Dear Father Jenkins:
It has come to our attention that the University of Notre Dame will honor President Barack Obama as its commencement speaker on May 17.
It is an outrage and a scandal that “Our Lady’s University,” one of the premier Catholic universities in the United States, would bestow such an honor on President Obama given his clear support for policies and laws that directly contradict fundamental Catholic teachings on life and marriage.
This nation has many thousands of accomplished leaders in the Catholic Church, in business, in law, in education, in politics, in medicine, in social services, and in many other fields who would be far more appropriate choices to receive such an honor from the University of Notre Dame.
Instead Notre Dame has chosen prestige over principles, popularity over morality. Whatever may be President Obama’s admirable qualities, this honor comes on the heels of some of the most anti-life actions of any American president, including expanding federal funding for abortions and inviting taxpayer-funded research on stem cells from human embryos.
The honor also comes amid great concern among Catholics nationwide about President Obama’s future impact on American society, the family, and the Catholic Church on issues such as traditional marriage, conscience protections for Catholic doctors and nurses, and expansion of abortion “rights.”
This honor is clearly a direct violation of the U.S. bishops’ 2004 mandate in “Catholics in Political Life”: “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”
We prayerfully implore you to halt this travesty immediately. We do so with the hope that Catholics nationwide will likewise call on you to uphold the sacred mission of your Catholic university. May God grant you the courage and wisdom to do what is right.
sign the petition here
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Bishop John D'Arcy of the Dioces of Fort Wayne - South Bend speaks out against Notre Dame's honorary degree to President Obama
Concerning President Barack Obama speaking at Notre Dame
graduation, receiving honorary law degree
March 24, 2009
On Friday, March 21, Father John Jenkins, CSC, phoned to inform me that President Obama had accepted his invitation to speak to the graduating class at Notre Dame and receive an honorary degree. We spoke shortly before the announcement was made public at the White House press briefing. It was the first time that I had been informed that Notre Dame had issued this invitation.
President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred. While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life.
This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.
My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.
I have in mind also the statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops in 2004. “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Indeed, the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for, but also what it will not stand for.
I have spoken with Professor Mary Ann Glendon, who is to receive the Laetare Medal. I have known her for many years and hold her in high esteem. We are both teachers, but in different ways. I have encouraged her to accept this award and take the opportunity such an award gives her to teach.
Even as I continue to ponder in prayer these events, which many have found shocking, so must Notre Dame. Indeed, as a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth.
Tomorrow, we celebrate as Catholics the moment when our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, became a child in the womb of his most holy mother. Let us ask Our Lady to intercede for the university named in her honor, that it may recommit itself to the primacy of truth over prestige.
source
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
March 18, 1965
Soviet cosmonaut Aleksey Leonov became the first human to walk in space during the Voskhod 2 mission in 1965.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
"SCIENCE REALITY IS STRANGER THAN SCIENCE FICTION"
Technology turns babies into consumer products
Thomas G. Wenski Special to the Sentinel
March 11, 2009
In the early 1800s, a young author, Mary Shelley, wrote one of the most famous works of science fiction about a mad scientist who in his quest to create life never stopped to consider the consequences of his actions. This gothic novel, Frankenstein, or, the Modern Prometheus, was a warning against the overreaching of modern man in the Age of the Industrial Revolution.
Two centuries later, science reality is stranger than science fiction: While scientists have not learned to "create" life, they have learned to manipulate life with various reproductive technologies. That they do so without sufficiently considering the consequences of these actions is born out by the controversy surrounding Nadya Suleman, whom the press has dubbed the "Octomom" after she gave birth to eight children conceived through in-vitro fertilization. Of course, her offspring are not "monsters" but children. But precisely because they are innocent children, one must ask about the morality of such procedures.
Before the birth of these octuplets, in a recent statement by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Personae (The Dignity of a Person), the Holy See reiterated the teaching of the Church against in-vitro fertilization and certain other reproductive technologies. In condemning these forms of reproductive technologies, the Church does not wish only to be a scold. In fact, the Church welcomes and encourages the strides that biomedical research has made in opening new possibilities for the treatment of diseases. After all, the father of genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a Catholic priest.
