Scranton native Sen. Joe Biden would likely feel at home any day of the week in Northeast Pennsylvania.Chris Korzen -- director of the "nonprofit, non-partisan organization Catholics United -- rushes to the Senator's defense:Well, any day except possibly Sunday.
The Most Rev. Joseph F. Martino, bishop of Scranton, has strongly supported refusal of Holy Communion for politicians who campaign for or vote in favor of abortion rights.
When asked whether the Democratic vice presidential candidate would be refused Communion should he tour the region, the diocese held firm to its past statements.
“I will not tolerate any politician who claims to be a faithful Catholic who is not genuinely pro-life,” Bishop Martino said in a pastoral letter Sept. 15, 2005, and reiterated this week.
“No Catholic politician who supports the culture of death should approach Holy Communion,” Bishop Martino said. “I will be truly vigilant on this point.”
Bishop Martino has also pointed to the need to privately meet with Catholic politicians and instruct them on the church’s teachings, prior to refusing them Communion.
While willing to reiterate these points, the bishop declined to comment specifically on Mr. Biden or any other politician.
[Korzen] said Mr. Biden’s leadership on issues like health care and economic justice “constitute a policy that’s consistent with human life.”(Hat tip: Thomas Peters).
13 comments:
Hey, Directors:
Are you going to start selling Catholics Against Joe Biden bumper stickers or bumper magnets?
I would contact one of the Directors personally, but none of them have provided a contact email.
Please reply at:
esg08@fsu.edu
Great idea! I live in Scranton, PA, and, unfortunately, Catholics here are flocking to pretend Catholic "Abortion Joe Biden." Would love to have one of those bumper stickers.
Shame on you! The "culture of death"??? Have the last 8 years not been a "culture of death"??? The Catholic Church has some nerve! Are the pedophile priests being refused Communion? You're disgraceful! I am a Catholic and I am totally 100% ANTI-ABORTION...I hate the thought of poor defenseless unborn babies being murdered in utero. But I am also sickened by the atrocities this current administration has perpetrated against LIVING people! Leading our young people into wars with no basis, no proper equipment, then no medical benefits when they return injured and sick! Hypocrisy!
Obama voted to allow the killing or unattended care until death of babies born of botched abortions. Does any Catholic, Christian, person of conscience belief that someone who would allow the killing of a born baby has the moral fiber to run a country? God Bless us all.
I REMEMBER OBAMA AT A RALLY TALKING ABOUT ABORTION. HE SAID THAT HE WOULD TELL HIS DAUGHTERS TO GET RID OF IT. BIDEN SOLD HIS SOUL FOR POWER.
I am not a Roman Catholic. I am very sad to see Roman Catholics listening to a one-issue bishop. Christ never mentioned abortion. He mentioned the poor. Bishop Martino of Scranton looks quite well off to me. That's a very nice outfit he wears, and I have a feeling he lives in a very warm home during the winter. We Quakers think quite differently from Bishop Scranton when we consider Christ's imperatives.
Let’s think clearly about the moral decision to save babies.
Ending legal abortion in the United States, which we absolutely must pursue, does not seem to be a reachable goal in the near future. Overturning Roe would only move the matter back to the states where all but a few have state laws supporting different versions of abortion on demand. And even when state laws are finally changed, the high rates of abortion in many countries around the globe where abortion is illegal---in some cases rates higher than in the U. S. currently---should give us pause regarding purely a legislative solution.
In the meantime, babies are dying. I believe we have a moral obligation to do what is possible now for these infants---while still pursuing the end to legal abortion.
You surely see where I'm heading. This is Doug Kmiec's argument. But, I think he's right. We might not be able to make abortion illegal in the near future, but with active pro-life support we could get socio-economic policies passed now that show promise for reducing the rates of abortion relatively quickly. I'm talking about programs aimed at making it easier for women in demographic groups associated with high abortion rates to carry their pregnancy to full-term. Many of these programs could garner support from Democrats--expansion of WIC, S-CHIP, adoption incentives, child care for working mothers, and so on. No doubt you've seen some of the studies (based on the dip in abortion rates in the '90s) that suggest as much as a 35% reduction of abortion incidence associated with a package of such policies.
As I said, I think the socio-economic approach to reduce abortion rates is a moral imperative, because political success there is feasible now. We must try this, even as we continue our fight to make abortion illegal.
Now, think about the candidates.
Many Republicans and/or conservatives are pro-life and for the death penalty. Many Democrats and/or liberals are pro-choice and are against the death penalty. How can one vote for one over the other?
Also, many Republicans, while wanting to protect the unborn, favor policieswhich cause death to men, women, and children. Republicans/conservatives are not known for being humanitarians in the international sense, such as human rights advocates here AND abroad. It is not enough to make a few charitable contributions when you ignore other important issues. They are big on using the war machine. How can one ignore the lives of those who are already in existence outside the womb?
We can quote Pope John Paul II on protecting the unborn, but we should also quote him on the Church's stance on capital punishment, as well as other issues of foreign and domestic policy.
The Bush administration is a perfect example of how voting pro-life can have devastating results. It is said Bush has remained firm on protecting the unborn, which is great. However, let us call to mind other decisions which indicate a disregard for human life, such as American foreign policy.
Let us reflect on the Washington Post article, "Catholic Voters Given Leeway on Abortion Rights Issue". You CAN vote for a pro-choice candidate so long as there are sufficient issues that support your cause and provided the candidate's pro-choice stance is NOT the reason you are voting for him/her: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3534-2004Sep7.html
In the article is there is mention of a memo. Pope Ratzinger (who was then still a Cardinal) sent it to Cardinal McCarrick and it can be found at: http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
Catholics should not be single-issue voters! It is dangerous and in the long run will be detrimental to all of us. A major point to consider: it does not matter whether a presidential candidate is pro-life or pro-choice. At the end of the day, the President does not decide on the right to life. It is the judicial system and state governments. Let us not be misinformed and lead our nation into more death and destruction - physically and spiritually - by those in power who dance to the beat of war drums!
Signed,
A concerned Catholic who is neither a Republican nor a Democrat
Wow. Leave for a while and the errors pile up!
Let's deal with the "Yes, Obama supports abortion, but Bush supports deadly foreign policy." objection.
Remember that the morality of acts are determined by 3 three things: The objective, the subjective and the relative. Abortion is objectively wrong, meaning that no good intention or circumstance or even good result can justify it. War (and the death penalty) are not objectively evil. They could be subjectively evil, but then your task is to prove that Bush (or McCain) has an explicit bad intention. Won't happen because they are not saying, "this war is unjust and we don't care". They believe it is just. Now, they might be wrong, but they can be wrong about this, but they are not formally supporting an intrisic evil. Not so with abortion.
As far as Doug's rush to abandon the legal fight against abortion, bullocks. Thanks Doug, but we are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
And single-issue voting? Let's see, Obama also supports the intrinsic issues of homosexual marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia. That's four intrinsic evil issues.
I may have posted this somewhere else on this blog, but Martino's letter he had read at every one of his parish is particularly relevant here as he demolishes the abortion-war equivocation:
Another argument goes like this: “As wrong as abortion is, I don’t think it is the only relevant ‘life’ issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote.” This reasoning is sound only if other issues carry the same moral weight as abortion does, such as in the case of euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes. Health care, education, economic security, immigration, and taxes are very important concerns. Neglect of any one of them has dire consequences as the recent financial crisis demonstrates. However, the solutions to problems in these areas do not usually involve a rejection of the sanctity of human life in the way that abortion does. Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life. Consider this: the finest health and education systems, the fairest immigration laws, and the soundest economy do nothing for the child who never sees the light of day. It is a tragic irony that “pro-choice” candidates have come to support homicide – the gravest injustice a society can tolerate – in the name of “social justice.”
Even the Church’s just war theory has moral force because it is grounded in the principle that innocent human life must be protected and defended. a person may, in good faith, misapply just war criteria leading him to mistakenly believe that an unjust war is just, but he or she still knows that innocent human life may not be harmed on purpose. A person who supports permissive abortion laws, however, rejects the truth that innocent human life may never be destroyed. This profound moral failure runs deeper and is more corrupting of the individual, and of the society, than any error in applying just war criteria to particular cases.
How dare Bishop Martino speak out about denying communion to Joe Biden because he is pro abortion---maybe Bishop Martino should think about all of the hundreds of thousands of children that have been abused by the priests. Those children will pay for the rest of their lives for the atrocities committed against them. Where was Bishop Martino when the priests and bishops moved those priests to other parishes so they could have a new supply of children to abuse. Shame on you Bishop Martino. Where were you then? Why didn't you speak out then? How dare the priests stand in church and tell the congregation how to vote. Separation of church and state---practice it. Also, maybe Bishop Martino can do some research to find out where Bishop Cullen of the Diocese of Allentown got close ot $1 million to buy several properties at the Jersey shore and Allentown.
No Catholic priest who supports the culture of child abuse should approach Holy Communion. Let the Bishop of Scranton surrender the pedophile priests for legal prosecution and sentencing and I'll entertain his arguments on abortion, same sex marriage and birth control. It seems that the Bishop believes he can pick and choose which doctrine to support. Thank goodness Christ warned us against charlatans and wolves in sheeps' clothing.
Post a Comment