Without mentioning names, Cardinal Mahony as much as says he won’t be voting for Obama

(Editor’s Note: See related story in today’s edition, “Much of what Jesus Christ did would not qualify.”)

In a blistering commentary reacting to the Obama Administration’s recently announced contraceptive mandate, Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles, says any candidate who supports such a “direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience” will not be getting his vote.

“As Bishops we do not recommend candidates for any elected office,” he wrote in a Jan. 20 entry on his site, Cardinal Mahony Blogs L.A. “My vote on November 6 will be for the candidate for President of the United States and members of Congress who intend to recognize the full spectrum of rights under the many conscience clauses of morality and public policy. If any candidate refuses to acknowledge and to promote those rights, then that candidate will not receive my vote.” 

“In probably the most expansive decision on the part of the US Federal government ever, the Department of Health and Human Services has issued an ‘interim final rule’ to require virtually all private health plans to include coverage for all FDA-approved prescription contraceptives, female sterilization procedures, and related ‘patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity,’” the cardinal explained.

“These are listed among ‘preventive services for women’ that all health plans will have to include without co-pays or other cost sharing — even if the insurer, the employer or other plan sponsor, or the woman herself object to such coverage,” Cardinal Mahony continued.

“This decision from the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] is from the highest level of Federal government, and I cannot imagine that this decision was released without the explicit knowledge and approval of President Barack Obama,” said the cardinal.

Cardinal Mahony then called on Catholics to do whatever they can to oppose the HHS mandate: “… I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience than this ruling today. This decision must be fought against with all the energies the Catholic Community can muster.”

To read Cardinal Mahony’s entire blog entry, Click Here.



Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:06 AM By JLS
Good news!!! Does this mean Obama will not be the Democrat candidate?

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:49 AM By Martin
WOW! Amazing. Bold, from an unexpected quarter. Bravo, your Eminence.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:01 AM By Dan
His Eminence had to know that this was coming, and he would have done well to have warned the flock of just these consequences of voting for Obama back in 2008. He didn’t name Obama now and he didn’t have to name Obama then, but the message would have gotten through. 4 years too late, Eminence, but glad you finally found your courage.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:07 AM By BETH
It’s about time. Thank you, Jesus. Prayers work.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:31 AM By Phil Sevilla
Doesn’t Cdl. Mahony’s statements not imply that he voted for Obama in ’08? Did he not lend credibility to the party promoting the culture of death by appearing at the Demo Party convention in L. A.?

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:38 AM By Juergensen
But, will Kmiec and Maguire turn on Obama too?

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:28 AM By Ted
He was right to include other offices than president, but he could easily have pronounced Obama’s name – why didn’t he ?

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:37 AM By Maryanne Leonard
Folks, I think we’ve gone after Maguire almost enough now, have we not? I realize he’s a stand-in for all the misguided Catholics who stunned us all by voting for Obama in such numbers, and that he has tolerated your niggling for the past three years with mind-boggling intellectualism, just the sort of thing to get people’s blood boiling all the hotter. I’m still disgusted by Doug Kmiec too, but really, we’ve played arrow to their hides long enough now, haven’t we? After all, this is supposed to be a country in which one can vote secretly, and that’s for exactly this sort of reason. I disdain the thought processes that allowed any Catholic to conclude that voting for a man who announces to the world that he would happily murder his grandchild if his daughter had “a problem,” but I think we need to focus on the next election, not the last one. Maybe the brain trust has been enlightened by now and will vote for a fellow Catholic or at least a pro-life candidate. Let’s try to sway them with our superior rhetoric rather than continue to attack them for crimes of the past they cannot undo, no matter how newly enlightened or contrite they may be. A million Hail Mary’s by tearful, repentant Catholics will not get this wretch of a man out of office, but a civil campaign to win hearts and minds just might. Let’s give civility a try in this bright, shiny New Year.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:59 AM By Juergensen
Maryanne: The battle against minions of Satan who deceive Catholics into voting for abortionists is never “enough now.”

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:54 AM By Larry
I didn’t think he had it in him.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:42 AM By St. Christopher
Well — what does Cdnl. Mahony truly mean here? His language about looking at who supports the full spectrum of rights under various conscience clauses could mean a number of things. Did the good Cardinal vote for Obama? Is he recanting now, due to the HHS overreach? It would be better for him to say something like, “I used the “seamless garment” approach to vote for Obama initially, but I was wrong. The President is a moral monster, and has retained moral monsters to implement evil. His plan, as announced by HHS, is intended to tell the Church who is master. He must be defeated.” He may need to nuance his language a bit, but he can certainly state his personal, factual, action in voting, and why he believes that he was wrong. Happy to see him effectively recanting his prior support of Obama.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:47 AM By Robert Lockwood
Here is what I do not understand. Anyone with a half of a brain knew, BEFORE Obama was elected to be president, that he was Anti-Catholic,Anti-Christian, and Anti basic ;principles of the USA. Yet our Bishops supported him, our Catholic universities honored him and Catholics in general voted for him. It is only now that we get a smattering of oposition to this man who has gone deeply into destroying everything we hold sacrid. Would democrats vote for their parties candidate even if it were Satin himself? The ways of the Catholic Church leadership are indeed mistifying.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:06 AM By Catholic Joe
The real quintessential problem is EXACTLY what we see here. The demands, the outrage and the “call to action” begins well after the cement has dried. While there’s an opportunity to cause change, much of the leadership is either impotent or says nothing. This happens issue after issue. Let’s pray that this post-courage motus operandi ends soon!

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:13 AM By Catherine
Maryanne, May I take a moment to talk about priorities? May I also ask you a sincere question? What is this “we’ve” gone after Maguire post? I think I can maybe count on one hand, maybe 2 or 3 times you have challenged John Maguire about Kmiec in his three year vacationing splurge of attempting to confuse others. Maryanne, Correct me if I am wrong. DId you not write once that when it came to confrontation that you would be up in the peanut gallery with yellow chicken feathers? There are many, many John Maguires within the Church. The John Maguires bank on everyone going away so they can continue to attempt to confuse. They have achieved this parish by parish and diocese by diocese. Now we have the internet and this is very threatening to the John Maguires within the Church because the truth is taught, heresy is exposed and the John Maguires can’t fire or transfer the voices that are solidly adhering to Catholic Church Teaching. Now Maryanne, on the other hand I have seen you really get fired up about clinging to the word feminism and consistently speaking up if you think that someone is removing a feminist ideal that you hold very dear…yet you want us to stop challenging those who have methodically placed cogs of confusion in the wheels of revealed truths. Maryanne, The reason you call it mind boggling intellectualism is because it is mechanically driven instead of faithfully driven. It is not mind boggling if you recognize the driver.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:19 AM By JMJ
Ted, by a absurd law given to us by an illegal Department (IRS), the Church or any of it’s officials, cannot name names officially, but, of course, as a private citizen they can. What all of us needs to do is to pray & fast asking Heaven to stop this threat of this new evil that has been forced down upon us: OBAMANISM. It is a total accumulation of all of the evils since just before WWI. and put into a brand new package that so many people are falling for. +JMJ+

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:35 AM By A.Street
Evidently some of the most politically liberal leaning clergy are having an “Oh Oh” moment…there really is a correlation between voting for a man who says he would have his daughters abort a “problem” (culture of death) and the fact that he would actually use the presidency to force his disgusting views down the throats of people of conscience and faith. Wow what a concept! How many Catholics who have literally worshiped this man will admit their error and abandon him in Nov.? I’m not so sure…many will continue to say they voted for him for “different reasons”…like controling banks, GM, medical care, private education?

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:56 AM By Abeca Christian
The way I see it, everyone is fair game. If we post anything here, then expect debut tel, no matter what side we are on, there will be comments coming because once we post comment, then we are hopefully permitting dialogue. It’s expected I suppose.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:03 AM By John F. Maguire
“Turn on Obama”? I’ve always held that a critique of abortocratic politicians ALREADY is implicit in any fully cognizant defense of the right-to-migrate. What distinguishes the right-to-migrate from one nation to another, however, is that this right is patient of certain qualifications in the light of the common good of persons and institutions. By contrast, the right-to-migrate from the womb to the light of day is intensively anchored in the common good of persons in such a way that UNQUALIFIEDLY all living human bodies are to be cognized and acknowledged as juridical persons vested with the right-to-life. Indeed, in all my ‘migration-from-the-womb’ posts (some of these posts were written in defense of Cardinal Mahoney’s position on migration), I’ve made just this point. Alas, the severe prejudice against Cardinal Mahoney at the time seemed to me to have obscured his position on both abortion and migration in the minds of several bloggers on this website — and obscured my own position on both abortion and migration as well. In sum, as there is a qualified right of a person to migrate from one nation to another, so there is an unqualified right of a preborn infant to migrate from his or her mother’s womb to the light of day.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:11 AM By Mary
After Obama graduated from Columbia U he was hired to work for DCP (Developing Communities Project) which was comprised of 8 Catholic Parishes on the Southside of Chica- go and introduced to Gamaliel, a Alinsky Organization. The CCHD was started to support Saul Alinsky who wrote Rules for Radicals. It’s time the laity learns the truth and pressures ALL the clerics to shape up. Names should be named regardless of the IRS – so what if the Church sacrifices their tax exempt status. That would be far better than living under tyranny.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:27 AM By Larry
This story and this thread, Professor Maguire, are not about legal/illegal immigration–and I think we should all stick to the actual subject–abortion–and not try to dilute the issue by bringing in irrelevant topics.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:22 PM By Catherine
A.Street, I believe that the many shepherds who financially supported and voted for Obama are having their “Oh, Oh” moments. They are now only just beginning to realize that through their own disobedience the steam roller of evil that they failed to recognize is coming fast to swallow them up like the giant fish that swallowed Jonah. This steam roller will make their vocations even more difficult and irrelevant in the eyes of a lost society. Similar to the disobedience of Jonah, the storm at sea is rising and hopefully self preservation and fear will motivate our disobedient shepherds and disobedient people to cry out in repentance and be vomited out of the belly of the big fish named Obama right on to the shore of desiring to obediently and honorably serve God. If self preservation from the afflictions that arise from disobedience cause our shepherds to cry out to God for mercy, then once again God will write straight with crooked lines. “And we know to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints.”…Romans 8:28

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:50 PM By John F. Maguire
Larry: Were you right; were there no connection whatever — however remotely analogous — between (1) a person’s right to migrate from one country to another and (2) the ‘migration’ of the preborn infant from his or her uterine abode to the abode of the day-lit world, my claim that the latter migration must never be interrupted by resort to procured abortion would be barred. I assure you that I hold to the claim that the migration — the prospective border-crossing — of a preborn infant to the day-lit world is INVIOLABLE and therefore should never be interrupted by resort to procured abortion.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:27 PM By mrpkguy
That would seem to indicate that perhaps Obama got his vote last time? Just asking…..

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:33 PM By k
Ted, he did on his blog.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:36 PM By k
Larry, the story is about freedom of conscience. Cardinal Mahoney is upset because of the decision that employers have to provide paid coverage for birth control. He believes that it is a direct attack on the Church. Some have said they are trying to force Catholics out of heath care.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:40 PM By John F. Maguire
Cardinal Mahony is well within his rights to publish the following reminder: “As bishops we do not recommend candidates for any elected office.” Who would chafe against this episcopal reserve? A tiny lay faction that does not want to assume political responsibility as, and precisely as, laity? A tiny faction that does not want to assume the responsibility, which of course is already a lay responsibility, to engage the public sphere in its own right? A tiny faction that wants bishops to assume the avuncular role of endorsing candidates? A tiny faction to whom the insight never dawns that recasting the bishops as vote-wardens constitutes a flight from lay responsibility in the political domain? ~ For a history of the critique of the authoritarian impulse behind a series of flights from responsibility comparable to this lay-faction flight, see Gareth Norris, _The Developing Idea of the Authoritarian Personality: A Historical Review of the Scholarly Debate, 1950-2011_ (Edwin Mellen Press, 2011).

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:10 PM By Fr Bob B
Mr. Maguire: Re your 1:40 PM post. Do you really believe that “a tiny lay faction” that won’t “assume political responsibility as, and precisely as, laity” is the problem that needs to be addressed because of the outrageous actions of the current administration? You quote the Cardinal very selectively. Your concern wasn’t behind his clarion call about not voting for those who would support such governmental intrusions. I’m in the Cardinal’s corner. For me, the problem is that too many Catholics do not see voting as a MORAL act; and thus feel free to leave Catholic teaching at the entry to the voting booth as being irrelevant. I write this because I’ve experienced walk-outs at Mass, and accusations of “politics from the pulpit”, after homilies which did nothing more than explain Church teaching without so much as a mention of any candidate’s name. No, Mr. Maguire, the problem isn’t that some Catholics want the bishops to lead them by the nose. The problem is, they don’t want the bishops—now that they are speaking out clearly and forcefully—to lead them at all, if the guidance runs contrary to their party affiliation. Even on matters within the bishops’ particular competence to teach. Not that certain bishops haven’t recently tried to lead Catholics by the nose (improperly, in my view) about matters in which they have no more competence than an educated laity. I refer to the recent, successive opinions of Bishop Blaire for the USCCB (posted on this site) about social justice and why a specific EPA regulation should be supported by Catholics. There’s your example of leading by the nose, unwisely “getting into the weeds” and pushing a specific implementation scheme. I stand ready to be corrected, but I don’t recall your posting any objection to that.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:45 PM By John F. Maguire
Thank you for your support, Maryanne Leonard, all the more so since your posts are informed by a point of view that differs somewhat from my own, at least on certain occasions. All well and good. ~ I hasten to add that I welcome my opponents’ blogs, at least when they are civil and carefully articulated. What these blogs document is a certain “mentality” that I do not think squares with the ethos of Catholic social doctrine nor with the ethos of an integral position on the right-to-life. As a matter of fundamental law, an integral pro-life position grounds the preborn infant’s right-to-life in the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause (“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law”) and in the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”). At present, the only contender for his party’s nomination who clearly adhere’s to this integral pro-life position is Senator Rick Santorum. By contrast, the neo-Republican position would return the abortion question to the states as if the _Roe_ Court_’s holding that preborn infants are non-persons under the Constitution is correct. For an integrally pro-life position, for a position that contradicts the neo-Republican position, see Rick Santorum, “My Fight for Life,” _The Wall Street Journal_ (January 23, 2012). In this same connection, I regret the lack of a pro-life challenge from within the Democratic Party against its presumptive nominee, however symbolic. I agree with those who would like to see a robust pro-life presence in both parties. Indeed, such presence is a practical necessity politically, given the present circumstance, namely, a bi-partisan abortocratic duopoly.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:14 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Very interesting! Cardinal Mahony has in the past celebrated funeral masses for pro-abortion, pro-sodomite politicians, celebrated Masses for incoming such parasites as Villagarosa and others, and he has attended events for such politicians! Can we really believe he is now repentant of these derelictions? Oh yes, what about the pro-abortion, pro-sodomite speakers at his, now Ab. Gomez’s Religious Education Congress? God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:15 PM By Fr Bob B
Re Mr. Maguire’s 1:40 pm post—-an addition Re-reading your post, I’m confused by your reference to “the authoritarian impulse” and your citation of an article titled “The Developing Idea of the Authoritarian Personality . . .” To whom are you referring? I hope it’s not our bishops, although it’s hard to tell. At any rate, do you view it “authoritarian” for a bishop to clearly teach Catholic values, as he promised God he would do, at his episcopal ordination? Do you think doing so is “recasting the bishops as vote-wardens”?

