women who are trying to save the lives of “these the least of my brethren.”

      Ask yourself – what are you doing to advance the effort to end this holocaust.

      If stopping a known abortion advocate named Barack Obama from winning the White House is just one thing you do, innocent unborn lives will be saved because of it.

    • Brian Cook

      I cannot accept abortion. I wish to see every unborn child live. However, I must also point out that self-appointed ministers of the “Cutlure of Life” have mocked autistic children and “welfare queens” and “liberal fascists” and non-European immigrants and Jews. I must also point out that an apparent avid reader of Michael Savage and Bill O’Reilly tried to gun down a whole Unitarian congregation. I must also point out the realities of Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph.

      http://tinyurl.com/6s39cg

      I’m sorry for the lapse in Logical Logic, but I really must do everything I can do save this thread from devolving into an ideological shouting match. Basically, the title of my post should tell us that we can’t champion life for only one group of people, even if it is more vulnerable than all the others.

    • Brian Cook

      P.S. When I’ve linked to Orcinus before, I haven’t asked you to agree with everything that it says. I’ve only asked that take its criticisms of the Right seriously, honestly, and respectfully.

    • Andy

      Brian Cook wrote:
      I’m sorry for the lapse in Logical Logic,

      That’s about all it is. Trying to connect right-wing pundits with the UU shooting and the Oklahoma City bombing is beneath you, or any thinker.

    • Dan

      The Catholic Church does not exist to be tolerant of unacceptable behavior, “choices”, etc. Abortion and contraception are unacceptable to the Catholic Church, period. However, because of God’s infinite Mercy, even those who make these wrong “choices” can repent and through the Sacrament of Reconciliation become whole with the Catholic Church again.

      Truth is the Truth. One of the candidates is radically in favor of a woman’s right to “choose” to end the life of her unborn infant. He even supports the right to end the life of an infant after delivery in some (rare) cases. Look it up. To support this candidate (OK, I’ll say it – Obama) is to directly support his pro-”choice” policies. Sorry, I can’t be “tolerant” of that, just as I cannot be “tolerant” of Islamic terrorism. Obviously, I do not share many of the commentators’ anti-Iraq war stance. We have many Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines sacrificing their lives and limbs for a very worthy cause, and never has a mission like this been accomplished with such care for innocent human life. My son is a Marine who served in Iraq, and you can take that to the bank.

      I will be part of a P & J Mission with my family to Appalachia next week, but we will also carry the pro-life message with us. The reality is, there is much good in P & J, but it should only be a part of our faith life – not our entire faith life. Jesus Christ is the center, source and summit of our Faith. We will have daily Mass (rare in Appalachian Catholic Churches due to lack of priests and many parishes to cover), Eucharistic Adoration, and daily Rosary to go along with our service to the poor. I pray that we carry Christ’s message as He would have us carry it.

    • RK

      ……that John Jakubczyk’s presumptuousness betrays his own lack of clear thinking? His knee jerk reaction makes the case that too many anti abortion activists are like a ship without a rudder. His opponents are likely not so foolish.

      While I’m unequivocally against abortion in all cases, I’ve spent enough time in Washington to realize that most of what passes for the fight to end abortion is merely political rhetoric. I’ve spent enough time in the trenches of the D.C. cesspool to realize that a simple prayer will save more unborn babies than the Human Life Amendment or a conservative majority on the Court ever will.

      What some might call jaded and clueless others might call realistic. Frankly, unless more Catholics face facts we’ve lost the fight before we even step into the ring. Christ implored that we be as wise as serpents and gentle as doves; not to be as wise as doves.

    • Partisan

      is just one more “neocon” Catholic.

    • Adriana

      Somehow in this article I can feel a certain very untactful attitutude that people engage in when they want to enlist others to their cause: belittling others’ concerns and causes because they do not join their own. Like “how can you worry about cruetly to animals when there are children being abused?” “Why fight against pornography when there is homelessness all around us?” If one were to listen to all those criticisms one would end up doing nothing.

      So, there people are “soft” on abortion – he can castigate them on that, but not for choosing to work in their areas of ministry. And wonder if the reason why they are “soft” was that because the only allies they could find for their concern were pro-abortion people? You cannot fight in the same trenches, shoulder to shouldre with others without getting some of their ideas of attitudes.