However, the Church insists that the dignity of a person be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death. "This fundamental principle," according to Dignitas Personae, "expresses a great 'yes' to human life and must be at the center of ethical reflection on biomedical research ... "
Because it is possible to do something does not make it necessarily right to do it. Science, if it is to truly serve humanity, cannot separate itself from the demands of ethics. The ends do not justify the means.The process of in-vitro fertilization frequently involves the deliberate destruction of embryos; some 80 percent of embryos produced artificially are sacrificed in efforts to secure successful implantation. Each embryo, however, is an individual human being and not just simply a mass of cells to be used, selected or discarded.
John Paul II observed: The "various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life." (Evangelium Vitae 14.)The desire for children is both legitimate and laudable, but not every means is morally acceptable for those wishing to become parents. As Dignitas Personae says, "The origin of human life has its authentic context in marriage and in the family, where it is generated through an act which expresses the reciprocal love between a man and a woman. ... The desire for a child cannot justify the 'production' of offspring, just as the desire not to have a child cannot justify the abandonment or destruction of a child once he or she has been conceived.
"A child should be the fruit of the parents' love — a gift received and accepted and not a consumer product to satisfy someone's subjective desire.
Artificial contraception opened the possibility of sex without procreation; now in-vitro and related technologies proffer procreation without sex. Such technologies divorced from moral reasoning devalue the meaning of human sexuality itself.
Medical science — like any other human endeavor — is not above ethics. Each of us is called to be ethically and socially responsible for our actions. In giving her judgment on the immorality of these procedures, the church insists on "both the unconditional respect owed to every human being at every moment of his or her existence, and the defense of the specific character of the personal act which transmits life." (Dignitas Personae 10.)
The Most Rev. Thomas G. Wenski is the Catholic Bishop of Orlando. source
Thomas G. Wenski Special to the Sentinel
March 11, 2009
In the early 1800s, a young author, Mary Shelley, wrote one of the most famous works of science fiction about a mad scientist who in his quest to create life never stopped to consider the consequences of his actions. This gothic novel, Frankenstein, or, the Modern Prometheus, was a warning against the overreaching of modern man in the Age of the Industrial Revolution.
Two centuries later, science reality is stranger than science fiction: While scientists have not learned to "create" life, they have learned to manipulate life with various reproductive technologies. That they do so without sufficiently considering the consequences of these actions is born out by the controversy surrounding Nadya Suleman, whom the press has dubbed the "Octomom" after she gave birth to eight children conceived through in-vitro fertilization. Of course, her offspring are not "monsters" but children. But precisely because they are innocent children, one must ask about the morality of such procedures.
Before the birth of these octuplets, in a recent statement by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Personae (The Dignity of a Person), the Holy See reiterated the teaching of the Church against in-vitro fertilization and certain other reproductive technologies. In condemning these forms of reproductive technologies, the Church does not wish only to be a scold. In fact, the Church welcomes and encourages the strides that biomedical research has made in opening new possibilities for the treatment of diseases. After all, the father of genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a Catholic priest.
However, the Church insists that the dignity of a person be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death. "This fundamental principle," according to Dignitas Personae, "expresses a great 'yes' to human life and must be at the center of ethical reflection on biomedical research ... "
Because it is possible to do something does not make it necessarily right to do it. Science, if it is to truly serve humanity, cannot separate itself from the demands of ethics. The ends do not justify the means.The process of in-vitro fertilization frequently involves the deliberate destruction of embryos; some 80 percent of embryos produced artificially are sacrificed in efforts to secure successful implantation. Each embryo, however, is an individual human being and not just simply a mass of cells to be used, selected or discarded.
John Paul II observed: The "various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life." (Evangelium Vitae 14.)The desire for children is both legitimate and laudable, but not every means is morally acceptable for those wishing to become parents. As Dignitas Personae says, "The origin of human life has its authentic context in marriage and in the family, where it is generated through an act which expresses the reciprocal love between a man and a woman. ... The desire for a child cannot justify the 'production' of offspring, just as the desire not to have a child cannot justify the abandonment or destruction of a child once he or she has been conceived.
"A child should be the fruit of the parents' love — a gift received and accepted and not a consumer product to satisfy someone's subjective desire.
Artificial contraception opened the possibility of sex without procreation; now in-vitro and related technologies proffer procreation without sex. Such technologies divorced from moral reasoning devalue the meaning of human sexuality itself.
Medical science — like any other human endeavor — is not above ethics. Each of us is called to be ethically and socially responsible for our actions. In giving her judgment on the immorality of these procedures, the church insists on "both the unconditional respect owed to every human being at every moment of his or her existence, and the defense of the specific character of the personal act which transmits life." (Dignitas Personae 10.)
The Most Rev. Thomas G. Wenski is the Catholic Bishop of Orlando. source
Monday, March 9, 2009
SEPARATION OF SCIENCE AND STATE - HUH?
Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Reversing Bush policy, President Barack Obama on Monday cleared the way for a significant increase in federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research and promised no scientific data will be "distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda."
Obama signed the executive order on the divisive stem cell issue and a memo addressing what he called scientific integrity before an East Room audience packed with scientists. He laced his remarks with several jabs at the way science was handled by former President George W. Bush.
"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said. "It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."
He said his memorandum is meant to restore "scientific integrity to government decision-making." He called it the beginning of a process of ensuring his administration bases its decision on sound science; appoints scientific advisers based on their credentials, not their politics; and is honest about the science behind its decisions.
Fulfilling a campaign promise, Obama signed the order that on stem cell research that supporters believe could uncover cures for serious ailments from diabetes to paralysis. Proponents from former first lady Nancy Reagan to the late actor Christopher Reeve had pushed for ending the restrictions on research.
Obama paid tribute to Reeve, calling him a tireless advocate who was dedicated to raising awareness to the promise of research.
Obama's action reverses Bush's stem cell policy by undoing his 2001 directive that banned federal funding for research into stem lines created after Aug. 9, 2001.
The president said his administration would work aggressively to make up for the ground he said was lost due to Bush's decision, though it can't be known how much more federal money will be spent on the research until grants are applied for and issued.
"Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident," Obama declared.
Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases — such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics, cells that could help those with Parkinson's disease or maybe even Alzheimer's, or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, criticized Obama, saying in a statement that the president had "rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us."
Bush limited the use of taxpayer money to only the 21 stem cell lines that had been produced before his decision. He argued he was defending human life because days-old embryos — although typically from fertility clinics and already destined for destruction — are destroyed to create the stem cell lines.
The Obama order reverses that without addressing a separate legislative ban, which precludes any federal money for the development of stem cell lines. The legislation, however, does not prevent funds for research on those lines created without federal funding.
Researchers say the newer lines created with private money during the period of the Bush ban are healthier and better suited to creating treatment for diseases.
Obama called his decision a "difficult and delicate balance," an understatement of the intense emotions generated on both sides of the long, contentious debate. He said he came down on the side of the majority of Americans who support increased federal funding for the research, both because strict oversight would prevent problems and because of the great and lifesaving potential it holds.
"Rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama said. "In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering."
Obama warned against overstating the eventual benefits of the research, but he said his administration "will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research," taking another slap at Bush in the process.
"I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No president can promise that. But I can promise that we will seek them actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground," he said.
It's a matter of competitive advantage globally as well, the president argued.
"When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored," Obama said.
But the president was insistent that his order would not open the door to human cloning.
"We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse," Obama said. "And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society." source
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Reversing Bush policy, President Barack Obama on Monday cleared the way for a significant increase in federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research and promised no scientific data will be "distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda."
Obama signed the executive order on the divisive stem cell issue and a memo addressing what he called scientific integrity before an East Room audience packed with scientists. He laced his remarks with several jabs at the way science was handled by former President George W. Bush.
"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said. "It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."
He said his memorandum is meant to restore "scientific integrity to government decision-making." He called it the beginning of a process of ensuring his administration bases its decision on sound science; appoints scientific advisers based on their credentials, not their politics; and is honest about the science behind its decisions.
Fulfilling a campaign promise, Obama signed the order that on stem cell research that supporters believe could uncover cures for serious ailments from diabetes to paralysis. Proponents from former first lady Nancy Reagan to the late actor Christopher Reeve had pushed for ending the restrictions on research.
Obama paid tribute to Reeve, calling him a tireless advocate who was dedicated to raising awareness to the promise of research.
Obama's action reverses Bush's stem cell policy by undoing his 2001 directive that banned federal funding for research into stem lines created after Aug. 9, 2001.
The president said his administration would work aggressively to make up for the ground he said was lost due to Bush's decision, though it can't be known how much more federal money will be spent on the research until grants are applied for and issued.
"Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident," Obama declared.
Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases — such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics, cells that could help those with Parkinson's disease or maybe even Alzheimer's, or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, criticized Obama, saying in a statement that the president had "rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us."
Bush limited the use of taxpayer money to only the 21 stem cell lines that had been produced before his decision. He argued he was defending human life because days-old embryos — although typically from fertility clinics and already destined for destruction — are destroyed to create the stem cell lines.
The Obama order reverses that without addressing a separate legislative ban, which precludes any federal money for the development of stem cell lines. The legislation, however, does not prevent funds for research on those lines created without federal funding.
Researchers say the newer lines created with private money during the period of the Bush ban are healthier and better suited to creating treatment for diseases.
Obama called his decision a "difficult and delicate balance," an understatement of the intense emotions generated on both sides of the long, contentious debate. He said he came down on the side of the majority of Americans who support increased federal funding for the research, both because strict oversight would prevent problems and because of the great and lifesaving potential it holds.
"Rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama said. "In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering."
Obama warned against overstating the eventual benefits of the research, but he said his administration "will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research," taking another slap at Bush in the process.
"I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No president can promise that. But I can promise that we will seek them actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground," he said.
It's a matter of competitive advantage globally as well, the president argued.
"When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored," Obama said.
But the president was insistent that his order would not open the door to human cloning.
"We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse," Obama said. "And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society." source
Friday, March 6, 2009
Gay Marriage
Gay Marriage: Is California's Supreme Court Shifting?
By Michael Lindenberger Thursday, Mar. 05, 2009
The prospects of same-sex marriage in California grew dimmer Thursday, when two Supreme Court justices who helped create the right for gays to marry in last year's historic decision expressed deep reservations about attempts to strike down a statewide referendum passed last fall to ban the practice. "You would have us choose between these two rights: the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change their constitution," said Justice Joyce L. Kennard, one of those two key judges. "You ask us to willy-nilly disregard the right of the people to change the constitution of the state of California. But all political power is inherent in the people of California."
click here for story
Thursday, March 5, 2009
JUST STUPID!
Woman Calls 911 After McDonald's Runs Out Of Nuggets
Fort Pierce Woman Cited For Misusing 911 Emergency Communications System
story here
Fort Pierce Woman Cited For Misusing 911 Emergency Communications System
story here
HEAT
Following is Kansas City, Kansas Archbishop Joseph Naumann's column from the upcoming edition of his archdiocesan newspaper, The Leaven.
Leaven Column
March 6, 2009
By Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann
Normally, it would be a source of joy and pride to have a Catholic from Kansas named by the President to an important Cabinet Post. Unfortunately, I experience neither with President Obama’s selection of Governor Kathleen Sebelius as his choice to serve as the Secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
In many ways, I can understand why President Obama selected Governor Sebelius. As I have acknowledged on several other occasions she is a very bright and gifted leader. In many important areas, she represents well Catholic social teaching. She has advocated for more affordable housing for the poor, she has worked to expand access to health care for economically disadvantaged children, and she has supported incentives encouraging adoption.
Yet, on the fundamental moral issue of protecting innocent human life, Governor Sebelius, throughout her career, has been an outspoken advocate for legalized abortion. For this reason her appointment to HHS is particularly troubling.
President Obama has made a top priority for his administration health care reform. The Church certainly supports the objectives of such reform: to make quality health care accessible and affordable for everyone. Of course, there is vigorous debate on how to best achieve this important goal. I claim no competence or expertise in this area.
The Secretary for HHS will be a key figure in developing and implementing the Health Care Reform for the nation. There are those, who have great influence within the Obama administration and with whom Governor Sebelius has been associated throughout her political career (e.g. Planned Parenthood, National Organization of Women, NARAL, etc.), who want abortion not only to be permitted in this country but considered a right.
If they are successful in their efforts to have abortion included amongst “basic health care services,” then it is entirely possible that doctors, nurses and health care institutions will be compelled to cooperate in the provision of abortion. Those advocating for abortion to be considered a “right” would love to see Catholic hospitals faced with the choice to either cooperate in providing abortions or close.
The protection of conscience rights for individuals and institutions is extremely important. The Obama administration has already expressed a desire to rescind the policies of the Bush administration to strengthen conscience protection for health care workers and providers. President Obama, when he was Senator Obama, co-sponsored the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) that was introduced in the previous congress. That version of FOCA would have, among other things, forced health care providers to cooperate in abortion. Regretfully, Governor Sebelius throughout her political career has been associated with and supported by Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL and others advocating for abortion to be considered a “health care right.”
Even more troubling is that earlier in her political career Governor Sebelius accepted political contributions from Wichita’s notorious late-term abortionist, Dr. George Tiller. When this was no longer politically opportune, Dr. Tiller established a political action committee through which he donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the election and re-election of Governor Sebelius, as well as other equally staunch supporters of legalized abortion.
Kansas has one of the most restrictive laws regarding late-term abortions. Yet, it has become, in large part because of Dr. Tiller, the late-term abortion capital of the Midwest. How is this possible? It is possible because our current laws have not been enforced. Each time the Kansas Legislature has passed statutes in an effort to improve enforcement of late-term abortion restrictions, Governor Sebelius has vetoed these laws.
As you are aware, because of her long history both as a legislator and Governor of consistently supporting legalized abortion and after many months of dialogue, I requested Governor Sebelius not to present herself for communion. I did this in the hope that it would motivate Governor Sebelius to reconsider her support for what is an intrinsic evil – the destruction of innocent human life by abortion. I also took this pastoral action to protect others from being misled by the Governor’s public support and advocacy for legalized abortion.
The appointment of Governor Sebelius as the Secretary of HHS concerns me on many levels. With her history of support for legalized abortion and embryonic stem cell research, it is troubling the important influence that she will have on shaping health care policies for our nation. Having elected President Obama with his own record of support for legalized abortion, our nation should not be surprised by his appointment of a Secretary for HHS who shares his views. Though many people voted for President Obama, not because of his support for legalized abortion but despite it, voters in effect gave him the ability to appoint individuals who share his anti-life views to his Cabinet and even more troubling to the courts.
I am also concerned personally for Governor Sebelius. Her appointment as Secretary for HHS places her in a position where she will have to make many decisions that will in all probability continue her personal involvement in promoting legalized abortion and her cooperation in this intrinsic evil.
I am also concerned that the appointment of Governor Sebelius places another Catholic supporting legalized abortion in a prominent national position. She joins Vice-President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and unfortunately a host of Catholic Senators and members of the House of Representatives who support legalized abortion contrary to the clear and consistent teaching of their Church. It saddens me that so many Catholics, to gain political advancement, have chosen to compromise their Catholic faith by their failure to defend the most fundamental of all human rights – the right to life.
I am reminded of the powerful scene in A Man for All Seasons, the play about the heroic Catholic English Martyr, St. Thomas More. After Richard Rich has perjured himself in order to make it possible to convict Thomas More of treason, the Judge asks Thomas More if he has any questions for the witness. Thomas More notes that Richard Rich is wearing a chain of office and asks what it signifies. He is told that Richard Rich has been appointed Attorney General for Wales. Thomas More then paraphrases the Gospel saying to Richard Rich: “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul, but for Wales?”
We need to pray for all Catholics who serve in public life that they will have the courage and integrity to be true to the teachings and principles of our Faith no matter the political consequences.
source
Leaven Column
March 6, 2009
By Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann
Normally, it would be a source of joy and pride to have a Catholic from Kansas named by the President to an important Cabinet Post. Unfortunately, I experience neither with President Obama’s selection of Governor Kathleen Sebelius as his choice to serve as the Secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
In many ways, I can understand why President Obama selected Governor Sebelius. As I have acknowledged on several other occasions she is a very bright and gifted leader. In many important areas, she represents well Catholic social teaching. She has advocated for more affordable housing for the poor, she has worked to expand access to health care for economically disadvantaged children, and she has supported incentives encouraging adoption.
Yet, on the fundamental moral issue of protecting innocent human life, Governor Sebelius, throughout her career, has been an outspoken advocate for legalized abortion. For this reason her appointment to HHS is particularly troubling.
President Obama has made a top priority for his administration health care reform. The Church certainly supports the objectives of such reform: to make quality health care accessible and affordable for everyone. Of course, there is vigorous debate on how to best achieve this important goal. I claim no competence or expertise in this area.
The Secretary for HHS will be a key figure in developing and implementing the Health Care Reform for the nation. There are those, who have great influence within the Obama administration and with whom Governor Sebelius has been associated throughout her political career (e.g. Planned Parenthood, National Organization of Women, NARAL, etc.), who want abortion not only to be permitted in this country but considered a right.
If they are successful in their efforts to have abortion included amongst “basic health care services,” then it is entirely possible that doctors, nurses and health care institutions will be compelled to cooperate in the provision of abortion. Those advocating for abortion to be considered a “right” would love to see Catholic hospitals faced with the choice to either cooperate in providing abortions or close.
The protection of conscience rights for individuals and institutions is extremely important. The Obama administration has already expressed a desire to rescind the policies of the Bush administration to strengthen conscience protection for health care workers and providers. President Obama, when he was Senator Obama, co-sponsored the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) that was introduced in the previous congress. That version of FOCA would have, among other things, forced health care providers to cooperate in abortion. Regretfully, Governor Sebelius throughout her political career has been associated with and supported by Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL and others advocating for abortion to be considered a “health care right.”
Even more troubling is that earlier in her political career Governor Sebelius accepted political contributions from Wichita’s notorious late-term abortionist, Dr. George Tiller. When this was no longer politically opportune, Dr. Tiller established a political action committee through which he donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the election and re-election of Governor Sebelius, as well as other equally staunch supporters of legalized abortion.
Kansas has one of the most restrictive laws regarding late-term abortions. Yet, it has become, in large part because of Dr. Tiller, the late-term abortion capital of the Midwest. How is this possible? It is possible because our current laws have not been enforced. Each time the Kansas Legislature has passed statutes in an effort to improve enforcement of late-term abortion restrictions, Governor Sebelius has vetoed these laws.
As you are aware, because of her long history both as a legislator and Governor of consistently supporting legalized abortion and after many months of dialogue, I requested Governor Sebelius not to present herself for communion. I did this in the hope that it would motivate Governor Sebelius to reconsider her support for what is an intrinsic evil – the destruction of innocent human life by abortion. I also took this pastoral action to protect others from being misled by the Governor’s public support and advocacy for legalized abortion.
The appointment of Governor Sebelius as the Secretary of HHS concerns me on many levels. With her history of support for legalized abortion and embryonic stem cell research, it is troubling the important influence that she will have on shaping health care policies for our nation. Having elected President Obama with his own record of support for legalized abortion, our nation should not be surprised by his appointment of a Secretary for HHS who shares his views. Though many people voted for President Obama, not because of his support for legalized abortion but despite it, voters in effect gave him the ability to appoint individuals who share his anti-life views to his Cabinet and even more troubling to the courts.
I am also concerned personally for Governor Sebelius. Her appointment as Secretary for HHS places her in a position where she will have to make many decisions that will in all probability continue her personal involvement in promoting legalized abortion and her cooperation in this intrinsic evil.
I am also concerned that the appointment of Governor Sebelius places another Catholic supporting legalized abortion in a prominent national position. She joins Vice-President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and unfortunately a host of Catholic Senators and members of the House of Representatives who support legalized abortion contrary to the clear and consistent teaching of their Church. It saddens me that so many Catholics, to gain political advancement, have chosen to compromise their Catholic faith by their failure to defend the most fundamental of all human rights – the right to life.
I am reminded of the powerful scene in A Man for All Seasons, the play about the heroic Catholic English Martyr, St. Thomas More. After Richard Rich has perjured himself in order to make it possible to convict Thomas More of treason, the Judge asks Thomas More if he has any questions for the witness. Thomas More notes that Richard Rich is wearing a chain of office and asks what it signifies. He is told that Richard Rich has been appointed Attorney General for Wales. Thomas More then paraphrases the Gospel saying to Richard Rich: “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul, but for Wales?”
We need to pray for all Catholics who serve in public life that they will have the courage and integrity to be true to the teachings and principles of our Faith no matter the political consequences.
source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)