Acting in his capacity as the head of the USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat, Cardinal George (Archbishop of Chicago) wrote President Obama a letter asking him to, in effect, go easy on the abortion-promoting initiatives that he has been promising.

Cardinal George(right) pictured with Pope Benedict XVI

Read the full letter and accompanying press release here.

The letter is well written and thoughtful and represents the thinking of the US Bishops. As such it is a good starting point for constantly reminding the new President that there is a large percentage of the population who do not approve of the measures he has been referring to and that his efforts at "bringing people together" would be significantly hampered were he to inflict upon America an abortion regime the likes of which has never been seen before.

Far from bringing people together, this would divide the country in an even more aggravated way than has been seen in the past. A new era is definitely upon us.

It's important that the Catholic Church in general become more involved in fixing our political system. In an age where principle is sacrificed for personal gain and corruption is celebrated and its practitioners promoted, it makes sense to organize people who are honest and morally ethical to challenge the prevailing system in order to advance the common good. Not because we are interested in one party over the other, but because we are interested in humanity, first and foremost.

Two things in particular need to happen here. 1) We need to make sure that the men and women who run for office are morally free from any taint or corruption. They must be honest, and live their lives with integrity and truly have a servant's heart. We must find these people and ask them to serve.

2) We must make sure that those who are in office actually advance the common good via the bills that the various legislatures around the country propose. Pressure must be brought to bear on these politicians to make sure they know that the people in their districts are watching and paying attention to every vote. And they will make their voices heard.

In the past few months, we have been receiving many inquiries from people indiciating their desire to do something about the tragedy of abortion in our land. They have told me that they are unhappy with the current efforts at ending abortion and want to be involved in an effort that makes this goal occur.

They are also overwhelmed by the corruption and scandal that daily lines the headlines of our newspapers and see the need to change it.

You CAN make a difference with CAT

In order to facilitate that growth and to make sure that the Catholic Church in Dallas has a powerful impact on public policy and the legislative process, we have started the Catholic Action Team (CAT), which will mobilize and educate Citizen Volunteers to be in touch with their elected officials, to visit with them and to pay attention to what they are doing. This personal touch, accompanied by the desire to restore integrity to our political system, represents our best chance of advancing the common good in a way that is consistent with what the Church teaches.

(Pro-life Texas State Senator Dan Patrick at Jan. 17's Roe Rally)

Our first CAT team training will take place on Saturday, January 31st at Thomas Aquinas Church in Dallas from 9:00 am - 1:00 pm. This training is free and it is for people of all ages. You do not have to be an expert in politics or the political system to attend.

For more information, visit us online at www.prolifedallas.org/CAT. Sign up for the training online as well.

Labels: Catholic Politicians, Politics, Texas Legislature

An article at www.nj.com gets it badly wrong about Catholics and voting in the upcoming election. They interview local Catholics and the answers we get our less than satisfactory.

For example, they interview Rev. Ronald J. Cioffi, director of the Office of Social Concerns for the Diocese of Trenton. He presented on the recent USCCB document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" and is quoted as saying "You may vote for a person who is pro-choice if you feel you have a moral reason to support the candidate for his stand on other issues."

Let us assume for the moment that the quote is an accurate one and is not taken out of context. Although this assumption is not something I would place too much on.

The problem is, in no place does Faithful Citizenship say such a thing. As a matter of fact, the document states clearly the opposite. In paragraphs 28 and 29, the Bishops warn about temptations in public life that misrepresent or abuse the weight of consideration due to each issue and specifically warn against "misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity."

No matter how many other issues there are, taken together they do not and cannot outweigh the moral gravity that is assigned to intrinsic evils. Our desire to work for social justice in other areas does not eliminate our obligation to oppose intrinsic evils. Paragraph 28 says "The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed." And the sheer numbers and the oppressiveness with which these intrinsic evils make their presence known play a part in prudential decision-making as well.

The second problem is that the use of a single sentence pulled out of the 42 page document and used as the sole criteria for helping people know who to vote for is misleading at best and dishonest at worst. Instead let's read the whole paragraph and put the concept in context:

35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

But what are these "grave moral reasons?" In order to find out, we need to continue reading the next paragraph:

36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

OK, clear enough. The problem resides in the fact that immoral laws already exist and the voter is faced with limited options. The voter can either not vote (an extraordinary step) or vote for the person who will cause the least damage, or conversely, do the most good. But how do we know which issues should be given the most weight in considering who to vote for. Let's keep reading:

37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.

Again, this is very clear. We are not called to be "single-issue" or "single-sentence" voters. We must take all of the issues into consideration, giving greater preference or pre-eminence to the intrinsically evil issues, and then make a prudential decision as to who is going to cause the greater good.

Labels: Politics

During the American Civil War, the Northern Army (the Union) under a succession of generals suffered a series of military defeats at the hands of General Robert E. Lee, who is widely considered one of the most effective generals America has ever produced. His campaigns are still studied in today's military academies.

One of the reasons Lee was so effective was because the northern Generals, one after another, were terrified of him and constantly worried about where he would show up next or what dramatic move he would pull. Their inability to accomplish anything was caused by their constant knee-jerk reaction to the slightest thing Lee did, or even seemed to do.

That is until Ulysses Grant was appointed General-in Chief of the Union Armies and took control of the Army of the Potomac, the army that directly faced Lee. Grant's staff drove him crazy with their constant concerns about what Lee would do next until finally exasperated, he said to them, "I'm sick of hearing about what Lee is going to do. From now on, we will only discuss what we are going to do and we will let him (Lee) worry about us."

It was a magic turn of events. From that point on it was Grant who held the upper hand and within 13 months he had forced Lee to surrender, marking the end of the war.

Labels: Politics

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City writes a succinct article on the political responsibility of Catholics especially as it relates to the life issues. This is good reading to prepare for the 2008 elections. The Archbishop also podcasts his regular column "Life Will be Victorious."

One thing to note: When the Archbishop talks about the tradition in the Church in America of clergy not running for office, it does not mean that the Church should have no voice at all in politics. Quite the opposite. All Christians should vigorously voice their opinions and get involved however they can in the political process.

Too many times we hear the mantra of "separation of church and state" and people back off, thinking that their involvement somehow violates a sacred and unalterable idea. Scared to continue further, they disengage from the political process and write it off as something that cannot be changed.

This of course is the goal of those who oppose the Church and all she stands for. The Second Vatican Council stated clearly though that the "the member who fails to make his proper contribution to the development of the Church must be said to be useful neither to the Church nor to himself." (Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, para. 2)

If the Church does not exist to be a leaven and to effect change in accord with the good of the human person, especially in the political realm, then she is no good at all. Politics has the ability to effect the good in a way that other institutions cannot and so demands an effort from the Church and her laity in a way that is not needed for other institutions.

Are you involved?

Labels: Politics