      Also, if he wants to disparage the seamless garment theory, I wonder if that is because for a lot of people they are only pro-life when it costs them nothing. I recall that I mentioned the issue of mine safety – and the news of miners dying in mines which were not up to standards, and how in the past years enforcement was cut down – and I got a lecture on economics,and how the miners had joined of their free will. So, if you are willing to let men who are trying to earn a living die so as to have cheaper coal, then you are only pro-life when it is economical to do so, and not so different from a teenager who finds that aboritng the baby would be better for her economically. That’s what seamless garment means. Either we are serious about it, or we are just fair-weather (would it be fair-profit) pro-lifers.

    • R.C.

      Partisan:

      “Neocon?” How so? He is not a Jewish foreign-policy hawk, which is the usual definition of “neocon” in academia (especially Middle East Studies departments). He is not recently a convert to conservative politics, which was the definition of “neocon” when the term was first coined. He does not hold conservative views solely on foreign policy and trade, and hold loosely libertarian views on all else, as do the prominent personalities who are usually described as “neoconservative” by traditional news media outlets.

      Is there some reason you specifically think he’s “neoconservative” as opposed, merely, to “conservative?”

      Or is it just that the former term is associated in your mind with more intense feelings of hatred and contempt, and you are using it carelessly without attention to its definition, as an epithet?

    • John Jakubczyk

      RK, your response seems to prove my point. And while i can sympathize with the frustration of attempting to push politicians in any direction, much less the right one, and will agree 100% that one Ave Maria is more powerful than what sometimes passes for action, I cannot sink into the bog of hopelessness and give up.

      Too much is at stake.

      I would respectfully suggest that instead of banging your head in efforts that you see as futile, you engage in the work that is making a difference. In your community it may be the local emergency pregnancy center. It may be the 40 days of life prayer campaign. It may be the pro-life hour of adoration before the Blessed Sacrament in your parish. If there is no program of adoration in your parish, perhaps you could address the idea to your pastor.

      I would also encourage you to watch the movie, “Amazing Grace.”

      Because we live in this world we cannot avoid its effects on our lives. We have a duty to make the effort to change the status quo. Changing the court is needed to correct an injustice that impacts the future as well as the present. having pro-life politicians is always better than having people in power who would allow the killing of innocent unborn children.

      If you have been in the battle, then now is not the time to quit. it is the time to re-committ.

      Pax.

    • Adriana

      RK:

      You are right to be discouraged about the possibility of ending abortion through political means.

      I made a point in other thread that the pro-life movement is the equivalent of the gun control movement. Both are seen as trying to deprive people of their inalienable rights, and go against the libertarian streak prevalent in the political discourse: “It is my . and I decide what to do with it, not Goverment”, whether noun is money, or a baby, or your own body (this is the gist of the protest against being made to wear a helmet when motorcycle riding).

      It is society that is sick, not government – basically Goverment gives the people what it wants, when the people want it enough. While it is tempting to pass a law, if most people do not like it, it will be disobeyed, and eventually abolished.

      Changing society is more slow, sure, and it does not lend itself to flashy headlines. But it is the only way to get anything done. I recall a few years back – many years – I am older than I like to think – there was a show named “Quincy” who at one point tackled the secret euthanasia carried out by doctors who decided, in the delivery table that a baby was too defective, and that it might be better off dead. The show highlighed the slow, patient labor of the foster parents of a group of retarded children, and how those children grew up to be functioning adults – with the doctor who was on trial being shamed into realizing what those he called “vegetables” could grow into. This was a great teaching aid – because it explained that change would not come from rousing speeches, nor by government fiats, but bit by bit.

      As for politics, I would advice catholics from letting any political party take their vote for granted. There is a reason why the Bible tells us “not to put our trust in princes”, and part of is comes from the fact that the temporal power seeks to tame the church and use it for its own ends. The Church ahs not fully recovered yet from the corruption that the State of the Ancien Regime inflicted on it (indeed, it is better for a Church to be persecuted than domesticated), and we should not be in any rush to bring back the bad old days.

    • R.C.

      A “seamless garment” of Catholicism would NOT be of uniform “color” across all realms of public policy.

      Different categories of public policy merit a different Catholic response. Consider:

      (a.) Entitlements for those below the poverty line;
      (b.) The use (or non-use) of the death penalty for murderers;
      (c.) Laws against (or the absence of laws against) abortion.

      These items differ, especially in who initiates the use of force.

      We should be reticent about brandishing guns at someone, lest we do so without due cause. This is true whether we, or employees acting on our behalf, are holding the guns

      Government is exactly that: Our employees, with guns. We grant it a monopoly on the use of force to achieve our goals. Its every act either uses, or threatens, force.

      Because it always uses (or implies the threat of) force, government is a dangerous power, and everyone (right and left!) agrees it is wise to limit its intrusions to two Categories of situations:
      Category 1: Where someone else has already initiated force or fraud against an innocent;
      Category 2: Where no force yet exists, but the results of government initiating the use of force is better than what happens if it doesn’t.

      The political left and right usually agree about “Category 1 Situations”; e.g., resisting invading armies or arresting criminals.

      But they debate about what does or doesn’t fall under “Category 2.” Sometimes situations are improved when government is the first party to draw arms; sometimes they get worse.

      So I return to items (a.), (b.), and (c.):

      (a.) Entitlements for the poor is usually Category 2. Nobody’s using force until We The People initiate it. So, we should be reticent about doing so; otherwise we get such side-effects as that welfare system which so subsidized single-parenthood that it destroyed inner-city families from the late 60′s to the 90′s.

      (b.) Punishing a murderer is a Category 1 matter. The murderer initiated force; there’s a body to prove it! But punishment has its own set of criteria: Does it protect the innocent (through deterrence or anti-recidivism)? Does it fit the crime? Does it satisfy society’s longing for justice? That’s all a separate discussion.

      (c.) Laws against (or the absence of laws against) abortion are intrinsically Category 1 if we are Catholics and therefore believe that the unborn have a right to life. For, if they do, then abortion is a criminal assault, and as force has already entered the situation, a use of government force to prevent injury to these tiny innocents is warranted in response.

      This analysis shows, speaking broadly, that we should expect Catholics to favor government action in Category 1 areas, but that Catholics can easily differ in Category 2.

      Indeed, we should probably expect Catholics to favor government activity in Category 2 less than in Category 1.

      For the situations in which it is wise to initiate force are always fewer than those in which it is wise to resist force initiated by another.

    • R.C.

      In my preceding post, I showed that government has a unique attribute: It is the sole organization in society authorized to use force to achieve its aims.

      (General Motors can annoy me with advertisements or ply me with rebates and financing offers all they like; but they may not stick a gun in my face and say, “Buy this car.” Government does, though; indeed, it never acts without using or threatening force against my person, freedom, or property.)

      This observation is true, and “all truth is God’s truth.”

      This observation is also the launching point for many libertarian or even anarcho-capitalist arguments.

      For those of you who would reflexively resist what I was saying in my preceding post because libertarians and anarcho-capitalists often use the same starting premise, please note: It’s a true premise, and not to be discarded merely because you dislike where some people run with it.

      My preceding post, in fact, does not proceed to a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist conclusion. People with those views would say that “Category 2″ situations never warrant government activity.

      But I allow for the possibility that “Category 2″ situations can be made better by government intervention. I only suggest caution because initiating force to prevent harm (or rectify misfortune) is a less certain thing than responding to harms initiated by another.

    • Joshua

      You can vote for a pro-choice candidate for a grave and proportionate reason. More Children are killed in 1 day by abortion than US soldiers in Iraq in 4 years. And the soldiers volunteered to be in the military. As such the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered on par with abortion.

      Also look at the judges that Bush has put into power and what they have voted for. They have advanced the pro-life cause. By contrast, look at Clinton’s choices and tell me how that works out.

      The point of this article is there are many people who are willing to let the silent deaths of those millions of children remain silent to further other causes.

      Also, the “seamless garment” idea was shredded by Cardinal Ratzinger.

