Warning To Pro-Life Voters: The Real Mitt Romney On Abortion

Romney on Abortion

There are a number of “Voter’s Guides” circulating around the pro-family/pro-life movement which contain inaccurate information regarding Mitt Romney’s record on abortion. These Voter’s Guides are based upon information submitted by the candidates, a notoriously inaccurate way to assess them. A far more accurate way of determining whether a politician will vote correctly on pro-life issues is their actual record. The two largest groups engaged in distributing inaccurate Voter’s Guide are the Family Research Council and the National Right to Life PAC.

This type of Voter’s Guide can be easily “gamed” by candidates seeking pro-life support; indeed, a candidate who owned abortion clinics could fill out a Voter’s Guide questionnaire “correctly” and thereby be portrayed as pro-life. The failure to create Voter’s Guides based on a candidate’s actual abortion record has led to the election of candidates who have not always voted pro-life. Regarding Romney, the difference between what he says on the campaign trail and his actual record is huge.

It is possible a politician could change his views on the abortion issue so we have decided to judge Romney based only on his actions on abortion since his very public pro-life conversion in November, 2004. Here is what we found:

2004–2007. Romney invested in stem cell research. Romney invested in Novo Nordisk and Millipore, two companies involved in stem cell research. He also had investments in Warner Chilcott, the firm that produces Loestrin,an abortifacient. (1) Romney maintained investments in these companies for three years after his conversion but never bothered to instruct his trust manager to avoid investing in anti-life companies until after it became public knowledge. (2)

2004–2007. Romney promoted Planned Parenthood’s clinics on his Dept. of Health website during his entire term of office. Under “family planning services,” Romney’s Dept of Health appointees listed and promoted nearly every abortion clinic in the state, including those operated by Planned Parenthood. An archived picture of the Dept of Health website can be found in the footnotes.(3)

2005. Romney refused to advance the pro- life agenda while Governor, even after his “conversion.” Yes, the Massachusetts legislature was and is controlled by the left, but regardless, Romney made little to no effort to fight for pro-life issues or even fight against pro-abortion causes. Indeed, shortly after his conversion Romney even boasted about his “success” with ignoring pro-life issues in a video clip now on You Tube: “I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintaining the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice and so far I’ve been able to successfully do that….”(4)

2005. Romney forces Catholic hospitals to distribute the abortion pill. In 2005 the Massachusetts legislature passed a bill requiring all hospitals to provide women with the abortion pill. Even though Romney had campaigned on expanding access to the abortion pill he vetoed this bill, an action which has become a fixture in pro-Romney propaganda “proving” he fought for pro-lifers while Governor. What the Romney forces don’t mention, however, is that Romney reversed himself on this issue a few days later! The legislature, as expected, overrode the veto, but incredibly, Romney, after being previously opposed to the bill, then announced, ”I think, in my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals [referring to private hospitals] to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.” By not fighting for the rights of private Catholic hospitals Romney created a horrible precedent of allowing government to strip away the religious freedom rights of a private institution. (5)

2005-2007. Romney belonged to a pro-stem cell research GOP group. Romney belonged to the Republican Main Street Partnership, a group supported by George Soros that made stem cell research its most important issue. Its web site listed Romney as a gubernatorial member during the 109th Congress which ended in 2007. Wikipedia describes the group as being allied “with other moderate Republican groups, including Christine Todd Whitman’s It’s My Party Too, Ann Stone’s Republicans for Choice, the Log Cabin Republicans, the Republican Majority For Choice…” . In 2005, the group was instrumental is passing the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act in the House of Representatives, a bill Romney publicly SUPPORTED even though he now claims to oppose it. (6)

2005-2007. Romney appointed pro-abortion judges to the bench. The Boston Globe reviewed Romney’s judicial nominations and found that Romney “passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents – including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights.” Given the fact the Democrat party in Massachusetts is extremely pro-abortion, we can assume most of the Democrats Romney nominated to the bench were pro-abortion. Many of the appointments occurred after Romney’s conversion, including that of Stephen Abany, a far left Democrat homosexual activist nominated in 2005. Another example would be the nomination of liberal pro-abortion Democrat Matthew Nestor to a lifetime seat on the Somerville District court. Even ABC described Nestor as “an avowed supporter of abortion rights.” (7)

2006-Present. Romney develops a “states rights” position on abortion. In Romney’s words: “My hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decisions with regard to their own abortion law.” He is opposed to a “single federal rule” and thus opposed to a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. If one believes abortion is murder, why would you allow states to decide whether or not murder is permitted? However, he has also told some pro-life activists he now supports a HLA as long as it has exemptions for life of the mother, rape, incest, and embryonic stem cell research. HLA is opposite of the States Rights approach. Which approach does he favor? It depends who Romney is talking to. (8)

2006. Romney introduced RomneyCare which dramatically increased state funded abortions. As Governor, Romney signed into law a government-controlled health care behemoth which mandates all citizens pay into. The program covers abortion and makes it much easier for people to obtain a state-funded abortion for as low as $50. The Romney team claims the state Supreme Court ruled in 1981 and 1997 “that the state constitution required payment for abortion services for Medicaid-Eligible women.” However, a court ruling is not a law and is not binding unless the legislature codified it – and there’s no evidence it did. (9) Moreover, the two court decisions made clear the state was only to fund “medically necessary” abortions, a phrase not found in the RomneyCare legislation. Indeed, the legislation doesn’t have any restrictions on abortion. One can have an abortion funded by the state for any reason whatsoever. While state funded abortions existed in the past, RomneyCare created a whole new category of people now eligible for abortions. Around 250,000 previously uninsured women are now eligible for state-funded abortions. According to studies, at least 25% of all women have an abortion at some point, which means 62,000 women previously not covered will likely get an abortion compliments of RomneyCare. (10)

Romney also created a permanent position for a Planned Parenthood representative on the MassHealth Payment Policy Advisory Board that governs RomneyCare. No, there are no pro-life representatives involved in any capacity with RomneyCare nor is there any evidence that Romney or his team fought for legislative language restricting abortion in any way – such as banning third term abortions. However, they did choose to fight with the legislature over certain aspects of dental care coverage. More disturbing, Romney also fought to keep coverage of in-vitro fertilization out of the bill so at least he is consistently anti-life. (11)

2006. Romney’s administration gave funds to build a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. In November, 2006, Romney’s economic development agency approved a $5 billion tax-exempt bond to be used by Planned Parenthood to build an abortion clinic in Worchester. Romney claims he “was not aware” of what his own appointees were doing, but this begs the question: If Romney is unable or unwilling to control what his own appointees do when it comes to abortion-
related decisions, why would things be different when he’s president? (12)

2006. Romney made no effort to oppose Planned Parenthood’s radical sex ed bill. Romney’s refusal to use his power as governor to help with pro-life issues is echoed by Ray Neary, the director of Pro-Life Massachusetts. In 2006, he issued this statement: “Since his election as governor, he has not lifted a finger to allow one single unborn child the breath of our environment, and his posture has been to stay aloof from a messy issue. The Romney record in support of our efforts in this state is zero…there’s no evidence of a Damascus experience by Mitt Romney on abortion…On the Opt-in rather than Opt-out issue regarding sex education, while low-level personnel were always pleasant, it was impossible to get an appointment with a single [Romney] staffer to discuss the ramifications of the mandated Sex Ed core curriculum proposed by Planned Parenthood (H1641).” This 2006 bill never made it to Romney’s desk for a number of non-ideological reasons, but Romney never spoke against it or used his power to lobby legislators about it. (13)

2007. Romney opposed legislative interventions to save Terri Schiavo. In the course of the 2008 presidential election, when Romney was questioned about efforts by Congress to save the life of Terri Schiavo, he responded, “I think it’s probably best to leave these kinds of matters in the hands of the courts.” Then he said, “I generally think that it’s not a good idea for courts to legislate. Nor is it a great idea for the legislature to adjudicate in a specific circumstance.” In others words, allow Schiavo to die. (14)

2007. Romney refused to state his position on laws that require ultrasound screening before an abortion. While campaigning in South Carolina, a reporter asked Romney about his position on the pending ultrasound bill, but all he would say is that “I would like to see each state be able to make its own law with regards to abortion.” Does he really think such a bill is that controversial? (15)

