Posted Thursday, January 05, 2012 4:08 AM By Juergensen
What good is accomplished by Catholics protesting abortion if the USCCB is telling the same Catholics they can vote for abortionists like Obama, Pelosi, and Brown by simply pretending, when in the voting booth, to not “intend” to support their abortion policies? Cf. Sec. 34, “Faithful Citizenship”, USCCB. With all due respect, the prolife movement needs to consider an annual day of protest in front of the opulent USCCB headquarters in Washington DC on the anniversary date of “Faithful Citizenship”. Indeed, while “Roe v. Wade” was written to legalise abortion, “Faithful Citizenship” was written to ensure “Roe v. Wade” will not be overturned.
Posted Thursday, January 05, 2012 7:08 AM By Ted
The differences between Bishop Soto, and the other bishop featured today, Bishop Zavala could not be more profound. I see them as good examples of the diversity in faithfulness among the bishops that needs to be addressed. We have too wide a spectrum of character and zeal among them. More like Bishop Soto need to be appointed, and those of Bishop Zavala’s ilk should be wished well in their retirement.
Posted Thursday, January 05, 2012 7:17 AM By Catherine
Thank you Bishop Jaime Soto for the “Diocesan Day of Reparation” for the people. Enforcing Canon 915 would be “Reparation to Our Lord.”
Posted Thursday, January 05, 2012 7:31 AM By Annasher
Just to clarify – the day of Reparation by fasting and abstinence is Jan 20 or Jan 21 or both ?The editor replies: Jan. 20.
Posted Thursday, January 05, 2012 7:52 AM By Felice
God Bless Bishop Soto.
Posted Thursday, January 05, 2012 8:28 AM By ANNE
Our Lady of Akita Oct, 1973 – “The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.” The only way we will know the TRUTH is to study a Catholic Bible, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Pray the Rosary as asked by Our Lady. (The apparitions of our Lady of Akita were approved by the Church as worthy of belief.)
Posted Thursday, January 05, 2012 8:44 AM By Lupe
What is the Sacramento Diocese efforts on Parent Notification going to be? We have not heard anything. Will California continue to permit abortions on young teen girls without a parent knowing about it until it is too late? This happened to a friend of mine who had 13 year old daughter who had an abortion at Planned Parenthood and the school didn’t tell the mother until the girl collapsed on the street. The Church needs to help stop this.
Posted Thursday, January 05, 2012 8:47 AM By Delilah
God bless Bishop Soto. Pax
Posted Thursday, January 05, 2012 8:48 AM By Mary
Thank you Blessed Mother for all that you do to keep us close to your Son.
Posted Thursday, January 05, 2012 9:20 AM By k
Juergensen, “Faithful Citizenship” was written to ensure “Roe v. Wade” will not be overturned?” The attack on the Church by pro-lifers is a sign of the times
Posted Thursday, January 05, 2012 9:49 AM By john norwood
This is great
Posted Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:10 AM By John Testa
Thank you and God Love You Bishop Soto. I would only add that when works of charity are listed, being a prayer warrior at the sidewalk of the abortuaries be included.
Posted Thursday, January 05, 2012 12:20 PM By Juergensen
k: (1) Get something straight: the USCCB is not “the Church”. Rather, the USCCB is a mere nonprofit corporate entity registered in Washington DC with no independent authority whatsoever over Catholics. Indeed, no less than Cardinal Josef Ratzinger – now Pope Benedict XVI – has criticised and called into question the very need for these national episcopal conferences, which routinely morph into political bureaucracies that filter and water down the Faith of the Apostles. As such, in criticising the USCCB, I am in the company of the Pope, thank you very much. (2) It is the attack on the unborn by the USCCB that is a sign of the times. Its ponderous 45-page “Faithful Citizenship” was written in a way that gives Catholics an easy “out” to vote for abortionists. Actually, it gives Catholics many easy “outs”, as evidenced by the website for “Catholics for Obama”, which in the 2008 election quoted multiple sections of “Faithful Citizenship” to rationalise “Catholic” support for abortionist Obama. And, “Catholics for Obama” will do so again in 2012.
Posted Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:25 PM By k
Juergensen, the USCCB is a national bishops conference (see canon 447-459). It is not the whole church but it is part of the Church. The Pope would not disagree with the USCCB on this. He would disagree with taking one sentence of a 45-page document out of context and using it to lie about what the bishops said. The USCCB has never attacked the unborn. The fact that other people took sentences out of context and used them to promote something other than what the bishops intended is not the fault of the bishops.
Posted Thursday, January 05, 2012 6:21 PM By Juergensen
k: The USCCB has NO ecclesiastic authority. NONE. That’s why faithful, courageous bishops – such as Bishop Bruskewitz and Bishop Martino – have in just these past few years told the USCBB to “stick it”: Bishop Bruskewitz defied and denied the USCCB’s attempt to “audit” his diocese for compliance with USCCB child protection standards; and Bishop Martino, in clarifying that the USCCB’s “Faithful Citizenship” did not govern in his diocese in the 2008 election, said this gem: “No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese. The USCCB doesn’t speak for me.” How’s THAT for “attacking the Church”, k?
Posted Thursday, January 05, 2012 10:17 PM By Abeca Christian
Juergensen is right!
Posted Friday, January 06, 2012 4:10 AM By MIKE
k, QUOTES by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) “Ratzinger Report”: pg 59 – “We must not forget that the episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function.” pg 60 – “No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” pg 60 – “….Code of Canon Law (455 4&1)……can not validly act in the name of all the Bishops, unless each and every Bishop has given his consent unless it concerns cases in which the common law prescribes it or a special mandate of the Apostolic See….determines it.” (I’m not aware of the USCCB getting 100% votes of all the US Bishops on anything.)
Posted Friday, January 06, 2012 9:28 AM By Ann T.
I have put the date on my calendar. Bishop Soto is right. God bless him! “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” 2 Chron. 7:14, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, Ignatius Press.
Posted Friday, January 06, 2012 9:59 AM By k
MIKE, yes, all that is correct. Juergensen, you also are correct except that the bishops do not attack the Church by using the authority she has given them.
Posted Friday, January 06, 2012 10:14 AM By John F. Maguire
To the contrary, Jon Juergensen, the fact that national episcopal conferences have no MANDATUM DOCENDI and therefore no ecclesial position for Apostolic teaching purposes — which is also to say, no teaching authority whatsoever vis-a-vis the teaching authority of our Apostolic ordinaries (our local bishops) — does NOT mean that the statements released by these episcopal conferences to various publics, nation by nation, are therefore lacking in the authority of reason, which is to say, the authority borne by very reason that imbues these conference statements inasmuch as, or rather insofar as, these statements are in point of fact imbued with what Aquinas called “ratio recta” and what today, in the vernacular, we call right reason. I would argue then that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ voting-ethics statement _Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship_, for example, bears the authority of right reason, indeed, so ostensibly so that the scandal that evidently you would like to see take place, Mr.Juergensen — namely, the scandal of rogue pro-lifers demonstrating against the USCCB in the nation’s capital — is tantamount to your manufacturing a scandal that, on its face, is as flatly unwarranted as it is disdainful of the authority of right reason itself. Does such scandal-mongering on your part constitute an attack against the Church? Indirectly, yes, that is, in view of the fact that national episcopal conferences, although quite properly and rightly lacking a teaching mandate, are, for the purposes of public communication, quite properly and rightly subsidiary to the bishops, both collectively and individually. All of which, in fine, does NOT gainsay right reason insofar as episcopal conference statements articulate right reason as indeed we accept all RATIO RECTA from within the horizon of the tradition of reason, not least as this tradition figures decisively in the domain of politics.
Posted Friday, January 06, 2012 10:47 AM By Abeca Christian
Actions do speak louder folks. ” The bishops do not attack the church by using the authority she has given them”??? hmm I had to think about that comment. Bishops are human too, when dogma is attached by those in charge, there is that possibility that some may use their authority to not enforce CCC teachings, so this action can only tell the lay faithful that the church is being attacked from within. It’s only human to assume what seems apparent. It may not be their intent but even lack of enforcing teachings can be seen as an attack and can cause a scandal to not only the faithful but also spiritual consequences in which we are faced today!
Posted Friday, January 06, 2012 10:55 AM By Juergensen
k: Nor do I attack the Church, as you falsely accused me. The USCCB is NOT the Church, and deserves all the criticism it gets: from Cardinal Ratzinger; from Bishop Bruskewitz; from Bishop Martino; and from ‘lil ‘ol me.
Posted Friday, January 06, 2012 8:10 PM By k
OK Juergensen but why is the conference established by canon law if it is not the Church?
Posted Friday, January 06, 2012 8:20 PM By k
The topic of this article was important; we should get back to it. Fasting, abstinance. prayer and works of charity to make reparation for abortion. Friday January 20. Let’s support it all over the nation.
Posted Friday, January 06, 2012 9:38 PM By John F. Maguire
In further reply to Jon Juergensen: The fact that national episcopal conferences lack the MANDATUM DOCENDI, that is, the fact that national episcopal conferences lack the teaching mandate that is proper to bishops as bishops, does not mean that such conferences are superfluities or nullities. We know otherwise. As Pope John Paul II explains in his 2003 Apostolic Exhortation PASTORES GREGIS, “since Episcopal Conferences are permanent bodies which meet periodically, they will be effective if their role is considered auxiliary vis-a-vis the role which individual Bishops carry out by divine law in their Church. On the level of the individual Church, the Diocesan Bishop, in the Lord’s name, shepherds the flock entrusted to him as a proper, ordinary and immediate pastor, and his acts are strictly personal, not collegial, albeit prompted by a spirit of communion. Consequently, on the level of groupings of particular Churches by geographical areas (nations, regions, etc.), the Bishops set over the individual Churches do not jointly exercise their pastoral care through collegial acts comparable to those of the College of Bishops, which as a theological subject is indivisible. The Bishops of the same Episcopal Conference, assembled at their meetings, exercise jointly, for the good of their faithful and within the limits of the areas of competence granted them by law or mandate of the Apostolic See, only some of the functions deriving from their pastoral ministry (munus pastorale). [….] Episcopal Conferences can provides valuable assistance to the Apostolic See by expressing their views with regard to specific problems of a more general nature.” All Catholics are on notice then: To attack Episcopal Conferences in their proper role is tantamount to attacking [A] these Conferences’s “valuable assistance to the Apostolic See” and [B] “the good of [the] faithful” which good these Conferences serve.
Posted Friday, January 06, 2012 9:56 PM By k
Juergensen, I apologize for falsely accusing you of attacking the church. I think I said pro-lifers, though, not you personally but I see why you would take it personally.
Posted Friday, January 06, 2012 9:57 PM By OSCAR
k – Canon law keeps bishops conferences from interferring where they do not belong. Bishops Conferences are not even mentioned in the CCC. In the “Ratzinger Report” under “The problem of episcopal conferences” starting on page 58, our beloved Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) says it best. QUOTE: ” We must not forget that the episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated, they have only a practical , concrete function”. AND “No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops”. AND “Code of Canon Law…..(Can 455, 4&1) conferences can not validly act in the name of all bishops unless each and every bishop has given his consent….”. UNQUOTE. (It is almost impossible to get 100 % of all US Bishops to agree on topics.) I agree with your statement about fasting, abstinance, prayer and works of charity for reparation.
Posted Friday, January 06, 2012 10:40 PM By Abeca Christian
Juergensen my warning to you is be careful not to get caught up in unending battle with k. Juergensen you are right on, what you said is correct, on your comments on these threads, you are usually right on and speak with reason! I appreciate your logic! ! Stay with it and I know that you have discerned correctly. God bless you!
Posted Saturday, January 07, 2012 5:11 AM By Juergensen
Maguire: Your “right reason” that purports to defend the USCCB’s “Faithful Citizenship” is the same “right reason” that purported to justify Catholics voting for Obama in 2008. It’s neither right nor reasonable.
Posted Saturday, January 07, 2012 1:46 PM By John F. Maguire
Juergensen: You’ve dropped a major link in logic by blinking away the fact that the right reason referred to in the present context is functionally identical to the “proportionate” reasoning referred to by Cardinal Ratzinger in his 2004 voting-ethics Note. Unless you see your way to dropping your notion that voting ethics as articulated both by Cardinal Ratzinger and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ document _Forming Consciences for Faithful Citzenship_ ‘rationalizes’ specific voting for particular candidates, you’ll continue to block your way to coming to terms with the Ratzinger/USCCB’s position on this subject. Worse: You’ll continue to endorse a rogue pro-life protest against the USCCB in the nation’s capitol — alas, all based on an evident failure on your part to read, or read correctly, Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation PASTORES GREGIS. In this papal document, you’ll discover that national episcopal conferences, although they lack a teaching mandate per divine law, nonetheless enjoy a proper and permanent role in mediating between Church and nation (1) in service to the Christian faithful in their role as citizens and (2) in service to the common good of persons and institutions.
Posted Saturday, January 07, 2012 2:08 PM By k
OSCAR, yes and the rest of the section on it is good, too, especially how documents get flattened, This is from November 15, 2010 to the Bishops conference in Brazil by Pope Benedict XVI: The episcopal conference is “one of the forms of organisation which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, enable the joint and harmonious exercise of certain pastoral functions”… it “helps bishops to accomplish their mandate more effectively, without abdicating their primary responsibility to feed…the flock of their particular Church.” Some of today’s problems “require the joint actions of bishops: promotion and protection of faith and morals, the translation of liturgical books, the promotion and formation of vocations of special consecration, assistance in catechesis, ecumenical commitment, relations with civil authorities, the defence of human life from conception to natural end, the sanctity of the family and of marriage between a man and a woman, the right of parents to educate their children, religious freedom, human rights, peace and social justice.” I had to skip over a lot to fit it in the space. It is on the vatican information service website.
Posted Sunday, January 08, 2012 4:40 AM By BETH
Maguire, regarding more on the USCCB. QUOTE ” It happens then that the search for agreement between the different tendencies and the effort at mediation often yield flattened documents in which decisive positions (where they might be necessary) are weakened” UNQUOTE – Cardinal Ratzniger – “Ratzinger Report”. The USCCB’s recommendations on VOTING are indeed watered down, and leaving clear Church teaching to private interpretation, may lead some to sin. When the USCCB comes up with incorrect positions on global warming and light bulbs, etc., they hurt their positions on true church teaching because thinking people come to the conclusion many of those committee members and staffers are flakes and then disregard almost everything. Maguire, when given a choice, why would you or any decent moral person, vote for ANY politician who ACTIVELY supports the murder of the most vulnerable and most innocent of human beings? You never answered the question “in the USA, what is proportionate to the murder of about 1 Million innocent babies each year”? Please re-read the January 06, 2012 9:57 PM post with quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict).
Posted Sunday, January 08, 2012 11:55 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Beth: I’ve already answered the question you reiterate. Here — reiterated — is my reply: There is no such thing as a proportionate reason, or indeed any reason, for the direct killing of one preborn infant, let alone more than one preborn infant; let alone millions of prenatal infants. Beth, Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 voting ethics NOTE presumes that all cognizant Catholics both [A] know in principle and [B] acknowledge in the practical order that: the direct killing of preborn infants is a grievous violation of those infants’ right to life. [A] and [B] also comprise the basis of the USCCB’s 2007/2011 voter ethics document _Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship_.
Posted Sunday, January 08, 2012 12:06 PM By Juergensen
Au contraire, Maguire. It is you and the USCCB who have blinked away the Church’s clear teaching that there must be “proportionate reasons” for a Catholic to vote for an abortionist such as Obama (“Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles,” Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 2004). Knowing that there can never be “proportionate reasons” to justify a vote for the Prince of Abortion, the USCCB rode to Obama’s defence and issued a 45-page document – “Faithful Citizenship” – infamous for both an error of omission and an error of commission: (1) It omitted, failed to so much as mention, and thus tacitly rejected the Church teaching requiring “proportionate reasons”; and (2) It made up out of thin air its own subjective standard purporting to allow Catholics to vote for an abortionist candidate if they merely “intend” not to support the candidate’s abortionist polices (Sec. 34, “Faithful Citizenship”). You have walked down this road too, Maguire. Utterly unable to enunciate a single “proportionate reason” that would justify a vote for the Prince of Abortion (despite my multitude of requests), you have resorted to making up your own standard out of thin air, namely “right reason,” a term that is NOT in the Church’s teaching document on the matter (“Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles,” June 2004) OR even in the USCCB’s flawed document on the matter (“Faithful Citizenship”). In short, we Catholics must decide whether to follow the Church and Peter, or follow someone else?
Posted Sunday, January 08, 2012 5:12 PM By JLS
Maguire, justify a vote for Obama.
Posted Sunday, January 08, 2012 6:01 PM By Juergensen
Maguire: The issue is not whether there are “proportionate reasons” for the “direct killing” of babies in the womb. Rather, the issue is whether there are “proportionate reasons” for “voting” for a candidate like Obama who relishes abortion. THIS is the issue the Church speaks to in its teaching document “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles,” Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Rome, June 2004. You know this, but as you are incapable of eliciting from your keyboard a single “proportionate reason” for “voting” for Obama, you throw out the red herring about “direct killings” of babies.
Posted Sunday, January 08, 2012 10:25 PM By John F. Maguire
No, JLS, I’m NOT advising bloggers how to vote. Instead, my posts proffer a DEFENSE of what has been SAID on voting ethics by Cardinal Ratzinger and by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops so to forfend against misconsructions of the Ratzinger 2004 voting ethics Note and the 2007/2011 USCCB’s _Faithful Citizenship_ document. The presence of proportionate reasons, we know, is presence of such reasons within the horizon of the conscience of the conscientious voter — that is where the Church locates it; and for the purposes of the present discussion that is where I locate it. Leaving the matter at this level of interpretation, however, already contradicts your claim, JLS, that the United States Conferfence of Catholic Bishops’ voter-ethics document contains “heresy.” To refute such misconstructions as yours is the purpose of my posts, not advocacy for or against specific candidates. Does my reserve in this matter mean that I, for my own part, am “incapable” (Juergensen) of applying proportionate reasoning in the voting decision-making process? I’m not inclined to think so. If the CCD powers-that-be wanted to advocate in favor of one of the seven candidates for the Republican Party nomination, for example, why haven’t they done so? In the first place, they are NOT free to do so under the auspices of the Catholic name. Indeed, where there is no episcopal permission for a website to use the Catholic name in the first place, how is it appropriate to use the Catholic name to advocate FOR one or another candidate for office under purportedly Catholic auspices? For that matter, how, obversely, is it appropriate to use the Catholic name to advocate AGAINST particular candidates for office under purportedly Catholic auspices?
Posted Sunday, January 08, 2012 10:50 PM By John F. Maguire
No red herring, Juergensen — there are bloggers on this website who have confused [A] the crucial fact that no reason whatsoever, let alone a proportionate reason, exists so to warrant the direct killing of preborn infants, with [B] the presence of proportionate reasons to vote for an abortocratic candidate for the office, that is, under certain delimited conditions, not least where both leading candidates are abortocrats. [A] is not [B]. No red herring is involved in making this elementary point.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 12:58 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Oscar: In an effort to discredit the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ voting-ethics document _Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship_, your post at CCD January 6: 9:47 PM turns out to be bereft of context, notably, the (instructive) relationship between Canon 447 and Canon 455. In this connection: (1) Duane L. C. M. Galles correctly points out that: “Episcopal conferences are pastoral (c. 447), not legislative bodies. They do possess certain limited legislative authority but it exists only in certain specified cases as set forth by law (c. 455).” Duane L. C. M. Galles, “Canon Law and Its Interpretation,” EWTN, online, n.d. (2) No bishop — no local ordinary responsible before God for his own diocese — has seen fit to interdict the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ 2007/2011 voting-ethics document. (3) The USCCB’s document, I submit, affords no grounds for a bishop to do so. (4) As for the status of national episcopal conferences, Pope John Paul II writes: “…[I]n no way… [does the Church intend] to play down the importance and usefulness of Conferences of Bishops, which were given an institutional configuration by the Council and more precisely determined by the Code of Canon Law and the more recent Motu Proprio APOSTOLOS SUOS [1998: 641-658]. Source: John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, PASTORES GREGIS [2009: 63].
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 3:21 AM By OSCAR
Maguire, the USCCB’s “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenshop” is weak. It is not clear, and does not clearly instruct Catholics in the USA – NOT to vote for baby murderer’s when there is another choice. My post contained QUOTES from Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict). You have it backwards, US Bishops do not need to interdict, the USCCB needs to have 100% approval – which they rarely get (Canon 455 1&4). Just like all US Bishops do not enforce Canon 915, there are some US Bishops who want us to vote for Baby murderers IF it will promote their social earthly agenda.,
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 6:03 AM By k
Juergensen, you are correct. Faithful Stewardship does not use “proportionate reason”; it says grave moral reasons. It also says sanctity of life is pre-eminant. I understand, as a dedicated pro-lifer, that you would like a document that more strongly stressed that. I would agree with that.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 10:00 AM By Juergensen
k: “Faithful Citizenship” contains several provisions that on their face allow a Catholic to vote for abortionist Obama, provisions that are routinely cited by abortionist organisations such as “Catholics for Obama.” FIRST, Section 34 says: “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.” This clearly implies that a Catholic CAN vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of abortion “if” the voter simply “intends” to not support that position. SECOND, Section 34 says: “A voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an INTRINSIC EVIL to justify indifference or inattentiveness to OTHER IMPORTANT MORAL ISSUES involving human life and dignity.” This invites Catholics to overlook a candidate’s support of an intrinsic evil such as abortion if they are “attentive” to “other important moral issues.” Notice here how the USCCB offsets “intrinsic evil” against “other important moral issues” – which need not be intrinsically evil and can be anything from immigration to spending to jobs to the environment. THIRD, Section 35 says that “there may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s UNACCEPTABLE POSITION [e.g., abortion] may decide to vote for that candidate for OTHER MORALLY GRAVE REASONS.” Once again, the USCCB invites Catholics to overlook intrinsic evils such as abortion and to vote based on “morally grave reasons,” a term that is not defined and that can mean anything from immigration to spending to jobs to the environment. Needless to say, of course, NONE of these “standards” conjured by the USCCB out of thin air apply – or even mention – the CHURCH’s standard of “proportionate reasons.”
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 10:13 AM By JLS
k, no new documents are needed. The Church teaches that abortion is never justified, not even by a democratic voting dilemma. So, ask yourself why groups of bishops continually have to churn out new documents that continually make the water of religious clarity muddier and muddier. Why don’t they simply say, “No complicity in abortion, period; otherwise excommunication”: After all, that is what Canon 915 says clearly. And more that this, it is what Jesus says plain as day, “Better for a man to be drowned in the sea with a millstone around his neck than to harm children”. What Jesus obviously says in this Gospel is that a fate worse than death awaits anyone who harms a child … and obviously a preborn baby is included in the class of being called “child”.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 10:53 AM By k
Juergensen, I agree with you, if someone is looking for an “out” they can take parts of this document and justify their vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil. I know someone who understood the document to mean that “abortion is important, but it is not the only thing.” It is a document intended to show the kinds of issues that should effect our voting decisions. It does, as you say, have sentences that one can mine for justification of many positions and many candidates. It has been done; it will be done again. That is why I think it is important for those of us who are pro-life, to stress the sentences that are not like those you have quoted. I also do not think it is wise to attribute motivations to the bishops or USCCB, such as clearing the way for Catholics to vote for Obama. When you are criticizing the document, it weakens your argument because a listener can say “There is no way that a person could really know what all the bishops were thinking” so it rings false and undermines your point. (Unless your point is that the bishops stink, then it also comes off as a generalization and all generalizations are untrue.) I think if I didn’t have a strong personal resolve not to vote for anyone who is pro-choice, the document would be confusing to me and I would opt to not vote because I would be too unsure of what I was supposed to do. But again, it is not a voter’s guide so if I used it as one, I should get confused.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 11:31 AM By TED
“Catholics for Obama” is indeed an evil and heretical group, and the USCCB should oppose them using the name “Catholic” in whatever State they are located in. There was and is zero excuse for voting for Obama. He was a US Senator from 2005 through 2008, and with his public voting record available – that is all the proof we needed. He has always been pro-abortion. In his write-in response to a 1998 survey, Obama stated his abortion position as conforming with the Democratic platform: “Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade.” His presidential candidacy was endorsed by several groups which advocate for legal abortion, including NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood. In August 2008, in Lake Forest, California, Obama responded to the question as to when life begins, “Whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade.” In the Illinois state legislature, Obama opposed the Induced Infant Liability Act and repeatedly voted against requirements and restrictions on what opponents label “born alive” abortions.Obama said his opposition was because of technical language he felt might have “interfered with a woman’s right to choose” and said Illinois law already required medical care in such situations. Obama voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, saying “On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.” Obama voted against a bill that would have made it a federal crime for anyone other than a parent to accompany a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion. When candidates have PUBLIC VOTING RECORDS, we are obliged to check them out at least on the internet. Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, and within 3 DAYS he overturned the MEXICO CITY POLICY regarding ABORTION – thus the SYSTEMATIC use of US tax dollars to murder children even outside the Country.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 1:55 PM By Abeca Christian
Catholics for Obama are not for Jesus! Their new god is Obama!
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 3:27 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
What about the Knights of Columbus Website “Knights for Obama”. Oh yes, as far as we can tell, they were never admonished for this, so much for our Knights of Columbus Constitution and By-Laws, and our personal vows as Knights!
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 3:34 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
When oh when is Bishop Soto going to enforce Canon 915. God knows that in Sacramento he has plenty of cases to do so! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 4:27 PM By Abeca Christian
Just about a week ago, I heard in the news that they found the head of a 9 year old girl and her body parts cut up stored in a refrigerator. The man had previous crimes and he was entrusted to be her babysitter. There are people who would stick up for him and prevent the death penalty on such a monster. They would go as far as twisting current church teachings to end the death penalty! Watch on youtube titled BISHOP SHEEN AND OBAMA video. Bishop Sheen spoke of false compassion. Beautifully expressed by Bishop Sheen! Bishop Sheen understood well Saint Thomas teachings on the death penalty! God bless him!
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:18 AM By Juergensen
Abeca: On the topic of Bishop Sheen, he also wrote in his book that there will arise a “counterchurch” that will be the work of “Satan” and “the Devil” and will be “emptied of its divine content.” Truly barbarous words, these are, and from a bishop no less. Hence, the “false compassion” of those phonies who posture as being concerned over the use of the relatively benign “Amchurch.” Please.
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:14 AM By John F. Maguire
Juergensen: The term “Amchurch” is NOT benign. The very opposite: it is MALIGN. Which is why I recommended Sheen’s “counter-church” as an alternative term, and pointed out that Fulton Sheen, as a Leonine Thomist, was (1) against using the term “American” (I take it, also in the coded form “Am”) PEJORATIVELY, and (2) against using the term “church” PEJORATIVELY. Calling “church” what Sheen, in point of fact, calls “counter-church” — quite as if the word “Am[erica]” could be used synonymously with the word “counter” — is a false, derogatory use of the name of this, our AMERICAN Republic. Likewise, calling “church” what is actually COUNTER-church is to malign Holy Church herself.
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:27 AM By John F. Maguire
To the contrary, Oscar, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops voting-ethics document is an auxiliary, pastoral document, not a legislative enactment.
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:00 AM By Abeca Christian
Juergensen yes I agree and I appreciate your usage of the word Amchurch. Its sets a tone that hopefully our church leaders will wake up and imitate Christ. Time to face reality. You are the first one that has opened my eye’s to that word and the more you explained it, the more it made sense. I now use it too. Bishop Sheen was very wise, I am thankful to keep discovering more about him and what he taught. I know that I am not alone, that the church did have Bishops who spoke with passion. I think we do have a few more of him with different styles but still no one matches Bishop Sheen because he was on TV and reached many folks. Praise Jesus for him, I am thankful that this website had an article on him, it gave me that push to look further on who he was. I hope his message keeps airing and people keep learning about him and what he taught!
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 12:45 PM By Juergensen
Maguire: As is your wont, you misread what I wrote or you are misrepresenting what I wrote. I did not say the word “Amchurch” is “benign.” I said it is “relatively benign.” And it is, “relative” to the barbarous language employed by holy Bishop Sheen, who used “counterchurch” (not “counter-church” as you relentlessly repeat) and described that “counterchurch” as being of “Satan” and “the Devil.” Please explain how it is that Bishop Sheen’s barbarous description of a “counterchurch” being of “Satan” and “the Devil” is “benign,” but my use of “Amchurch” is “malign”? I do appreciate your comment, however, as it led me to open my bible and read Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:07 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Ken Fisher: You indirectly but correctly invoke Canon 216 against a group calling itself “Catholics for Obama.” As you know, Canon 216 states as follows: “Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have a right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.” Catholics For Obama (CFO), I’m practically certain, has never secured such consent. ~ Mr. Fisher, that’s not the end of the story. From within the purview of Canon 216, it turns out that the present website, California Catholic Daily News and Information_ (CCD), is, in point of fact, in the same boat as CFO — on account of California Catholic Daily’s own lack of episcopal permission to use the name Catholic.
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:18 PM By k
Mr. Maguire, I appreciate that you stand up for our country and our Church, but I am sure that Mr. Juergensen is not trying to slight our country or our Church. Back in October, Juergensen said that he simply used the word “Amchurch” as a simple contraction of American and Church. He was not implying heresy by its use. Therefore he is not using it perjoratively. The original term “Amchurch” as coined by Malichi Martin did mean the dissident faction in the American Catholic Church. I don’t think it was originally intended to be perjorative, but when used by traditional Catholics it became so. I don’t think “counterchurch” is a good term because Bishop Sheen was referring to communism or the state becoming a religion and that is a extremely important concept (especially now). Using any term to describe the dissident or questioning people in our Church, may reinforce and magnify the occurence of false beliefs. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 3:33 PM By John F. Maguire
The hyphen in Sheen’s term counter-church is fine, Juergensen, but the term “Amchurch” — whatever your intentions in its regard might be — nonetheless deploys the root-term “Am[erican]” pejoratively AND in the same breath the root-term “church” pejoratively. By sharp contrast, Sheen’s term counter-church recommends itself because it is free of the compound flaw of pejoratizing two good words –America and Church. Pope Leo XIII warned American Catholics not to pejoratize the very name of their own nation (this, in reference to the ‘so-called Americanist crisis’). In addition, Leo assumed we Americans would know better than to pejoratize the word church. (N.B.: It has already been documented on this website that Fulton Sheen did not confine his use of the term counter-church to an exclusive reference to totalitarian-state governments.)