    • Fr. Joseph

      Same old same old.

      “Pro-life Catholics are for torture, for starving the poor, ignoring the value of life AFTER birth, and blowing up the world. So they really are not any more consistent than ‘peace & justice’ Catholics who sign ads sponsored by Catholics for a Free Choice.’”

      It’s the same old Seamless Garment garbage, recycled endlessly.

    • Adriana

      RC: You can elaborate the theory as much as you want, but when it goes down to the trenches, it all gets distilled into “It is my and the government cannot tell me what to do with it.”

      Your exposition reminds me, sadly, of Chesterton’s writings in the First World War (when a great man goes wrong, he goes wrong spectaculary), in which he praises nationalism, assuring readers that nationalism does not imply the negative consequences one associates with it, that there is a nationalism that is respectful of other nations – and he might have had a point. But he did not check to see if those nationalists he praised shared in the same distinction, nor how one kind of nationalism can easily transform into the other (he had been smarter about it in “The Napoleon of Notting Hill”), and thus gave his blessing to what followed – and there was ethnic cleasning and persecution of minorities in the newly formed nation – which look moderate only in comparision to what Nazi Germany did.

      In other words, you can explain how abortion does not fall into the Libertarian tenets, but when it comes down on the trenches, where Libertarians fight for the total decriminalization of drugs, the legalization of prostitution, gay marriage *and* poligamy, you will see what happens to your carefuly crafted arguments.

      Do not trust anyone whose premise is “You cannot tell me what to do”, no matter how useful an ally, because for them “You” means the Catholic Church as well as the Goverment.

    • RK

      ……by government fiat or political activism. So called pro life judges (Scalia, Roberts, etc.) won’t alter precedent. Let’s stop kidding ourselves about that. Most of what passes for pro life legislation is grounded in an incremental approach which is, in my view, a loser’s position. There is no real end game. Voting is at best, a waste; at worst, affirmation of a lie.

      To be disillusioned with the status quo is the only appropriate way to look at this. Our government is broken and controlled by special interests. Call me radical, but unless Catholics realize that they have no place in the “public square” our interests will continue to be marginalized. Our Bishops appear to have succumbed to political correctness and are leading us astray. These are the times we live in. Why are we so afraid to call ‘em like we see ‘em? Watching “Amazing Grace” as a kind of salve seems more like the kind of self delusion we can’t afford.

      Pax

    • Sam

      To T and Joe,

      Because some posts like mine are critical of the tendency among some P&J Catholics to minimize or relativize life and sexual morality issues (as Mr Donahue accurately points out), that does not mean that pro-life Catholics ignore the “rest of the story” (to quote Paul Harvey). I too am a both/and Catholic, yet I believe that the stances typically advocated by P&J Catholics (death penalty, immigration, etc) are areas where prudential means of caring for the poor, maintaining public safety, welcoming legitimate immigrants, maintaining proper stewardship of God’s creation, etc can lead to divergent policy recommendations. Life, marriage, sexual ethics and bioethics issues do not lead to divergent policy recommendations — they either are or are not intrinsically morally evil and cannot be supported in any way by a Catholic with a well-formed conscience.

    • Adriana

      RK:

      Do not forget that in a democracy, people get the governmetn they deserve. If people really wanted to stop abortion, they would do it, and the chattering classes would be too afraid do deny it.

      The problem is that too many are “pro-life” only if it costs them anything. A few years back there was a proposal to make the parents of pregnant teenage girls financially responsible for their grandchildren (no word about the other grandparents, the parents of the irresponsible stud, but let it pass). There was an outcry saying that if implemented “there would be an increase in abortions” as the grandparents faced with a financial responsibility they did not want got rid of it the in the society-appproved way.

      These people knew the truth, that support for life for too many people is secondary to their own financial self-interest, and while they might be opposed in principle to abortion for others, they find excuses for it when it impacts them.

      It does not surprise me that too many pro-lifers are at the same time opposed to the welfare system, not so much because it is mismanaged, or has bad effects, as because “Governement is taking my money to spend on people I do not know, and even despise”. Same as the putative grandparents, they are for life until they have to pay for it…

    • Jay S

      Mr. Donahue speaks the truth. It was the “Peace and Justice” Catholics who are in charge of Catholic Charities in the Diocese of Richmond. The same Catholic Charities that took a underage illegal immigrant girl to get an abortion. The Diocese of Richmond was headed by Bishop Walter Sullivan, who was bishop of Pax Christi. Opposition to abortion was rarely discussed in the diocese. But opposition to big business, more tax payer funded social programs and the rest of the liberal agenda was a regular part of P & J. How does anyone expect people to hold an exclusive liberal thought, except for abortion? They pressure from their liberal fellow travelers becomes, at last, too much and they give in, or at least do not oppose abortion. That is what happened.
      P & J Catholics are nothing but socialists at heart with a smattering of Catholic phrases to cover up their true intentions.

    • RK

      Adiana,

      I appreciate what you’re saying but I disagree. First, as a point of clarification, this country was founded as a Republic, not as a Democracy. We elect representatives who presumably legislate according to our interests. Whether they do or not can, of course, be called into question.

      Secondly, I think we give the government much more credit than they deserve. The federal government is a primary culprit for the economic mess we’re in today–borrowing money like a drunken sailor and printing some more when they need to. Federal programs like social security and welfare, which you allude to, contribute to the transfer of wealth and the devaluation of the dollar.

      Also, I would argue that US foreign policy has been a disaster. We are engaged in foreign wars that don’t serve the common good. We’re seen as a scourge and a bully by much of the world and our “leaders” tell us we’re being heroic. Malarkey!

      Finally, as far as abortion goes there is no political will to eliminate it, regardless of GOP rhetoric. The only plan that makes any sense at all, as far as I’m concerned, is to return the issue to the states. And that isn’t perfect, nor will Congress allow it since it’s a valuable political football during election season.

      So, Adrianna, I believe government is broken. I think many American Catholics have put their faith in the government when it hasn’t been earned. On the contrary, this is a misplaced faith. We ought to question the decisions of leaders. Always!

    • Joe H

      Been a while since I posted here. I had to take a break :)

      Sometimes I like what Mr. Donohue has to say. In this case, all I see is a rant with no general purpose or point other than to malign a group of people with random accusations.

      He accuses “peace and justice” Catholics of being outright liars. This is a most uncharitable, and therefore most un-Catholic approach. Within every movement and every wing of every movement there are undoubtedly liars; but no movement can exist solely on the basis of lies and be comprised solely of liars.

      It should go without saying that PJ Catholics, mistaken though they may be on some issues, do not take their positions because they simply reject the “truths” which Donohue and others are supposedly privy to, but because they have an honest difference of opinion stemming from a different perspective, different information, different priorities.

      Donohue lists right-wing nostrums as if they were incontestable axioms and denounces those who reject them as liars. This is shameful and must be rejected by Catholics. Even if he is correct – and I don’t think he is – it is simply foolish to expect that the only disagreement could be a conscious lie.

      I find the PJ’s pro-choice ideology repugnant and unfortunate as Donohue does, but I strenuously object to his linkage of this particular problem to economic, health care and foreign policy problems. I am strongly pro-life, as much as I am strongly opposed to the economic agenda of the GOP, as much as I am in favor of universal health coverage, as much as I am in agreement with the late John Paul II on the destructive and immoral nature of the Iraq war. Was John Paul II also a “liar” because he didn’t agree with Donohue on matters of war and peace?

      How absurd.

    • Robert Hiini

      For the past few years I have been caught in the crossfire between “orthodox” and “social justice” catholics in working for our archdiocese.

      It’s been none too pleasant to be looked down upon by well healed orthodox who look down on anyone who fails to appropriate their own social mores and religious practices (particularly when one’s practices are licit as mine are).

      Or alternatively, one is approached by catholics who, with as much bourgeois smarm as they can muster, proceed to tell you about their belief in “JUSTICE” and “ACTION” (and by inference, your presumed neglect).

      Like fascism and socialism, what are supposedly polar opposites look remarkably similar when one examines they way they treat people.

      What’s the answer? Catholicsm proper. Orthodox (like me) should look to embrace all authoritative Church teaching, including that in the social realm, to begin to understand that all people have inviolable dignity which must be upheld for the entirety of earthly life.

      “Social Justice” Catholics should discover their own poverty (wretchedness without God) before making pronouncements about that of others. Solidarity with the poor (economic) can only arise out of an understanding of one’s own poverty (economic and spiritual).

      And after all that blabbering about what people should do, I suppose I’d better get off my backside and do it myself.

      Lord, grant me – and us – the grace.

      Arohanui (with much love)

      Robert

    • Robert Hiini

      For the past few years I have been caught in the crossfire between “orthodox” and “social justice” catholics in working for our archdiocese.

      It’s been none too pleasant to be looked down upon by well healed orthodox who look down on anyone who fails to appropriate their own social mores and religious practices (particularly when one’s practices are licit as mine are).

      Or alternatively, one is approached by catholics who, with as much bourgeois smarm as they can muster, proceed to tell you about their belief in “JUSTICE” and “ACTION” (and by inference, your presumed neglect).

      Like fascism and socialism, what are supposedly polar opposites look remarkably similar when one examines they way they treat people.

      What’s the answer? Catholicsm proper. Orthodox (like me) should look to embrace all authoritative Church teaching, including that in the social realm, to begin to understand that all people have inviolable dignity which must be upheld for the entirety of earthly life.

      “Social Justice” Catholics should discover their own poverty (wretchedness without God) before making pronouncements about that of others. Solidarity with the poor (economic) can only arise out of an understanding of one’s own poverty (economic and spiritual).

      And after all that blabbering about what people should do, I suppose I’d better get off my backside and do it myself.

      Lord, grant me – and us – the grace.

      Arohanui (with much love)

      Robert

    • Bill Malone, Press Secretary, Br

      The recent article by Bill Donahue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights caught my eye, entitled,

    • Montanus Ignorati

      I would like to expand on Bill Donahue’s critque of the Social Justice/Social Gospel, justice and Peace— you name it crowd.

      I feel for the poor. I have been there. I want the Church to do more for them. But the current programs do little that actually help find a long term solution to poverty.

      I have searched various CC sites and can find no analysis and few programs that would cure poverty. Instead they sound suspiciously like democrats— pushing socialism and the welfare state— known to hurt the poor most of all. Evidently welfare state ideology seems their strongest belief system, enabling them to ignore the life and morals issues.

      Grandiosity has no place in trying to cure poverty.

      Fr. Larry Snyder, president of Catholic Charities wants to cut poverty in half by 2020. Why leave that other half still poor? Why not eliminate poverty altogether?

      What causes poverty in this land of plenty, Larry? Sin.

      That is why I created the Global Task Force to Eradicate All Sin. (GTFEAS) to once and for all give us an earthly Utopia. I’ll bet I could sell it to you folks at Catholic Charities— as long as it involved raking in more government money.

      As to “inequality?” Well, I am ugly. How about abolishing inequality of looks. We all know handsome people get higher paying jobs. Demanding even more government spending is just about as ridiculous.

      Out of a dozen of your “solutions” 10 had to do with increasing spending and taxation— on those who provide jobs in the first place, the economically “good looking.” We could scar their faces to level the playing field.

      Every government program has made things worse for the poor who, it turns out are not quite as poor as you make them out to be according to the Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm

      As Heritage makes clear the Census Dept does not include non-cash government benefits. Nor do they mention that nearly half the poor (43%) own their own homes. Don’t get me wrong that home may be a shack, but most of our “poor” are rich compared to the middle class of 1950 in terms of things they own. What they lack now if intact families — destroyed by the Welfare State, Federal Judges, and city planners.

      Odd That most of the Catholic Charities legislative agende is suspiciously similar to the Center for American Progress: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_report.html founded by Leon Podesta, Bill Clinton’s former White House guy— as a liberal answer to the highly respected Heritage Foundation.

      Since liberals cannot think (They only f-e-e-e-l!) the idea of a liberal think tank is absurd.

      Until Catholic Charities divorces the democrat party and starts unequivocally standing up for life, marriage, family, and the limited government that makes progress possible for all of us— especially the poor— I would not give them a dime.