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:19 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Maguire, Wrong again, I believe that Newt Gingrich and possibly others have emphatically stated that they are opposed to “Roe vs. Wade”, and Gingrich has stated that he will only appoint pro-life judges! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:40 PM By John F. Maguire
Today as yesterday, every college and university in our American Republic, as in other nations, is a mix of this-and-that, a mix of good and bad. ~ In the present thread, New York City’s Columbia University has been mentioned. In its regard, let me hasten to commend Columbia Right to Life, Columbia University’s student organization whose mission is (1) “to organize and activate pro-life students on campus,” (2) “[to] work to protect the dignity of human life from conception to natural death, particularly those lives threatened by abortion, infanticide, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia. In furtherance of these goals, members seek to promote respect for life at Columbia University and on a local, state and national level, to educate on life issues, to help those in need so that life is a promising choice and to work with others who share our common goals.” Source: Columbia Right to Life Mission Statement, online.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:59 PM By JLS
Kenneth, what was Gingrich’s political action on Roe v Wade when he was Speaker of the House? Did he push to overturn it? If so, how hard? And why did any such effort go nowhere?

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:24 PM By ohn
Well, well…isn’t this interesting? Cardinal Mahony and Fr. Jenkins of ND, et al. helped to create the monster that is Obama. Now, Obama appears to be eating his own. Hate to say I told you so, but….

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:29 PM By k
Mr. Fisher, it’s not about abortion or birth control. It is about freedom of conscience.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:38 PM By John F. Maguire
Say what? ~ No, Father Bob, I am DEFENDING Cardinal Mahony’s comment that “As bishops we do not recommend candidates for any elected office.” I’m sorry, there are bloggers on this website who want nothing less than that the bishops recommend candidates for office or the obverse. So I asked, “Who would chafe against this episcopal reserve” cited by Cardinal Mahony? In effect, I asked, isn’t it a tiny faction of lay bloggers for whom this episcopal reserve is unacceptable, so great is their absolute antipathy to President Obama. (As a priest, you know that normative opposition to abortocrats is normal for Catholics; but absolute antipathy towards any person is a sin that awaits absolution..) These bloggers want the bishops to act as their uncle, no? Act as a vote-masters, no? Act as vote-wardens, no? If you want to read these questions as indictory, Father Bob, do please do so — but they do NOT indict the bishops, they indict those bloggers who have decided to be perpetually unhappy until the bishops name names — name candidates to vote for and candidates to vote against.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:27 PM By Jim
Did he JUST come to this conclusion?

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:29 PM By Juergensen
Fr. Bob – In dealing with Mr. Maguire, it may be helpful to know that he is a fellow traveller of Douglas “Pro-Obama Catholic” Kmiec. This little nugget from Mr. Maguire is one of my favourites: “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 Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:44 PM By Amazed
MA – So sad that as aCatholic you thinks a million Hail Marys by tearful truly rpeentent Catholics wouldn’t work.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:00 PM By John F. Maguire
“Fellow traveller”? Pshaw! Ambassador Kmiec and I agree that the Supreme Court should revisit the abortion issue in the light of the Organic Law of the United States of America, that is, in the light of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Consequently, Douglas Kmiec and I oppose state prerogativism — I mean, the notion that state legislatures have standing under the Organic Law of the United States to vote against the right-to-life of preborn infants. As for my word-choice, no, I am not speaking for Ambassador Kmiec, but yes, I do maintain that state prerogativists are false conservatives. It should come as a surprise to no one then that I would — I stress the word would — rather be a true progressive than a false conservative.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:54 PM By Catherine
John Maguire, Stop playing the progressive shell game. Where in the history of CCD has any blogger requested that a bishop recommend the name of a candidate? Bloggers have requested many times that bishops should teach and uphold the Churches teachings so Catholics will know whose values they can or cannot vote for. Juergensen wrote the exact date that you responded to my post with these words. “I assure you, I’d rather be a true progressive than a false conservative.” The article was “We Cannot Let This Moment Pass. Please prove your accusation and give the exact date and post and article that shows where a blogger asked for our bishops to recommend the name of a candidate to vote for. Also, John you told Maryanne Leonard that you love to hear from bloggers who address you with civility. Do you always address priests with the home boy slang from the hood greeting…”Say What?” John, When you ran into Archbishop Rembert Weakland and the Archbishop let you know that he would not be addressing a topic that was important to you, I bet you would have never said, “Say what” to another true progressive.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:56 PM By JLS
k, it is about abortion and contraception. Freedom of conscience cannot be controlled by any government, but abortion and contraception can.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 8:46 PM By Jeff
It is an answer to prayer to see the Church bishops waking up to the seriousness of our nation’s condition. I pray their courage continues to grow and expand to the clergy at large.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:09 PM By JLS
Maguire, your words posted above about the evil of procured abortion are valid; it is your action that is invalid, ie your political support for Obama and thus indirectly for procured abortion. You need to study and reflect on what Jesus teaches about the difference between words and actions.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:12 PM By JLS
Excellent post, Mary !!! And I’m astonished to read that the CCHD is founded on Saul Alinsky; how bizarre. Whoever made that decision must have watched one too many Vincent Price horror movies.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:14 PM By Maryanne Leonard
Amazed, I meant that a million Hail Mary’s by repentant Catholics who voted for Obama would not get him out of office at present, as obviously he is in office for a while longer. I did not mean that prayer is not effective, but that at this point it is too late, barring an act of God, for which I feel no Christian of good faith would pray. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I do feel heavenly prayer coupled with earthly action could get Obama out of office in the coming term, absolutely. Let us pray!

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:31 PM By JLS
It is always good to pray a Hail Mary, and likely many millions are being prayed daily. Without these centuries of prayers to Blessed Mary Ever Virgin and the Mass, imagine what the world would be like today.

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 4:47 AM By Dottie
R. Lockwood, please to not classify or state the words “Catholic Church” based upon the misguided political understanding of some Bishops and their Staffs at the USCCB and elsewhere. The Catholic Church takes the blame for what some Bishops do and do not do, and this is unfortunate.

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 7:30 AM By Fr Bob
After re-reading Mr. Maguire’s many posts, I finally got it: He has no interest in dialogue; he’s talking to himself in print. Logic, clarity and relevance to the topic at hand are hard to find in his meanderings. Maybe we shouldn’t respond and interrupt his reverie.

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 8:39 AM By Sandra
Cardinal Mahony–welcome back to the herd.

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 9:40 AM By John F. Maguire
The attack on bishops for refusing to say that it is necessarily a mortal sin to have voted for Barack Obama, to wit, Barack Obama by name, is what I’m referring to, Catherine. As a general matter, my posts on this website are protests against a right-deviationist rejection of Catholic social doctrine. The defense of the lives of preborn infants does not “trump” the cause of social justice since one of the primary meanings of social justice is species-equality ergo the EQUAL right-to-life of preborn infants. I hope Fr. Bob understands that this traditional understanding of social justice is no mere reverie.

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 1:39 PM By Fr Bob B
Breaking my resolve, I’ll respond to Mr. Maguire. As usual, his language is imprecise. He writes “the defense of the lives of pre-born infants does not ‘trump’ the cause of social justice”. Of course it doesn’t, because it can’t. There can be no social justice if it’s not premised on the absolute impermissibility of directly taking innocent human life. [Aside: I wrote “directly taking” to exclude those morally permissible actions sometimes labelled “double-effect” in Catholic moral theology.] Such a direct taking is “intrinsically evil” in Catholic moral theology and cannot be justified, no matter how good the intent, difficult the circumstances, or worthy the objective. Alleviating other social injustices cannot justify doing or supporting it. Don’t take my word for it: no less a personage than Benedict XVI, while Card. Ratzinger, wrote to the U.S. bishops before one election stressing that (1) the protection of innocent human life (in this case the unborn) indeed trumps all other social concerns (such as capital punishment,which I oppose) and (2) that office-seekers who support the taking of innocent life should not receive the vote of Catholics. Does Mr. Maguire dispute this? Maybe so. After all, he writes that “one of the primary meanings of social justice is species-equality ergo the EQUAL right-to-life of preborn infants”. Is he holding that animal species have equal rights with the human species? That “the-right-to-life of preborn infants” is equal to, but not greater than that of a household pet? God only knows. He writes in a jargon all his own. No, Mr. Maguire’s is not at all the “traditional [Catholic] understanding of social justice”. Indeed, his posts are so off the mark; so full of jargon and hifalutin’ language; never responsive to any challenges to his logic, but only a repitition of what he’s already said. You know, a thought just occurred to me: Has he been spoofing us all along, and sitting somewhere laughing that we take him seriously?

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 3:25 PM By John F. Maguire
I am talking about the human species and the species-equality of all human beings. In this connection, there is nothing fancified in the terminology of Fr. Luigi Taparelli d’Azeglio (viz.: “species-equality”) when, as he is famous for having done, Fr. Taparelli identifies social justice, along one of its dimensions, as the due recognition and acknowledgment of the “species equality” of all human beings, which is to say, apropos of abortion, the species-equality of all living human bodies, be their ongoing development pre-natal or post-natal. ~ Fr. Bob, as I have noted in earlier posts, the specific notion of social justice as “species-equality” first appeared in Fr. Taparelli’s five volume treatise on the natural law (1833). See Thomas Patrick Burke, “The Origins of Social Justice,” _Modern Age_, vol. 52, No. 2 (Spring 2010) (“Taparelli has good claim to be the father of Catholic social teaching. One of his students was the Jesuit Matteo Liberatore, who wrote the first draft of Pope Leo XVIII’s 1891 encyclical, RERUM NOVARUM (On the Condition of the Working Classes), the first papal statement on ‘the social question.’ Leo himself …had been a student of Taparelli’s, his collaborator at _Civilta Catholica_, and seems to have been influenced by him. Pius XI used to recommend the study of Taparelli’s works in conversations with his friends and colleagues. One of Liberatore’s students was Oswald von Nell-Breuning, S.J., who wrote Pius XI’s 1931 encyclical, QUADRAGESIMO ANNO, which officially adopted ‘social justice’ as part of Catholic doctrine….”). In Fr. Taparelli, we do indeed find the first formulation of “social justice” in the specific sense of (human) species-equality. We are talking about the real history of the concept of social justice here, Fr. Bob. Where you get the idea that a spoof is somehow involved, I do not know.

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 3:31 PM By k
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is doubt, faith. Where there is despair, hope. Where there is darkness, light. Where there is sorrow, joy. O Divine Master, grant that I may not seek so much to be consoled, as to console, to be understood as to understand, to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive; in pardoning that we are pardoned; and in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.-St. Francis of Assisi

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 5:20 PM By Catherine
Dear Fr. Bob B, Thank you so very much for courageously stepping up to the plate as a Catholic priest to clarify and to educate all of the readers who view CCD. You made a statement of fact and truth when you wrote, “No, Mr. Maguire is not at all the “traditional [Catholic] understanding of social justice.” Your caring effort is so greatly appreciated. Father you are giving us a hopeful foretaste of spring by showing us what it would be like if all progressive, modernist jargons could be nipped in the bud before they blossom into error. Parents who are sending their children off to Catholic Colleges and Universities need to prepare their children by teaching them not to listen to this clever doublespeak. This hifalutin, elitist sounding jargon consistently attempts to distort and undermine authentic Church teaching. A well prepared college student coupled with sanctifying grace will have the desire and the ability to challenge and see through this deliberate confusion. May God bless you and may St. John Vianney continue to generously intercede on your behalf with the splendid virtue of courage!

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 6:20 PM By Maryanne Leonard
Father Bob B., thank you for your excellent post. I do agree with your analyses and appreciate that you challenge John Maguire’s thinking as opposed to attacking him personally. It reflects Christian teachings beautifully when we do that. It is not easy to refrain from ad hominum attacks when postings are exasperating or based in misinterpretations of the premises of our faith, and really hard to do when posts are merely meant to be attacks on our faith or on us personally. I think of such posters as trolls, akin to El Picador, the man at the bullfights who pricks a bull fiercely in order to get him to come out hurt, angry, snorting and kicking. It requires self-vigilance to resist the desire to prick a troll in return, as well I know. I don’t always succeed, but I know I need to refrain from that and do admire others, such as you, who do manage to keep the exchange civil though passionate. It does speak well for our side when we do so and probably helps us win debates, another practical benefit of following Christian principles.

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 6:23 PM By k
I’m lost again. Catherine “The hifalutin, elitist sounding jargon consistently attempts to distort and undermine authentic Catholic teaching.” Mr. Maguire is saying that the unborn are persons entitled to the rights of citizens. Are you saying that the idea that the unborn are persons is not Catholic Teaching? Mr. Maguire is saying that the unborn are human beings just like those who have been born. Are you saying that Catholic Teaching says that preborn persons are not human? What error is Mr. Maguire teaching?

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 6:41 PM By JLS
k, my Confimation sponsor put that to musical score and it was played at the funeral of Princess Di.

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 6:46 PM By JLS
Now I get it, Fr. Bob B, about Maguire’s insistence that Obama will reduce abortion by increasing it and the proportionality syndrome he rants on and on about. Here it is: Proportionally, social justice requires actions which do not intend to include abortion, but the abortions happen indirectly and an unintended consequence of the necessary social actions.

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 7:22 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
JLS, 4:59 PM, I have said it before and now repeat it. Up until possibly this Congress, there has NEVER been a real REPUBLICAN MAJORITY, only a Republicrat Democrat majority. Newt fought for the Right to Life but he was facing that fact; he did get significant pro-life legislation passed though. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 8:00 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
k, You might want to know that some one has removed from the original Prayer of St. Francis: “where there is discord, harmony; and where there is error, truth”. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher, SFO, Cap.

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 8:59 PM By k
Mr.Maguire, I think I see where some confusion entered. You are using the term species equality from an 1800s book meaning that all human are equal. It is used nowadays by those in the environmentalist areas to mean that all species are equal.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 5:04 AM By MIKE
Maguire, there is no “right” deviation from social justice on this web site that I’ve seen. Although I do see from your posts – a very “leftist” view at times. Abortion and euthanasia are 100% ALWAYS Wrong. The late Cardinal Bernardin’s seamless garmet theology that abortion and euthanasia were merely just one of a whole raft of other issues like war and peace, opposition to the death penalty, welfare reform and civil liberties is what is incorrect Catholic thinking. In truth “life issues” are NOT like others, and are NOT NEGOTIABLE or – like the morality of war, for instance – subject to context and circumstance.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 7:42 AM By JLS
In the Book of the Apocalypse one of the insights we are given is that of the “great city” buying and selling souls. The Seamless Garment idea is exactly this sort of nefarious thing, where all the issues are put in a basket and organized for sale … government money plays a big part of it. The wheeling and dealing over these souls is a trade carried on by many bishops and various governments.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 8:25 AM By k
Mr. fisher, yes, I am very interested to learn that. I love it and will include it from now on. Thanks!

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 8:35 AM By k
MIKE, you are correct in that abortion and euthanasia are 100% wrong. I have never seen Mr. Maguire say anything to the contrary. The late Cardinal Bernadin was solidly pro-life. The “seemless garment” (which was actually coined by Eileen Eagan) is a handy slang phrase that is used for Bernadin’s “Consistent Ethic of Life.” He did not equate social issues with the taking of innocent life He stated that he deplored that view. Cardinal Bernardin never promoted the view that all moral issues were equal. He was an advocate for the unborn.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 8:41 AM By k
We used to have a diocesan social justice ministry that was focused on nuclear weapons, environmental issues, things like that when we had a bishop like that. When we got a very pro-life bishop, the social justice ministry was changed to mainly human life issues. I think many people do not really understand the term.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 12:30 PM By John F. Maguire
For sure, k — in this thread, I’ve been tracing the properly Catholic use of the term social justice back to its origins. These origins, as you’ve noted, can be found in Fr. Luigi Taparelli’s treatise on the natural law, which was published in Italy in 1833. One dimension of this new Catholic-cum-secular use of the concept social justice leads to the PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY; the other dimension of it leads to the PRINCIPLE OF SPECIES EQUALITY. In this light, k, what we need to do, if I’m not mistaken, is make the effort to understand BOTH these dimensions of social justice, lest the term social justice be used in inaccurate and even counter-human ways; which is to say, lest the term social justice get misappropriated. Or this: lest bloggers who use the term social justice in its traditional sense get misread as advocating faulty versions of the concept. Who would make such a category mistake? Due to deficiencies in adult catechesis, there are members of the Catholic community who have never encountered the Catholic concept of social justice, however much they’ve read or heard the term social justice. The subsidiarian/equalitarian meaning of the term social justice, alas, is NOT summoned to mind by a sheer reading of the term social justice. Consequently, a faulty version of the concept social justice often gets imputed to anyone who uses the term in its classical sense. This misreading then, in confounding the true and the false meanings of social jusstice, carries a high price: it ends up handing over to various ideologues a term that, by rights, belongs alike to perennial philosophy and Holy Church.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 3:47 PM By Catherine
k, You are wrong about Cardinal Bernadin. The Servant of God, Father John Hardon, SJ, personally told us in Los Angeles that there were “3” American Cardinals who were working underground to destroy the Catholic Church. Powerful words! Cardinal Bernadin was alive at the time. Father Hardon, SJ, also lamented the murder of his close friend Father Alfred Kunz. This murder is still unsolved. There are people on this website who would say that Father Kunz got murdered for ad hominum attacks. They foolishly say, “Let’s only dialogue the points satan?” Father Alfred Kunz was courageously challenging error because evil was being protected. k,Your timely protections of John Maguire and John’s leftist twisting of the meaning of social justice are also in keeping with your own defense of Father Michael Zampelli’s play, called Stop Kiss. Father Michael Zampelli SJ teaches that homosexuality must be celebrated not tolerated. I choose to believe and support the Jesuit who is called the Servant of God. You on the other hand choose to protect and run interference for the poster named John Maguire and the Jesuit who teaches that homosexuality must be celebrated not tolerated. Father John Hardon SJ asked us to challenge error each and every time. This Servant of God realized that if you only massage sweet smelling lotion on the scales of a snake, you end up with a snake that can slither even faster into crevices with it’s deadly poison. False charity and selective charity is not noble. It is “battlefield clutter.” k, There is a reason that you and a few other names, run interference or distract away from the error being reported by CCD. You are focused on distorting the true meaning of social justice, no different than Father Zampelli SJ. who is more focused on celebrating homosexuality that obeying God. The Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton Sheen made this comment. “If the social justice crowd is searching for a patron saint, they have certainly found theirs in Judas Iscariot.”

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 3:51 PM By k
I think the term social justice is used by both religious and secular entities and it can mean different things. People should not have a knee-jerk reaction (good or bad) to the term, but take the time to understand exactly what is being discussed. The CCC defines it as “the respect for the human person and the rights which flow from human dignity and guarantee it. Society must provide the conditions that allow people to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and vocation” I think what Father Taperelli initiated has been developed by the Popes. What you have brought up by your reference to him is interesting. A lot of it is an awareness of how our actions impact other people. All of traditional Catholic teaching on virtue, on sin, on love, and on justice is a part of it. Like you said, deficiencies in catechesis and also use of the term by those with political agendas (both ways) and social change activists have caused a lot of confusion.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 4:46 PM By k
Catherine, Google Bernardin Put Life First National Catholic Register. There are bad rumors about Cardinal Bernardin but, of course, we should not spread them unless we know them to be true as a fact. I know you don’t like Mr. Maguire but I do not see anything leftist in his writings. I think he is treated very unfairly. I think you are treating me unfairly also. I can’t help what Father Zampelli said how ever many years ago it was. I don’t agree with him but I am not going to trash mouth him on the internet because of it. I wish you would challenge error. Mr. Maguire does that and you call him a leftist. Maube you are personally acquainted with Father Zampelli or how do you know that Father Zampelli does not obey God? How come you criticize him and promote Michael Voris who said that God loves gays more than straight people? I don’t really know that much about social justice because I am a traditional Catholic and I haven’t really studied it so if I am distorting it, it would be our of ignorance. All I really know is what is under the section “Thou Shalt Not Steal” in the CCC. I’ve read a little of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, but not enough to be knowledgable. I have to look things up. I am open to any instruction you would like to give me.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 4:50 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Catherine: Your post at January 28: 12:30 PM is but another example of the habit of confusing [A] the Catholic concept of social justice, namely (along one of its dimensions) the concept of social justice as SPECIES-EQUALITY, whereby, for example, preborn infants have an EQUAL RIGHT to life as postnatal infants, as young persons, as adults and as the aged) with [B] ideological misconstruction of the concept of social justice. The Catholic concept of social justice is neither “leftist” nor “rightist” but rather affords us the measure by means of which we are able to judge all ideological deviations away from social justice, be they left-deviations, right-deviations, or center-deviations. But more: If, Catherine, you reject the social justice/species-equality argument in favor the right-to-life, then straightaway you UNCOUPLE the notion of social justice (species equality) from the Organic Law of the United States, specifically, from the Declaration of Independence (1776). In this solemn Declaration, we read: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” [emphasis mine]. In the Catholic tradition, as we have already seen, SPECIES-EQUALITY is one of the two forms of social justice. Happily, we find just this form of social justice, SPECIES-EQUALITY. solemnly affirmed in the Organic Law of the United States: “all men are created equal.” ~ That the term social justice includes this, and just this, species-equality is what JOINS the social-justice tradition and Organic Law of the United States of America.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 6:03 PM By Catherine
k, What is even more interesting than John’s post is your own post deflecting the true importance from Archbishop Sheen’s prophetically keen warning and statement regarding the new progressive social justice crowd. Archbishop Sheen was alive and he saw the onset of the chosen mechanism being used to duplicitously manipulate the Catholic Church’s traditional meaning of social justice. Many mortal sins have been ushered in on a red carpet and embraced under the protective title of social justice. This is not authentic Catholic social justice! Archbishop Sheen knew these sins were being welcomed in by a false counterfeit representation of the real authentic meaning of Catholic social justice. Archbishop Sheen knew that many would drink from this poisonous cup. This is what The Servant of God, Father John Hardon, SJ, was talking about when he said, “The Church was being destroyed, (from within) underground by 3 American Cardinals. The devil is so pleased with you k for telling everyone not to have a knee jerk reaction to the term social justice, “good or bad”! Well in many dioceses k, embracing social justice means losing your immortal soul. It does not matter if your peel one million onions for the soup kitchen, if you are using artificial birth control, fornicating, heterosexually or homosexually shacking up, or committing adultery, you will seriously jeopardize your soul and yes, you might land in hell for eternity! How about that for a knee jerk reaction? According to you, good or bad, the term doesn’t matter, Catholics do need to have an educated knee jerk reaction to error. The devil must absolutely love your moral relativism excuses. St. Augustine said, “The devil must first deceive you before he can destroy you.” k, You are serving the wrong master and this master’s name is confusion and his workers are legion.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 6:53 PM By Catherine
k, The reason your allegiance goes back and forth is that you know that if you defended nonsense in every post you would be stopped. You needed the scenario of a victim. A DRE in our Diocese admitted that she made up painful stories to get people to follow her point of view. True Story! Like Maguire, you cleverly disguise your true allegiance. Let me give you an example. Here we have Fr. Bob B, a faithful Catholic priest explain the tactics of John Maguire, and instead of openly thanking him or openly challenging him, like you did with others when you supported a lesbian promoting play and used the social justice ruse protection smokescreen of bullying. You did not fool everyone k, many saw through this. Now you use the prayer of St. Francis to throw people off track by appearing to be a real peacemaker. If you truly cared about peace you would detest heresy and error you would have thanked a faithful priest for explaining to readers that John Maguire is misrepresenting the Church’s authentic meaning of social justice. You then cleverly thanked Ken Fisher for informing you about the missing part of the prayer. Bravo k, you are being clever but you are certainly not being faithful. As for Cardinal Bernadin, Father John Hardon was not a liar. As for Michael Voris, he has ruffled feathers because he is exposing the very poor job that many shepherds have done. Write to Cardinal Burke k, and ask Cardinal Burke why he blessed the studio of Real Catholic TV. k, For the record…We should place no one on a pedestal but God and His Holy Church. I do respect and place in very high regard, the saints, the martyrs, bishops and clergy who have all throughout Church history ruffled feathers and paid a great price by their own examples to gain the salvation of souls. Doesn’t the song Kumbaya begin with a k?

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 7:34 PM By JLS
A consistent tactic you employ, Maguire, is to allege that you’ve discovered the root of some Catholic tradition, and then it turns out to be in some recent century … Maguire, try to understand that the Church has not launched her social justice efforts in some recent century, but from the beginning. Social justice stems from the Kingdom of God, and Jesus says “Seek first the Kingdom of God and then all else shall be added thereunto”. St Paul is recorded as requesting donations for some poor Catholics … Maguire, you should extend your reading back to original sources instead of dreaming that you keep finding the font of life only a mere 236 years ago or 52 years ago or whatever. Try two millenia ago.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 7:38 PM By JLS
Impressive, Catherine, very very impressive!!!

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 7:45 PM By k
Well, I said I was open to instruction, and I got in…in spades.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 8:13 PM By k
Catherine, what’s social justice?

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:04 PM By k
Catherine, I may be able to ask Cardinal Burke this week but I want to ask if it is OK to show him the posts you wrote.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:14 PM By JLS
k, many people pay big money for the instruction you are getting.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:36 PM By JLS
Is Fr. John Hardon titled, “servant of God”? In comparison, I recall watching Cdl Bernardin on TV defending himself against the accusation of being a homosexual; he did not convince me but rather reinforced the accusation in his manner, in his words and in his expression.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 10:58 PM By Abeca Christian
Catherine yes impressive. On my other posts where I suggest that some are in denial of things, let’s just say that you actually pinned it better. I appreciate your gift of conveying better.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 12:09 AM By k
Catherine, I’ve decided not to bother Cardinal Burke with your question because even though he is a very warm and compassionate person, he is also a strict canon lawyer and RealCatholicTV is in violation of Canon law and I wouldn’t want to stir up any more trouble for Mr. Voris. Thanks for your suggestion, though.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:09 AM By JLS
How do you know if RealCatholic TV is violating canon law? Why, also, do you suppose Cdl Burke blessed that group?

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:57 AM By Abeca Christian
k why are you playing games with Catherine? I can see it. Well it comes out that way. Oh well and your negative comments on RealCatholicTV is uncalled for. They are excellent thus far! Your comment exposed your back and forth actions. Once you make negative comments against them, then when Catherine calls you on it, you act like you reconsidered and now you are again against it. I looked at the messages that RealCatholicTV has shown and they are good and nothing wrong with what was said or done. You are no different than the priest who spoke out against this website and it’s articles. But you comment here, so how is this form of speaking out and news lines from this website different from the evangelizing of improving the church from RealCatholicTV? Well they are both different ways in exposing what is happening.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 9:45 AM By Catherine
Thank you Abeca and JLS for the supportive posts. I realize that you both have seen the inconsistencies in many of k’s posts. JLS, Your January 28, 7:34 PM post to John was excellent.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 12:01 PM By Catherine
k, You ask what social justice is? In keeping with the teachings of the Catholic Church this is what Bishop Sheen taught when he saw the term social justice being misinterpreted and misrepresented by a group that Bishop Sheen called social slobberers. Bishop Sheen said “The salvation that is promised by the name, Jesus is not a social salvation but a spiritual one. Jesus would not save people necessarily from their poverty but, he would save them from their sins.” A few years ago I was asked to attend a meeting titled “Can a person be Catholic and pro-choice?” The meeting was held at a local parish and the lawyer who headed the meeting started to teach the entire audience to follow the seamless garment heresy. Abortion was no different than other issues he taught. I attended this meeting with a very sweet but gullible friend. I admire so many traits in this dear friend but gullible people often unwittingly aid error. They do not do this with deliberate malice, they do so because they want to be compassionate. My gullible friend started to fall into the trap of answering the seemingly harmless questions with such delight. My friend did not see where this lawyer was pulling the crowd. The lawyer then told the audience that we did not need to go to Rome to look for answers. He said that when Jesus performed his miracles and fed the poor when did you ever see Jesus ride a donkey to Rome to get permission to help the poor and disenfranchised. Now, my friend could see the tactic that was being used to manipulate, distort and teach error to trusting gullible Catholics. There were approximately 200 or so listening. *Only 1 man* and two women challenged this error. The minute that the challenges started to happen the moderator closed the meeting. Then the ex nun moderator said, “Wow we can sure see some passion here and we don’t want it to get out of hand.” Error taught, Church teaching silenced. (cont,)

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 1:00 PM By Catherine
k, (cont. from above) After the meeting I thanked the *one* courageous man who told the lawyer that he had just tried to sell the biggest Caspar Milquetoast whitewash to trusting people. The lawyer who led the talk runs a soup kitchen with his wife. I had challenged the lawyer during the meeting and after the meeting I went up to speak with him and his wife. The wife and I engaged in dialogue and the wife told me that she did not believe in purgatory. So, k, this is a common scenario explanation of how the social justice slobberers (as Bishop Sheen referred to them) are deviating away from traditional authentic Church teaching on the meaning of social justice. Radical social justice has been spread like a toxic cancer within the Church and this is why we are now facing religious freedoms being removed with the assistance of Kathleen Sebelius who also calls herself a social justice Catholic. k, Google You Tube, ‘Bishop Sheen and False Compassion Part II’ and you will see the same characteristics mentioned by the social justice slobberers who post on CCD.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 1:54 PM By John F. Maguire
My allegiance is to the bishops. The fact that I include BOTH political parties as clients of the _Roe_ holding that preborn infants are non-persons, is not a sign of an occult agenda on my part. To the contrary, my posts cut against the Neo-Democratic wing of the Democratic Party no less than against the Neo-Republican wing of the Republican Party. The latter wing opposes _Roe_ but only because this wing supports a (postulated) state-level prerogative to deny preborn infants the right-to-life. Unlike Rick Santorum, for example, the Neo-Republican wing of the Republican Party refuses to invoke Organic Law on behalf of preborn infants. See Rick Santorum, “My Fight for Life,” _Wall Street Journal_ (January 23, 2012) (“I know that life is a right endowed by our Creator, that it is unalienable, laid down by the Declaration of Independence, and should be guaranteed under the Constitution”). Senator Santorum does not agree that preborn infants are subject to the whims of state legislators; rather, he points out that preborn infants should be protected under the Constitution, that is, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 2:25 PM By John F. Maguire
Rest assured, k, your Franciscan post did not go unnoticed. I for my part, and with me other readers, read your post as an heroic attempt on your part to pacify the present conversation. ~ K, do please also be assured on another point, namely, the fact that well within the living memory of the Catholic community, Fulton J. Sheen will always remain highly regarded as a militant defender of the Catholic social-justice tradition. For extensive documentation of this aspect of Fulton John Sheen’s life, see Kathleen L. Riley, _Fulton J. Sheen: An American Catholic Response to the Twentieth Century_ (New York: St. Pauls/Alba House, 2004), especially Chapter 2, “Intellectual Popularizer and Advocate for Social Justice, 1930-1945” and Chapter 8, “Bishop in a Diocese: The ‘Sound and Fury’ of the Rochester Years, 1966-1969). Bishop Sheen never failed to distinguish between the cause of social justice, on the one hand, and those who, under the sway of ideological prepossessions, counterfeited that cause.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 3:02 PM By k
Catherine, thank you for your post. It really explains why you reacted to my post the way you did. It is an example of what Mr. Maguire and I were saying-that the term “social justice” has been so distorted that “a faulty version of the concept is imputed to anyone who uses the term in its classical sense” as Mr. Maguire said. And I said “use of the term by those with political agendas and social change activists has cause confustion. Your example of that meeting is exactly what we were talking about, Social justice is not “all moral issues have equal weight.” All true social justice proponents put life first, because the right to life is the primary good. What you experienced at that meeting is a travesty, a hijacking of the Church’s social doctrine. In my diocese, we had things like tax reform, and environmental protection, anti-nuclear weapons protests. Someone asked them why they didn’t do pro-life. They answered that pro-life was important, but it wasn’t what they did. Boy, that changed in a hurry when we got a new bishop. This is what I meant by not just reacting. Some people hear “social justice” and like the sheep at the meeting follow it without evaluating it. Some people, like yourself and like me (before the bishop change) hear “social justice” and think “that;s bad or deceitful or exploitive or from the devil.” So, my suggestion was that we listen to see whether it is being used in a holy or unholy way before we react.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 3:11 PM By k
abeca, I said nothing negative about RealCatholicTV. Catherine asked me to write Cardinal Burke, who is the head of the Apostolic Signatura, about RealCatholicTV. In December, RealCatholicTV was told it was in violation of canon 216 for using the word Catholic without approval of the local ordinary in Detroit.. Afterwards a jursidictional dispute followed because the owner of RealCatholicTV lives in Indiana. So rather than draw Cardinal Burke’s attention to anything, I decided, even though there probably would not be any serious repercussions, to let the matter go. I was doing something nice for RealCatholicTV by not bringing it up at this point in time.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 3:43 PM By Canisius
Maguire… My Allegiance is to Christ and His Vicar on Earth…..

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 5:33 PM By Abeca Christian
Catherine not a problem, I agree with you and I know that your heart is in the right place and you are always caring. I appreciate your sharing what Bishop Sheen taught. Now that I am getting to know who he was better, I appreciate his message and his love, his gift to convey well the teachings of the faith. His logic was refreshing to hear, I feel better that we are not alone, that Bishops can teach well with conviction, Bishop Sheen was a good example of that!

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:15 PM By Abeca Christian
But K the fact is, when you work against good, even if your are well intended to bring up what you call facts, it is still working against good. Just saying.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:25 PM By k
Catherine, I watched the video you recommended. It was interesting. When he referred to social slobberers, he meant the people who feel pity for the criminal rather than the victim; I understand the concept but I live in a part of the country where they still punish offenders with the maximum sentence almost every time. Clemency is rare. This would be a miscarriage of justice. But it is not what the church means by social justice. Like I told you before, I have to look this up because I don’t know it by heart. These are the core principle of Catholic social teaching. 1) Human life is sacred and every human person has dignity. People are more important than things. The measure of every institution is whether it enhances or threatens the life of humans. Your social justice ministry should be actively pro-life. 2) The family is the central social institution that must be supported and strengthened. All people have a right and a duty to participate in society, seeking the common good and the well-being of all, especially those most vulnerable. Your social justice ministry should be working to support traditional marriage. 3) Every person has a right to life and a right to those things required for human decency. Each person has duties and responsiblities to one another, to their family and to society. Your social justice ministry might work with the elderly, the sick, the differently-abled. It might drive people to doctors, to the voting polls. 4) The needs of the poor and vulnerable come first. This is where the soup kitchens and homeless ministries come in. 5) Work is a form of continuing participation in God’s creation. It has an inherent dignity. The rights of workers must be respectied-their dignity, their right to a just wage, their right to organize, their right to private property and to economic initiative. The economy must serve people not the other way around. (Here is where a lot of controversy starts.)

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:36 PM By k
6) We are our brother’s keeper, wherever we live. This is called solidarity. We are all one family. We love our neighbor, and everyone is our neighbor. Your social justice ministry may collect for disasters or adopt a poor parish. 7) We show our gratitude and respect to God by taking care of his creation. We are stewards entrusted by God to care for the earth and for those who occupy it. (Here too there are some who feel the Church should not be doing this). I have to say a lot of why the social justice ministry had a hard time in our diocese was that they were seen as old hippies and there was no concern for religion. At that time we were struggling to get permission to pray rosaries and were fighting the people who had an idea of the church as a community (That one drove Fulton Sheen bananas-“It is not a community. It’s a communion.”) They were bringing in people like Father John Dear and Bishop Gumbleton and I forget who else. They acted like groupies. The diocesan paper was so full of that stuff that people (my husband included) would throw it away the second it hit the mailbox. I don’t know if they will ever be able to rehab the image of social justice here. I’m sorry for the length of my posts. Thank you for your patience in reading it. God bless you.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:55 PM By k
Catherine, you got me remembering things now. The man who ran the social justice office was a total gentleman. You could challenge him on anything and he always was respectful. They had to drive 2 hours to come to our parish so I always felt a duty to attend their programs. There were about 6 of the “community” people who ate it up and me and one other guy who wasn’t buying any of it. So they were going on about peace and weapons and I said to him “If you want peace, why don’t you promote praying the rosary?” He was dumbfounded but he said “Praying the rosary is good, but that’s not what we do.” They really believed they were doing God’s will. I guess if a bishop asked me to do something I would think it was God’s will, too. Once they came to talk about taxation. The guy who bought none of it said to them-“This is ridiculous. Nobody’s gonna vote for a law like that.” They said “we agree with you but the Bishop wants it.” At least they brought the diocese to us and gave us a chance to speak up. Like I said, all that stuff changed when we got a new bishop. It is a lot better but nobody ever comes to teach us anything anymore.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 10:09 PM By Elizabeth
CCC: ” 1928 Society ensures SOCIAL JUSTICE when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority.” AND CCC: “2411 Contracts are subject to COMMUTATIVE JUSTICE which regulates exchanges between persons and between institutions in accordance with a strict respect for their rights. Commutative justice obliges strictly; it requires safeguarding property rights, paying debts, and fulfilling obligations freely contracted. Without commutative justice, NO OTHER FORM OF JUSTICE is possible. ” One distinguishes commutative justice from legal justice which concerns what the citizen owes in fairness to the community, and from distributive justice which regulates what the community owes its citizens in proportion to their contributions and needs. “

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 10:24 PM By MIKE
k, search the following on the internet: ” seamless garment Berardin USCCB “. Cardinals Bernardin and Deardon were very close, and both were socialists. Lip service to life issues. ” In the 1980s, Neumayr recalls, New York’s Cardinal John O’Connor pushed for a clear focus on the fight against abortion, while Chicago’s Cardinal Joseph Bernardin preferred the “seamless garment” approach, in which abortion was only one of a number of issues to be weighed in political discussions. For years the “seamless garment” approach has had the upper hand in USCCB discussions– reflecting the dominance enjoyed by the late Cardinal Bernardin and his allies. But now Bishop Kicanas, a Bernardin protégé, has been defeated by Cardinal O’Connor’s successor in New York.” – Catholic Culture – 11/17/2010.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 10:48 PM By MIKE
k, I never said that Bernardin was pro-abortion. He merely taught that abortion and euthanasia were no more important than social justice issues -which is wrong. This is what got the USCCB’s CCHD in hot water donating money to groups that supported abortion in favor of social issues. My post of January 28, 2012 5:04 AM stands. Further please read CCC #2245 and 2246 – the ONLY time the Bishops (Church) should be involved in politics is whenever the fundamental rights of all men or the salvation of souls require it; and the ONLY means the Church may use are those that are in accord with the Gospel – Mt., Mk, Lk, Jn.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 5:47 AM By k
MIKE, please read the National Catholic Register interview with Cardinal Bernardin. It is titled Put Life First. I know his reputation and worse rumors. This interview is his own words. I didn’t know the man. I was not happy with NCCB in the 80s. I remember they were anti-abortion, though. Anti-pornography, anti-poverty, peace and anti-weapon. I did not like the political involvement, either.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 10:50 AM By Catherine
k, Everything you wrote about social justice is and always has been contained in the Beatitudes and the Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy. That is social justice but it seems that these good actions that have always been promoted by the Catholic Church are not explained that way. They have taken Christ’s social justice and embellished these works of mercy to include activism that is contrary to Church teaching. I disagree with you k, about clemency for crimes. It is not rare it is extremely common. Recently in our neighborhood, a man was arrested for selling dangerous drugs to high school students. Cars pulled up day and night for quick pit stop purchases. The whole neighborhood knew what was going on when they watched this man spend unbelievable amounts of money to remodel his house, (it looks fabulous too!) purchase other houses and purchase several expensive cars at the expense of the well being of high school students. The jails are over crowded so he received a slap on the wrist and he still stands out waving to all of the neighbors like nothing is wrong. Something is very wrong and clemency is not rare. Discipline is the rare commodity in the church and in society. As the Church goes, society goes. Archbishop Sheen was right. There is more pity for the mugger than the person mugged, there is more pity for the drug dealer than the high school student who becomes hooked on the drug dealer’s poison. After all the drug dealer tells the courts that his mother and father didn’t love him enough because he was different and the courts show more mercy for perversity and diversity but not for the true victim. Souls are also brutally victimized when they are not taught the truth but taught lies. The drug dealer is taught to have his heaven here on earth in his fabulous looking house instead of rightfully being disciplined so he can repent and have his true eternal heaven.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 11:24 AM By k
Catherine, I believe you but I live in an area of the country that has maintained traditional values. We have a problem where members of gangs come down from Detroit (where I imagine there is much judicial leniecy) to sell drugs. Having little diversity here, the police spot them right away, wait until they do something, then they arrest them and all the locals that got involved with them. They throw the book at them and they get convicted and sentenced to 7-15 years in prison. New York City had a terrible crime problem and the way it was solved was by having no leniency. If you jaywalked, you got busted. If you littered, you payed the fine. If you couldn’t pay the fine, you did time. What is important is that citizens know that laws mean what they say.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 11:55 AM By Catherine
k says, “I know his reputation and worse rumors.”….God says, “By their fruits you shall know them!”

