My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (

The Curt Jester


Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« Finally, Sanity in Chicago. | Main | Priest & President of the U.N.? »

Thursday, June 05, 2008


Aidez-nous, rejoignez notre groupe sur facebook...


Another story about diversity in catholic thought. Bring on Father Pfleger, he would have had no problem in the distribution.
Catholics serious about their faith don't make me laugh.

T. Shaw

What did McCain or Bush do to Kmiec to engender such irrational hatred which manifests itself in support for this nobody: Obama? Such uncharity in itself would be cause to need Confession.

This good priest was correct. In addition to denying Kmiec Holy Eucharist, he should have stopped the line and explained to all the Pope's teaching that no Catholic can, in conscience, vote for a candidate whose 'prime directive' is the mass murder of unborn babies, and, in Osama's case, whose second and third commandments are 'damn America' and 'hate whitey.'

Maybe more bishops ought to 'line up' behind Church teachings on societal intrinsic evils and inform the faithful that supposed opposition to comparatively trivial prudential judgments (tax cuts for the rich, socialism, racist preferences at whiteys' expense to compensate protected classes for someone else's racsim, death penalty, the war, gay privileges, wire taps, etc.) does not offset Osama's hyper-support for abortion.

Anyhow, if Kmiec continues to assert that he is a 'conservative' while supporting the most liberal candidate possible, he obviously suffers from alzheimers or some other menatlk disorder and whatever BS PC university employs ought to take note.

Wow.... Catholics are doomed to repeat themselves! How easy to manipulate the small minded. Bush touted a "culture of life" in order to get the conservative religious vote of both Protestants and Catholics. His reign has been anything but.... he has killed over 100,000 people of Iraq and over 4,000 U.S. soldiers in a war proliferated only for the welfare of big business and the oil companies which he came out of. One issue (abortion) does not make a person "pro life".

With regards to the priest in this scandal, he should be taken to task via the legal system for harassment. He used the backdrop of a historic institution in an open forum to defame an individual while hiding behind "church teaching" when neither his bishop nor canon lawyer would support him (and rightfully so). What a dope!

T. Shaw

That last comment was stupider than I thought humanly possible.

Annie Witz

Every day 4,000 babies are killed in American abortion mills. That is a crime against humanity. Over a million die every year. Look at the numbers. Abortion kills babies. They can't even run from the killer! Obama and Hillary were fighting over who was more pro-abortion. That says it all for me.

Karen Shull

There is a difference between a public official endorsing or not endorsing abortion, and a voter's decision regarding support of a candidate. The public official takes a position on many issues. As a voter, I can agree with some positions, and disagree - strongly- with other positions. Only I can decide why I choose to vote for a particular candidate, and that cannot be dictated by Rome. Remind parishioners of the sin of abortion, the senseless slaughter of innocent lives, yes. Decide where they cast their votes, absolutely not. I'm appalled to think that we might be repudiating the ground John Kennedy broke almost 60 years ago.

And at the moment, I'm voting for McCain. But don't push me. I can make up my own mind, thank you. Last I checked, the free will and conscience were still mine.

johnny b

"And at the moment, I'm voting for McCain. But don't push me. I can make up my own mind, thank you. Last I checked, the free will and conscience were still mine."

I would hate to push you to vote for the guy who doesn't want to kill babies and small children.

This is a Christian "no brainer". Hussein is bad, bad news. I honestly can't understand how he could be an option for any practicing Christian, let alone a Roman Catholic.


Then Cardinal Ratzinger's Memorandum (July 3, 2004) "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion - General Principles" ought to be a clear reference. The reasons for endorsement of Obama would indicate whether it is formal cooperation or remote material cooperation. If it is the latter case then there should be consideration for seriously proportionate reasons.


Lets not blame the guy for falling into Obama's charisma.

Sadly, Obama reminds me of the Anti-Christ character, as painted by the Left Behind books (yes, I plodded through those driveling piles of literary self-abuse). I mean, for relatively sane people to suddenly begin worshiping this guy is insane.

Brian Fisher

Oh please people, where does it end?!?! So first we deny communion to pro-choice politicians, now we are denying communion to people who endorse pro-choice politicians. So what is next, deny it to people who are friends of people who endorse pro-choice politicians? Please, the Church should work on ridding itself of people like Archbishop John Myers and Michael Andreano first. You know, glass houses...?


The point is,Brian,that the left,the liberals,the heretics and the lukewarm Catholics are making war on Holy Mother Church,trying to water down liturgy,devotions,and the priesthod to the point where it is no longer recognizably Catholic.
It's the ''we do what we want'' rationale.
Which is the entire problem.
Instead of obeying Church Teaching,they make up their own.
This is hubris,and outright heresy.
You would KNOW that if you were truly Catholic.
But and the people that you defend care nohing for Tradition,or the Catechism as outlined by Rome.

Do us and HMC a favor:
Put up or shut up.
Either get in line with what the Magesterium teaches,or get out.
ALL the way out.
''Catholics'' like you are a scandal and a stumbling block.




Canon law states this:

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

As I understand the situation Mr Kmiec was never excommunicated, never counseled by a priest, or bishop concerning this matter - so I fail to understand where he has shown 'obstinancy.' It seems to me that if the priest distributing the Communion was able to pick Kmiec out of the crowd, then the proper thing to do would have been to inform Mr Kmiec of his concerns prior to the Mass. Then IF Mr Kmiec presented himself he would have at least been counseled & be showing 'obstinancy.'


One more thing. Here is a link where Mr Kmiec explains his position:


His ''position'' matters not a whit.
He is in opposition to Church Law.
That is the only thing that matters.



What is the Catholic to do in countries that offer only pro-abortion politicians and the choice is between them? Not vote at all? Perhaps.
Personally I think Kmiec has fallen for the charms of a man that reads a prepared speech well. Leaving aside the abortion issue, Obama's record is radical left down the line. Nor is he for anything new. His "change" is 1960's boilerplate socialism. It should be noted that the people that have formed his thinking (that is the significance of Rev. Wright) are stuck in the sixties. Have you noticed that even their criticisms of the military are all 40 years out of date? That a pro-life conservative could fall for this guy is a sign of either a brain cramp or some nostalgia for a time that never was.

As to being refused communion because of his public support, sorry, the priest was in error according to Canon Law. Kmiec is not an elected or appointed official with the power to affect the abortion issue. He is, although high profile, just another citizen. So his argument is relevant to the issue and should be debated.

If, however, Kmiec supports Obama because of his abortion position, and it is publicly and unambiguously stated as such, then the priest would have a good case for refusal. On the other hand, both the Holy Father and the USCCB have made the case that a vote for a pro-abortion politician can be cast for other compelling reasons. This is the case that Kmiec is trying to make.
Personally, I have heard him state his reasons and I don't think his argument makes the grade. But he can, in conscience make that case and cast his support as he has.

But the case against him for scandal can be made, because his opinion clearly carries weight with other Catholics. He needs to seriously consider whether his public position, rather than simple private vote at the poll in November, is going to cause someone somewhere to doubt that abortion is intrinsically and always evil, ie. doubt Church teaching. Why did he make his support for Obama public? Clearly, for no other reason than to influence others. He cannot act surprised at the vociferous response nor should he have been so shocked that a priest might overstep Canon Law and refuse him communion.

For those who think that the dead in Iraq, both American and Iraqi trump abortion, you are wrong on Church teaching. Abortion is intrinsically evil. War can be justified, and even if in this case it is not clearly a justifiable war, which both JPII and B16 have pointed out, abortion still is the greater evil.

Kmiec's position is that even if McCain were elected and appointed the judges that would make a majority that would overturn Roe v Wade, the issue would simply revert to the States and at least 45 out of 50 would legalize abortion immediately. But that kind of legal argument is not a slam-dunk and there are many ways to bring the case before the Supreme Court. He points out that since Roe there have been several Pro-life Republican presidents and the abortion business rolls on. That may be true but Obama is not the option. He would like to nationally enshrine abortion so that no woman would ever have to be "punished" with children. That one line referencing his daughters should be enough to send Kmiec running the other way.


I really can understand the massive amount of confusion and frustration from those on both sides of this issue. The bishops' lack of a coherent, unified strategy in this matter plunges Catholics into ridicule and scorn; and it leaves, I think, the faithful unclear as to Church teaching. I really do wonder how many have been utterly scandalized by their inaction and disunity. (I guess they'll find out in the hereafter.)

American bishops have been scandalously silent or divided for so long that people genuinely hold diverse opinions as to this story. Some diocese in Texas will proscribe Communion for a pro-choice politician, while another in Massachussettes will allow it. And people wonder why we Catholics get mocked!

So, Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy can receive Holy Communion when the Pope (the POPE, for goodness sake!!) comes to town, but this guy--who has never cast a vote for pro-abortion legislation--can't. John Kerry gets to take communion everywhere except St. Louis and Denver and Sacramento, but this supporter of Barak can't? I really can understand the confusion.

Until the bishops clarify and unify their teaching and discipline in this matter, this type of baffling confusion will continue; worse, thanks to them, it will metastasize to other areas: gay/lesbian marriage, youth in Asia, and the other host of issues that are held without their conscience being piqued.

Brian Fisher

My point is the Church needs to clean up its own house before people can be expected to take seriously the fact we should be living to the letter of Catholic law.
Archbishop John Myers of Newark is a perfect example. Myers is one of the Church's loudest proponents of a return to conservatism. Yet when his personal secretary, Father Michael Andreano, had an adulterous affair with my wife Myers did nothing. He conducted an investigation, he corroborated my allegations, but he said becaue the affair was "mutual" Andreano would not be punished. In effect, Myers - the so-called "Voice of Catholic Conservatism" - maintains it is okay for priests to have adulterous affairs with married women so long as they are consensual affairs.
That is not the first time Myers has exhibited such behavior. There were numerous instances involving his transfers of priests accused of sexual abuse while he was bishop in Peoria and it continued when he came to Newark. Myers reinstated Monsignor Peter Cheplic even after Cheplic admitted he had sexually abused Marin Kansky after getting him drunk. Myers' reasoning for reinstating Cheplic; it hadn't been proven Kansky was under 18 when the abuse happened. So here we have Myers saying it is okay for priests to ply men with alcohol and have sexual relations with them so long as the men are over 18.
How does Archbishop Myers respond when you ask him how he can possibly let priests do this while advocating a "return to conservatism"? He doesn't because he simply doesn't have the courage to. Oh he's great at making blanket statements about what we should and shouldn't do but ask him to enforce those rules among his own priests and he's a no show.
So don't DARE tell me what a good catholic is Dominic until people like Myers find the courage, integrity and moral conviction to either clean house and lead by example, or step aside.
Now if you think I'm making this all up, call Myers and ask him. Of course that could be difficult since Myers hasn't made public any way to contact him; no phone number, no email, nothing. You could try contacting James Goodness, the Archbishop's spokeman ( but if you mention my case he will ignore you and then block your email.
Pope Benedict said upon his arrival in America "It is your God-given responsibility as pastors to bind up the wounds caused by every breach of trust, to foster healing, to promote reconciliations and to reach out with loving concern to those so seriously wronged..." They were empty words. The only lesson the Church in America has learned is how to harden their defences.
Don't direct your ire at me; it is misfound if you do. Direct it at the true enemies of the Church, starting with Archbishop John J. Myers.


What should the Rev. Pfleger do? He is a supporter of Obama AND a Catholic priest. According to "" Pfleger gave $1500 total to Obama while Kmiec has not contributed financially to Obama. So should Fr Pfleger be denied Communion?

Fr Pfleger is set to return with no restrictions!


