A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters

Folks, sadly there is much confusion out there among Catholic voters as to their responsibility in the upcoming November Presidential election. The following is a short explanation from the EWTN website in an easy-to-read "Q and A" format. The one matter that is undeniable is that we all have a moral obligation to faithfully form our consciences so that we are equipped to make proper moral choices in the upcoming election. That is for certain. The Catholic Church does not tell us WHO to vote for, but instead, it educates us as to the issues we MUST consider if we are to vote as faithful Catholics. I therefore offer the following simply as an aid to assist all of us as we struggle with the very involved, yet extremely serious issues that confront our nation and our society today.

A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters
Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD

1. Isn’t conscience the same as my own opinions and feelings? And doesn’t everyone have the right to his or her own conscience?

Conscience is NOT the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience cannot be identical with your feelings because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or future, while your feelings come from another part of your soul and should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature and is identical with the Ten Commandments. Unlike the civil laws made by legislators, or the opinions that you hold, the natural moral law is not anything that you invent, but rather discover within yourself and is the governing norm of your conscience. In short, Conscience is the voice of truth within you, and your opinions need to be in harmony with that truth. As a Catholic, you have the benefit of the Church’s teaching authority or Magisterium endowed upon her by Christ. The Magisterium assists you and all people of good will in understanding the natural moral law as it relates to specific issues. As a Catholic, you have the obligation to be correctly informed and normed by the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. As for your feelings, they need to be educated by virtue so as to be in harmony with conscience’s voice of truth. In this way, you will have a sound conscience, according to which we you will feel guilty when you are guilty, and feel morally upright when you are morally upright. We should strive to avoid the two opposite extremes of a lax conscience and a scrupulous conscience. Meeting the obligation of continually attending to this formation of conscience will increase the likelihood that, in the actual operation or activity of conscience, you will act with a certain conscience, which clearly perceives that a given concrete action is a good action that was rightly done or should be done. Being correctly informed and certain in the actual operation of conscience is the goal of the continuing formation of conscience. Otherwise put, you should strive to avoid being incorrectly informed and doubtful in the actual judgment of conscience about a particular action or omission. You should never act on a doubtful conscience.

2. Is it morally permissible to vote for all candidates of a single party?

This would depend on the positions held by the candidates of a single party. If any one or more of them held positions that were opposed to the natural moral law, then it would not be morally permissible to vote for all candidates of this one party. Your correctly informed conscience transcends the bounds of any one political party.

3. If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate?

If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a “disqualifying issue.” A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. You must sacrifice your feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate in any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human rights. A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for. You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights. Key to understanding the point above about “disqualifying issues” is the distinction between policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally acceptable goal. For example, in a society’s effort to distribute the goods of health care to its citizens, there can be legitimate disagreement among citizens and political candidates alike as to whether this or that health care plan would most effectively accomplish society’s goal. In the pursuit of the best possible policy or strategy, technical as distinct (although not separate) from moral reason is operative. Technical reason is the kind of reasoning involved in arriving at the most efficient or effective result. On the other hand, no policy or strategy that is opposed to the moral principles of the natural law is morally acceptable. Thus, technical reason should always be subordinate to and normed by moral reason, the kind of reasoning that is the activity of conscience and that is based on the natural moral law.

4. If I have strong feelings or opinions in favor of a particular candidate, even if he is pro-abortion, why may I not vote for him?

As explained in question 1 above, neither your feelings nor your opinions are identical with your conscience. Neither your feelings nor your opinions can take the place of your conscience. Your feelings and opinions should be governed by your conscience. If the candidate about whom you have strong feelings or opinions is pro-abortion, then your feelings and opinions need to be corrected by your correctly informed conscience, which would tell you that it is wrong for you to allow your feelings and opinions to give lesser weight to the fact that the candidate supports a moral evil.

5. If I may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, then should it not also be true that I can’t vote for a pro-capital punishment candidate?