2007 to present. Romney continues to support stem cell research. Romney says he opposes creating human embryos for research purposes (cloning), yet, he supports research on stem cells “obtained from surplus embryos from invitro fertilizations,” even though there is no moral distinction. The Republican National Coalition for Life, founded by Phyllis Schlafly, states that “Romney’s claim that he is ‘pro-life’ is belied by his position on the ‘use’ of human embryos for research purposes.” Carol Tobias of National Right to Life stated, “He’s still in favor of killing new lives that are in existence right now.” (16)

Footnotes

(1) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1882949/posts; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1882601/posts;
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/15/193454.shtml
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401710.html?referrer=digg
(3) http://web.archive.org/web/20050828131253/http://www.mass.gov/dph/fch/fpalist.htm
(4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxV-QNXoRIc
(5) These websites cover the controversy: http://www.catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=30353; http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2005/12/07/private_hospitals_exempt_on_pill_law/; http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/12/09/romney_says_no_hospitals_are_exempt_from_pill_law/; http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051209/NEWS/312099957&cid=sitesearch;
http://www.macathconf.org/05emergencycontraupdatejuly.htm; A video or Romney switching his position can be viewed here: http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ramgen/w/b/wbur/wburnews/2005/me_1209_2.rm
(6) www.potomacdesign.com/RMSP/members.htm; http://www.potomacdesign.com/RMSP/stem_cell_main_temp.htm; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Main_Street_Partnership; http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3279653&page=1
(7) http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/articles/part6_main/; ABC News.com, 6/14/07,
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3279653&page=1; http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/25/78
(8) National Journal, 02/10/07; We are in possession of messages from prolife activists which confirm such conversations with Romney.
(9) To see the actual site for Commonwealth Care during the Romney era which list “abortion” as a “service for a $50 co-pay, go here: https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/binary/com.epicentric.contentmanagement.servlet.ContentDeliveryServlet/About%2520Us/Connector%2520Programs/Additional%2520Resources/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf
(10) Kaiser Family Foundation, “Fact Sheet,” State Estimates of Health Insurance Coverage of Women Ages 18 to 64,” 2003-2004, http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/upload/1613-05.pdf
(11) http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2006/Chapter58; Boston Globe, 5/05/06,
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/05/reilly_appoints_3_members_to_new_state_healthcare_board/
(12) Boston Globe, 12/29/07, http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/29/romney_officials_approved_clinic_loan
(13) Statement issued on 12/20/06 by Ray Neary
(14) St. Petersburg Times, 3/11/07
(15) http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/04/the_republicans_1.php
(16) http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/2007/feb07/07-02-02.html; http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/600111316/Romney-sets-off-a-stem-cell-furor.html

Tantamergo, who just commented on Curt Stoler’s comment on my post,  MANY CATHOLICS WHO ARE NOT CARD CARRYING LEFTISTS ARE BY TEMPERAMENT FELLOW TRAVELERS, has an interesting post of his own on his blog http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com.  Tantamergo is the father of five girls and one boy.

- Abyssum

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Lesbian mothers emasculate sons January 25, 2012

Posted by tantamergo in asshatery, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, sickness, unadulterated evil.

There has been several truly disturbing news stories of late, of lesbian couples obtaining children and then performing what I think most people would consider to be horrifying experiments on them.  The couples claim that they are simply attempting to let their sons (no girls involved, naturally, for we all know that girls are born perfect, with male characteristics being extremely unsavory and worthy of destruction) determine their own gender without the pressure of social convention and societal norms.  I cannot imagine the devastation that is being wrought, or how this abuse can be allowed to continue:

It’s a boy! And he’s five. Beck Laxton, 46, and partner Kieran Cooper, 44, have spent half the decade concealing the gender of their son, Sasha.

“I wanted to avoid all that stereotyping,” Laxton said in an interview with the Cambridge News. “Stereotypes seem fundamentally stupid. Why would you want to slot people into boxes?”

Sasha dresses in clothes he likes — be it a hand-me-downs from his sister or his brother. The big no-no’s are hyper-masculine outfits like skull-print shirts and cargo pants. [So, the hyper-feminine is in, but the hyper-masculine is out.  Got it.  But 'Sasha' is not being led to reject his own gender, no.......]In one photo, sent to friends and family, Sasha’s dressed in a shiny pink girl’s swimsuit. “Children like sparkly things,” says Beck. “And if someone thought Sasha was a girl because he was wearing a pink swimming costume, then what effect would that have? ” [No, they don't.  Little girls like sparkly things.]

Sasha’s also not short on dolls, though Barbie is also off limits. “She’s banned because she’s horrible,” Laxton says in the Cambridge interview.

On a macro level she hopes her son sets an example for other parents and makes them reconsider buying their own sons trucks [yes, for heaven's sake, don't let him have what he likes] or forcing their daughters into tights. She’s seen how those consumer trappings affect how and who kids play with in the sandbox.  [Consumer 'trappings' has nothing to do with.  Boys and girls are as different as night and day]

This isn’t just some isolated event.  It’s the start of a sick, hideous trend:

Vatican Diary / The Neocatechumenals get their diploma. But not the one they were expecting

The Holy See has approved the rites that mark the stages of their catechism. But the particularities with which they celebrate their Masses still remain under observation. Some of them are permitted. Others not

by Sandro Magister

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350149?eng=y

VATICAN CITY, January 23, 2012 – Before the audience with Benedict XVI three days ago, the rumor within the Neocatechumenal Way was that this occasion would bring the definitive approval of the “liturgies” of the ecclesial movement founded by Francisco “Kiko” Argüello and Carmen Hernández:

> “Placet” or “Non placet”? The wager of Carmen and Kiko

These rumors even said the document of approval had been prepared.

In reality, this provision was absolutely not on the day’s agenda for the Vatican, as was seen in the course of the audience with the pope on January 20.

At the beginning of the audience, in fact, a decree from the pontifical council for the laity was read which, with “the agreement of the congregation for divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments,” simply “grants approval to those celebrations contained in the Catechetical Directory of the Neocatechumenal Way which do not appear by their nature to be regulated already by the liturgical books of the Church.”

More clearly, in his address the pope reiterated that the aforementioned decree simply “gives approval to the celebrations” present in the Catechetical Directory which “are not strictly liturgical.”

This means that the rituals approved on this occasion do not in any way concern the liturgy of the Mass or the administration of the sacraments, but only the celebrations within the Way that mark the principal stages of the long catechumenate of each of its members.

Benedict XVI also took advantage of the audience to address to the leaders and members of the Way a “brief reflection on the value of the liturgy.” And this was a “reflection” that had all the trappings of a lecture, dense and demanding in spite of its brevity.

In it, the pope recalled that “the true content of the liturgy” is indeed “the work of the Lord Jesus,” but “it is also the work of the Church, which, being his body, is a single subject together with Christ.” And with this, he warned against the temptation – present in the Neocatechumenal liturgical theories, but not only there – of an “archaeologism” that would presume to reproduce pedantically the last supper of Jesus and the “breaking of the bread” of the earliest Christian times, without taking into account the liturgical developments that have legitimately taken shape in the Church over the course of the centuries.

In his address, moreover, Benedict XVI highlighted the “public nature of the Holy Eucharist.” He recalled that on the basis of the statutes of the Way approved in 2008, “the Neocatechumenals may celebrate the Sunday Eucharist in the small community after first Vespers for Sunday, according to the guidelines of the diocesan bishop.” But he immediately added that “every celebration” must be “essentially open to all those who belong” to the one Church of Christ.

That is, the celebrations in the small communities – the pope continued – must produce a “progressive maturation” that foster “their insertion into the life of the greater ecclesial community,” or concretely “in the liturgical celebration of the parish.”

The pope finally reiterated that “the celebration in the small communities” must be “regulated by the liturgical books, which must be followed faithfully,” although “with the particularities approved in the statutes of the Way.”

In the statutes of 2008, the particularities permitted are two.

The first concerns “the distribution of Holy Communion under the two species” and “always with unleavened bread,” which the Neocatechumenals must receive “standing, remaining in their own place.”

The second is the moving “ad experimentum” of “the rite of peace to after the intercessions,” or before the offertory, as has always been done in the Ambrosian rite, in use in the archdiocese of Milan.

The statutes also stipulate that the participants of the Neocatechumenal communities may prepare “brief monitions for the readings.” But this is already permitted by the general instruction of the Roman missal, for any Mass.

But there is no mention at all, in the paragraphs of the statutes concerning the Mass, of the so-called “resonances,” meaning the spontaneous commentaries on the readings and the Gospel made by those who participate in the Masses of the Neocatechumenal communities, in addition to the homily by the priest.

Not only this particularity of the “resonances,” therefore, but any other liturgical particularity in use in the Way that is not explicitly approved by the Holy See was abusive before the audience of last January 20. And it remains so afterward as well.

