Catholic Child is told a Wise Maternal TRUTH

A subscriber "Sound Off" comment as just read under the Catholic World News "Diocesan lawyers continue to ban voting guides" article:

Those dioceses where "The Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" * has been banned reminds me of the story of the child present with his parents at the ordination of a bishop. During the rite, the child asked, "What are they doing to him [the ordinand]?" Mommy replied, "They're removing his spine."

* Get your FREE COPY here from "Catholic Answers"

Federal Election Laws Regarding Clergy & Churches

"Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to CONTEND earnestly for the Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" -- otherwise we may find we have no rights to our Faith at all. -- (Catholic Epistle of St. Jude, V 3.)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -- (The First Amendment of The Constitution of the United States of America.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Several of you guys are needlessly getting bent out of shape over my blogs. Keep your dog collars on! As much as I appreciate your concern for the status and welfare of our pastoral ministry, I assure you that I would not jeopardize it by misrepresenting myself. My editorializing does not place our Mission Apostolate at risk because I am writing and speaking on these moral and conscientious matters in a personal capacity as a Catholic priest, but NOT as the official spokesman of any church body. That disclaimer is stated up front within the mast head of my blog site.

All ordained clergy and pastors, as private individuals, have the same rights as all other American citizens to involve themselves in political activity. Clergy therefore have much greater latitude to involve themselves in political activities than does a church.

Pastors are concerned about the legal effects of political activity on themselves and their churches because churches are exempt from federal tax only so long as they do not intervene in political campaigns. Federal election law also places restrictions upon political activities regarding federal candidates by individuals and entities, particularly corporations, both profit and non-profit.

These rules summarize the requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Internal Revenue Code as they apply to churches and clergy. The scope of proper political activity varies from case to case, but the following guidelines are applicable in many cases. This synopsis should guide all pastors, clergymen and ministers regarding personal political activities which may relate to their church position:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. A pastor may individually and personally endorse candidates for political office.

2. A church may not endorse candidates for political office, and a pastor may not endorse candidates on behalf of the church.

3. A pastor may allow his name to be used as a supporter of a candidate in the candidate’s own political advertisements. In this connection, the pastor may be identified as pastor of a particular church, if it is indicated that this is for identification purposes only and if it is indicated that the endorsement is by the pastor personally and not by the church.

4. Churches may engage in non-partisan voter registration, voter identification, get out the vote, and voter education activities so long as such activities are not intended at the supporters of any particular candidate or political party.

5. A church may distribute a voter guide regarding candidates’ positions on various issues or a scorecard reporting on the voting records of incumbents. In such publications, the church or pastor may not state whether the candidate’s position or vote is consistent with the church’s.

6. A church or pastor may state the position of a candidate on any issue and may comment on that position (including praising or criticizing the candidate for it).

7. A church may allow political candidates to speak on church premises; however, all candidates should be invited and given equal opportunity to speak. A candidate should not be allowed to appeal to a church congregation at a church service for funds to be used in his political campaign and no member of the church should endorse a candidate in conjunction with the candidate’s visit.

8. Church facilities may be used by political candidates on the same basis that civic groups are allowed to. If civic groups are required to pay some rent for using the church property, a political candidate should be charged the same amount.

9. Lists of members of the church congregation may be provided to candidates for use in seeking support or raising funds, but only if rented at fair market value.

10. A church may not establish a political action committee.

11. Pastors and other like-minded individuals may establish a political action committee, but care should be taken that the committee is separate from the church and does not use the assets of the church.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[The guidelines in this abstract should NOT be misconstrued as legal advice regarding your particular situation. It is a brief overall conspectus ONLY. ]

Judicatories, churches and pastors may obtain FREE legal advice regarding their particular situation by contacting the 1.) James Madison Center for Free Speech, 1 South 6th Street, Terre Haute, IN 47807, voice 812-232-2434, fax 812-235-3685, www.jamesmadisoncenter.org, e-mail madisoncenter@aol.com. or the 2. ) Alliance Defense Fund, 15333 North Prima Road, Suite 165, Scottsdale, AZ 85260, www.alliancedefensefund.org.

PS: For those of you who asked, the closing motto on my blog site: "FAITH: • Sees the invisible • Believes the incredible • Receives the impossible!" is a loose scriptural paraphrase: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11.1.)

"Catholic" Kerry Choice. Is THIS What You Support?

The abortion issue shows the clearest distinctions between both of these 2004 Presidential candidates. Here’s a run-down of their record and a final voting booth check list….

Pro-life President George W. Bush has:
1. Signed the ban on partial-birth abortion,
2. Defended the same against court challenges,
3. Signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act,
4. Reinstituted the “Mexico City policy” (instituted by Pres. Ronald Reagan since 1984) that bars the used of U.S. foreign aid to promote abortions in other countries,
5. Denied federal funds to the U.N. Population Fund,
6. Nominated pro-life federal judges.

Pro-abortion (a.k.a. “pro-choice”) Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts has:
1. Voted six times against the partial-birth abortion ban,
2. Voted 92 out of 94 times against the positions taken by the National Right to Life Committee,
3. Compiled a 2% pro-life Congressional voting record in U.S. Senate since 1984,
4. Was a co-sponsor of the “Freedom of Choice Act”, which would have prohibited states from placing limits on abortion,
5. Opposes parental involvement in minors’ abortion decisions,
6. Has vowed to reverse the “Mexico City policy”,
7. Vows to “only appoint Supreme Court justices who will uphold a woman’s right to choose.”

Kerry’s Conflicting/Wavering/Dishonest “Catholicism”:
“I oppose abortion, personally, I don’t like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception.” (in an interview with the Dubuque (Iowa) Telegraph Herald four months ago)

However, in follow-up interviews, Kerry later said although he believed unborn children were “a form of life,” they were “not the form of life that takes personhood in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past.”

“My personal belief about what happens in, the fertilization process is a human being is first formed and created, and that when life begins.” Then he goes on to say that, “….Within weeks, you look and see the development of it, but that’s not a person yet, and it’s certainly not what somebody, in my judgment, ought to have the government of the United States intervening in.” (July 22, 2004 to ABC’s Peter Jennings & The Associated Press)

Will he even bother to read, let alone heed, the long-awaited catechism on Roman Catholic Church social teachings to be published this Oct. 25th by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace? (The “Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church” will be divided into three parts that present the foundations, contents and pastoral applications of Catholic social teachings.)

Pro-abortion Senator John Edwards of North Carolina has:

Since his 1998 election, Voted 11 out of 11 times against the National Right to Life Committee’s positions on abortion-related legislation.

BOTH Kerry & Edwards both got 100% approval ratings from pro-abortion organizations including NARAL, Pro-Choice America and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

Historical Presidential Influence on Abortion Policy via Power of “Checks & Balances” (President signs or vetoes Congressional legislation):

President Bill Clinton (in five executive orders on 1/22/93):
1. Reversed the moratorium on federally funded research involving the use of fetal tissue.
2. Reversed the ban on abortion counseling in federal family planning clinics.
3. Ordered a study of the ban on import of the French abortion pill, RU-486, for personal use.
4. Revoked the prohibition of abortions in military hospitals overseas.
5. Voided the Mexico City policy which had forbidden U.S. foreign aid funding of agencies promoting abortion.

Later in his administration, Clinton also vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act TWICE. (Congress failed to override his vetoes.) However, Pres. Bush successfully signed the life-saving legislation into law last November!

FUTURE Appointments to the United States Supreme Court:

Kerry has vowed that he will NOT appoint a Supreme Court justice who would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision on abortion! These Justices are likely to retire within the next four years:

1.) Associate Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, 2.) John Paul Stevens, 3.) Ruth Bader Ginsburg and 4.) Chief Justice William Rehinquist.

We know with certainty how Pres. George Bush stands. Therefore, the next president will have the power to determine if abortion remains legal for the next three decades.

From the Pastoral Moderator's Desk

Dear Readers.... I welcome your comments, criticisms, questions and suggestions. But why send me private E-mail to do so? There might be a better way. This is intended to be an interactive web site. So I'd appreciate it even more if you would take advantage of the "comments" link at the bottom of each blog and share your input with ALL our readers. Just click it -- then write at me. Edify and inspire us.

You could also choose to utilize the "Guest Book" site found in the right hand column for entering your remarks if they are of broader and more general nature. I've even arranged it so that your remarks can be posted anonymously at both locations, if that's your preference. Fulminate and vent to your heart's content. Jeremiads will also be entertained here. I might even reply. However, posts of a "flaming", slanderous, libelous, obscene or blasphemous nature will be deleted immediately and not even acknowledged. So don't even bother to waste your time and energy with them -- and I do get many of those.

Now let's be sociable and go public. (Or as our Anglican brethren would say, "totally in camera.") Those who have the courage of their convictions will have little problem with such openness. And if one does then they really shouldn't take issue with those of us who are out & about and don't. Now on with our "show 'n tell." Bring it on. Do it to it. Let's roll.

"He who is his own editor has a fool for a writer." - (Anonymous)

Holy Innocents Cry Out on All Souls ELECTION Day

[Photo shot on Rt. 38 last summer in Racine County, Wisconsin.]

It's fitting that this 2004 Presidential Election falls on All Souls Day. Hopefully, the 300 Million Catholics expected to vote (out of 600 Million nationwide) will hear the soulful pleas of 45 Million aborted innocents in the USA crying out for mercy and justice that day.

A Catholic and Orthodox Christian voter must realize that to vote for a pro-abortion/pro-choice politician in order to support their efforts to keep abortion legal is a grievous or MORTAL SIN! It is formal cooperation in an act that is intrinsically evil. And as Catholic Christians, we ALL have the obligation of helping each other to form our consciences correctly. Although 55% of all Catholics favor keeping abortion legal in some circumstances (and fewer then 10% supporting the criminalization of abortion in all circumstances), there is no latitude or “loop-hole” * on this core issue.

There will be two kinds of voters next month: 1.) intransigent George W. Bush supporters and 2.) those voting against his solid principles. The latter includes the Kerry collaborators who view their candidate as an alternative to the status quo. Unlike our President, J. F. Kerry has no loyal or stable base of his own, only a pack of lemmings rushing towards the crashing waves of his declamations. As they herd towards disaster, no vox populi or obloquy would suffice to characterize him in time. The masses seem blinded to the pointing facts that Kerry is a treacherous scoundrel. This bold-faced nithing is a Benedict Arnold to his country and a Judas to his faith; a quisling on both fronts of his life - the temporal and spiritual. There is no such thing as a “pro-choice Catholic.” That is a contradiction in terms.

Some errant Catholics are relenting to the fallacious reasoning that it’s okay to personally support the culture of life, but wrong to deny others a choice. They argue that they cannot impose their morality on other people. That thinking was reflected in John Kerry’s flawed logic and weak faith when he answered a question in the recent debates pertaining to his belief system possible conflicting with his “pro-choice” rationale. The answer he attempted indicated that he is unwilling to allow the moral principles of his supposed “Catholic Faith” to inform and/or influence his decisions and positions in public life.

And yet he has the unmitigated audacity and shameless gall to dare and approach the Holy Eucharist. He makes a complete mockery of God and legitimate Church authority by sacrilegiously receiving the Body of Christ in the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass. In doing so, “he eats and drinks to his own condemnation” (1 Cor. 11:20.) Religion can be personal, but NEVER private. Our ethos, credo and conscience must be reflected in our daily actions – which include the convictions upon which we vote.

Which also begs the question: What kind of deal did the catsup tycoon John F. Kerry make earlier this year in his private meeting with Theodore Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, DC -- The Dean of the American RC Bishops. Why did they all (except for a courageous few Bishops who were ostracized for doing so) wimp out and back down from denouncing his record, condemning this serial baby killer and barring him from receiving Holy Communion? He was never even reprimanded, not even a slap on the wrist. (Where are our stern sisters when we really need them?) Why is staying mum their only word? How did Kerry neutralize them? Did he castrate them while His Eminence held them down, and if so, was there ever anything there to cut off?

If they were real Churchmen then they would have pressed the issue, assembled as a fraternal collegiate body and excommunicated the reprobate en masse. It’s within their power and right. And it wouldn’t be considered “going over the boss’ head in Rome.” Instead, a mutual and silent understanding was “prudently” forged. -- DISGRACE!!! -– because effete “gentlemen” were playing back-room politics in an Arch-Episcopal Residence parlor and agreed to let the gory elephant escape so they wouldn’t get messed up or trampled upon. Meanwhile, democide continues in the hood while in the abortuories it’s big bloody business as usual…

And again I must reiterate my amazement and disappointment in our own ultrajectine tradition bishops who remain remiss in their duty. (Read 9/07/04, “Dutch Euthanasia” and “Utrecht Kills Babies – Where Are Our Bishops?”) To the best of my knowledge, NONE have taken a public teaching position on these issues (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research) during this election year. Only ONE, an exarch, had the guts to openly oppose a candidate, but [in my opinion] for the WRONG pro-life issue (which even the Pope reversed himself on last week.) They are a waste of good olive oil which would have been better off poured over a salad. They sin by cowardly omission. Shame on them, again.

But the people will be heard come this All Souls Day! I can only pray now that the Church Triumphant will avenge and assuage the Church Suffering by influencing the Church Militant here in America.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* CORRECTIVE NOTE: There were some who misinterpreted my Feast Day of St. Lawrence blog (8/10/04, Regarding the liberal Fr. Andrew M. Greeley of Chicago who supports pro-abortionist Kerry and contends that he found a canonical “loop-hole” to do so; “Liberal Catholic Maverick Priest Finds HOLE”) as inferring -- by quoting Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- that it is okay for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion Catholic candidate. That could be true under certain extenuating circumstances, however, His Eminence made explicit distinctions that some readers are missing and distorting.

The Cardinal clearly stated that whenever it comes to evaluating the positions of political leaders, “not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.” He adds that, “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

This means that a Catholic may vote for someone who does not have a pure pro-life stance ONLY IF the sole other option is voting for someone who favors all abortion. There could never be a proportionate reason to condone the direct killing of an innocent human being. This ethic is consistent. It’s ludicrous to think that Cardinal Ratzinger would endorse voting for a pro-death candidate. I apologize and stand corrected if my glib sarcasm and disgust for this recreant modornist priest gave you the wrong impression. There is no moral uncertainty or ever any possibility of legitimate debate regarding the abortion issue.

Decide Your Own BLOOD GUILT this Election Day!

According to an October 11th article in The Weekly Standard, John Kerry is financially supported by some of the most notorious late-term abortionists (including Martin Haskell, George Tiller & Warren Hern -- whom I refuse to call “doctor”) and is in cahoots with them. Haskell has contributed $2,000. in blood money to Kerry’s campaign. One of his former nurses described him in action…

“I stood at the doctor’s side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby’s heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby’s body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby’s body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet.”

“The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby’s head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp.”

John Kerry is an accessory to these murders. For two decades, he has ALWAYS voted pro-abortion while in the U.S. Senate – even for partial-birth abortion as described above. Will you be one of his enablers this All Souls Day Presidential Election? If so then you will share his BLOOD GUILT for over one million abortions in this country each year!

“The world is a dangerous place to be not because of the people who do evil, but because of the people who stand by and let them.” – (Albert Einstein)

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” – (Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)