It is not correct to think of abortion and capital punishment as the very same kind of moral issue. On the one hand, direct abortion is an intrinsic evil, and cannot be justified for any purpose or in any circumstances. On the other hand, the Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor may resort to the death penalty if no other means of defense is sufficient. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is “rare, if not virtually nonexistent.” Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a “rare” case arises that warrants the death penalty. Moreover, if such a rare case does arise and requires resorting to capital punishment, this societal act of self-defense would be a *morally good action* even if it does have the unintended and unavoidable evil effect of the death of the aggressor. Thus, unlike the case of abortion, it would be morally irresponsible to rule out all such “rare” possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately.

6. If I think that a candidate who is pro-abortion has better ideas to serve the poor, and the pro-life candidate has bad ideas that will hurt the poor, why may I not vote for the candidate that has the better ideas for serving the poor?

Serving the poor is not only admirable, but also obligatory for Catholics as an exercise of solidarity. Solidarity has to do with the sharing of both spiritual and material goods, and with what the Church calls the preferential option for the poor. This preference means that we have the duty to give priority to helping those most needful, both materially and spiritually. Beginning in the family, solidarity extends to every human association, even to the international moral order. Based on the response to question 3 above, two important points must be made. First, when it comes to the matter of determining how social and economic policy can best serve the poor, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches proposed, and therefore legitimate disagreement among voters and candidates for office. Secondly, solidarity can never be at the price of embracing a “disqualifying issue.” Besides, when it comes to the unborn, abortion is a most grievous offense against solidarity, for the unborn are surely among society’s most needful. The right to life is a paramount issue because as Pope John Paul II says it is “the first right, on which all the others are based, and which cannot be recuperated once it is lost.” If a candidate for office refuses solidarity with the unborn, he has laid the ground for refusing solidarity with anyone.

7. If a candidate says that he is personally opposed to abortion but feels the need to vote for it under the circumstances, doesn’t this candidate’s personal opposition to abortion make it morally permissible for me to vote for him, especially if I think that his other views are the best for people, especially the poor?

A candidate for office who says that he is personally opposed to abortion but actually votes in favor of it is either fooling himself or trying to fool you. Outside of the rare case in which a hostage is forced against his will to perform evil actions with his captors, a person who carries out an evil action  such as voting for abortion  performs an immoral act, and his statement of personal opposition to the moral evil of abortion is either self-delusion or a lie. If you vote for such a candidate, you would be an accomplice in advancing the moral evil of abortion. Therefore, it is not morally permissible to vote for such a candidate for office, even, as explained in questions 3 and 6 above, you think that the candidate’s other views are best for the poor.

8. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life?

As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), “…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.

9. What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win?

In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition, the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in question 8 above.

10. What if all the candidates from whom I have to choose are pro-abortion? Do I have to abstain from voting at all? What do I do?

Obviously, one of these candidates is going to win the election. Thus, in this dilemma, you should do your best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm. However, as explained in question 5 above, you should not place a candidate who is pro-capital punishment (and anti-abortion) in the same moral category as a candidate who is pro-abortion. Faced with such a set of candidates, there would be no moral dilemma, and the clear moral obligation would be to vote for the candidate who is pro-capital punishment, not necessarily because he is pro-capital punishment, but because he is anti-abortion.

11. Is not the Church’s stand that abortion must be illegal a bit of an exception? Does not the Church generally hold that government should restrict its legislation of morality significantly?

The Church’s teaching that abortion should be illegal is not an exception. St. Thomas Aquinas put it this way: “Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.” [ emphasis added]. Abortion qualifies as a grievous vice that hurts others, and the lack of prohibition of this evil by society is something by which human society cannot be maintained. As Pope John Paul II has emphasized, the denial of the right to life, in principle, sets the stage, in principle, for the denial of all other rights.

12. What about elected officials who happen to be of the same party affiliation? Are they committing a sin by being in the same party, even if they don’t advocate pro-choice views? Are they guilty by association?

Being of the same political party as those who advocate pro-abortion is indeed a serious evil IF I belong to this political party IN ORDER TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF with that party’s advocacy of pro-abortion policies. However, it can also be true that being of such a political party has as its purpose to change the policies of the party. Of course, if this is the purpose, one would have to consider whether it is reasonable to think the political party’s policies can be changed. Assuming that it is reasonable to think so, then it would be morally justifiable to remain in that political party. Remaining in that political party cannot be instrumental in the advancing of pro-abortion policies (especially if I am busily striving to change the party’s policies) as can my VOTING for candidates or for a political party with a pro-abortion policy.

13. What about voting for a pro-abortion person for something like state treasurer, in which case the candidate would have no say on matters of life in the capacity of her duties, it just happens to be her personal position. This would not be a sin, right?

If someone were running for state treasurer and that candidate made it a point to state publicly that he was in favor of exterminating people over the age of 70, would you vote for him? The fact that the candidate has that evil in his mind tells you that there are easily other evils in his mind; and the fact that he would publicly state it is a danger signal. If personal character matters in a political candidate, and personal character involves the kind of thoughts a person harbors, then such a candidate who publicly states that he is in favor of the evil of exterminating people over the age of 70 - or children who are unborn - has also disqualified himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. I would go further and say that such a candidate, in principle - in the light of the natural law - disqualifies himself from public office.

14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.

COPYRIGHT © 2002Stephen F. Torraco

http://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

Sarah Palin - Sen. John McCain's Vice Presidential Running Mate

Sarah Louise Heath Palin (born February 11, 1964):

Sen. John McCain has chosen the current Governor of Alaska as his Vice Presidential running mate for the November 2008 election! Here are some highlights:

+ Palin was the head of her high school's Fellowship of Christian Athletes and she would lead the team in prayer before games

+ Her eighteen-year-old son Track, eldest of five, joined the Army presently serving in an infantry brigade and will be deployed to Iraq in September

+ On April 18, 2008, Palin gave birth to her second son, Trig Paxson Van Palin, who has Down syndrome. Palin refused to let the results of prenatal genetic testing change her decision to have the baby, and commented that, "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection." "Trig is beautiful and already adored by us," said Palin on the day after her son's birth. "We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives. We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed."

+ Palin is strongly Pro-Life and belongs to Feminists for Life

+ In November of last year Palin lambasted a decision by the Alaskan Supreme Court that permitted under age girls to obtain abortions without parental consent. Palin called the decision “outrageous” and instructed Alaska's Attorney General to file a petition for a rehearing.

+ She opposes same-sex marriage

+ Palin supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. In 1998, Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

+ And the number one reason to vote for McCain/Palin . . . Sarah Palin is a hockey mom!!!

Madam Speaker Pelosi - Thou Hast Spoken Too Much and Not Studied Enough!

"So when does a baby get human rights Speaker Pelosi?"

Her BOLD reply on Meet the Press (8/24/08):
"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time."

Oh really? Anyone who knows the teachings of the Catholic Church is well aware that her following further response proves that she needs to hit the books for real this time:

"And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."

Oh yeah, it definitely got worse:

MR. BROKAW: "The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it..."
REP. PELOSI: "I understand that."
MR. BROKAW: "...begins at the point of conception."
REP. PELOSI: "I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions."

So now we have politicians who rant and rave about separation of church and state claiming to be theologians! (Oh I'm sorry, I meant that she "studied the issue for a long time!")

So what do the Bishops (a.k.a. - "teachers") of the Roman Catholic Church have to say on the topics of abortion and receiving Holy Communion?

Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl (Archdiocese of Washington D.C.) -
"In a release issued Monday night, Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl said Pelosi's comments on 'Meet the Press' on Sunday 'were incorrect.' Wuerl noted that Pelosi responded to a question on when life begins by mentioning she was Catholic.The release quoted Pelosi as saying the church has not been able to come with a definition of when life begins. 'After Mr. Tom Brokaw, the interviewer, pointed out that the Catholic Church feels strongly that life begins at conception, she replied, "understand. And this is, like, maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy," ' the release said.Wuerl strongly disagrees.He said, 'We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record.'Wuerl pointed out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear, and has been clear for 2,000 years. He cited Catechism language that reads, 'Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception … Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.'" http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/archbishop-pelosis-comments-on-abortion-are-false-2008-08-25.html

Archbishop Charles Chaput (Archdiocese of Denver) -
"A leading Catholic bishop delivered the opening statement of the quadrennial debate over whether or not pro-abortion Catholic politicians should receive communion. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver says Barack Obama's running mate Joe Biden should refrain from the sacrament.
Biden is a pro-abortion Catholic and has a long voting record of supporting abortion and opposing any sensible limits on it.
In an email sent Sunday to the Associated Press, Archbishop Chaput said Biden should following the teachings of the Church by opposing abortion or voluntarily refrain from receiving communion.
Not doing so would be 'seriously wrong,' he said.
'I certainly presume his good will and integrity and I presume that his integrity will lead him to refrain from presenting himself for Communion if he supports a false "right" to abortion,' the Catholic leader added.
Chaput told AP he would likely try to speak privately with Biden to encourage him to reform his abortion views or not receive the sacrament." http://www.lifenews.com/nat4200.html

Archbishop Raymond Burke (former St. Louis Archbishop -- now the prefect of the Vatican's Apostolic Signature) -
"In the new comments, Archbishop Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Apostolic Signature, said all Catholics -- but especially politicians -- should not receive communion.
Archbishop Burke also issued a challenge to ministers to make sure they are not providing the sacrament to pro-abortion lawmakers who have not repented from their position, which is at odds with the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church.
Communion should be denied to pro-abortion politicians 'until they have reformed their lives,' he said, in the interview with Radici Christiane magazine.
'Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is a sacrilege,' he warned. 'If it is done deliberately in mortal sin it is a sacrilege.'
Archbishop Burke discussed 'public officials who, with knowledge and consent, uphold actions that are against the Divine and Eternal moral law.'
'For example, if they support abortion, which entails the taking of innocent and defenseless human lives. A person who commits sin in this way should be publicly admonished in such a way as to not receive Communion until he or she has reformed his life,' he told the publication.
Burke said not denying communion makes a bad witness to other Catholics and the public.
'If we have a public figure who is openly and deliberately upholding abortion rights and receiving the Eucharist, what will the average person think?' he explained. 'He or she could come to believe that it up to a certain point it is okay to do away with an innocent life in the mother’s womb.'
The Vatican official said the intent of the communion denial is more about spiritual than political issues.
'It is not with the intention of interfering in public life but rather in the spiritual state of the politician or public official who, if Catholic, should follow the divine law in the public sphere as well,' he said.
'Therefore, it is simply ridiculous and wrong to try to silence a pastor, accusing him of interfering in politics so that he cannot do good to the soul of a member of his flock,' he said as a warning to media outlets and abortion advocates who criticize them.
Moreover, Burke added, 'If a person who has been admonished persists in public mortal sin and attempts to receive Communion, the minister of the Eucharist has the obligation to deny it to him. Why? Above all, for the salvation of that person, preventing him from committing a sacrilege.'" http://www.lifenews.com/int886.html

Cardinal Edward Egan (Archdiocese of New York) -
"Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.
We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being 'chooses' to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name." http://www.archny.org/news-events/news-press-releases/index.cfm?i=8803

Cardinal Justin Rigali (Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Chairman of the U.S. Bishops Committee on Pro-Life Activities) and Bishop William Lori (Diocese of Bridgeport and Chairman of the U.S. Bishops Committee on Doctrine) -
"Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U. Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William Lori, chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, said her answer 'misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.' They noted that the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, 'Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.' And the prelates explained: 'In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church's moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.' These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church teaches that from the time of conception -- fertilization -- each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life." http://www.zenit.org/article-23474?l=english

And here's what the Catholic League recently had to say, "Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: 'Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.' It also says, 'teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.' Looks like Pelosi didn’t study the subject long enough. But not to worry: We are sending her a copy of Catholicism for Dummies today (the Catechism is like maybe a bit advanced).
Whether Joe Biden is as ignorant of what his religion teaches remains to be seen. What is not in doubt is the enthusiasm which NARAL showed when he was selected to join the ticket. The radical pro-abortion group was delighted, as were the radical pro-abortion delegates to the Democratic convention: as reported in today’s New York Times, 64 percent of Americans reject abortion-on-demand, yet only 23 percent of the delegates do. It is only fitting, then, that NARAL’s president will speak today at the Convention and Planned Parenthood’s president will speak tomorrow.
So there we have it: the man running for president on the Democratic ticket supports selective infanticide, his running mate is a pro-abortion Catholic, the delegates are wildly out of step with Americans on abortion and the Speaker of the House hasn’t a clue what her religion teaches on the subject."

And these people are leading or are seeking to lead our country! God save us all!

Catholics Who Support Abortion Should Not Receive Holy Communion

As usual, another well-reasoned explanation from Archbishop Raymond Burke (see article below). When one receives the Most Holy Eucharist, they respond "Amen!" Their response is a very public statement that they fully understand and agree that they are receiving the very body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ in the hidden form of the consecrated host. They are actually publicly proclaiming that they would stake their very life on the fact of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

How can one "ask for" and receive Christ into their very body while at the same time believing that it is acceptable to terminate the very innocent, lives which God Himself created? What could possibly be their purpose in even desiring to receive Christ while at the very same time slapping Him across the face? Do they not see the incredible hypocrisy of their actions? Do they not see the scandal that they are causing to other more impressionable faithful who may see their conduct and conclude, "well I guess it's not really Jesus if someone who believes in abortion receives communion." Do they not see the eternal damage that they cause to their own soul and to the souls of others?

It is almost as though such people are saying that "it must not be that bad for me to believe in abortion because I still go to Church and go to communion." It's as if they are playing a "weighing game" with God! The problem is that if their sin meets all of the criteria of a mortal sin, they have chosen to separate themselves from any relationship with God. If they die in that state, they can never have a relationship with God in eternity. It matters not at that point how many times they attended Mass and went up to receive communion (unworthily and sacrilegiously I might add).

All of this is why Archbishop Burke emphasizes that the priest, deacon, or extraordinary minister of holy communion MUST deny the Eucharist to anyone who is publicly in this state. It is always a matter of the salvation of souls! To knowingly participate in anything that would cause another to not be saved is likewise disastrous for the participating party. This is serious stuff folks!

Catholics who support abortion should not receive Communion, says Archbishop Burke
Rome, August 19 (CNA).-The prefect of the Apostolic Signature, Archbishop Raymond Burke, said this week that Catholics, especially politicians who publicly defend abortion, should not receive Communion, and that ministers of Communion should be responsibly charitable in denying it to them if they ask for it, "until they have reformed their lives."
In an interview with the magazine, Radici Christiane, Archbishop Burke pointed out that there is often a lack of reverence at Mass when receiving Communion. "Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is a sacrilege," he warned. "If it is done deliberately in mortal sin it is a sacrilege."
To illustrate his point, he referred to "public officials who, with knowledge and consent, uphold actions that are against the Divine and Eternal moral law. For example, if they support abortion, which entails the taking of innocent and defenseless human lives. A person who commits sin in this way should be publicly admonished in such a way as to not receive Communion until he or she has reformed his life," the archbishop said.
"If a person who has been admonished persists in public mortal sin and attempts to receive Communion, the minister of the Eucharist has the obligation to deny it to him. Why? Above all, for the salvation of that person, preventing him from committing a sacrilege," he added.
"We must avoid giving people the impression that one can be in a state of mortal sin and receive the Eucharist," the archbishop continued. "Secondly, there could be another form of scandal, consisting of leading people to think that the public act that this person is doing, which until now everyone believed was a serious sin, is really not that serious - if the Church allows him or her to receive Communion."
"If we have a public figure who is openly and deliberately upholding abortion rights and receiving the Eucharist, what will the average person think? He or she could come to believe that it up to a certain point it is okay to do away with an innocent life in the mother's womb," he warned.
Archbishop Burke also noted that when a bishop or a Church leader prevents an abortion supporter from receiving Communion, "it is not with the intention of interfering in public life but rather in the spiritual state of the politician or public official who, if Catholic, should follow the divine law in the public sphere as well."
"Therefore, it is simply ridiculous and wrong to try to silence a pastor, accusing him of interfering in politics so that he cannot do good to the soul of a member of his flock," he stated.
It is "simply wrong" to think that the faith must be reduced to the private sphere and eliminated from public life, Archbishop Burke said, encouraging Catholics "to bear witness to our faith not only in private in our homes but also in our public lives with others in order to bear strong witness to Christ."

Pittsburgh "Firsts"

First Heart, Liver, Kidney Transplant - December 3, 1989. The first simultaneous heart, liver and kidney transplant was done at Presbyterian-University Hospital .

The First Internet Emoticon - 1980 . The Smiley :-) was the first Internet emoticon, created in 1980 by Carnegie Mellon University computer scientist Scott Fahlman.

First Robotics Institute - 1979. The Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University was established in 1979 to conduct basic and applied research in robotics technologies relevant to industrial and societal tasks. The college is still working on Robots ~~ in fact it is their robots used in the unmanned air craft that fly over Iraq .

First Mr. Yuk Sticker - 1971. Mr. Yuk was created at the Poison Center at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh after research indicated that the skull and crossbones previously used to identify poisons had little meaning to the children of today (for most children it means exciting things like pirates and adventure). Covering 27 counties and 33 percent of Pennsylvania 's population, the Pittsburgh Poison Center at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh is the largest such center in the United States .

First Night World Series Game - 1971. Game 4 of the 1971 World Series was the first night game in Series history. Pittsburgh tied the series in that game with a 4-3 win and went on to win the series, 4 games to 3. This was one of the last big moments in the career of well-loved Pirate, Roberto Clemente. Fourteen and a half months after the 1971 World Series, he died in a plane crash off the coast of his native Puerto Rico as he attempted to take food, clothing and medical supplies to earthquake victims in Nicaragua .

First Big Mac - 1967. Created by Jim Delligatti at his Uniontown McDonald's, the Big Mac debuted and was test marketed in three other Pittsburgh-area McDonald's restaurants in 1967... Bellevue and Butler . By 1968 it was a mainstay on McDonald's menus throughout the country and eventually, the world.

First Pull-Tab on Cans - 1962. The pull-tab was developed by Alcoa and was first used by Iron City Brewery in 1962 For many years, pull-tabs were only used in this area.

First Retractable Dome - September 1961. Pittsburgh 's Civic Arena boasts the world's first auditorium with a retractable roof. This is still being used although the Hockey team wants to tear it down and build a new building.

First U.S. Public Television Station - WQED - April 1, 1954. WQED, operated by the Metropolitan Pittsburgh educational Station, was the first community-sponsor e d educational television station in America and was also the first to telecast classes to elementary schools (1955).

First Polio Vaccine - March 26, 1953. The polio vaccine was developed by Dr. Jonas E. Salk, a 38-year-old University of Pittsburgh researcher and professor, and his staff at the University of Pittsburgh .

First All-Aluminum Building - ALCOA - August 1953. The first aluminum-faced skyscraper was the Alcoa Building , a 30-story, 410 foot structure with thin stamped aluminum panels forming the exterior walls. (This building is still being used today.)

First Zippo Lighter - 1932. George G. Blaisdell invented the Zippo lighter in 1932 in Bradford , Pennsylvania . Although hardly a community "in the surrounding area," you can even find the name of the manufacturing location, either Bradford or Niagara Falls , stamped on the bottom of every Zippo lighter. The name Zippo was chosen by Blaisdell because he liked the sound of the word "zipper" - which was patented around the same time in nearby Meadville , PA.

First Bingo Game - early. Hugh J. Ward first came up with the concept of bi ngo in Pittsburgh and began running the game at carnivals in the early 1920's, taking it nationwide in 1924. He secured a copyright on the game and wrote a book of Bingo rules in 1933.

First U.S. Commercial Radio Station - KDKA - November 2, 1 920. Dr. Frank Conrad, assistant chief engineer of Westinghouse Electric, first constructed a transmitter and installed it in a garage near his home in Wilkinsburg in 1916. The station was licensed as 8XK. At 6 PM. on Nov. 2, 1920, 8KX became KDKA Radio and began broadcasting at 100 watts from a makeshift shack atop one of the Westinghouse manufacturing buildings in East Pittsburgh . (The station is now KDKA.)

The First Gas Station - December, 1913. In 1913, the first automobile service station, built by Gulf Refining Company, opened in Pittsburgh at Baum Boulevard and St. Clair Street in East Liberty . It was designed by J. H. Giesey.

The First Baseball Stadium in the U.S. - 1909. In 1909 the first baseball stadium, Forbes Field, was built in Pittsburgh , followed soon by similar stadiums in Chicago , Cleveland , Boston , and New York . Forbes Field closed in 1970 when Three Rivers Stadium opened. PNC Park is the newest replacement, opening in 2001.

First Motion Picture Theater - 1905. The first theater in the world devoted to the exhibition of motion pictures was the "Nickelodeon," opened by Harry Davis on Smithfield Street in Pittsburgh .

First Banana Split - 1904. The banana split was invented by Dr. David Strickler, a pharmacist, at Strickler's Drug Store in Latrobe , Pennsylvania .

The First World Series - 1903. The Boston Pilgrims defeated the Pittsburgh Pirates five games to three in baseball's first modern World Series in 1903. The Pirates lost the final game 4-3, before a crowd of 7,455 in Boston . Four of the series' games were played in Pittsburgh .

First Ferris Wheel - 1892/1893. The first Ferris Wheel, invented by Pittsburgh native and civil engineer, George Washington Gale Ferris (1859-1896) was in operation at the World's Fair (Columbian Exposition) in Chicago . It was over 264 feet high and was capable of carrying more than 2,000 passengers at a time.

Long-Distance Electricity - 1885. Westi nghouse Electric developed alternating current, allowing long-distance transmission of electricity for the first time.

First Air Brake - 1869. The first practical air brake for railroads was invented by George Westinghouse in the 1860's and patented in 1869. In the same year he organized the Westinghouse Air Brake Company. With additional automatic features incorporated into its design, the air brake became widely accepted, and the Railroad Safety Appliance Act of 1893 made air brakes compulsory on all American trains.

The STEELERS were purchased by Art Rooney Sr. for $2500...they were originally the Canton Bu lldogs. They are the first team to win four super bowls, now five after six appearances, and the first team to get in the playoffs as a wild card and go all the way to win the Super Bowl.

The Pittsburgh Rens played basketball at the Civic Arena but are no longer in existence.

The Rolling Stones came to Pittsburgh first and played at West View Park Danceland. It cost 50 cents. They were considered too weird and went back to England and came back after the Beatles broke the ice.

Pelosi - "Catholic" in name only!

Pelosi thumbs her nose at marriage, at the basic right-to-life, at the teachings of the Church, yet still calls herself "Catholic." Her degree of arrogance and self-righteousness is simply amazing! Check out this drivel as reported by LifeSiteNews.com:

House Speaker Pelosi Vows to Kill Defense of Marriage Act and Still Receive Communion

Pelosi relieved no bishop has had the courage to call her to account for her strong abortion advocacy

By Peter J. Smith
SAN FRANCISCO, August 5, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has vowed to join Barack Obama's new crusade to kill the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and promises to continue to fortify herself with Holy Communion from the Catholic Church for the campaign.

Pelosi told reporters at a press conference last Thursday that she plans to support Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in his effort to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, should the American people elevate him to the presidency.

The Culture and Media Institute reports that Pelosi responded with a firm "yes" that she would lead the next Congress to repeal DOMA, which currently prevents same-sex couples who "marry" in either California or Massachusetts from suing and forcing states to repudiate their bans on homosexual "marriage."

As the Catholic Speaker pledged to knock out one of the remaining props of real marriage in the United States, Pelosi also told C-SPAN that she is thankful still to receive communion while crusading against all pro-life attempts to restrict or eliminate legal abortion.

In a C-SPAN interview released on Sunday, Pelosi explained that while other US politicians have had problems from their bishops denying them communion over abortion, she has continued to receive without any difficulty.

"I think some of it is regional," Pelosi stated. "It depends on the bishop of a certain region and fortunately for me, communion has not been withheld."
She added, "I'm a regular communicant so that would be a severe blow to me if that were the case."
Pelosi is a Catholic whose legislative district is within the Archdiocese of San Francisco, led by Archbishop George Niederauer. However, Pelosi receives communion often in the Washington Archdiocese led by Archbishop Donald Weurl.

Many faithful Catholics have been appalled that neither Church leader has given any public rebuke to Pelosi, who wears her Catholic identity on her sleeve and claims it is compatible with her pro-abortion positions. The Speaker has gone so far as to say in her new book, "Know Your Power" that her parents "didn't raise me to be Speaker, they raised me to be holy."

To contact the Archbishop of San Francisco:
Most Reverend George Niederauer

1 Peter Yorke Way

San Francisco, CA 94109
Tele: (415) 614-5500

Email: info@sfarchdiocese.org

To contact the Archbishop of Washington:
Most Reverend Donald W. Wuerl

Archdiocese of Washington

P.O. Box 29260

Washington, DC 20017-0260
Tele: (301) 853-4500

"ed" - A good example of the immaturity and common disrespectfulness of Prof. Myers' supporters.

There is a saying that "for some people it is a good idea to keep your mouth shut instead of opening it up and proving your ignorance."

Ever since the U. of Minn. professor P.Z. Myers started his own immature, adolescent, disrespectful and hate-filled attack on Catholics, I have followed the comments of his supporters on his blog. I was not at all surprised by the similar drivel from those who are like-minded to the hate-filled Prof. Myers. However, many of Myers' groupies haven't been content with writing their comments on his blog, but they have felt compelled to take their immature comments and personal attacks to faithful Catholic's blogs. I know because I have read some of those blogs and because several have attempted to leave such comments on this blog.

By way of example, one such attempted poster who goes by "ed," has left the following requested comments on my blog:
1. "It's just a cracker."
2. "boo hoo"
3. "How did that work out for ya? Did your fragile god heal up, oh wait he's make believe and it's just a cracker after all!"

Folks, when you're disputing an issue with someone, the best evidence of the weakness of the other side's position is when they are forced to abandon all reasonable and rational discourse and instead engage in ad hominen attacks on the other person. A review of the comments of "ed" and many other supporters of Myers, makes it abundantly clear that they never even attempted to employ reason, intelligence and a rational approach to very serious issues.

I respect their right to be athiests. However, they have no right to be disrespectful and to fail to show common decency to one's fellow man. One would think that a professor in a major university would be interested ("required?") in giving good example to his students as to how one engages in respectful, intellectual discourse with one's fellow man. It is quite apparent that Myers has no interest in doing so, and his students are blindly following his lead.