“Good social policy”

Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 6:04 AM By Sandra
Hitler wanted the hearts and minds of our youth, as does the Humanist that have been trolling America for hearts and minds of our youth since the ’70s. Parents need to hold on tight and never give anyone that power over them. God and His Church put parents as the first and number one educators of their children. Take your children back. Sign and distribute these important petitions. Our youth are the ray of hope for these very dark times.

Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 7:25 AM By Meg
That’s 2 out of 12, who will allow petitions to be signed on Church property. There are 12 Diocese in CA – Fresno, LA, Monterey, Oakland, Orange, Sacramento, San Bernadino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Rosa, Stockton. Do you think we can get the Bishops to start actively promoting the CCC for reading/study by all literate Catholics in the State? (Yes, the CCC is printed in Spanish and other languages.)

Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 8:15 AM By PatC
Great initiative by these two courageous Bishops. Makes one wonder why the other “leaders” of our faith are not following their example. God bless them both.

Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 8:20 AM By Lupe
Let’s get serious. Abortion is an abominable crime, and not just a “practice”. Can’t we call it what it is and not try to tiptoe around what is really going on here? Some tougher language should be used to express the reality of what we are dealing with. How about the bishops stating: “All Catholics must be clear in their understanding that abortion is violence against, and murder of, the unborn and must be opposed on a firm and consistent basis”. The bishops have been very tepid in their efforts (?) to oppose abortion. Referring to is as a “practice” is shameful.

Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:22 AM By Sarah
Why haven’t all Catholic bishops in California given their approval for signature gathering in their parishes?

Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 10:28 AM By Peggy
Wow! Lots of signatures required but with the support of parishes we can do it!

Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 12:55 PM By Elizabeth
I believe that AB Niederhauer of San Francisco is working on it :) After all, the CCC Bishops Conference came out totally in support of it and believe me, that is a miracle!!! They usually wait for the laity to do the ‘foot work’ and then go on record as supporting the initiative….so the Holy Spirit is definately at work, big time!!! Pray for the Bishops.

Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:10 PM By Juergensen
LifeNews is reporting that a second grade boy, for a school assignment on what his dream would be for the world today, wrote: “My dream for the world is for president Obama to not be president ever again. Because he says you can kill babies. And because that is a dumb law.” Catholics would be far better advised to follow that second grader’s advice than the misleading advice found in the USCCB’s “Faithful Citizenship.”

Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:31 PM By Juergensen
“The Catholic community opposes the practice of abortion” – Er, the Catholic CHURCH opposes the practice of abortion; the Catholic “community” has no teaching authority.

Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:49 PM By Abeca Christian
Juergensen I like that second grader! Awesome kid! God bless him!

Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:41 PM By Jim
I can’t imagine all the bishops in California giving approval in their diocese. It will be a scandal if they don’t!

Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:44 PM By Larry
It is God, not the Catholic Church per se, Who opposes abortion. That is to say that the FACT that abortion is the crime of murder comes from the eternal and overarching moral law of God, applicable to each and every human being the world over at each and every time from Adam and Eve right to the present day and on to the Last Judgment. It is a sin for African bushmen, for Laplanders, Americans, Chinese, etc, always and everywhere, even with those who never met a Catholic or never heard of the Catholic Church–even for those who lived and died before Christ. The fact that the Catholic Church is virtually the only entity left still upholding this truth does NOT make it mere “Catholic teaching.” I say we stop qualifying this as the “Catholic” viewpoint and speak the full truth.

Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:12 PM By MacDonald
@ Larry 5:44 PM — “The limitless universe ‘might even include other planets with other beings created by that same loving God,’ he added. ‘The idea of there being other races and other intelligences is not contrary to traditional Christian thought.’ ” All this from a Vatican astronomer who in 2005 spoke about the importance of Jesus Christ for people on other planets, should we ever meet them. [By the way, ‘Laplanders’ consider that term pejorative and prefer to be called the Sami people.]

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:19 AM By JLS
The Catholic Church did not come to announce the Ten Commandments but to announce the salvation of Jesus Christ.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 7:25 AM By Larry
MacDonald: This is neither the place nor the time to debate a subject about which we can know absolutely nothing, and may never be able to know in this life: whether intelligent organic life exists elsewhere in the universe, whose individuals possess immortal souls created immediately by God and infused into their bodies, and who therefore face the twin possibilities of eternal life in heaven or death in hell. There’s no evidence that such exists and until there is, it is a waste of time and space dealing with it here. If there were such life, of course the eternal moral law would apply to them–but since we have no idea how they would reproduce, we don’t even know whether the subject of “abortion” would be relevant. Then again: would they somehow have sinned along the lines of Adam & Eve and therefore be in need of Divine Redemption? Since there is little, if any chance of the Catholic Church ever being able to reach out to them–(and even if there were, Catholic membership is open only to the descendants of Adam & Eve) has God given them their own route to Redemption? Their own Church and Sacraments? I could go on, but it’s pointless. Besides, this “Vatican astronomer” is not, I take it, either the pope or a bishop–so he has no infallible teaching mandate. [And please convey my sincerest apologies to the Lap…er, the Sami people.]