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 1:14 PM By MIKE
k, I read the article you requested; herein lies the issue as created by Cardinal Bernardin himself – QUOTE ” I have some reservations about ratings of that kind. Frequently these issues are very complex and a simple rating system is inadequate. BUT the main point is you’re inconsistent if you think you can defend a person who takes a pro-life position on certain life issues but refuses to acknowledge other life issues.” UNQUOTE. There will rarely be a candidate who thinks exactly as each of us on all issues. When voting we must take that which is always 100% intrinsically evil, and remove him/her from our decision making process. There is nothing proportionate to the MURDER of our innocent babies. Even when Bernardin was in office, there were about 1 Million abortions in the USA per year. Nothing compares to abortion and euthanasia in our Country. There are no “BUTS” as presented by the Cardinal. Any politician who supports the murder of babies is evil.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 2:10 PM By Catherine
k, I am genuinely happy to hear that you think you are living down in the *green acres of obedience and bliss.* What has that got to do with the price of tea in China or the rest of the United States? You posted these words, “What is important is that citizens know that laws mean what they say?” BINGO k! That goes for promoting and enforcing the CCC, second edition, in Parishes, Universities, Chanceries, Seminaries, High Schools and Grammar Schools. Do we truly believe that Jesus is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament? Do we truly believe that the Blessed Sacrament is the Source and Summit of our faith? Our lead shepherds don’t act like they believe it! They are too busy worrying about toxic fumes in the atmosphere. Never mind the sulfuric fumes of hell that rejoice each time a pro-abortion politician mocks Our Lord by receiving Him, most unworthily. They place Our Lord on that back burner of priorities, after all God isn’t watching. If our lead shepherds truly believe in the True Presence, then *most importantly* this goes for enforcing Canon Law 915, not just conversation about secular drug laws and jaywalking laws. k, The majority of the country does not feel that secular laws are properly enforced anyway so you are either running protective and enabling interference for the terribly weak state of leadership in the church or you have purchased for 30 pieces of silver, a pair of rose colored protective cocoon sunglasses. k, There are only a handful of *exceptional* bishops and society is begging for those numbers to improve. Please stop polishing rotten apples with a big smile. It is not believable. Admit that the worms need removing and they need to be removed now so the true faith can be vigorously taught and vigorously upheld, not just down in your green acres of obedient bliss, but in the entire country. k, You only needed to say and you said it best when you posted, “WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT CITIZENS (CATHOLICS) KNOW THAT LAWS MEAN WHAT THEY SAY.”

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 3:03 PM By JLS
The seamless garment theory is the same thing I heard in the Baptist church before I was Catholic. It amounts to every sin is equal, so stealing a pack of beer is as evil a sin as murdering the store clerk while doing it. Also, the seamless garment theory is a fantasy type construct … It is a gross and total departure from the doctrine of sin. The seamless garment theory is not a magisterial doctrine; it is not dogmatic, and it bears not good fruit … rather under its tinsel town-esque glitter, abortion, contraception, sodomy and many other intrinsic evils have proliferated. All the main things it protests have not decreased but have increased, the most visible being war.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 3:05 PM By k
I agree with you MIKE. I never vote for a pro-choice candidate, ever.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 3:15 PM By k
Catherine, I’m not sure I know what you are saying in your last post but if it is that canon law should be enforced, I agree.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:07 AM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Catherine, I think I was at the same conference where you heard Fr. Hardon make those statements. Fr. Charles Fiore was a good friend of Fr. Hardon, Fr. Kunz, Fr. Malachi Martin and myself, and told many things about the late Cardinal Bernadine that would curl you hair. I myself had some doings with Bernadine as well, all not good. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:33 AM By John F. Maguire
There is no doubt that the Church’s commitment to social justice is grounded in her entire history. On the other hand, it is no “gambit” on my part to focus on the Church’s modern explication of the meaning of social justice — in all its ramifications. Plainly this explication is a response to 19th and 20th century developments in the industrial organization of societies. Consequently, in his mid-20th century text on _The Social Doctrine of the Church_ [original edition: _La Doctrine Sociale l’Eglise_), the Archbishop of Cambrai, Emile Guerry, addressed himself to the question of the SCOPE of social justice. “Social justice,” Archbishop Guerry wrote, “applies everywhere there is a question of the common good. Its domain is universal.” Source: Emile Guerry, _The Social Doctrine of the Church_, translated by Miriam Hederman (New York, London, Boston: Alba House, 1961), p. 168.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:03 AM By Sandra
Fr. Hardon will one day soon be “blessed” and then “Saint”. His teachings continue to save souls.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:22 AM By Sandra
k, btw satan usese smoke and mirrors too.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:53 AM By Catherine
Thank you Sandra!

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:28 AM By Abeca Christian
Sandra and Catheine LOL

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:00 PM By Fr Bob B
To k~ Thanks for your recent clarification re the meaning of “species equality” in Mr. Maguire’s posts. Because he didn’t explain himself, I didn’t realize that he [and the 19th century source he cited] used the term “species” in the Thomistic or Scholastic philosophy sense, rather than as used in modern biology. The modern proponents of “species equality” in the latter sense hold that the human species is in no way intrinsically superior to all others. Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton University holds to the latter view—and has written that it is more justifiable to expend resources to cure a perfectly-formed German shepherd dog than to treat an already-born but deformed human baby. Hence my confusion over Mr. Maguire’s use of the term in his argumentation.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:14 PM By John F. Maguire
Also k, for a critique of Peter Singer from a Thomist perspective, see Raymond Dennehy, “Peter Singer’s ‘The Moral Status of the Enbryo’,” _National Catholic Register_, April 25-May 1, 1999.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:38 PM By JLS
Just read St Thomas instead.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:40 PM By JLS
I have not read enough of Fr. Hardon, just as I have not prayed enough to St Padre Pio … at some point one’s knees begin to rattle.

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 11:03 AM By John F. Maguire
I second JLS’s Aquinas recommendation but besides Dennehy on Singer, I also want to recommend Colosi on Singer. See, Peter J. Colosi, “The Intrinsic Worth of Persons: Revisiting Peter Singer and his Critics,” _Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies_, Vol XV (1/2), 2003, pp. 3-22; also Peter J. Colosi, “John Paul II and Christian Personalism vs. Peter Singer and Utilitarianism: Two Radically Opposed Conceptions of the Nature and Meaning of Suffering,” _Ethics Education_, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2009, online.

Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 11:42 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
k, You will find Cardinal Burke to be very warm and endearing. I first met him when he would call my house to speak to Archbishop Khai. The Archbishop loved and loves him from Heaven very much. I wish I could be there to introduce you to him. Give him my love. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher