Message from Archbishop Raymond L Burke

From Archbishop Burke via WDTPRS:

Dear Members of the Marian Catechist Apostolate,

Today is the 36th Anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous decision in the cases Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, by which the highest court of our nation took away the safeguard of the most fundamental of all rights, the right to life, from the most vulnerable members of the human family, the unborn. Rightly, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has, for some time, designated this day as a Day of Penance for Violations to the Dignity of the Human Person, and of Prayer for the Full Restoration of the Legal Guarantee of the Right to Life. January 22nd is to be observed “as a particular day of penance for violations to the dignity of the human person committed through acts of abortion, and of prayer for the full restoration of the legal guarantee of the right to life” (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 373).

The legacy of the just-mentioned decisions has been an unconscionable decline in the respect for all human life. By now, you are familiar with the latest and most heinous anti-life legislation the people of the United States of America are facing: the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). The passage of FOCA would lift all restrictions on procured abortion, force taxpayers to participate in the funding of procured abortions; revoke all informed consent, parental notification and conscience protection laws; and force even Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, which clearly would necessitate the closing of Catholic hospitals. I ask you to pray for the defeat of FOCA and to do all you can to work against its passage, while also working to protect existing pro-life legislation. For more information on how to become involved, please visit the USCCB website at www.usccb.org.prolife.

In a special way, I address you, the members of the Marian Catechist Apostolate, on this Day of Penance. Reflecting on the circumstances in society which give rise to the necessity of a Day of Penance for Violations to the Dignity of the Human Person, I am deeply conscious of the much needed service of the Marian Catechist Apostolate in the renewal of society. I take the occasion of this most sad anniversary for our nation, to encourage you to redouble your efforts to grow in personal holiness and knowledge of the Catholic Faith, that you may always be equipped to share generously and courageously the richness of the Faith with others, for the transformation of society.

...
Please join me today and always in calling upon the intercession of Our Lady of Guadalupe for the transformation of the culture death into a civilization of divine love and life.

Invoking God’s blessing upon you and your home, I am

Yours devotedly in Christ,

(Most Rev.) Raymond L Burke
Archbishop Emeritus of Saint Louis
Prefect, Apostolic Signatura of the Supreme Tribunal

• Link

A bishop on FOCA: “you can go take a flying leap”

From WDTPRS:

"A reader alerted me to this from Lifesite. My emphases and comments:

Catholic Bishop: "Go Right Ahead and Arrest Me" Rather than Obey Freedom of Choice Act

By Kathleen Gilbert
Life site
December 2, 2008


ARLINGTON, Virginia, December 2, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Bishop Paul Loverde of the diocese of Arlington weighed in on the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) last week, saying that if he oversaw a Catholic hospital he would neither close the facility nor allow it to perform abortions if FOCA were to become law.

Though there are currently no Catholic hospitals in the Arlington diocese, the bishop spoke defiantly against FOCA, which would force all health care providers to procure abortions at any stage of development, regardless of their moral or religious objection.

“I would say, ‘Yeah, I’m not going to close the hospital, you’re going to arrest me, go right ahead," Bishop Loverde told a group of mostly young adults at a diocesan event, according to a CNS report.

"You’ll have to drag me out, go right ahead. I’m not closing this hospital, we will not perform abortions, and you can go take a flying leap.’” [HUZZAH!]

At a 2007 Planned Parenthood conference, Obama promised that one of his highest priorities as president would be to pass FOCA, rendering illegal all state and federal limits on abortion. This would include abortion clinic regulations, parental notification requirements, bars to taxpayer abortion funding, and the partial–birth abortion ban, in addition to laws protecting doctors’ rights to conscientious objection. [Which might lead to the defining battle of our age.]

“It’s quite a title, let me tell you,” Bishop Loverde said of the Freedom of Choice Act. “It’s a misnomer, it’s neither free nor choice, so I don’t know where they got the name of the act, because it’s just crazy, because it has no freedom, and it has no choice.”

Catholic and pro-life voices have raised the alarm on the unprecedented danger the bill represents for unborn Americans, with Catholic officials particularly concerned that U.S. Catholic hospitals will be forced to close en masse in the face of mandatory abortion.

Chicago Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), issued in November a statement on behalf of all Catholic bishops warning Obama that "aggressive pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion."

One unnamed senior Vatican official recently told TIME magazine that the passage of FOCA would mean "the equivalent of a war" between Mr. Obama and the Catholic Church.

War between the President and the Catholic Church…..

Remember this post and review this one."

Going The Distance For Life: Download

• Link

Obama Fomenting A Constitutional Crisis: Constitutional Lawyer Discusses Ramifications Of Controversy

By John P. Connolly, The Bulletin

12/01/2008

Controversy continues to surround President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, and a case involving his birth certificate waits for its day before the U.S. Supreme Court. A constitutional lawyer said were it to be discovered that Mr. Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, it would have grave consequences for the nation.

According to the Constitution, a president must be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Mr. Obama's critics have failed to force him legally to produce his original birth certificate, and Mr. Obama has resisted any attempt to make him do so. Currently, only Hawaii Department of Health officials have access to Mr. Obama's original records.

Some of Mr. Obama's critics have said he was born in Kenya and have claimed he is a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia, or even a British subject.

Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and holds four degrees from Harvard, said if it were to be discovered Mr. Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were discovered after he had been in office for a period of time.

"Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Mr. Vieira told The Bulletin. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath."

Any appointments made by an ineligible president would have to be recalled, and their decisions would be invalidated.

"He may have nominated people to different positions; he may have nominated people to the judicial branch, who may have been confirmed, they may have gone out on executive duty and done various things," said Mr. Vieira. "The people that he's put into the judicial branch may have decided cases, and all of that needs to be unzipped."

Mr. Vieira said Obama supporters should be the ones concerned about the case, because Mr. Obama's platform would be discredited it he were forced to step down from the presidency later due to his ineligibility, were it to be discovered.

"Let's say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam," said Mr. Vieira. "What's the nation's reaction to that? What's going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it."

Mr. Vieira said Mr. Obama's continued silence and avoidance in the release of his birth certificate is an ethical issue because of the dire consequences that could be caused by a possible constitutional crisis.

"If he were my client and this question came up in civil litigation, if there was some reason that his birth status was relevant and the other side wanted him to produce the thing and he said 'no,' I would tell him, 'you have about 15 minutes to produce it or sign the papers necessary to produce the document, or I'm resigning as your attorney," said Mr. Vieira. "I don't think any ethical attorney would go ahead on the basis that his client could produce an objective document in civil litigation [and refused to do so]."

Further, Mr. Vieira cited a fraud ruling in a 1977 case called U.S. v. Prudden, which he feels applies in this case.

"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading," the ruling reads. "We cannot condone this shocking conduct ... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately."

Mr. Vieira said such an ethical question of representing a client who refused to produce such a basic document is important, even in a small civil case. The current question is concerning the man who potentially could have his finger next to the nuclear button.

"[The birth certificate], in theory, should be there," said Mr. Vieira. "What if it isn't? Who knows, aside from Mr. Obama? Does Russian intelligence know it isn't there? Does Chinese intelligence know it isn't there? Does the CIA know that it isn't there? Who is in a position to blackmail this fellow?"

Mr. Vieira explained all laws have to be submitted to the president. In the event that there is no valid president, then no laws passed by Congress in that administration would be legally null and void. Because of that, this case will probably not go away, even after Mr. Obama takes the oath of office.

"If you don't produce it, you think it's going to go away," he said. "There are all these cases challenging Mr. Obama, and some challenging secretaries of state, and they run into this doctrine called standing."

Mr. Vieira explained although legal standing is difficult to get around in Federal courts, the document could be produced in any criminal cases stemming from legislation passed in the Obama administration.

"Let's assume that an Obama administration passes some of these controversial pieces of legislation he has been promising to go for, like the FOCA (Freedom of Choice) Act," said Mr. Vieira. "I would assume that some of those surely will have some severe civil or criminal penalties attached to them for violation. You are now the criminal defendant under this statute, which was passed by an Obama Congress and signed by President Obama. Your defense is that is not a statute because Mr. Obama is not the president. You now have a right and I have never heard this challenged, to subpoena in a criminal case, anyone who has relevant evidence relating to your defenses. And you can subpoena them duces tecum, meaning 'you shall bring with you the documents.' "

Such a criminal defense would enable the defendant to subpoena any person to testify in court and any person to bring evidence in their possession to the court.

Further, records could be subpoenaed directly, in the case of a birth certificate. Once the record could be subpoenaed, the birth certificate could be examined by forensic experts, who would then be able to testify to the document's veracity as expert witnesses. Any movement by the judges to make a special exception to the president in a criminal case would hurt the legitimacy of that presidential administration.

"I can't believe I'm the only lawyer who would think of this," said Mr. Vieira. "I think any criminal lawyer defending against one of these politically charged statutes is going to come up with this. That means it will never go away until that document is laid down on the table and people say, 'yes, there it is.' And therefore they're caught. If people keep challenging this and the judges out of fear keep saying 'no, go to jail, go to jail, go to jail' then that's the end of the Obama administration's legitimacy. On the other hand if they open the file and it's not there, then that's really the end of the administration's legitimacy."

Several court cases in the birth certificate controversy are waiting admission to the Supreme Court.

A gathering of judges will meet on Dec. 5 to decide whether or not to hear a case from New Jersey, and a decision is still pending on a case from a lawyer in Pennsylvania. Should four of the judges vote to hear the case in the Dec. 5 meeting, then it will be scheduled for hearings. Court cases from Connecticut and New York have also applied for hearings at the U.S. Supreme Court.

John P. Connolly can be reached at jconnolly@thebulletin.us

• Link

Administrator of the Catholic Diocese of Charleston stepped in it... Part One

November 17, 2008
Barbara Kralis, RA analyst

Recently, a Charleston Catholic diocesan pastor, Father Jay Scott Newman, JCL, wrote a column to his flock which he published within his November 9, 2008 St. Mary's Catholic parish bulletin. [1] In it, Fr. Newman advised:

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

Everyone who is in good standing with the Catholic Faith would automatically agree with Father's statement and applaud his pastoral action. And they should. Fr. Newman holds graduate degrees in Sacred Theology and Canon Law and knows whereof he speaks. [2]

Fr. Newman's Catholic parish, very supportive of his courageous stand, is most likely wondering right now: Why does the diocese's temporary Administrator, [3] Msgr. Martin Laughlin, repudiate the Church's teachings regarding Catholics voting for pro-abortion politicians?

Recently, this writer asked Fr. Newman for an interview. This was Father's response:

"Dear Barbara, Thank you for your email. The diocesan administrator has asked me not to give interviews about this matter, and in obedience to his request, I must refer you to the Diocese of Charleston for all inquiries. Thank you. May the LORD bless the work of your hands."

When this writer tried to re-read Fr. Newman's essay published at his parish website, it was apparent the link had been removed. Readers are now automatically forwarded to the diocese of Charleston's website where Msgr. Laughlin's repudiation, in both .PDF and video formats, is found on their front page. Thankfully, I had earlier captured Fr. Newman's bulletin column permanently to my computer and can provide it for you herewith.

Msgr. Laughlin repudiates, in part:

"Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion. The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God.... We should all come together to support the President-elect...."

Nowhere within Fr. Newman's column could this writer find implied that Father Newman could read the minds and hearts of how his parishioners voted in the privacy of their voting booth. Nor did Fr. Newman say he would deny anyone Holy Communion [based on canon 915]. [4] Father would not deny Holy Communion because he would not be aware of any voter's hidden sins. In addition, Fr. Newman did not discuss the principle of 'the ends justifying the means.' Instead, he was measuring the outcome — what is the proportion of good or evil that can be done.

The Charleston diocesan administrator, Msgr. Laughlin, thereby creates more scandal to the already bumfuzzeled faithful. Catholic laity, as well as clergy, is asking each other:

"Does the Church really teach the way Msgr. Laughlin teaches or does Fr. Newman's column actually represent the Church's infallible moral teachings regarding Catholics voting for pro-abortion politicians?"

The answer to that question is not difficult to find among the Church's documents. Catholic libraries are filled with the Church's infallibly taught moral documents teaching that abortion has always been condemned by the authority which Christ Himself first conferred upon Peter [the Pope, the 'Solemn Magisterium'] and then his Successors, and to the apostles [those bishops and theologians when in complete communion with the Pope, 'Ordinary Magisterium'] as being a grave mortal sin, intrinsically evil and illicit. This basic moral teaching is based upon natural law and the written Word of God, proclaimed by the Catholic Church through its Sacred Tradition and through its Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium, that no one, no law, can ever make licit an act, which is intrinsically evil and illicit.

Keeping in mind that there will be other faithful priests who will be preaching in the same manner as Fr. Newman, and there may possibly be other diocesan Bishops or heads that try to repudiate these priests, one would do well to recall this column and use it to rebuke error and heresy to those who are confused.

"The theocentricity of the priestly existence is truly necessary in our entirely function-oriented world in which everything is based on calculable and ascertainable performance. The priest must truly know God from within and thus bring him to men and women: this is the prime service that contemporary humanity needs."[5]

Before we visit a few of the many teachings on this moral subject, let us first take a brief look at some of the pro-abortion policies and legislations that President elect Barack Obama supports and has promoted.

Since July 2007, over one year before the presidential election would take place, Barack Obama pledged to his supporters that he would overturn every [hundreds] pro-life law in all 50 states limiting abortion. He said that his very first action would be signing the FOCA, if it became law, codifying Roe v Wade and allowing unlimited abortions in the land. He promised he would not yield nor would he allow Planned Parenthood to yield to pro-life pressures. He vowed to elect judges who would affirm a women's right to abortion. And, he consistently for past 4 years voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infants bill to protect babies who are born alive after a botched abortion. [6]

For example, in 1997, Obama voted against Illinois Senate Bill [SB] 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion [click here and here and here [7] for videos of this infanticide]. The excellent legislation defined a 'fetus' as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.

No one can doubt, therefore, that it is perfectly clear Barack Hussein Obama will do everything in his power to carry out his campaign promises to continue to make abortion and infanticide the law of our nation and among third world countries. Why would 54% Catholics vote for such a man?

With this clearly established proof of President elect Obama's pro-abortion support the question must be asked:

Is what Fr. Newman taught in his bulletin really "diverting the focus from the Catholic Church's clear teaching against abortion" and Catholics' consciences allowing them to vote for pro-abortion politicians, as Msgr. Martin Laughlin said, or is Msgr. Laughlin seriously confused?

Please go to 'Part Two' to examine what the Catholic Church, its Popes and those Bishops in union with the Pope, teaches us about its Church members forming right consciences, wrongly voting for pro-abortion politicians, and being worthy to receive Holy Communion.


NOTES:

[1] The 'JCL' designation after a priest's or bishop's name indicates an Licentiate of Canon Law, an academic degree granted by universities for proficiency in theology, philosophy, canon law, etc. The holder is called a Licentiate. The degree ranks below that of a Doctor of Master, and usually above that of Bachelor degree.

[2] Father Newman studied for the priesthood at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and received priestly formation at the Pontifical North American College; he holds graduate degrees in sacred theology and canon law. He was ordained to the deaconate on 19 December 1992 at St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City and to the priesthood on 10 July 1993 at the Cathedral Church of St. John the Baptist in Charleston, South Carolina.
Father Newman has served as Catholic Chaplain to The Citadel. Before coming to St. Mary's, he served at the Pontifical College Josephinum in Columbus, Ohio as Assistant Professor of Canon Law in the School of Theology and Dean of Men in the undergraduate College. He began his service as the sixteenth pastor of St. Mary's on 28 June 2001.
Father Newman is a papal Knight in the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem and a member of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, the Society for Catholic Liturgy, and the Canon Law Society of America. He also serves in the Diocese of Charleston as Director of Continuing Education for Priests and as a member of the Presbyteral Council and the Vocations Board. Father Newman is active in ecumenical affairs, particularly with Anglicans, Lutherans, and Baptists, and is a frequent speaker at conferences and retreats.
Fr. Newman was born on August 6, l962 in Elkin, North Carolina, a small mill town in the shadow of the Blue Ridge Mountains, and grew up in Greensboro, North Carolina. His parents' families were mostly Southern Baptists and members of the Church of the Brethren, but at age 13 he became an atheist. In 1980 he matriculated at Princeton University, and there on 15 October 1981 he experienced a conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ. On 17 January 1982 he was baptized in the Episcopal Church, and on 5 November 1982 he was received into full communion with the Catholic Church and confirmed.

[3] On August 14, 2007, the Bishop of Charleston, Robert J. Baker, S.T.D., was appointed Bishop of Birmingham, AL, and was ordained to that See on October 2, 2007. The Vatican has not yet appointed another Bishop to govern the Charleston diocese. Bishop Baker, one of the 16 faithful U.S. Bishops who declared publicly that he would deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians, also encouraged the weekly Tridentine Latin Mass within the Charleston diocese.

[4] "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" [Code of Canon Law c.915]. Cf n.4, 'Redemptionis Sacramentum' points out that the priest may find an individual's judgment about his own worthiness to receive the Eucharist to be in grave error and the priest must deny him Holy Communion, according to c.915. Cf "Redemptionis Sacramentum.' warns that manifest persons who are also 'unambiguously pro-abortion" must be refused Holy Communion.

[5] Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Members of the Roman Curia at the Traditional Exchange of Christmas Greetings, Clementine Hall, Friday, December 22, 2006.

[6] Cf Planned Parenthood Action Fund speech, July 17, 2007, by Barack Obama. http://lauraetch.googlepages.com/barackobamabeforeplannedparenthoodaction

[7] This working 'YouTube' link requests you first click on their 'Confirm Birth Date' button, as some of the content, they say, is inappropriate for some users. I recommend that you go ahead and click the button, as this video's content is less violent than most of the programs that are currently on national television during prime time viewing. In fact, when President elect Obama signs the FOCA, a child needs to only be 13 years of age to obtain a murderous abortion without her parents knowledge or permission. Talk about the youth being protected from violent video content.

• Link