The following is the “lecture” on the liturgy imparted by Benedict XVI to the Neocatechumenals and, further below, a summary of the extraliturgical rituals that have been approved by the Vatican authorities.

_________________

“… CELEBRATION REGULATED BY THE LITURGICAL BOOKS, WHICH MUST BE FOLLOWED FAITHFULLY…”

Benedict XVI to the Neocatechumenal Way, January 20, 2012

Dear brothers and sisters, [...] a short time ago you were read the decree that gives approval to the celebrations present in the “Catechetical Directory of the Neocatechumenal Way,” which are not strictly liturgical, but are part of the journey of growth in faith. It is another element that shows you how the Church accompanies you attentively in a patient discernment, which embraces your richness but also looks to the communion and harmony of the entire “Corpus Ecclesiae.”

This occasion offers me the opportunity for a brief reflection on the value of the liturgy. Vatican Council II defines it as the work of Christ the priest and of his body which is the Church (cf. “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” 7). At first glance, this might seem strange to us, because it seems that the work of Christ would designate the redemptive historical actions of Jesus, his passion, death, and resurrection. In what sense, then, is the liturgy the work of Christ? The passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus are not solely historical events; they reach and penetrate history, but they transcend it and remain always present in the heart of Christ. In the liturgical action of the Church, there is the active presence of the risen Christ who makes the same paschal mystery present and efficacious for us today, for our salvation; he draws us into this act of self-donation that is always present in his heart and makes us participate in this presence of the paschal mystery. This work of the Lord Jesus, which is the true content of the liturgy, the entrance into the presence of the paschal mystery, is also the work of the Church, which, being his body, is a single subject together with Christ: “Christus totus caput et corpus,” Saint Augustine says. In the celebration of the sacraments, Christ immerses us in the paschal mystery to make us pass from death to life, from sin to the new existence in Christ.

This holds true in a very special way for the celebration of the Eucharist, which, being the summit of Christian life, is also the hinge of its rediscovery, toward which the Neocatechumenate strives. As your statutes state, “The Eucharist is essential to the Neocatechumenate, since this is a post-baptismal catechumenate lived in small communities” (art. 13 §1). Precisely for the sake of fostering the return to the richness of sacramental life on the part of persons who have distanced themselves from the Church, or have not received an adequate formation, the Neocatechumenals may celebrate the Sunday Eucharist in the small community after first Vespers for Sunday, according to the guidelines of the diocesan bishop (cf. Statutes, art. 13 §2). But every Eucharistic celebration is an action of the one Christ together with his one Church, and is thus essentially open to all those who belong to this his Church. This public nature of the holy Eucharist is expressed in the fact that every celebration of the holy Mass is ultimately directed by the bishop as member of the episcopal college, responsible for a specific local Church (cf. “Lumen Gentium,” 26).

The celebration in the small communities, regulated by the liturgical books, which must be followed faithfully, and with the particularities approved in the statutes of the Way, has the task of helping those who make the Neocatechumenal journey to perceive the grace of being inserted into the salvific mystery of Christ, which makes possible a Christian witness capable of taking on sometimes radical features. At the same time, the progressive maturation in faith of the individual and of the small community must foster their insertion into the life of the greater ecclesial community, which finds in the liturgical celebration of the parish, in which and for which the Neocatechumenate is implemented (cf. Statutes, art. 6), its ordinary form. But also during the Way, it is important not to separate oneself from the parish community, precisely in the celebration of the Eucharist, which is the true place of the unity of all, where the Lord embraces us in the various stages of our spiritual maturation and unites us in the one bread that makes us one body (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16f). [...]

_______________

The complete text of the pope’s address:

> “Cari fratelli e sorelle, anche quest’anno…”

__________

TWELVES RITES, FOR AS MANY STAGES

The journey of catechesis that every member of the Way makes lasts at least ten years, and is made up of five phases.

Each phase has stages marked by specific rituals, twelve of them in all.

It is these extraliturgical rituals used in the Neocatechumenal communities that have now been approved by the Vatican authorities.

INTRODUCTORY CATECHESIS

1. Rite of conversion. Coincides with the tenth of the of the sixteen introductory catecheses. The rite, which is highly detailed, precedes and follows in communal fashion the individual sacramental confession of each of those present. For those who will continue in the Way, this rite will be repeated on a monthly basis.

2. Bestowal of the Bible. Coincides with the fifteenth catechesis.

3. Rite of illumination. Introduces the “coexistence” of three days that concludes the sixteen introductory catecheses. Other celebrations of the Word set the rhythm of these same days, and will set the rhythm, week by week, of the continuation of the Way.

PRECATECHUMENATE

4. First scrutiny. Marks the end of this second phase, which lasts for at least two years.

PASSAGE TO CATECHUMENATE

5. “Shemà.” In Hebrew: listening. It celebrates the welcoming of the Word of God.

6. Second scrutiny. Concludes the two-year process of this third phase. In it takes place the renunciation of personal wealth, sometimes substantial, in favor of community.

CATECHUMENATE

7. Bestowal of the book of Psalms.

8. Traditio Symboli. The bestowal of the “Credo.”

9. Redditio Symboli. The public confession of one’s faith, learned with the “Credo.”

10. Bestowal of the Our Father. This is the rite that introduces the third year of this fourth phase.

ELECTION

11. Book of life. By writing his name in this book, the Neocatechumen opens the two years of this fifth and last phase of the Way.

12. Renewal of baptismal promises. This is the culmination of the Way. The rite is performed during the Easter Vigil, which lasts until dawn and is concluded with a banquet.

________________

The official website of the Neocatechumenals, in multiple languages:

> Neocatechumenal Way

________________

An index of all of the previous articles from www.chiesa on the Way:

> Focus on CATHOLIC MOVEMENTS

__________

English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.

Whatever happened to the Church’s Code of Canon Law.  At the very least it has been so largely ignored that the average Catholic is probably unaware that there is such a thing as the Code of Canon Law.  To Blessed Pope John Paul II’s credit he reformed and revised the Code in 1983 making it much more suited to the life of Catholics in the 21st Century.  Sad to say, however, one rarely hears of the application of Canon Law to the life of the Church in the United States other than when the laity appeal the actions of their bishops to the Holy See.  Pope Benedict had something very important to say about the relevance of the Church’s Code of Canon Law to the present situation of chaos that seems to characterize so much of the life of the Church in the United States today.

-   Abtssum

…………………………………………………….

AUTHENTIC LAW IS INSEPARABLE FROM JUSTICE

VATICAN CITY, 21 JAN 2012 (VIS) – This morning in the Vatican, Benedict XVI received the dean, judges, promoters of justice, defenders of the bond, officials and lawyers of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, for the occasion of the inauguration of the judicial year.

Benedict XVI focused his remarks on a fundamental aspect of judicial ministry: the interpretation of canon law with a view to its correct application. The hermeneutic of canon law “is closely associated with the very concept of Law in the Church”, the Pope explained, and he went on to define two forms of interpretation which lead to impoverishment of the law: “The identification of canon law with the system of canonical legislation”, which effectively means overlooking “natural law, divine positive law and the vital relationship of all law with the communion and mission of the Church”. In the second form of interpretation, “the specific situation becomes a decisive factor in determining the authentic meaning of a legal precept in a particular case”; but in this way “it is human interpretation that decides what is juridical, and a sense of objective law is lacking”.

“But there is another way”, said the Holy Father, “in which a correct understanding of canon law leads to its being interpreted as part of a search for the truth about law and justice in the Church. … Authentic law is inseparable from justice. Obviously, this principle also holds true for canon law, in the sense that it cannot remain closed in a merely human system of norms but must be associated with a just ordering of the Church in which a higher law holds sway. In this perspective, human positive legislation loses its primacy … and can no longer simply be identified as the Law. Nonetheless human legislation is an important expression of justice, first and foremost for what it declares to be divine law, but also for what it identifies as being the legitimate ambit of human law.

“In this way”, Benedict XVI added, “it becomes possible to apply a legal hermeneutic that is authentically juridical, in the sense that, in keeping with the meaning of the law, we can raise the crucial question of what is just in each particular case. … Human rules must be interpreted in the light of the situations with which they deal. These situations always contain a core of natural law and of divine positive law, with which all norms must be in harmony if they are to be rational and truly juridical.

“From this realistic standpoint, the sometimes arduous task of interpretation acquires a meaning and a goal. … It is revitalised by an authentic contact with the overall situation of the Church, which facilitates access to the true meaning of the law”.

“It follows that the interpretation of canon law must take place within the Church. … ‘Sentire cum Ecclesia’ also applies to discipline, because of the doctrinal foundations which are always present and operative in the Church’s legal norms. Thus the hermeneutic of renewal in continuity, about which I have spoken with reference to Vatican Council II (which is so closely associated with current canonical legislation), must also be applied to canon law”.

“This basic approach is applicable to all forms of interpretation: from academic research on canon law … to the daily search for just solutions in the lives of the faithful and their communities. Meekness is necessary in order to accept the laws, seeking to study … the juridical tradition of the Church in order to identify with that tradition and with the legal dispositions issued by pastors, especially pontifical laws and Magisterium on canonical issues, which are binding in their teachings on the law”.

All this has particular importance “as regards laws on the act of Marriage and its consummation, and Holy Orders. … Particular care must be taken to apply all juridically binding measures which tend to ensure coherence in the interpretation and application of laws, as required by justice. These measures include the Pontifical Magisterium in this field, contained above all in addresses to the Roman Rota; the jurisprudence of the Rota itself, … and the norms and declarations issued by other dicasteries of the Roman Curia”.

The Holy Father continued: “This hermeneutical unity in the essentials in no way prejudices the function of local tribunals, which are called to face the complex real situations that arise in all cultural contexts. Each of them must proceed with a sense of reverence towards the truth of law, applying judicial and administrative norms so as to achieve exemplary communion in discipline, this being an essential aspect of Church unity”.

Finally Pope Benedict turned his attention to the recent transfer to the Roman Rota of an office dealing with the procedures for dispensation from unconsummated marriage and causes for the nullity of priestly ordination. “I am sure”, he said, “that there will be a generous response to this new ecclesial task”.

AC/                                                                                                   VIS 20120123 (830)

The question historians will have to answer is, to what extent did the bishops conference of the United States, the USCCB, assist and facilitate the election of Barack Hussein Obama in 2008.  Judging from the number of automobiles in the parking lot of the USCCB in 2008 that bore Obama bumper stickers, there is no doubt that a significant number of the members of the staff of the USCCB were sympathetic to the presidential campaign of Barack Hussein Obama as opposed to the campaign of John McCain and Sarah Palin.  The silence of the majority of the bishops during the 2008 presidential campaign would have suggested that many of the bishops were likewise sympathetic to the campaign of Barack Hussein Obama.  The Guideline for Voters issued by the USCCB likewise was vague on the priority of respect for life as the paramount issue in the presidential campaign.  So, it is not too much of a stretch to suggest that the at least tacit support for Obama was in a sense a sowing of the wind and now the Church in the United States must brace itself for the whirlwind of persecution that is coming from federal bureaucrats.

- Abyssum

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Friday, January 20, 2012

http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/

Thursday, January 19, 2012

“The Most Cherished of Freedoms”: On Religious Freedom and the Public Square, B16 Talks The States

As the US’ bishops ad limina visit continues, this morning saw the second papal address of the 15-group trip: to the prelates of Region IV, which encompasses the provinces of Baltimore, Washington and the archdiocese for the Military Services.

Breaking from the traditional practice, as part of the gradual curtailing of his schedule in light of his age, B16 will only give five speeches to the USCCB group on its first Roman check-up of the current pontificate. The first of the talks was given to the bishops of Region II (New York) in late November.

On a related note, the dates for the second half of the US visit — previously up in the air for months given the final scheduling of Benedict’s 23-28 March visit to Mexico and Cuba — are now set. The schedule finally communicated earlier this week, the ad limina will conclude in mid-May with Region XV, the recently-established group encompassing all the eparchs of the various Eastern churches with jurisdictions on these shores.

Next week brings the visit of the South’s Region V (Louisville, Mobile, New Orleans), with the Midwest’s Regions VI (Detroit and Cincinnati) and VII following suit before Ash Wednesday late next month. The next of Benedict’s speeches is expected to be given to the latter — the bishops of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin — during their leg, which coincides with the days leading up to the 18 February consistory for the creation of new cardinals.

Here below, the Pope’s today text to the mid-Atlantic group… which, in a sign of its significance, was recorded in fullaudio by Vatican Radio.

Dear Brother Bishops,

I greet all of you with fraternal affection and I pray that this pilgrimage of spiritual renewal and deepened communion will confirm you in faith and commitment to your task as Pastors of the Church in the United States of America. As you know, it is my intention in the course of this year to reflect with you on some of the spiritual and cultural challenges of the new evangelization.

One of the most memorable aspects of my Pastoral Visit to the United States was the opportunity it afforded me to reflect on America’s historical experience of religious freedom, and specifically the relationship between religion and culture. At the heart of every culture, whether perceived or not, is a consensus about the nature of reality and the moral good, and thus about the conditions for human flourishing. In America, that consensus, as enshrined in your nation’s founding documents, was grounded in a worldview shaped not only by faith but a commitment to certain ethical principles deriving from nature and nature’s God. Today that consensus has eroded significantly in the face of powerful new cultural currents which are not only directly opposed to core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but increasingly hostile to Christianity as such.

For her part, the Church in the United States is called, in season and out of season, to proclaim a Gospel which not only proposes unchanging moral truths but proposes them precisely as the key to human happiness and social prospering (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). To the extent that some current cultural trends contain elements that would curtail the proclamation of these truths, whether constricting it within the limits of a merely scientific rationality, or suppressing it in the name of political power or majority rule, they represent a threat not just to Christian faith, but also to humanity itself and to the deepest truth about our being and ultimate vocation, our relationship to God. When a culture attempts to suppress the dimension of ultimate mystery, and to close the doors to transcendent truth, it inevitably becomes impoverished and falls prey, as the late Pope John Paul II so clearly saw, to reductionist and totalitarian readings of the human person and the nature of society.

With her long tradition of respect for the right relationship between faith and reason, the Church has a critical role to play in countering cultural currents which, on the basis of an extreme individualism, seek to promote notions of freedom detached from moral truth. Our tradition does not speak from blind faith, but from a rational perspective which links our commitment to building an authentically just, humane and prosperous society to our ultimate assurance that the cosmos is possessed of an inner logic accessible to human reasoning. The Church’s defense of a moral reasoning based on the natural law is grounded on her conviction that this law is not a threat to our freedom, but rather a “language” which enables us to understand ourselves and the truth of our being, and so to shape a more just and humane world. She thus proposes her moral teaching as a message not of constraint but of liberation, and as the basis for building a secure future.

The Church’s witness, then, is of its nature public: she seeks to convince by proposing rational arguments in the public square. The legitimate separation of Church and State cannot be taken to mean that the Church must be silent on certain issues, nor that the State may choose not to engage, or be engaged by, the voices of committed believers in determining the values which will shape the future of the nation.

In the light of these considerations, it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.

Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society. The preparation of committed lay leaders and the presentation of a convincing articulation of the Christian vision of man and society remain a primary task of the Church in your country; as essential components of the new evangelization, these concerns must shape the vision and goals of catechetical programs at every level.

In this regard, I would mention with appreciation your efforts to maintain contacts with Catholics involved in political life and to help them understand their personal responsibility to offer public witness to their faith, especially with regard to the great moral issues of our time: respect for God’s gift of life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of authentic human rights. As the Council noted, and I wished to reiterate during my Pastoral Visit, respect for the just autonomy of the secular sphere must also take into consideration the truth that there is no realm of worldly affairs which can be withdrawn from the Creator and his dominion (cfr. Gaudium et Spes, 36). There can be no doubt that a more consistent witness on the part of America’s Catholics to their deepest convictions would make a major contribution to the renewal of society as a whole.

Dear Brother Bishops, in these brief remarks I have wished to touch upon some of the pressing issues which you face in your service to the Gospel and their significance for the evangelization of American culture. No one who looks at these issues realistically can ignore the genuine difficulties which the Church encounters at the present moment. Yet in faith we can take heart from the growing awareness of the need to preserve a civil order clearly rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as well as from the promise offered by a new generation of Catholics whose experience and convictions will have a decisive role in renewing the Church’s presence and witness in American society. The hope which these “signs of the times” give us is itself a reason to renew our efforts to mobilize the intellectual and moral resources of the entire Catholic community in the service of the evangelization of American culture and the building of the civilization of love. With great affection I commend all of you, and the flock entrusted to your care, to the prayers of Mary, Mother of Hope, and cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of grace and peace in Jesus Christ our Lord.

PHOTO: L’Osservatore Romano