As I understand it, it is licit to vote for a pro-choice politician as long as you don't vote for them because of the pro-choice, position, but despite it. Meaning you think that while they have an unfortunately incorrect position on abortion, you believe their position on other matters outweighs this position.
Now before you jump all over me saying that you can't outweigh the life issue, let me make two points:
1. That question is a matter of a persons conscience
2. Let's look at the example of George Bush. He supports the death penalty (presided over a number of them as governor of texas). He's instigated a war that has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. He has appointed two supreme court judges who may or may not vote to limit abortion if a case regarding it ever comes before them. How good a record on life issues is a president like this? Couldn't it be reasonable to think that another person, even a pro-choice one, could be a better choice to vote for?

"Meaning you think that while they have an unfortunately incorrect position on abortion, you believe their position on other matters outweighs this position."

My understanding is that abortion is such a great evil that no amount of good could possibly outweigh it. Also, if a person, or a politician, does not display respect for the most innocent form of human life, how are they to be trusted to care for other forms of human life?

Look, the point is not that other issues trump the life issue, it's a matter of weighing weather a candidate can have any effect or what effect they will have.
If a guy's running for dog catcher and he says he's pro-life, it doesn't really matter because he will not be able to do anything to effect life issues - he's just trying to get votes by claiming to be the pro-life candidate for dog catcher.
If a guy is president and he has appointed 2 judges that might or might not at some point in the future decide to limit abortion (Bush's judges might not vote pro-life anyway, pro-choice Sandra Day O'Connor was a Reagan appointee, in case you forgot) and he has also started a war that has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, then how good of a pro-life president is that? Hmmm...he's made decisions that have definitely resulted in piles of corpses but some day in the future some judge he appointed may decide to let the states limit abortion - oh yeah this guy is pro-life all the way!
Look, I don't want to debate the specific case of George Bush to death but the point I am making is that just because a guy claims to be pro-life doesn't mean he's really going to defend human lives, and you might disagree with that but I think that this is a fair case for individuals to use their own conscience when deciding who to vote for. And sometimes you might look at the pro-choice guy and the pro-life guy and think the pro-life guy won't really do anything to limit abortion, but at least the pro-choice guy will help human lives (or at least not contribute to killing more people) during his presidency.
Does that make any sense to anyone? Does that line of logic violate moral catholic voting responsibility?


"Also, if a person, or a politician, does not display respect for the most innocent form of human life, how are they to be trusted to care for other forms of human life?"

George bush displayed respect to (or, in my opinion, gave lip service to) the most innocent form of human life. Do you really believe his presidency is worth the trust voters gave him? How many abortions have been prevented by the Bush administration?


This is another sign that the official Church is out of touch with most Catholics. The underground Catholic Church is something else again.
The vast majority of Catholics who aren't avid, fanatical supporters of Senator Clinton (who is also a supporter of Roe v Wade and abortion rights) will vote for Senator Obama regardless of what priests and bishops say.
The era of "father knows best" or "his lordship knows best" is over.
Why aren't the bishops more concerned about denying communion to known supporters of Bush's immoral and failed war in Iraq, or to the greedy rich Catholics on Wall Street who have lined their pockets speculating on the price of oil while leaving the rest of the Nation to fend for itself?
Note also how countless pederasts in the priesthood continue to offer Mass and distribute communion. Why are they permitted to continue in public ministry? The bishops have much to answer for.


There is a difference between being a politician and voting for one. There is also a difference between voting for a politican and actively campaigning for him, and writing public articles in support of him, and endorsing him, and intentionally trying to obfuscate that candidate's position in order to win votes.

A friend and I were having a conversation along these lines last week: a Catholic we know just won the Democratic senate primary as a pro-life democrat. We agreed we'd vote for him, but we're not sold on whether we support him enough to campaign for him.

Do I think every Catholic who votes Democratic is commiting mortal sin? No, but every Catholic I've known who supports the Democrats objects to Church teaching on at least one important matter (same with most who are die-hard Republicans).

For example, Kmiec and other prominent Catholics who support Obama have pointed to his positions on "sex education" and "abortion prevention" as to why he's a good candidate--in other words, they support the fact that he supports artificial contraception.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic