The Catholic Faithful vs. John Kerry

17 comments

1. Pete,
   I was wondering about this action. As I understand it, it’s a valid case that the diocese must act on. My concern is, what if Boston does not have the backbone? Then what? If Boston does not excommunicate, did this action cause more harm to the authority of the Church over Her members?
   Don’t get me wrong – my first reaction was “giddy up!”
   Be interested in your thoughts. Thanks for sharing so far.

2. While I agree with most of what you say, I would point out that the fathers (and indeed, grandparents and so on and on) of the aborted babies are also victims. We all are, as we are deprived of their light and laughter.

3. Any way to send this guy some support, letters, money?? and prayers of course!
   bridgit

4. Good thought, Bridgit. How about it, Pete?

5. Cathy, I haven’t unpacked my books yet, but the Archdiocese of Boston basically has like 42 days to respond. (30 days to respond, followed by 10 canonical days — which don’t include weekends — if I recall correctly.) If the Archdiocese does not respond within that time frame, then the petition is automatically considered to have been accepted.
   Gordon, point taken. Indeed, fathers are also victims of abortion.
   Bridgit and Ron, please visit Marc’s website at defide.com The contact information, as well as a secure donation form, is posted there. While I am relunctant to share the private details of our conversation, it is fair to say he has taken a real financial hit over this and could use any donations that can be spared. Put another way, he had not eaten much in the last couple days as he was down to half a carton of eggs in his fridge and a bag of nachos on his kitchen shelf.

6. Cathy–if the Boston Archdiocese does not respond to Marc’s petition, it seems to me that it simply shows moral bankruptcy on their part. In that situation it would be the Boston Archdiocese, not Marc, who has further eroded the public perception of the Church’s authority.
   Prayers ascending for this brave man.

7. Beregond – sorry if I gave the impression that I would think that it would be Marc that would be responsible for the further erosion of the Church’s authority. That simply rests with the Boston Archdiocese – period.
   I plan to make a donation to Marc.
   But I still stand concerned over the possible action/inaction of Boston and the impact of their action on the Church’s authority.
   You’re right – prayers needed for Marc and for the diocese to do the right thing.

8. Yesterday, I sent by certified mail my signed petition to join Marc’s canonical action. I hope more do the same. I also sent in a small donation after reading Pete Vere’s comments. I am glad to see that Pete Vere vouches for the solidity of this effort.

9. Peter Vere’s view on the heresy lawsuit

   Canon lawyer Peter Vere of Catholic Light blog gives his opinion of canon lawyer Marc Balestrieri’s heresy lawsuit against John Kerry. Apparently, Balestrieri is getting a lot of pressure from

10. Kerry Heresy: Will the Boston Archdiocese Put Politics or Faith First? And Will the Vatican Act If the Boston Archdiocese Puts Politics First?
    St. Matthew asked, “What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his soul.”
    Marc A. Balestrieri, a canon lawyer and an assistant judge of an ecclesiastical court in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, thinks that such a man is not profited.
    John Kerry, baptized Catholic, former altar boy, United States Senator from Massachusetts, presumptive Democrat Presidential candidate, poster boy of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-choice America (formerly the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) and second husband of a perhaps billionaire widow, wants to find out.
    On June 14, 2004, Balestrieri boldly exercised his right to file with the Boston
    Archdiocese a sworn document described as “a Denunciation for the Public Ecclesiastical Crime of Heresy, Diabolical Scandal Leading to Heresy, Immediate Formal Cooperation in Heresy, Abjection of the Sacred Species, Diabolical Scandal Leading to Murder, and Grave Harm to Public Morals and Contempt for the Faith and Ecclesiastical Authority” and “a Criminal Complaint for Reparation of Harm” resulting from the crimes listed.
    The person Balestrieri denounced is Kerry.
    The basis for the denunciation is Kerry’s “deliberate, manifest, and pertinacious adherence to the proposition that one has a right to choose abortive murder.”
    The main charge is an ecclesiastical crime, heresy, that is, “the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith….”
    The relief demanded is a declaration of excommunication and the imposition of
    additional penalties and punishments against Kerry, including barring Kerry from receiving Holy Communion or any other sacrament until Kerry publicly repudiates his heretical support for abortion or, in Balestrieri’s words, “the Right-to-Murder heresy.”
    Balestrieri alleged that he personally had been gravely injured by Kerry’s “continuous attack on an disturbance of the pacific possession and unity of [his Roman Catholic] faith, a…right to all Catholics,” and invited “all other individuals who have been gravely scandalized, offended, angered or aggrieved as a direct result of [Kerry’s] actions or omissions” to join his suit.
    Balestrieri noted Kerry’s support for abortion in his first speech in the United States Senate more than nineteen years ago and Kerry’s perfect pro-abortion voting record, including opposition to even partial birth abortion.
    In addition, Balestrieri vigorously objected to Kerry’s public receipt of Holy Communion several times this year and asserted as fact “an urgent need for the elination of Scandal whereby a life-threatening heresy attacking a Dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith is growing substantially within the Church.”
    Last summer Archbishop O’Malley of Boston gave the faithful hope that the subordination of religious principal to lesser considerations that permitted the horrific clergy sex abuse scandal was over, at least in the Boston archdiocese.
    He declared that pro-abortion nominally Catholic politicians “should not be receiving Communion and should refrain from doing so.”
    But, the Archbishop dashed that hope by disregarding Canon 915’s clear mandate, as explained in detail by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and declaring that the policy in his archdiocese is not to deny Communion and instead to leave it to the individual to decide, as though each bishop may disobey canon law that might be problematic to enforce.
    Therefore, it is possible, if not likely, that Archbishop O’Malley will choose to reject Balestrieri’s denunciation.
    But, Balestrieri will be entitled to appeal to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of which Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is the prefect, and that forum is virtually certain to be receptive to any such appeal.
    This is evidenced by Cardinal Ratzinger’s recent confidential memorandum to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the
    rebellious United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on the “General Principles” with respect to “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.”
    In that memorandum, Cardinal Ratzinger stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows:
    “1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).
    ”2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. […] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
    ”3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
    ”4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
    ”5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
    ”6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.”
    Canon 915 excludes from Holy Communion “[t]hose…who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin.” Lest there be confusion, Canon 915 specifies not that those persons shall not present themselves for Holy Communion, but that they “are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” (Emphasis added)
    That puts the onus on the dispensers of Holy Communion to refuse the unfit who nevertheless present themselves for Holy Communion when their unfitness is “manifest.”
    The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, in Ecclesia de Eucharistia, emphasized that Canon 915 obligates those who dispense Holy Communion not to do so blindly:
    “[I]n cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion.” (Emphasis added.)
    The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts previously had issued an interpretation of Canon 915 in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. It stated in unambiguous terms:
    “Naturally, pastoral prudence would strongly suggest the avoidance of instances of public denial of Holy Communion. Pastors must strive to explain to the concerned faithful the true ecclesial sense of the norm, in such a way that they would be able to understand it or at least respect it. In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy. They are to do this with extreme charity, and are to look for the opportune moment to explain the reasons that required the refusal. They must, however, do this with firmness, conscious of the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls.” (Emphasis added.)
    Responsibility for implementing Canon 915 was delegated to priests (not bishops):
    “The discernment of cases in which the faithful who find themselves in the described condition are to be excluded from Eucharistic Communion is the responsibility of the Priest who is responsible for the community. They are to give precise instructions to the deacon or to any extraordinary minister regarding the mode of acting in concrete situations.”
    And compliance with Canon 915 is mandatory, not discretionary.
    “….the obligation of reiterating this impossibility of admission to the Eucharist is required for genuine pastoral care and for an authentic concern for the well-being of these faithful and of the whole Church, being that it indicates the conditions necessary for the fullness of that conversion to which all are always invited by the Lord….”
    The declaration specified the way Canon 915 must be interpreted and its three required conditions as follows:
    “The phrase ‘and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin’ is clear and must be understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render the norm inapplicable. The three required conditions are:
    a) grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability;
    b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church.
    c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin.”
    In addition, Canon 912 states: “Any baptized person who is not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion.”
    To be sure, there may be cases in which the grave sin has not endured in time to the point of obstinacy or been manifest and therefore a person who truly should not present himself or herself for Holy Communion may nevertheless receive it.
    But, canon law imposes the duty not to admit manifest, persistent grave sinners to Holy Communion on the distributors of Holy Communion.
    Kerry is supporting even partial-birth abortion, calling abortion a woman’s right instead of a wrong and vowing to keep abortion legal. At the dinner hosted by NARAL Pro-Choice America (formerly, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, Kerry proudly and passionately proclaimed, “We are not going to turn back the clock. There is no overturning of Roe v. Wade. There is no packing of courts with judges who will be hostile to choice.”
    Of course, Kerry shamelessly wants to have it both ways: to be NARAL’s champion AND a practicing Catholic presenting himself to receive Communion, as though he is in a state of grace and in full communion with the Church and therefore fit to receive.
    But Kerry must choose. Divine law will not bend to his will.
    Michael J. Gaynor
    95 Darrow Lane
    Greenlawn, New York 11740-2803
    (631) 757-9452 (tel)
    (631) 754-3437 (fax)
    GaynorMike@aol.com
    “Separation of Church and State” Is Not a Defense to Heresy or a Mandate to Permit Abortion
    by Michael J. Gaynor
    Saint Thomas More, a martyr, is the Patron of Statesmen and Politicians. He gave witness to “the inalienable dignity of the human conscience,” by refusing to compromise, never forsaking the “constant fidelity to legitimate authority and institutions” which distinguished him, teaching by his life and his death that “man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality.”
    Senator John Kerry, an ambitious politician, is no Saint Thomas More.
    Kerry, presumptive Democrat presidential candidate and baptized Catholic, is trying to have it both ways on a life-and-death matter: abortion.
    On one hand, like a faithful Catholic, Kerry asserts personal opposition to abortion: “I oppose abortion, personally. I don’t like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception….”
    On the other hand, Kerry assures abortion supporters that they can have all the abortions they want. At the dinner hosted by NARAL Pro-Choice America (formerly, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, Kerry passionately proclaimed, “We are not going to turn back the clock. There is no overturning of Roe v. Wade. There is no packing of courts with judges who will be hostile to choice.”
    Kerry’s rationale for preaching against abortion and legislating in favor of it: “I can’t take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist,” he continued in the interview. “We have separation of church and state in the United States of America.”
    To the naïve, Kerry’s position may make him look admirably openminded and restrained instead of arbitrary and controlling.
    However, it is sheer sophistry, that is, “subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation,” of which Kerry should be ashamed,
    Fortunately, it is readily exposable as such according to both Catholic thinking and American history.
    What is needed is for the public to become familiar with the pertinent Catholic thinking and American history.
    The “separation between faith and life” that Kerry shamefully is trying to use for political advantage was condemned long ago by the Second Vatican Council: “This split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age.”
    As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated in its Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life: “[T]he lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent…is one and indivisible. There cannot be two parallel lives…: on the one hand, the so-called ‘spiritual life’, with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called ‘secular’ life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture.”
    The Doctrinal Note emphasized that lay Catholics, in fulfilling civic duties, are to be “‘guided by a Christian conscience,’ in conformity with its values,” and that “their proper task [is] infusing the temporal order with Christian values, all the while respecting the nature and rightful autonomy of that order, and cooperating with other citizens according to their particular competence and responsibility.”
    The Doctrinal Note lamented that “[a] kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the conceptualization and defence of an ethical pluralism, which sanctions the decadence and disintegration of reason and the principles of the natural moral law.” It categorically rejected the claims that citizens have “complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices and lawmakers…are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends, as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value.”
    And the Doctrinal Note observed that “the value of tolerance is disingenuously invoked when a large number of citizens, Catholics among them, are asked not to base their contribution to society and political life – through the legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy – on their particular understanding of the human person and the common good,” and concluded that “[t]he history of the twentieth century demonstrates that those citizens were right who recognized the falsehood of relativism, and with it, the notion that there is no moral law rooted in the nature of the human person, which must govern our understanding of man, the common good and the state.”
    The Doctrinal Note distinguished legitimate and illegitimate freedom. It explicitly respected “the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good.” (Emphasis added.)
    “Political freedom is not – and cannot be – based upon the relativistic idea that all conceptions of the human person’s good have the same value and truth,” the Doctrinal Note proclaimed.
    “Rather,” the Doctrinal Note continued, “it is based on the fact that politics are concerned with very concrete realizations of the true human and social good in given historical, geographic, economic, technological and cultural contexts. From the specificity of the task at hand and the variety of circumstances, a plurality of morally acceptable policies and solutions arises. It is not the Church’s task to set forth specific political solutions – and even less to propose a single solution as the acceptable one – to temporal questions that God has left to the free and responsible judgment of each person. It is, however, the Church’s right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters when this is required by faith or the moral law.” (Emphasis added.)
    The Doctrinal Note rejected moral relativism and related the essential basis of democracy in the clearest terms: “If Christians must ‘recognize the legitimacy of differing points of view about the organization of worldly affairs,’ they are also called to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism. Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.” (Emphasis added.)
    With respect to abortion, the Doctrinal Note was categorical: “John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a ‘grave and clear obligation to oppose’ any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.” (Emphasis added.)
    A faithful Catholic politician may not compromise on fundamental matters. “When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death.”
    Kerry surely knows that the truth concerning the right to life of all persons from conception to natural death is not an idiosyncratic “religious” concept. It is a fundamental part of natural law for all to know and respect.
    The Catholic faith informs a Catholic’s participation in every sphere of life, not only religious services. Thus, the Second Vatican Council urged all Christians “to fulfill their duties faithfully in the spirit of the Gospel” and warned that “[i]t is a mistake to think that, because we have here no lasting city, but seek the city which is to come, we are entitled to shirk our earthly responsibilities; this is to forget that by our faith we are bound all the more to fulfill these responsibilities according to the vocation of each….” It called for Christians to cherish “the opportunity to carry out their earthly activity in such a way as to integrate human, domestic, professional, scientific and technical enterprises with religious values, under whose supreme direction all things are ordered to the glory of God.”
    Kerry’s talismanic invocation of the words “separation of church and state” does not immunize him from responsibility for his sin of promoting abortion in the eyes of God or the Church and should not be permitted to confuse his fellow Americans.
    In addition, it wrongly implies improper interference by the Roman Catholic Church in United States affairs.
    As stated in the Doctrinal Note:
    “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.
    “By its interventions in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends – as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good. The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible. ‘There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called “spiritual life”, with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called “secular” life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture. The branch, engrafted to the vine which is Christ, bears its fruit in every sphere of existence and activity. In fact, every area of the lay faithful’s lives, as different as they are, enters into the plan of God, who desires that these very areas be the “places in time” where the love of Christ is revealed and realized for both the glory of the Father and service of others. Every activity, every situation, every precise responsibility – as, for example, skill and solidarity in work, love and dedication in the family and the education of children, service to society and public life and the promotion of truth in the area of culture – are the occasions ordained by providence for a “continuous exercise of faith, hope and charity” (Apostolicam actuositatem, 4).’ Living and acting in conformity with one’s own conscience on questions of politics is not slavish acceptance of positions alien to politics or some kind of confessionalism, but rather the way in which Christians offer their concrete contribution so that, through political life, society will become more just and more consistent with the dignity of the human person.” (Emphasis added.)
    Moreover, the United States Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state.
    The words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the First Amendment. In a much-quoted letter Thomas Jefferson described the First Amendment as “building a wall of separation between church and state.” But the First Amendment did not create a wall between church and state. It prohibited Congress from making “a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
    The kind of separation that was intended is suggested by Pierre L’Enfant’s plan for a national cathedral. In 1791, Congress selected the site to be the capital of the United States. George Washington, previously President of the Constitutional Convention and then President of the United States, then commissioned L’Enfant to design an overall plan for the future seat of government. That plan included a church “intended for national purposes, such as public prayer, thanksgiving, funeral orations, etc., and assigned to the special use of no particular Sect of denomination, but equally open to all.” The Founders and Framers favored governmental neutrality among denominations, but they never expected government to be barred from supporting religion generally to please a tiny minority.
    The Founding Fathers were Christians, not secular humanists. John Adams wrote in 1813 that “[t]he general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity . . . .” America’s greatest chief justice, John Marshall, proclaimed in 1833: “The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations to it.” Marshall’s statement was not literally true, of course; Americans were not even then entirely Christian. But Marshall’s point was that Americans were a people of faith and their government should recognize it.
    When Jesus spoke of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and rendering unto God that which is God’s, He was identifying separate obligations of individuals in society, not requiring complete separation of church and state or absolving states of their duty to God.
    This was generally understood and accepted. Therefore, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution each recognized God and the Articles and Constitution were dated “in the year of our Lord.”
    The First Amendment did not prohibit government from acknowledging God or supporting religion generally. Only coercive or sectarian governmental acts that establish a particular faith or prohibit the free exercise of any faith were barred. And Jefferson’s “wall” was to keep government from interfering with that religious expression without excluding religious expression from public life.
    Justice William Douglas put it well in Zorach v. Clauson (1952), in upholding a public school “released time” program: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. . . . When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would prefer those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. . . . [W]e find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.”
    Now Chief Justice William Rehnquist rightly asserted in dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) that the establishment clause was intended only to stop the federal government from establishing a national church or preferring one sect over another, and certainly not to require governmental neutrality between religion and “irreligion.”
    The leading legal commentators of the nineteenth century did not doubt this.
    Thomas Cooley, in Constitutional Limitations, stated that recognition of God and general support for religion were governmental prerogatives: “[T]he American constitutions contain no provisions which prohibit the authorities from such solemn recognition of a superintending Providence in public transactions and exercises as the general religious sentiment of mankind inspires. . . . Whatever may be the shades of religious belief, all must acknowledge the fitness of recognizing in important human affairs the superintending care and control of the Great Governor of the Universe, and of acknowledging with thanksgiving his boundless favors, or bowing in contrition when visited with the penalties of his broken laws.”
    Cooley concluded, “No principle of constitutional law is violated when thanksgiving or fast days are appointed; when chaplains are designated for the army and navy; when legislative sessions are opened with prayer or the reading of the Scriptures; or when religious teaching is encouraged by a general exemption of the houses of religious worship from taxation.”
    Cooley emphasized that government needs to “foster religious worship and religious institutions, as conservators of the public morals and valuable, if not indispensable, assistants to the preservation of the public order.” “Public recognition of religious worship,” he wrote, is based on “the same reasons of state policy which induce the government to aid institutions of charity and seminaries of instruction.”
    This attitude prevailed when the first Congress passed both the First Amendment and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which explicitly integrated religion and public education. Article III of the ordinance states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Two years later George Washington warned, “Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.”
    The signers of the Declaration of Independence, the Framers of the Constitution, and the members of the first Congress and the state legislatures that enacted and ratified the First Amendment humbly recognized their dependence upon God. In lamenting the absence of daily prayers during the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin asked: “[H]ow has it happened . . . that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? . . . [H]ave we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. . . . We have been assured . . . in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.’ ”
    The Declaration humbly appeals to “the Supreme Judge of the world” and proclaims “a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence,” as well as referring to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and a “Creator” who endowed “all men . . . with certain inalienable Rights.”
    The Constitution not only refers to “the Blessings of Liberty” in its preamble, but excludes Sundays in calculating the time in which a presidential veto must be issued. Further, it deliberately integrates religion into public affairs, while not compelling the unreligious to practice faith, by providing for oaths or affirmations. If the Framers had intended to separate church and state completely and embrace secularism, then they would have provided only for affirmations.
    The First Amendment was adopted to afford atheists a right to not recognize God, to be sure, but not to give them a right to preclude government from doing so or from supporting religion generally—as the seminal Commentaries on the Constitution (1833) by Justice Joseph Story show.
    Justice Story explained that the First Amendment’s object was “to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment….” “[T]he duty of supporting religion,” Story emphasized, was “very different from the right to force the consciences of other men, or to punish them for worshipping God in the manner which, they believe, their accountability to him requires.”
    Story conceived of governmental support for religion as a responsibility, rather than a prerogative, and not less important than respect for private religious beliefs. In his words, “it is the especial duty of government to foster” religion, and this duty is “wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one’s conscience.”
    The current notion that public recognition of God and support for religion generally must yield to “the right of private judgment” surely would have been absurd to Justice Story. In his view, “the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice.”
    According to Justice Story, “Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it . . . , the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship,” and that “an attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”
    This unappreciated historical record reveals the error of the Supreme Court’s ways. In its zeal to purge the public square of endorsements and even accommodations of religion, the Court has construed the Constitution’s ban on “an establishment of religion” much too broadly and thereby paved the way for lower courts to strike down the Pledge of Allegiance and to order the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from the lobby of an Alabama courthouse (while leaving undisturbed the U.S. Supreme Court’s own Ten Commandments display.
    After World War II, the U.S. Supreme Court arbitrarily extended the First Amendment’s establishment clause, by judicial invention, to separate church and state in a way that inhibits the free exercise of religion required by the First Amendment’s free exercise clause but provides freedom from religion to the unreligious minority. THAT surely was not contemplated by the men who drafted and ratified the Constitution and the First Amendment, and would not have been comprehensible to them.
    America was not conceived of by those men as a theocracy or a secular state, but as “one nation, under God.” The notion that under the Constitution the U.S. government cannot acknowledge God and instead must maintain a strict neutrality between religion and irreligion would have been considered absurd by virtually all the Founders, Framers, members of the First Congress and members of the state legislatures that ratified the First Amendment.
    As Justice Stanley Reed related in rejecting the overbroad meaning given to the “Establishment Clause”:
    “When the First Amendment was pending in Congress in substantially its present form, ‘Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.’”
    To be sure, the Constitution explicitly proscribed any religious test as a requirement for holding an office or a position of public trust under the U.S. government. But the Constitution was framed by Christian men who recognized the dependence upon religion of the government created by the Constitution as well as God. Rightly or wrongly, these people strongly believed that religion was essential to good government.
    As President John Adams put it:
    “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
    Framer Gouvernor Morris explained why: “Religion is the only solid Base of morals and Morals are the only possible Support of free governments.” On that basis, Morris called for education to “teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man to God.”
    The Continental Congress drafted the Articles of Confederation in 1777. They went into effect in 1781. Article II specified that Congress obtained only those powers and rights “expressly delegated” to it. The only express reference to religion was in Article III, which bound the Confederation to defend any state attacked “on account of religion….” But the Articles did state that “it has pleased the Great Governor of the world [God] to incline the hearts of the legislatures [represented by the drafters] to approve of, and to authorize [them] to ratify the said Articles….”
    Notwithstanding the absence of express authority to concern itself with religion, the Continental/Confederation Congress did so without objection. It promoted a nondenominational Christianity. In 1777 the Congress ordered 20,000 Holy Bibles for distribution among the states. It appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces (in a manner designed to prevent any denomination from monopolizing government patronage), granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians, and periodically proclaimed national days of thanksgiving and of “humiliation, fasting and prayer” as the Revolutionary War proceeded. In 1776, it called for the people, “by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, to appease [God’s] righteous displeasure, and through the merits of Jesus Christ, [to] obtain his pardon and forgiveness.” Six years later, it issued a Thanksgiving proclamation calling on the people “to testify their gratitude to God for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience to his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.” Earlier that year, it had officially recommended a Bible edition prepared by Robert Aitken (the first English language Bible published in North America) “to the inhabitants of the United States.”
    The First Congress envisioned an institutional separation of church and state, but it did not expect complete separation of church and state. The state was not to interfere with religion, but religion was expected to be part of public life. The First Congress resolved that the chaplain policy of the prior Congress be continued. It approved the First Amendment’s religious clauses to prohibit the establishment of a national church or the disestablishment of any church and to protect the right of conscience of all individuals, not to turn away from God and embrace secular humanism.
    In 1789 the First Congress also re-passed the Northwest Ordinance, originally adopted two years earlier under the Articles of Confederation. The first article of that ordinance set forth the guarantee of religious freedom that was intended under the First Amendment as well: “No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.” The third article expressly encouraged public schools, because “[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government and to the happiness of mankind.” Patently, religious freedom was conceived of as a shield for all peaceful people and not as a sword for any minority to use to block the government from recognizing God and supporting religion generally.
    In the mid nineteenth century, Congress considered a challenge to the constitutionality of the military chaplaincy. After careful study, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report explaining the establishment clause:
    “The clause speaks of ‘an establishment of religion.’ What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to the establishment which existed in the mother country; its meaning is to be ascertained by ascertaining what that establishment was. It was the connection with the state of a particular religious society, by its endowment, at public expense, in exclusion of, or in preference to, any other, by giving to is member’s exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship, or religious observances. These three particulars constituted that union of church and state of which our ancestors were so justly jealous, and against which they so wisely and carefully provided….”
    The report further stated that the Founders were “utterly opposed to any constraint upon the rights of conscience” and therefore they opposed the establishment of a religion in the same manner that the church of England was established. But, the Founders “had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people….They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of ‘atheistic apathy.’ Not so had the battles of the revolution been fought, and the deliberations of the revolutionary Congress conducted.”
    A similar House Judiciary Committee report explained that “an establishment of religion” was a term of art with a specific meaning:
    “What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man must believe; it must have rights and ordinances, which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive, and penalties for the nonconformist. There never was an establishment of religion without all these.”
    The person most likely to know what the First Amendment was intended to mean probably was George Washington, the Father of the Country, President of the Constitutional Convention and first President of the United States under the Constitution.
    In 1789, at the urging of Congress, President Washington issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation. It stated that “it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” There was no caveat to the effect that there was a higher duty to refrain if an atheist claimed that his or her sensibilities would be offended by such actions and he or she would feel like a second-class citizen.
    The joint purpose of Washington and the First Congress was “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:” The Pledge of Allegiance had not yet been written, but Washington and the First Congress obviously perceived the United States as a nation “under God.”
    Accordingly, Washington designated a day for devotion to God, acknowledged God as “that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be,” and called upon all Americans to “unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been able to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.”
    Washington and the First Congress would have been incredulous to learn that their actions ever would be considered to be unconstitutional. After all, the Constitution had been established to secure “the Blessings of Liberty” and the federal government was calling upon all Americans to “unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations” for the purpose of having God “pardon our national and other transgressions,” “enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually,” and “render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed” as well as “to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show[n] kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as H alone knows to be best.”
    In misinterpreting the establishment clause, the U.S. Supreme Court misused a statement by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter to a Baptist group that “the whole American people…declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” Jefferson’s much quoted statement has been misinterpreted as a prohibition against government acknowledging God and supporting religion generally instead of only a protection of churches from governmental interference. But the “wall of separation” that Jefferson contemplated was a wall that keeps government from interfering with religious freedom, not a wall that keeps any religious expression out of schools, courthouses and other public places. Jefferson’s own preamble to the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom explicitly acknowledged “Almighty God” as “the Holy Author of our religion” and “Lord both of body and mind.”
    Jefferson did not envision that the institutional separation he had in mind would ever be expanded to prohibit the United States from making reasonable accommodations to religion and recognizing God on its currency, in its courts or in its classrooms. Jefferson’s own actions as President demonstrate that his words were misinterpreted. As President, Jefferson attended voluntary and nondiscriminatory religious services held at the Capitol (as did President Madison). In 1803, Jefferson called on Congress to approve a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that provided for the United States to pay a Catholic missionary priest $100 a year. It was not an oversight. Jefferson later recommended two other Indian treaties with similar provisions. Jefferson also extended three times a pre-Constitution act that had designated lands “[f]or the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethen missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity.” If the U.S. Supreme Curt was right, then Jefferson himself repeatedly violated the establishment clause. But, as the House Judiciary Committee report set forth in detail, “an establishment of religion” requires much more.
    John Kerry is no George Washington or Thomas Jefferson either.
    Michael J. Gaynor
    95 Darrow Lane
    Greenlawn, New York 11740-2803
    (631) 757-9452 (tel)
    (631) 754-3437 (fax)
    GaynorMike@aol.com
    Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with “Comfort” than Christ?
    Jesus said: “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me” (Luke 9:23).
    The path of Jesus is not always a “comfortable” one.
    For decades, Roman Catholic priests in the United States have knowingly given Holy Communion to unrepentant, publicly known, nominally Catholic, pro-abortion politicians, out of misguided compassion, excessive political correctness, fear of losing the Church’s tax exemption and/or contributions from pro-abortion people, personal preference or ignorance.
    In doing so, they have disregarded, if not deliberately disobeyed, unambiguous canon law.
    On April 23, 2004, Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments, explained at a press conference in Rome that unrepentant pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians should be denied Communion. Cardinal Arinze put it succinctly: “If they should not receive, then they should not be given.” He was followeding the mandate of Canon 915, which specifies that “[t]hose…who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
    Nevertheless, Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the most prominent Catholic clergyman in the United States and chairman of the task force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, then declared that Cardinal Arinze had not really said what he said and he (Cardinal McCarrick) had “not gotten to the stage where [he’s] comfortable in denying the Eucharist.”
    There have been about 45,000,000 million abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade was decided more than thirty years ago. That’s approaching eight times the number of Jews slaughtered during the Holocaust.
    How many more unborn babies must die before Cardinal McCarrick achieves comfort?
    In 1995 then Archbishop of Newark McCarrick appeared comfortable with the concept of obeying canon law. He issued a soundly reasoned, elegantly written pastoral letter on penance. The kind of letter than indicated a promotion to Cardinal was in order.
    Cardinal McCarrick rightly wrote in that letter: “We know that anyone who is aware of having committed a grave sin may not receive Holy Communion, even if he or she experiences deep contrition, without having first received absolution in the Sacrament of Penance. This is true unless the person has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession, a situation which does not apply in the area of the Archdiocese of Newark. (Emphasis added.)
    Significantly, Cardinal McCarrick faithfully noted in his letter that abortion is a “grave” sin and a “crime against innocent life.” He asserted, too generously, that “[w]e all recognize that it is a grave evil to take an innocent human life” and astutely observed that “[w]e tend to find excuses.”
    Sadly, Cardinal McCarrick has found an excuse for the sin of disregarding Canon 915 and knowingly giving Communion to pro-abortion nominally Catholic politicans: personal uncomfortableness.
    The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, left no room for each bishop to adopt his own policy on giving and refusing Communion in Ecclesia de Eucharistia:
    “[I]n cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion.” (Emphasis added.)
    This was reiterated in Cardinal Ratzinger’s recent confidential memorandum to Cardinal McCarrick and Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on the “General Principles” with respect to “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.”
    In that memorandum, delivered as guidance for the meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops last month, Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 1981, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows:
    “1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).
    ”2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. […] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
    ”3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
    ”4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
    ”5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
    ”6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.”
    Cardinal McCarrick apparently neglected to provide a copy of Cardinal Ratzinger’s memorandum to his fellow bishops during their meeting last month and instead told them that what to do about nominally Catholic pro-abortion
    politicians seeking Communion was a discretionary matter for them to handle as they thought best.
    Instead of providing copies for each bishop to consider with due care, Cardinal McCarrick told his fellow United States bishops, in emphatic terms, that “Cardinal Ratzinger clearly leaves to us as teachers, pastors and leaders WHETHER to pursue this path” of denying Communion. “The question for us is not simply whether denial of Communion is possible, but whether it is pastorally wise and prudent,” Cardinal McCarrick said. The full text of Cardinal McCarrick’s speech to the bishops is posted at the bishops’ Web site, http://www.usccb.org.
    Cardinal McCarrick reported to the conference that their task force on politics believes “the battles for human life and dignity and for the weak and vulnerable should be fought not at the Communion rail, but in the public square.” He warned of “serious unintended consequences” in refusing Communion, including danger that faithful Catholic politicians who courageously stand for moral principles might be perceived as yielding to pressure from the Church hierarchy while “weak leaders who bend to the political winds…are perceived as courageous resisters of episcopal authority.”
    The “each bishop decides for his diocese” approach carried, with183 of 189 voting in favor.
    However, it is surely questionable, if not highly doubtful, that the bishops’ conference would have approved a policy of allowing each bishop to decide whether to give Communion to pro-choice politicians, as though canon law depends upon geography or whim, if they had been aware of Cardinal Ratzinger’s compelling conclusion that denial of Communion is obligatory “regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia.”
    The release of Cardinal Ratzinger’s memorandum to the media should prompt the United States bishops to reconsider their position as soon as possible instead of waiting for their next regularly scheduled meeting in November, AFTER the United States elections.
    Cardinal McCarrick commented, “From what I have heard, it may represent an incomplete and partial leak of a private communication from Cardinal Ratzinger, and it may not accurately reflect the full message I received.”
    But the memorandum was released in full and is unambiguous and consistent with what both Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Arinze have said.
    Cardinal McCarrick needs to follow Christ and canon law rather than coddle the powerful nominally Catholic pro-abortion politicians.
    As Archbishop Raymond L. Burke put it in his statement on Catholic Politicians and Bishops made on June 17, 2004: “Right reason…tells us that a bishop, if he truly cares for the flock, must admonish Catholic politicians ‘who choose to depart from church teaching on the inviolability of human life in their public life’ regarding ‘the consequences for their own spiritual well being, as well as the scandal they risk by leading others into serious sin’ (Living the Gospel of Life, No. 32).” In addition, “if the Catholic politician does not recognize the lack of the proper disposition to receive Communion, then the church herself must refuse the sacrament, in order to safeguard the worthy reception of the sacrament and to prevent a serious scandal among the faithful.”
    Because, in the words of Archbishop Burke: “For a bishop or any pastor to exclude someone from Communion is always a source of great sorrow….What would be profoundly more sorrowful would be the failure of a bishop to call a soul to conversion, the failure to protect the flock from scandal and the failure to safeguard the worthy reception of Communion.”
    Michael J. Gaynor
    95 Darrow Lane
    Greenlawn, New York 11740-2803
    (631) 757-9452 (tel)
    (631) 754-3437 (fax)
    GaynorMike@aol.com

11. For the other side — the side that disagrees with Justice Story’s account of separation of Church & State — see my post.

12. TERRIFIC ARTICLE! Thanks for sharing!! Do you mind if I share your article with some friends? (Don’t worry, I’ll include a link!)

13. God Bless you Michael Gaynor

14. John Kerry’s Heresy

    I think John Kerry should be forced to get off of that fence – he can’t be campaigning as a good Catholic boy and a follower of the Catholic faith, and at the same time voting against what the Catholic Church is teaching. Kerry’s made no secret of the …

15. God bless Marc Balestrieri. His labors may already have borne fruit, for it was just a few days after the heresy cause made the news, that Kerry declared that he believes life begins at conception.
    I suspect that some people are now considering careers as canonists thanks to Balestrieri’s publication of his well-researched brief, which exposed the intellectual richness of the obscure and ancient discipline.

16. So Mr. Balestrieri has been fired? Was he fired by a man named “Ciaphas” who said, “It is better that one man should die rather than the people” (Jn 18: 14)

17. While I’m not a Catholic, I am a strong believer in their faith and believe them to be good people. They know God, have faith in God, and believe in God’s word. I am one of the dwindling number who believes the Bible offers hints to many problems in life. Abortion and homosexuality are just two of the many things covered in that criteria. To be legally dead, ones heart must stop beating. Therefore, to be legally alive, shoudln’t your heart have to start? And in Romans 1, the very first chapter of this great book, Paul talks about homosexuality and how it is a sin. Why, with the biblical facts staring him in the face, can John Kerry not see how big of a heretic he is? The Bible says it is bad, but he says its good. Then he must believe that part of the bible is worng. If so, than how can he think the bible is without error (a fundamental element of the Catholic faith)?

Comments are closed.