Burke blurbs Ponnuru: Democrats as “Party of Death”
Former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, recently promoted to the Vatican as head of the Apostolic Segnatura (a kind of church Supreme Court, only more complicated) wastes no time making waves on the other side of the pond. In an interview with Avvenire, the daily of the Italian bishops conference, Burke was asked if he knew that Sheryl Crow, whose support for abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research led the archbishop to bar her from a 2007 benefit at a Catholic children’s hospital in St. Louis, also performed at the Democratic convention:
“That does not surprise me much,” the archbishop said. “At this point the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a ‘party of death’ because of its choices on bioethical questions as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book, ‘The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life.’”
Archbishop Burke said the Democratic Party once was “the party that helped our immigrant parents and grandparents better integrate and prosper in American society. But it is not the same anymore.”
Burke goes on to express the view that more American bishops are coming around to his view regarding denying communion to pro-choice Catholic pols, which was once seen as a distinctly minority opinion.
Meanwhile, Ramesh Ponnuru must be happy. No?
I believe judges are well-advised to refrain from commenting on political matters.
Burke is unable to keep his intemperate remarks to himself. He is not judge and jury (although he thinks he is).
Here is a link to the Florida bishops entitled: Bishops are not Party Bosses. Shortcut to: http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/1929
It addresses crucial US issues but without judgment, condemnation, or partisanship.
Burke, by his own admission, is partisan; believes in the Wafer Wars, and is not respected by most of the USCCB. Both he and Chaput ran for various positions and did not get many votes, period.
Finally, here is a link to a US Catholic theologian, R. McBrien, who makes a more reasoned argument about abortion and pro-life activities in the context of both candidates: Shortcut to: http://129.74.72.9/rm/FMPro?-db=rm%5f&-format=record%5fdetail.htm&-lay=full&-sortfield=yyyy&-sortorder=descend&-sortfield=mm&-sortorder=descend&-sortfield=dd&-sortorder=descend&new%5fid=now&-max=15&-recid=34920&-find=
Would suggest that this may come to a head after the Nov. elections when the USCCB has appointed a small committee of bishops to address the Biden/Pelosi response and how to handle going forward.
On a more anecdotal line – my numerous friends in STL were just happy that he was removed and left the area. His constant tension getting manuveurs got on their nerves.
I’m not in favor of the approach taken by Abps. Burke and Chaput, but what about Philadelphia’s Cardinal Rigali’s recent letter to all members of Congress, on behalf of the Pro-Life Secretariat of the USCCB, urging legislators to vote against the enactment of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which Senator Obama has promised to sign as one of his first executive acts as president.
The link to the letter can be found at the end of this article:
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2008/08-138.shtml
For those interested, there is also a link to legal analysis of the FOCA by the general counsel’s office at the USCCB.
I personally find nothing objectionable about the form of Cardinal Rigali’s letter. (I also agree with the content.) The went to all legislators, there is no mention of political parties, and it threatens no ecclesiastical sanctions. The letter seems no different to me than the commentary routinely provided to legislators by those seeking to persuade elected officials on an issue of consequence.
“there is no mention of political parties”
Sorry, it would be more correct to say that the Cardinal does not single out any political party.
“Both he and Chaput ran for various positions and did not get many votes, period.”
Hopeful indeed. Yet they do have the squakiest wheels. Just bishops should let their light shine brighter.
Burke is just another activist judge. He had better watch it or the Republicans will turn on him.
“we can’t reduce abortion by promoting abortion”
If it is true that Senator Obama has promised to sign, as one of his first executive acts, the freedom of choice act, then it looks like Senator Obama has some explaining to do.
I’ve wondered, too, about the Freedom of Choice Act. Have the candidates declared themselves on the matter? If so, where, please?
Obama’s statement this past January on the 35th anniversary of Roe/Doe.
http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/22/obama_statement_on_35th_annive.php
Throughout my career, I’ve been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
“When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.
Obama is a co-sponser of FOCA.
I’m glad somebody brought up the Freedom of Choice bill. I just heard about it yesterday over on beliefnet. I was pretty much set to vote for Obama because I thought that on abortion, whether it is McCain or Obama we would pretty much have the status quo. And that Obama might at least increase social supports for pregnant women.
However, now I’m having serious second thoughts about Obama because this law will remove state restrictions such as waiting periods, parental consent, informed consent etc. I think these are very moderate restrictions that represent a real middle ground. But, the Freedom of Choice bill is radical. According to NARAL’s website, there are 500 state laws limiting abortion in various ways, and this bill aims to wipe them out. Couldn’t this offset any reductions that Obama might affect through increased social welfare?
Does this bill have a good chance of passing in a Democratic Congress. It looks like the Dems are going to pick up at least 6 seats in the Senate. I see that there are 20 cosponsors in the Senate now. How much support would such a radical bill get, though? There are pro-life Democrats in both chambers. Why would Congress want to touch this bill, when clearly most Americans are not clamoring for more liberal abortion laws?
Fr. Komonchak, I googled to see if McCain was on record opposing this bill. A number of websites on both sides claimed that he did oppose it. But, they didn’t not cite any statement of his. Judging by his voting record, it seems safe to say that he would oppose the bill.
Some churchmen and politicians are so intransigent on the issue of abortion, over which men have no physical control, and so tolerant of killing in war, over which men have always had control.
Abortion and Theology by Martin E. Marty
There is no position on the issue of abortion — and other just and good decisions — that does not have highly objectionable consequences. Clarity and consistency are well-nigh impossible, no matter which of the many options we choose, giving us all the more reason to think as clearly, coherently and deeply as we possibly can.
What Does It Mean to Be ‘Pro-Life’? by Donald Granberg
It appears the Vatican hasn’t given His Excellency enough work in order to keep his mouth shut.
“Dot the i’s, cross the t’s, keep busy with legalese” — and leave the rest of us alone: My advice to Raymond.
Some churchmen and politicians are so intransigent on the issue of abortion, over which men have no physical control, and so tolerant of killing in war, over which men have always had control.
Abortion and Theology by Martin E. Marty
Tells it like it is. Vote for war. Vote against Obama.
His Excellency also thinks that such simpleminded outspokenness, which belies being a great legal mind, was not a reason for him to be transferred from the U.S. to Rome. I think differently. Perhaps we can just say, legalistic mind.
I wonder if he’ll start implementing his approach in Italy. Will he issue a statement if members of the curia give communion to pro-choice politicians? My guess is that the European cardinals don’t operate in that prophetic manner.
you are right cathleen.
Reading, in Italy, this interview with Avvenire is funny and surreal.
When Card. and archbishop of Torino was asked about rallies pro-life and rosary meetings in front of abortion clinics in Usa, he answered :”Americanate” ( in Italy this means bullshits).
Welcome in Italy Abps. Burke !!!!
In the cited article, Fr. McBrien writes: “Catholic moral theologians, however, have insisted that human rights inhere in persons, not things, not even in a fertilized egg”.
I don’t know which Catholic moral theologians he means [he cites no one but himself], but the Catechism seems clear enough:
“2270. Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life”.
Fr. McBrien [again] mentions twinning, as though this somehow affects the argument. He does need to take a few courses in embryology before trying the argument.
I think I’ll refer Bishop Burke (and Nancy) to Dean Cafardi’s endorsement of Obama today.
Of course, I expect to see the same arguments seen here before to be repeated.
Is the Cardinal and [no longer] archbishop of Turin, the Jesuit Cardinal Martini. the whose indirect support of abortion and direct support of use of the use of condoms, caused a ruckus a while ago? I don’t suppose he would have said “americanata” [americanata f. (plural americanate) "Grandiose and extravagant behaviour considered typical of Americans"] in 1944 when U.S. troops liberated Turin. But perhaps he would have.
Gabriel Austin, you can tone down the blathering ad hominem. You might also help your cause if you get your targets straight: Martini is the emeritus archbishop of Milan, not Turin. But whoever your intedned target, keep it to yourself.
Gabriel Austin
as David Gibson said Martini is the emeritus archbishop of Milan, not Turin.
And the US Troops never liberated Turin, Turin is in NORTH Italy! And 1944??????????? OMG!
Austin
Turin was liberated on 27-28 avril 1945 by Partisans ( and the greater part was Comunists)
Gabriel Austin: Are you referring to the Po Valley offensive? That was conducted in the Spring of 1945. The 92nd Infantry defeated the Ligurian Army around 30 April. The 442nd RCT entered Turin on 1 May is my understanding.
“When Card. and archbishop of Torino was asked about rallies pro-life and rosary meetings in front of abortion clinics in Usa, he answered :”Americanate” ( in Italy this means bullshits).”
Tell it like it is Mary. BS it is.
“2270. Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”
Fair enough.
Now we have a situation where pro-life medical specialists have told a pregnant woman that if she carries her pregnancy to term, she will most assuredly die. The doctors acknowledge they have two patients, the unborn baby and the mother. Being an expectant mother, the woman naturally wants the doctors to do everything possible to save both her and her unborn child. The doctors know, however, from medical experience/science that their task will not work in the end: the mother will die, and the unborn child will be too premature/weak to survive any kind of life-sustaining intervention outside the womb.
What to do?
Is the writer of the CCC paragraph 2270 willing to step up to the plate and tell the woman that she must be prepared to die in order to try to carry her pregnancy to term?
Is AB Raymond Burke prepared to give the same advice/instruction to the expectant mother?
Is Gabriel Austin prepared to tell the expectant mother that she must be prepared to die in order to try to carry her pregnancy to term in this scenario?
FWIMBW, I’m not.
Gee, a scene from the movie, The Cardinal.