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 7:33 AM By Rick DeLano
Since Jesus Christ is the new Adam, and since He redeems those whom have contracted Adam’s Sin through generation, and since He is the Son of Man, and not of invented intelligences proceeding from the imaginations of mathematicians desperately attempting to model a universe in which there was no Adam, no Eve, no Garden, no Original Sin, and hence no need of Redemption……I suppose we can all fervently hope that Br. Consalmagno (the head of the Vatican Observatory quoted by MacDonald above) is a better astronomer than he is a theologian.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 8:41 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Juergensen: It is an injustice BOTH to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and to the second grader you quote to: exploit this young fellow’s sincere but age-specific convictions as if this second grader were a qualified voter. Need I say, it is the consensus of this nation’s civic-republican tradition that second graders, not to mention high school freshmen, are not qualified to vote. You scant this fact quite as if this fine second-grader were qualified to vote — vote, as it were, on par with his parents, whose judgment whether they are in the presence of proportionate reasons to vote for one candidate rather than another is, in accord with Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 voting-ethics Note, congruent with adult capacities. In short, the capacity to discern whether one is in the presence of proportionate reasons to vote for one candidate as against another is taken by Cardinal Ratzinger and the American civic-republican tradition to be an adult, and only an adult, capacity.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 9:52 AM By John F. Maguire
In further reply to Juergensen: Quite to the contrary, the Catholic community — meaning the community of the Christian faithful — is the subject of a passive infallibility. Accordingly, Catholic Christianity distinguishes between [A] active infallibility, which is ascribed to the shepherds of the Church, and [B] passive infallibility, the bearer of which is the COMMUNITY of the Christian faithful. Here is how Ludwig Ott puts the matter in his _Grundriss der katholische Dogmatik_, fifth edition (1961): “One can distinguish both an active and a passive infallibility. The first belongs to the shepherds of the Church according to their teaching office (infallibilitas in docendo) while the second belongs to the faithful in their agreement to the message of the faith (infallibilitas in credendo).” Mr. Juergensen, in light of this relationship between active and passive infallibility, it should be clear that the Catholic community — the community of the Christian faithful — does indeed, as and precisely as community, oppose abortion. Your post denies this truth because you seem not to recognize the fact that active infallibility is causally related to passive infallibility. Whence your false counterposition of Catholic Church and Catholic community.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:35 AM By John F. Maguire
JLS: You write: “The Catholic Church did not come to announce the Ten Commandments but the salvation of Jesus Christ.” You meant to include the word “only,” no? You meant that the Catholic Church did not come only to announce the Ten Commandments but [also] the salvation of Jesus” [which salvation obliges us to live both in accord with the Ten Commandments and in accord with the habits of heart disclosed by Jesus of Nazareth in his eight Beatitudes]. In short, JLS, the Ten Commandments are always already included within the whole of the Church’s teaching on faith and morals. Put differently: No purported either/or — no supposed counterpostion between the Ten Commandments and the salvation of Christ — can ever be allowed by theologians to dirempt or sever the catholon, by which is meant the whole teaching of the Catholic Church. In this light, it should be clear that the Catholic Church, which is to say the Church of the Word Incarnate, always already includes the Ten Words of Moses within her catholon.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:41 AM By Rick DeLano
Yes, yes, John all you say can be acknowledged as making necessary distinctions concerning the matter, but let us not strain at a gnat in order to swallow a camel. The boy has it exactly right, and it strikes me as highly likely that the bright youngster would need not a whit of your necessary distinctions in order to recognize them, as a matter of basic logic, once attaining voting age. The little one clearly has already attained to reason, and quite impressively so. Out of the mouths of babes……………

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:52 AM By OSCAR
Maguire, as you have been told many times by many people, in the USA there are no ‘proportionate reasons’ for voting for a pro-abortion politician when another choice is available. (The second grader got it right. And I would guess he overheard his parents discussing Obama and his forcing American and foreign taxpayers to pay for the killing of babies.)

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:19 AM By Catherine
John F. Maguire, This fine second grader IS more than qualified to teach adults. Matthew 18:3 “Amen I say to you, unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 21:16 “And Jesus said to them, “Out of the mouths of infants and of sucklings thou hast perfected praise.”

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:46 AM By Larry
John F. Maguire: Sounds like “age-ism” on your part. Our Lady has often chosen children to relay messages from Her Son to the public at large–probably to teach us all humility. Several people who died as children have been canonized as saints by the Church. No one–including Juergensen–is suggesting that a second grader is qualified to vote. But to say or imply that only adults possess the ability to perceive the moral law of God is ridiculous in the light of the history of God’s dealings with his people. On the other hand, perhaps you’re angry because children–like this lad–are less easily conned into supporting pro-abortion candidates by what Alice von Hildebrand might call “the plumage of false complexity.” The more sophisticated you are, the more gullible. Perhaps that’s what the Lord meant when he said we must become like little children if we are to enter the Kingdom of God.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 12:28 PM By EDITOR
THIS THREAD IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR DISCUSSION OF THE MORALITY OF THE DEATH PENALTY. NO FURTHER COMMENTS REGARDING THE DEATH PENALTY WILL BE POSTED ON THIS THREAD.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 12:33 PM By John F. Maguire
And as I have replied, Oscar, anyway more than once: Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 Note on the presence of propotionate reasons in the voting decision leaves that concrete determination up to the voter in the sense of the good Cardinal’s NOT entering, for his own part, into the specific pros and cons of voting for any one candidate, not least where both candidates are abortocrats. But wait — why do you tack on the phrase “where ANOTHER choice is available” (emphasis mine). Here is what Cardinal Ratzinger actually says: “A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy of presenting himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for THAT CANDIDATE for other reasons, it is considered remote material copperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons” (emphasis mine).

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 1:17 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Rick DeLano and also to Larry: My posts do NOT constitute a critique of this (certainly impressive) second grader’s vicarious voting decision; rather, my posts are a critique of the decision on the part of Jon Juergensen to invoke this child’s voting decision at the expense of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Without the slightest hesitation or sense of misgiving, Mr. Juergensen gives himself permission to quote this child (however insightful a child he be) AGAINST the United Statess Conference of Catholic Bishops. That, you see, is what is unacceptable here. That, you see, is an implied invitation for us not to read and study the USCCB’s voting-ethics document, _Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship_. That, you see, is an implied invitation for us not to ponder Cardinal Ratzinger’s Note on the moral theology of voting. These responsibilities — oh, one needn’t bother with them: a child has spoken! Reply: Had the Catholic bishops only known! Had Cardinal Ratzinger only known! These prelates needn’t have bothered with their interventions on voting ethics, plumped up as these interventions have been with the plumage of false complexity. N.B.: there is nothing false about even the routine complexities that come to the fore in proportionate reasoning as it plays out in the voter decision-making process. All one need do is think through the challenge of voting for any one of the Republican Party presidential-nomination contenders — yes, in proportionality-analytic terms — to get some sense that the complexity involved is not spurious.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 1:43 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Catherine: In the present context, I would have thought that the passage from sacred scripture that is at once pertinent and Pauline is 1 Corinthians 13: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.”

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 2:01 PM By Catherine
Sorry John Maguire, When the USCCB can use their Ecclesial Body to recommend the movie Brokeback Mountain to Catholics, who also happen to be voters, it is certainly not wrong for Juergensen or other laity to speak up about the wording in Faithful Citizenship. After all, the promoting, by telling Catholics it’s OK to view the movie Brokeback Mountain is certainly not Faithful Catholic Citizenship is it?

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 2:04 PM By Abeca Christian
Glad you are back Rick De Lano

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 2:09 PM By Larry
“Mr. Juergensen gives himself permission to quote this child (however insightful a child he be) AGAINST the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. That, you see, is what is unacceptable here.” You mean it’s unacceptable to YOU. It’s perfectly acceptable to me, when the child has expressed a Catholic’s moral obligation more clearly and courageously than the USCCB. I can understand your frustration, John. There’s no way you will ever reach that child, because there’s no way he could ever understand your verbiage.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 2:10 PM By Rick DeLano
I sympathize with the point of your post above, John. I have never taken issue with the voting guide, because as a matter of fact I agree with your analysis of it- as a matter of fact, no Catholic who makes an informed choice based on valid proportionate reasoning between two candidates who both support child murder, commits a sin in voting for one of them, so long as the Catholic does not vote for them *because* of their support of child murder. That is non-controversial as a matter of moral theology. Of course, the question which always occurs to me is- “why on earth would a Catholic vote for either scoundrel?” But that is a different question, and one not precisely relevant to the specific moral question at issue between you and Jon. I suppose I am losing faith in casuistry, at this stage of the collapse of our beloved Church, and finding myself more attracted to simple heroic virtue. But that is also a matter of conscientious choice on my part, and I do not pretend to be in a position to bind others to my opinions.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:14 PM By Juergensen
Wrong, Maguire. Ott says nothing about the “community” having “teaching authority”. And, indeed, the Catholic Church teaches that the Magisterium “has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church ALONE” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Para. 85). Not the “community”. Hence it is, not I, who is “counterpositioned” to the Catholic Church.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:36 PM By JLS
Maguire, at least you are now making an attempt to understand what others have posted before twisting it into some arcane pretzel. This is a noteworthy step and I’m happy for you.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:41 PM By Anne T.
Juergensen, you are exactly right in your post at 3:10 PM on Jan.18. There are the so-called “educated” who have eyes and they do not see and ears and they hear not. They just do not get it, while the Samaritans, you know, those whom Jesus praised at least twice in parables, even though they were Jewish heretics, do get it. Jean Staker Garton, a Lutheran from the pro-life Missouri Synod, a denomination that some would call heresy, wrote in the preface to her book “Who Broke the Baby?” the following: All our children were in bed; the late television news was over, and I was putting the finishing touches to a presentation for medical students scheduled to be given the next day. As I reviewed some slides which might be used, there appeared on the screen a picture of an abortion victim, aged two and one-half months gestation; her body had been dismembered by a curette, the long-handled knife used in a D & C abortion procedure. Suddenly I heard, rather than saw, another person near me. At the sound of a sharp intake of breath, I turned to find that my youngest son, then a sleepy, rumpled three-year-old, had unexpectedly and silently entered the room. His small voice was filled with great sadness as he asked, ‘Who broke the baby?’ How could this small, innocent child see what so many adults cannot see? How could he know instinctively that this which many people carelessly dismiss as tisue or a blob was one in being with him, was like him? In words he gave humanity to what adults call “fetal matter”; in the tone of his question he mourned what we exalt as a sign of liberation and freedom. With a wisdom which often escapes the learned, he asked in the presence of the evidence before his eyes, “Who broke the baby?” ” Even though President Obama has seen such pictures, he still has eyes that see not and ears that hear not. Under such conditions, I could never vote for him. He has a heart of stone toward the unborn.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:44 PM By Anne T.
And, Editor, thank you for refusing to post e-mails about the death penalty. All it does is get people sidetracked from what is really going on here — the death of the innocent.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 5:55 PM By John F. Maguire
Catherine: Jon Juergensen, at least on this website, is not simply questioning the wording of _Faithful Citizenship_, he remains adamant in his refusal to read this document in its own proper terms. Nor does Mr. Juergensen’s conspiratorialist notion that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops intends _Faithful Citizenship_ as a kind of catechontic barrier to overturning _Roe v. Wade_ meet requisite evidentiary standards. To the contrary, it is a fantasy within which Catholic bishops figure not as persons but as props.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:21 PM By John F. Maguire
That “the Catholic community opposes the practice of abortion” is axiomatic, Mr. Juergensen. This is so (1)because the Catholic community, in an intensive sense, is the community of the Christian faithful, and (2) because the Christian faithful enjoy a passive infallibility, which infallibility, Ludwig Ott plainly states, is not infallibility IN DOCENDO (meaning not infallibility in teaching authority) but rather infallibility IN CREDENDO (meaning infallibility in belief).

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 8:37 AM By Anne T.
Uh huh! John Maguire, as I said many months before, the emperor has no clothes on, but it takes a child to see the truth and to blurt out the truth.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 9:17 AM By Juergensen
Maguire: If the “Catholic community opposes the practice of abortion,” as you contend, 52% of the “Catholic community” would not have voted for abortionist Obama in 2008. Indeed, this tragic support of the “Catholic community” for abortionist Obama highlights the wisdom of the Magisterium being “entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church ALONE” (CCC 85) and NOT to the sinful “community.” Touche.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 9:38 AM By Anne T.
Juergensen, I might take exception to what you said about the bishop’s “Faithful Citizen” document, though. It might be different people’s interuptation of the document that is the problem. Fr. Pavone’s and other pro-life leader’s interpretation and John Maguire’s are probably different. One has to look at it in the light of what the Holy Father has said recently, too. He says the right to life is the foremost issue. For me that means “case closed”.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 10:30 AM By John F. Maguire
No, Juergensen, 52% of Catholic voters did not auto-excommunicate themselves in the voting booth in 2008.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 10:41 AM By John F. Maguire
Anne T.: Let me ask you this then: Read in its entirety, doesn’t the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops document _Faithful Citizenship_ treat the right-to-life of preborn infants as the foremost issue facing this nation?

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 10:51 AM By Juergensen
Magure: I did not say anything about Catholic voters “auto-excommunicating themselves.” Stop with the red herrings: they’re fooling no one.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 11:01 AM By John F. Maguire
In further reply to Anne T.: How a bright young second grader, say in Pomona, would vote in the 2012 election if he could so vote, is no more telling AGAINST the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ voting-ethics document than how, say, an octogenarian grandmother in Toledo is, in all actuality, going to vote in this same election. In saying so, I’m invoking the standards of fair argumentation, not an ad hoc or idiomatic standard. You see the logical point: the truth “blurted out” — whether by a second grader in Pomono or by an octogenarian grandmother in Toledo — doesn’t tell AGAINST the soundnesss of the USCCB’s discussion of voting ethics.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 11:14 AM By k
Juergensen, there would be a real danger in the Church telling people it is a sin to vote for a specific candidate or even someone who holds a specific position. It can’t do that-and it has been the position of the Church not to do that way before there was an IRS. Excommunicating people for the way they vote? That would be even worse. There is an element where the Church is trying to teach about cooperation with evil. Also remember that for one to have committed a mortal sin one has to have done something gravely evil, knowing it is gravely evil and with full consent of the will. If you say that voting for a particular candidate is a sin, then you open up a lot of territory that has ever been addressed by the Church.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 11:28 AM By Juergensen
AnneT: There is nothing to “interpret” in Section 34 of “Faithful Citizenship”. It plainly says that a Catholic can vote for an abortionist “if” the voter simply “intends” not to support abortion: “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, IF the voter’s intent is to support that position” (Sec. 34, “Faithful Citizenship”). This is a clear license to vote for an abortionist candidate by simply pretending to not have the “intent” to support abortion. For good reason, this very provision is a favorite of “Catholics for Obama.”

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 1:46 PM By John F. Maguire
No red herrings, Juergensen — there are two forms of auto-excommunication: (1) minor auto-excommucation, which takes place when a mortal sin is committed; and (2) major auto-excommunication, when certain specially demarcated mortal sins are committed. In light of this distinction, you probably need to clarify what you really intend to say about 62% of your voting-booth co-religionists. ~ As for your Section 34 fixation, you use this Section, which you’ve misread, to misread the entire USCCB document. This misreading places you outside the four corners of the USCCB document. It prevents you from understanding why Fr. Pavone, for example, has seen fit to endorse the USCCB’s document _Faithful Citizenship_. It removes you from the gist of the USCCB document itself, which reads: “The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many.” “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.” In this light, our job is to persuade ourselves and others which candidate, upon assuming office, is likely most competently to serve the common good of persons and institutions. What is not envisioned by the USCCB’s voting-ethics document is the introversion that can be found on a few websites, in which venues certain bloggers turn INWARD and AGAINST their own Bishops-in-collegium — against their own National Episcopal Conference — rather than do what all of us are called all to do: namely, address our analyses of the 2012 election to the American public itself as, and just as, the proper addressee of our concerns. See Steven Ertelt, “Catholic Bishops: Abortion Should Guide 2012 Election Vote,” _LifeNews_ (10/4/11).

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 2:22 PM By Anne T.
Juergensen, I think and was told that document means that one is always to vote for the most pro-life person in every case except when there is no clear or real choice, then one can vote for the lesser of two evils to lessen any harm done to society, even though the candidate is far from perfect. I will admit, though, that many, many politicians use this to get a pro-abortion or pro “same-sex marriage” person into office or a pro-life person out. They used pro-life Senator Casey to get Senator Santorum out because he had seniority and was passing more pro-life legislation and making their lives AND consciences uneasy. Then when Senator Casey goes too far for them, I am sure they will “clip his wings” too. That is how the game is played most often. After all, President Obama did not take too long to “throw” Professor Kmeic “under the bus” when he dared to oppose some of his abortion policies. They have only one problem …….the Lord knows exactly what they are doing, and in the end they will get away with nothing.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 2:24 PM By The Rose
Section 34 is hardly “a clear license to vote for an abortionist candidate.” He is trying to transform and infer a positive statement out of a clearly prohibitive teaching from the bishops. It won’t work. His is a straw man argument.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 2:26 PM By Anne T.
It is called the “end game”, Juergensen, and Pope John Paul II had a good “end game”. He and a pro-life Republican legislator “fixed the wagons” of a few of them one time, and they did not even know it had happened. I imagine Pope Benedict can be very good at “fixing wagons” too. (Lots of laughs.)

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 2:30 PM By Anne T.
In case someone does not know what the expression “fixed their wagons” means, it means to spoil someone’s chances of success in what they are doing. I was not accusing Bless Pope John Paul II of actually harming anyone. Quite the contrary.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 6:58 PM By Anne T.
In my post of 4:41 PM, I was not saying that the Lord approved of or approves of heresy, just that sometimes a supposed heretic grasps a situation before or better than one who has all the right creeds but is morally wrong and lacking in truly understanding what the Commandments require of us. The light of the former usually leads him/her into the Church, whereas the latter might find himself/herself on the outside and lost.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 8:22 PM By Anne T.
John F. Maguire, I think I answered your post of 10:41 AM. in my later post to Juergensen. Somehow I missed it, and I did take exception to Juergensen’s comment about “Faithful Citizenship”. I read his post rather hurriedly at first, and I must admit that I did not read all of your posts. My apologies.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 8:30 PM By Anne T.
Nevertheless, John F. Maguire, I have never agreed with your view that it was morally acceptable to vote for Obama as a presidential candidate since he has always been the most pro-abortion, anti-traditional family candidate we have ever had as I see it. As I said before the emperor (Obama) has no clothes on as the children’s story relates.

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:56 AM By Juergensen
Anne: In your comment ~ “I think and was told that document [“Faithful Citizenship”] means that one is always to vote for the most pro-life person in every case except when there is no clear or real choice, then one can vote for the lesser of two evils to lessen any harm done to society, even though the candidate is far from perfect” ~ you actually are referring NOT to “Faithful Citizenship” but rather to THE CHURCH’s document “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles,” issued by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in 2004. That 2004 document of the CHURCH allows a vote for an abortionist candidate only “in the presence of proportionate reasons.” Id. As many bishops have explained, and as you correctly note, that 2004 document of the CHURCH means that “one is always to vote for the most pro-life person in every case except when there is no clear or real choice, then one can vote for the lesser of two evils to lessen any harm done to society, even though the candidate is far from perfect.” HOWEVER, the USCCB’s “Faithful Citizenship,” issued in 2007: (a) Makes NO MENTION of this CHURCH DOCUMENT; (b) Makes NO MENTION of the CHURCH STANDARD requiring “proportionate reasons”; (c) By its silence tacitly rejects the CHURCH’s “proportionate reasons” standard; and (d) Replaces the CHURCH’s “proportionate reasons” standard with a USCCB-made-up lame standard requiring only that a voter “intend” not to support abortion when he pulls the lever for an abortionist candidate such as Obama (Sec. 34, “Faithful Citizenship”). This is why faithful Catholics call the USCCB’s “Faithful Citizenship” a “Friend of Obama.”

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:52 AM By Anne T.
Thank you, Juergensen, for your clarification in your post of Jan.21 at 7:56 AM. I will have to admit that when Cal Catholic had the previous article about the bishops’s document, “Faithful Citizenship”, I did not have the time to read and explore it much. If it is as you say, and I truly believe you are right from the little I do remember, one must follow “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion General Principles” since Pope Benedict has not changed his mind and never will, from the time he was Cardinal Radzinger, and what the Holy Father says trumps what any bishop or bishops say. I believe there are bishops, too, who have declaimed any connection to the document “Faithful Citizenship”. I cannot imagine Archbishop Chaput or Artchbishop Bruskewitz agreeing with what is in it if it if it is as you say.

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:55 AM By Anne T.
Excuse me, please, I should have written Bishop Bruskewitz, but perhaps I was being prophetic. I hope so.

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:26 PM By John F. Maguire
Contrary to a recent post of yours, Anne T., my posts do NOT address the question of the “moral acceptability” of voting for any candidate whomsoever, let alone the moral acceptability of voting for one or the other of the two leading candidates for the presidency in 2008, EXCEPT to say that if anyone who voted for an abortocrat (be that abortocrat Senator Obama or Senator McCain) is assuredly a voter who has incurred a special obligation — that is, an obligation that goes beyond one’s ordinary obligation — to oppose that candidate’s abortocratic policies. At the same time, I have addressed the FALSE CLAIM, advanced by right-deviationist bloggers on this website (in total disregard of the Church’s understanding of mortal sin), to the effect that a vote for Barack Obama is NECESSARILY a mortal sin. Such a notion, we know, is theologically false — and therefore has no place in the Catholic Pastoral. Nor, Anne, did Catholic voters incur auto-excommunication — be they voters who voted for the assertive abortocrat Senator Obama or for the passive abortocrat Senator McCain. My posts then have never discussed the moral (or moral-political) “acceptability” of any candidate, Republican or Democrat or whomsoever-have-you. Instead, my posts have confined themselves to refuting errors pertaining to the question when it is, and exactly WHEN IT IS that a Catholic voter indeed loses the state of sanctifying grace in the voting booth. All of which is why your notion that I’m discussing the general “moral acceptability” of candidates is way off the mark. At issue in my posts is the precise issue addressed by Cardinal Ratzinger in his 2004 Note on the moral theology of voting, which Note does NOT address the broad question of moral or political acceptabilty of candidates for office but rather the precise question of CONDITIONS under which a mortal sin is committed by a voter in the voting booth and conversely conditions under which no such sin is committed by that voter.

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 4:03 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Jon Juergensen: Since the USCCB’s 2011 discussion of voting ethics is functionally equivalent to Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 Note on voting ethics, there existed last year, just as their exists this year, no special need on the part of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to use language identical to that used used by Cardinal Ratzinger in his 2004 Note. (For the language of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Note, see, in the present thread, CCD January 19: 12.33 P.M.) Moreover, were there a contradiction between Cardinal Ratzinger’s Note on voting ethics and the USCCB’s document _Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship_, I’m confident that not one but many bishops would raise the matter with Cardinal-Archbishop Timothy Dolan and/or with Rome. In the meantime, Mr. Juergensen, since you are not an ‘episcopus externus’, you should abandon your groundless campaign against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 6:37 AM By Juergensen
Wrong, Maguire. The USCCB’s 2007 “Faithful Citizenship” is not “functionally equivalent” to the CHURCH’s 2004 “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles,” issued by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). If it were, there would have been no need for the USCCB to issue “Faithful Citizenship” in the first place! It would have simply re-issued the CHURCH’s “General Principles”! But, the USCCB didn’t like the CHURCH’s “General Principles,” as it requires that “proportionate reasons” be present before a Catholic can vote for an abortionist like Obama. The USCCB knew “proportionate reasons” would never be present justifying a vote for a prince of abortion like Obama. Hence, the USCCB busily set about issuing the 45 pages of confusion that is “Faithful Citizenship,” which tacitly rejects the CHURCH’s “General Principles” document and “proportionate reasons” standard by entirely ignoring both, and replacing them instead with a very different standard: the USCCB’s made-up, lame notion that only an “intent” by the voter not to support abortion is all that is needed to vote for an abortionist (Sec. 34, “Faithful Citizenship”). This standard conjured by the USCCB allows a vote for an abortionist like Obama even in the absence of “proportionate reasons” – only the voter’s “intent” matters – and a such opposes and contradicts the CHURCH’s “General Principles” document and “proportionate reasons” standard. And no amount of caterwauling from you is going to change that fact.

Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 7:12 AM By Juergensen
We would all do well to listen attentively to the holy and faithful Bishop Joseph Martino, who in response to attempts to use “Faithful Citizenship” to mislead Catholics in his Scranton diocese just days before the 2008 election, showed his mettle as a worthy Successor of the Apostles and proclaimed: “No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese. The USCCB does not speak for me. There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.” Amen! Would that more bishops had the faith and courage of Bishop Martino, Amchurch would not be in the predicament it is in.

Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 1:09 PM By k
CatholicCulture “Our Man Martino” Great story!

Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 1:42 PM By John F. Maguire
Bishop Joseph Martino was addressing the _Faithful Citizenship_ document published in 2008, not the supplemented _Faithful Citizenship_ document published in 2011. This latter document, I submit, addresses Bishop Martino’s concerns in its New Introductory Note (I say this without any intention of prejudging further interventions on the part of Bishop Martino). Mr. Juergensen, why you don’t mention the relevant distinction here between FC-2008 and FC-2011 apropos of Bishop Martino’s intervention, I do not know, but I surmise that it is because you want to claim that we’re in a “predicament” generated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. In point of fact, no such predicament exists. ~ Where then is the real predicament? That would be the predicament imposed on American voters by the bi-partisan abortocratic duopoly. The choice imposed by this duopoly is between [A] a neo-Republican state-prerogatvism, which AGREES with the _Roe_ Court that preborn infants are NOT persons under the Organic Law of this Republic therefore can be subjected to the vote of state legislatures, thumbs-up/thumbs down, on a right-to-life that these same preborn infants BY RIGHT already possess because, juridically, they are, as living human bodies, persons within the horizon of the Fourteenth Amendment — OK, between this neo-Republican position [A] and position [B], which is defined by the absolute abortocratic rule pursued by the neo-Democrats in the spirit of a forced march. COMMENT: For all pro-life voters, not just Catholic pro-life voters, this [A]/[B] dilemma is, in principle, an onerous predicament, however muddled a way this predicament is negotated in practice. It should be obvious to all close students of abortion law-and-politics that neither [A] nor [B] constitutes an integrally pro-life position.

Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 3:31 PM By Juergensen
Wrong again, Maguire. The “Faithful Citizenship” of 2011 is IDENTICAL to the “Faithful Citizenship” of 2007, save for a lame “Introductory Note” that the USCCB added that does absolutely NOTHING about the problem text in Section 34 inviting Catholics to vote for abortionists like Obama by simply “intending” to not support abortion.

Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 6:00 PM By k
Mr. Juergensen. Faithful Citizenship says that the taking of innocent human life from conception to natural death is always wrong and must be opposed. Section 34, 35 and 36 need to be read together. There is nothing in the document that invites Catholics to vote for abortionists. The Catholic Church does not support that interpretation of “Faithful Citizenship”. That is what Bishop Martino was reacting to at the forum where he said the quote that you shared at 7:12.

Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 7:57 PM By Anne T.
John F. Maguire, I included in my crtique of what you wrote posts that you have posted down through several years, including during the time McCain and Obama were running. You most often seemed to have defended voting for Obama despite the fact he was and is the most pro-abortion person who has ever ran for U.S. Pressident. Everyone on here, by the way, should know by now that a person’s culpability for voting for Obama depends on how informed they are and why they voted for him. Some being not as culpable as others, and some possibly not being culpable at all. Some were out and out lied to about his voting record and did not have the means to check, and others just did not bother to check. There is a difference, one being not culpable and the other culpable. Nevertheless, having known many Catholics and non-Catholics who have voted for him, many voted for the wrong reasons — they wanted contraception and/or abortion to be legal and paid for by govenment health care with taxpayers money for instance, even for Catholic Hospital employees, even though they knew it was against Church teaching and/or against freedom of religion.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 4:27 AM By OSCAR
Maguire, do you think the USCCB will revise their “Faithful Citizenship” paper based upon not only Obama and his Administration’s position on abortion, but also his position of FORCING Relgious organizations to violate their consciences. Evil reasons for voting for someone begets evil. Everyone who has internet access can check any politician’ s true voting record (not biased news reports). IGNORANCE is NOT always an excuse before God. CCC – – ” 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin. In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.” – including voting for evil politicians.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 6:30 AM By Juergensen
k: Wrong. Bishop Martino did not say any “interpretation” of “Faithful Citizenship” was not relevant in his diocese; he said THE DOCUMENT ITSELF is not relevant in his diocese. His words: “NO USCCB DOCUMENT IS RELEVANT IN THIS DIOCESE. THE USCCB DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME.” I don’t see the word “interpretation” in there; and you should not put that word into the good Bishop’s mouth. As orthodox “Catholic World News” commented at the time: “Bishop Martino’s point is well-taken. In fact, the USCCB has no authority to teach in any diocese, nor are its documents binding on anyone. National episcopal conferences exist solely as a convenient way for bishops from regions with similar cultures and problems to take joint action. Each bishop remains the sole authoritative teacher of the Faith in his own diocese, with the single exception of the Pope himself (against whose Magisterium each bishop’s teachings must always be judged).” Catholics need to follow the Catholic Church more, and the posh-Washington-DC-headquartered USCCB less.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 2:03 PM By k
Mr. Juergensen, I did not mean to say that the Bishop said interpretation. The story is that he was at a meeting where Faithful Citizenship was being discussed and that it was when people started using it to justify social issues over abortion that he said that quote. You are entirely correct on your point that the bishop is the teaching authority not the USCCB. My complaint is that you are agreeing with Catholics for Obama and Catholics for Choice on how they interpret that document and I do not agree with their interpretation. And Bishop Martino spoke against that idea-and said that important social issues could not justify voting for someone who is pro-choice. I am dismayed that so many Catholics would justify their vote by distorting that document. I see that document as saying “This is why you vote-to improve the human condition (the worst of which is the willful murder of the unborn). Not because you always vote for one party, or because your pocketbook will be fatter, or you dig the guys hairdo or wife or Hollywood supporters.” I know that pro-lifers were disappointed in the document-I was, too. I just won’t give the pro-choicers the support for their excuses by saying that document approves or invites them to do that.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 3:27 PM By John F. Maguire
J. Juergensen: It’s the New Introductory Note, and jus this Note, that you overlooked in your post at issue. ~ In my rejoinder to that post, I used the word supplemental to describe Archbishop (now Cardinal-Archbishop) Timothy Dolan et al.’s New Introductory Note — and that, I submit, is a fair description of it. It is misleading however to refer to these two _Faithful Citizenship_ documents as identical. Fairly put, the two documents are substantially the same, but substantially the same, we know, does not mean — not in this context — identical. For my part, I think the New Introductory Note answers Bishop Martino’s original concerns, though I look forward to further public interventions on Bishop Martino’s part on this subject, which of course today is to say, I look forward to his prospective interventions on the subject of the USCCB’s new 2011 document _Faithful Citizenship_.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 3:46 PM By John F. Maguire
Anne T.: Your posts still miss the specific point. At issue in Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 Note — and my posts as well –is not the general question of culpability that might be incurred by a voter in the act of casting his or her vote but rather those conditions, and only those conditions, under which a voter incurs the specific culpability traditionally referred to as the culpability consequent upon committing a mortal sin, a sin (1) that meets the Church’s threefold definition and (2) that, alas, destroys the life of sanctifying grace in the soul. For the text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Note, see CCD January 19: 12.33 PM.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 7:30 PM By Juergensen
Maguire: Please stop misleading Catholics with your false claim that the 2011 version of “Faithful Citizenship” is different from the 2007 version. It’s not. Save for a substantively meaningless “Introductory Note,” the text of the 2011 document is IDENTICAL to the text of the 2007 document. Indeed, even the 2011 “Introductory Note” acknowledges that the 2011 statement is a mere replicate of the 2007 statement: “The Catholic Bishops of the United States are pleased to RE-PROPOSE to our people ‘Faithful Citizenship.’ THIS STATEMENT [WAS] ADOPTED BY THE BODY OF BISHOPS IN 2007.” There you have it: 2011 and 2007 are one and the same, one just as bad as the other.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 7:38 PM By k
Bishop Martino retired early from theDiocese of Scranton and is currently teaching American Church History at the St.John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 9:57 PM By JLS
Maguire, common sense says that if there were any substantive difference, the title would change to reflect it … or are you insinuating that the writers are trying a sneaky way of fooling people?

Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:52 AM By k
google political responsibility preists for life and you can get to a page full of bishops’ statements about abortion and elections.

Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:18 AM By Anne T.
John F. Maguire, when I have time I am going to read “Faithful Citizenship” for myself. The point I am making with you is that you never tell the people on here how pro-abortion President Obama is while all the time defending the “right” to vote for him for your own political purposes, which most likely is because you represent some union.

Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:20 AM By John F. Maguire
No indirection on my part, J. Juergensen. No misleading on my part. ~ When you claim that Cardinal-Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s New Introductory Note is “meaningless,” who is it that misleads? When you fail to read the entirety of the text of _Faithful Citizenship_ in light of Cardinal Dolan’s New Introductory Note, who is that has misled himself? As for JLS’s arbitrary idea that any NEW IMPORT borne by the New Introductory Note must needs alter the TITLE of the USCCB’s voting-ethics document _Faithful Citizenship_, why that’s a wild miss on JLS’s part. In literature in general, we don’t require authors to retitle their works when they add a new introductory note!

Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:00 AM By Juergensen
“In literature in general, we don’t require authors to retitle their works when they add a new introductory note!” ~ Exactly. The USCCB only “added a new introductory note” to the 2007 document, made no changes to the text, hence no need to change the title. Thanks for making my point. LOL.

Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:09 AM By Juergensen
Anne T: When considering that which Maguire peddles, I always found this comment of his to be most revealing: “December 18, 2010 1:46 PM By John F. Maguire ~ ‘I assure you, I’d rather be a true progressive than a false conservative.'”

Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:28 AM By Anne T.
There is basically nothing wrong with unions, John F. Maguire, if they are truly pro-traditional family and pro-life and really are for the improvement of the working family, but the anti-life platform of the Democratic Party has basically destroyed all that for the unions. Some in the Repubican Party could be included in that anti-life scenario, also, but not as many.

Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:03 AM By John F. Maguire
Jon Juergensen: Your attempt to blink away Cardinal Dolan’s New Introductory Note as if it were “meaningless” is a product of your adamant will that that Note not be there.

Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:27 AM By k
Anne T., I think you are completely misunderstanding Mr. Maguire.

Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:34 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Anne T.: (1) I am commenting on the moral theology of voting. In so doing, I have no partisan purpose whatsoever. (2) In this thread — you must have missed it — I compare two types of politician supportive of abortocratic politicians: [A] those who accept the _Roe_ ruling that the preborn infant is a non-person and so are content to return the abortion question to state legislatures to vote thumbs-up/thumbs-down on the issue quite as if a prenatal right-to-life had not already vested in pre-born infants as a matter of fundamental law, and [B] those who, like President Obama, promote absolute abortocratic rule. See my post at CCD January 22: 1.42 PM. ~ Now you come saying, in effect, that I never mention how abortocratic President Obama is. Anne, Mr. Obama, sorry to say, supports “absolute” abortocratic rule, whereas the neo-Republicans (I also oppose them) support a state-prerogativist version of abortocratic rule. Anne T., there is a qualitative difference between these two notions of abortocratic rule, is there not? But both positions should be rejected, should they not?

Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:47 PM By Anne T.
Thank you for the clarification, John Maguire. I must have missed some of your posts. My apologies.

Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 6:53 PM By JLS
Your partisan purpose, Maguire, was introduced and carried forward in your adamant support for pro-abortion Catholic Douglas Kmiec and pro-abortion candidate and now president Obama. Your partisanship is obvious … why would you deny it?

Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:40 PM By JLS
Anne T., do you know of any unions that actually fit your definition of good unions?

Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:01 PM By John F. Maguire
JLS: Douglas Kmiec is anti-abortion, not pro-abortion. As a Republican, he broke with Governor Mitt Romney because Romney was a state-prerogativist, which is to say, Romney accepted the holding of _Roe v. Wade_ that preborn infants are not persons within the horizon of this nation’s fundamental law, therefore are subject to the whim of state legislatures as to their right to life upon the return of the neo-Republic way of overturning _Roe_. I’ve never advocated for Obama or McCain or anyone else. What I did do is confine myself to defending the Bishops position on this subject — and I’ve stuck to that. President Obama is an abortocrat, and you can take seriously my critique of abortocratic rule as it applies not only to President Obama but to all politicians.

Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:52 PM By Anne T.
JLS, all I can say is that my union asked me to vote for people whom I could not consciensiously vote for, and the platform of the Democratic Party, advocating that taxpayers pay for artificial contraception and abortion, among other intrinsically evil things, has destroyed any moral foundation it ever had as far as I am concerned. So I would say, “No, I do not know any longer any union that fits my definition of a good union.”

Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 3:31 AM By D.A.N.
Maguire, you are NOT accurate or up to date in your politics. Most Republicans across the USA do not support abortion in any form. The new Republican HOUSE voted and PASSED more than once in the last two years to stop the taxpayer funding of abortions and Planned Parenthood. The legislation has been blocked both times in the DEMOCRATIC Senate. Of course, then the DEMOCRATIC President OBAMA would have to sign it into law. All of the current Republican candidates for the Presidency OPPOSE ABORTION. According to the CCC, all Catholics are required to VOTE. According to Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) we may not vote for a pro-abortion politician when there is another choice, because there is nothing proportionate to the murder of over 1 million babies in the USA each year. Do NOT imply that most Republicans support abortion in any State. If you would like to name the very few who do, that would be more accurate. You are trying to paint a FALSE picture, so that Catholics will not vote, or so they will vote for your candidates. Remember that only the DEMOCRATS have pro-abortion in their National Platform, and have had for years. This means the Majority of Democrats support abortion, NOT the Marjority of Republicans.

Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 6:30 AM By JLS
False, Maguire, Kmiec led 52% of the Catholic vote for abortion and caused the abortion candidate to be elected president of the usa. A wolf in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf, Maguire. And hypocrisy on that order puts a soul among the lowest of the low in eternal condemnation. So, your post here is one more flagrant and clear example of why you are referred to as an abortion supporter.

Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 7:11 AM By Juergensen
Maguire: Don’t misquote me. I said the 2011 “Introductory Note” added to the 2007 “Faithful Citizenship” is “substantively meaningless,” as it affects no changes to the original 2007 text. I did not say “meaningless,” as you claim. To the contrary, as I explicated above, the “Introductory Note” added in 2011 does provide some meaning in that it explicitly states “THIS STATEMENT [WAS] ADOPTED BY THE BODY OF BISHOPS IN 2007,” thereby meaningfully disproving your assertion that the 2011 document is different from the 2007 document. It’s not – the “Introductory Note” itself says so.

Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 9:01 AM By Maryanne Leonard
The sad fact is that abortion is not a crime, Lupe; that is the essence of the problem. It is obvious to people of good will that the unborn child is and will remain a human being, and that ending the life of the child is not merely tantamount to murder, it is murder. Unfortunately, selfish women and men have decreed that murdering an unborn child is the legal right of the mother and therefore we are asked to pretend that this heinous act is “not murder.” It is the same principal as in the child’s fairy tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” which do not, in fact, exist. A child needed to declare that the emperor had no clothes, as all the adults had gone along with the preposterous assertion since it was the decree from on high. An unborn child does not yet have the natural capacity to declare his or her own humanity; it is therefore incumbent upon those of us who have the capacity to speak for the child to do so relentlessly until the lawmakers and citizens are shamed into admitting the truth, that to “undertake a procedure to end a pregnancy,” is to murder a very young and helpless human being. I say it again: this is murder! It must be stopped.

Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:40 AM By John F. Maguire
Jon Juergensen: The New Introductory Note is cogent and instructive, not “substantively meaningless,” nor in any aspect of its detail, meaningless.

Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:58 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to D.A.N.: I was not discussing the convictions of rank-and-file Republicans nor Republican legislative initiatives — I was discussing the “neo-Republican” notion that promotes, under the auspices of the equivocal slogan “overturn _Roe v. Wade_,” a state prerogativist claim that, once _Roe_ is overturned, state-legislatures have standing to decide the right-to-life of preborn infants on a thumbs up/thumbs down basis quite as if such infants were not already vested with the right to life. Compare, by sharp contrast, Rick Santorum, “My Fight for Life,” _Wall Street Journal_ (January 23, 2012) (“I know that every person, every child conceived in the womb has a right to life.” […] “The 14th Amendment states explicitly: ‘No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”)

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 2:15 PM By John F. Maguire
JLS: Rick Santorum is right to ground the right-to-life of the preborn infant in the Organic Law of the United States, that is, in the Declaration of Indepedence and the 14th Amendnment. In so doing, Senator Santorum REJECTS the neo-Republican position that _Roe v. Wade_, although it is granted that it should be overturned, nonetheless should still be regarded as in effect in its holding that, from within the horizon of Organic Law, the preborn infant is a non-person ergo subject to the whims of state legislatures keen on legalizing abortion. So no, JLS, if you want to be integrally pro-life you’ll NOT want to expose preborn infants to a thumbs-up/thumbs-down vote by state legislatures.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 4:25 PM By Catherine
John Maguire, Rick Santorum stood up to Newt and Romney on that stage. You are on a stage named CCD. Rick Santorum would ask you why you never stood up to your friend Professor Kmiec for helping Catholics to vote for a pro-abortion candidate named Obama. I don’t think that Rick Santorum would send you a sweater vest if he read your posts for the last three years. John, Your occasional token kinduv orthodox sounding posts are an attempt to show Catholic readers how truly Catholic that you and your usual un-Catholic posts all are. John, Seamless garment leftists do not care about aborted babies. They care about socialist agendas. Pope Benedict XVI just reminded everyone…”The devil can cite the Catechism, (and while were at it, I’ll add the law too ) better than anyone in a room!” The devil hates the Catechism but he sure knows it and he sure knows how to selectively use it and selectively distort it to serve his own dark motives.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 7:29 PM By JLS
Not only false, Maguire, but bloodthirsty and money hungry!!! Keeping Roe v Wade instead of letting each state decide the law on abortion means over a million abortions per year in the USA. If it were up to state governments to decide, then there are some states which would outlaw it, and thus cut the number of abortions each year in the USA. The “all or nothing” mentality is that of a drunk. Jesus teaches us to be moderate (St Paul explains this).

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 10:59 PM By Abeca Christian
I hope Rick Santoruim wins, he seems like the best one!

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 3:30 PM By John F. Maguire
Catherine: If you read my posts on Professor Douglas Kmiec’s constitutional jurisprudence, you’ll see that I commend Doug Kmiec for INVITING the Supreme Court to revisit the abortion question in light the Organic Law of the United States (the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution). My posts quoting Rick Santorum do the same thing: they commend Senator Santorum for inviting the Supreme Court to revisit the abortion question in the light of Organic Law. If I may mention a third party to this conversation: Notre Dame law professor Charles Rice has long advocated that the Supeme Court revisit _Roe_ in the light of Organic Law. Now whatever you think of their politics, Catherine, all three of these laywers — Rick Santorum, Douglas Kmiec, and Charles Rice — recommend a federal-constitutional resolution of the abortion question, not a pilatic return of the question to the states on the false presumption that the _Roe_ Court is right in its holding that preborn infants are non-persons under the Constitution. Here is the crucial point: All three lawyers want to see _Roe v. Wade_ overturned, but all three have noticed that the neo-Republican way of overturning _Roe_ retains the PROTON PSEUDOS — the primary error — of the _Roe_ Court, namely, it’s holding that preborn infants are non-persons. I am sorry to see that JLS does not understand that there are two ways of overturning _Roe_, one that respects the preborn infants’ right-to-life and one that doesn’t this respect this right, handing the whole matter over to state legislatures as if no such constitutional right-to-life exists. Worse: JLS calls “bloodthirsty” anyone who disagrees with him in this matter, that is, anyone whom he misreads as not wanting _Roe_ overturned when, in all actuality, the Rice-Santorum-Kmiec position is that _Roe_ be overturned for sure but that it be overturned in the right way, which is to say, overturned in light of the Organic right of preborn infants to live out their lives.