St Michael Society

Category Archives: civility

Planned Parenthood Gets Shocked in Virginia

February 17, 2010

What a turn of events for Planned Parenthood in Virginia.

The largest provider of abortion in the country decided to try to get the state of Virginia to produce a counter-Choose Life license plate that says “Trust Women, Respect Choice” and have the proceeds to go Planned Parenthood.

Choose Life license plates are very popular and are available in 24 states while pro-abortion plates are available in 3 states. In Virginia, the proceeds go to Heartbeat International, a worldwide network of pregnancy resource centers.

Well, Planned Parenthood got a huge shock when the Virginia House of Delegates went to vote on the proposed license plate. One of the legislators decided to introduce an amendment that would send the proceeds to the Virginia Pregnant Women Support Fund instead of Planned Parenthood (it’s ok to laugh or cheer; we did).

The VA Pregnant Women Support Fund helps pregnant women with various kinds of support during unplanned pregnancies – basically they are the opposite of Planned Parenthood.

In a turn of events that sent Planned Parenthood into a tizzy, the House of Delegates passed the amendment and then passed the bill!

The grassroots manager of Planned Parenthood of Virginia, Courtney Jones, said: ”I’m outraged about the funds going to the Pregnant Women Support Fund because they don’t provide the same services as Planned Parenthood does.”

That’s right Courtney. The Pregnant Women Support Fund does not take the life of unborn children.

The Virginia State Senate passed a similar bill today but that version sends the money to Planned Parenthood so before a final bill is passed, both chambers will have to resolve the differences.

Let’s hope that the proceeds don’t go to Planned Parenthood since, among other reasons, their very mission is in opposition to the license plate’s message of trusting women. Planned Parenthood consistently opposes laws that are pro-woman like parental consent laws and a PP clinic in Birmingham just got put on probation for violations like giving a 13-year-old two abortions in 4 months without ever notifying her parents or the police (which is mandated by law since that kind of sexual relationship is child abuse).

Do you live in Virginia and want to contact your legislators about this bill and tell them not to send proceeds of the new plate to Planned Parenthood? Go here http://conview.state.va.us/whosmy.nsf/main?openform.

Also posted in abortion, planned parenthood – 1 Comment

Thank You, Bishop Tobin!!

November 10, 2009

by Patrick Looby

Bishop Tobin and Rep. Patrick Kennedy have delayed their meeting over health care. But, Bishop Tobin felt he could not let some of Kennedy’s irresonsible statements about the Bishops and what it means to be Catholic go without an immediate and equally public response. Here is the letter that Bishop Tobin has just released calling Kennedy to task. Thank you, Bishop Tobin, for your clear teaching and leadership!

Dear Congressman Kennedy:

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” (Congressman Patrick Kennedy)

Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.

For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.

For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)

Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)

There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”

But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?

Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.

Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?

In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?

Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.

Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas J. Tobin

Bishop of Providence

Also posted in Anti-Catholicism, Catholic Life, Catholic Moment, Catholic Politicians, Catholic culture, Healthcare, abortion, bishops, prolife – 1 Comment

Anti-Catholicism Pervasive on the Net – SMS to Fight Back!

October 15, 2009

th_IN-HOC-SIGNO-VINCES0flat1 The recent anti-Catholic attack by comedienne Sarah Silverman is just the latest line of cultural attacks on Catholics. As you may know, Ms. Silverman suggested that a way to solve world hunger would be to sell the Vatican. This joke has viralled its way around the web. Indeed, the Internet has become a bastion for anti-Catholic barbs, attacks and falsehoods. This is one of many reasons why we have established the St. Michael Society — to promote and defend the faith in the public square, whether it is through exposing and battling policy that undermines or is in direct conflict with Catholic teaching, or be it over various mediums including the Internet. Please urge your Catholic friends, family members and work colleagues to join us — there is power in numbers and we plan to keep speaking out for the faith.

http://bit.ly/4fXJxO

Also posted in Anti-Catholicism, Catholic culture – 0 Comments

Some thoughts about public discourse, by Fr. Thomas Berg

October 14, 2009

Taking a step back from the healthcare debate

Readers will forgive me for waxing philosophical for just one column. But let’s take a step back from healthcare reform, unemployment, the economy, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, al Qaeda, Gitmo, water-boarding, gay marriage and stem cell research to think for a minute about just how the exchange of ideas is faring in the public square these days.

It is Christopher Tollefson, professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina, who has me thinking about this. His recently published and timely thoughts on the nature of public discourse are well worth a read. Tollefsen explains that public discourse is crucial to the common good and should transpire precisely in public forums where the general populace can have access to the exchange of ideas and even participate. As to the meaning of ‘discourse’, Tollefson continues:

“Discourse” indicates the crucial means by which [consideration of public issues] is to be pursued. Proponents of competing positions must communicate — not just to those who already share their views, but to those who don’t; they must be part of a public conversation. This conversation is not just, however, an exchange of views. It must be an exchange of reasons. It must have the character of a public argument.

So, public discourse achieves its common-good purpose most effectively when it entails, above and beyond a mere exchange of views or beliefs, actual argumentation.

Now, we are in fact absolutely afloat in public argumentation these days, perhaps like never before in American history. As Robert T. Miller, assistant professor at the Villanova University School of Law, has observed:

Generally speaking, our society is more concerned with producing and responding to arguments than probably any other in the history of the world. Whether the issue is abortion or gay rights, tax policy or the trade deficit, global warming or third-world debt, everyone seems ready to adduce arguments in support of some position or other.

So, does the fact that we are awash in argumentation on pressing moral issues bode well for the moral health of our nation? I think we can be cautiously optimistic. Granted, the mere abundance of argumentation in the public square does not, in and of itself, assure a healthy moral fabric. It all depends on the kind of argumentation we should be demanding of those who debate moral issues in the public square.

First, we should demand that it unfold in genuine civility. Furthermore, our exchanges should obey the rules of logic and avoid linguistic fallacies. Most of all, we should insist that our exchanges get down to the level of first principles. In other words, our public discourse should require each side to articulate the most fundamental assumptions on which a particular argument is based. When discourse fails to do so, opposing sides all too often end up talking past each other and never explaining the reasons for the positions held.

If, for instance, the issue is embryonic stem cell research, the public interest would be best served if both sides articulate the reasons for asserting the personhood of the embryo or denying it. If the issue is euthanasia, both sides should articulate the meaning of human personhood, how body relates to self, and what ‘quality of life means’, and so on. The common good is not served when public discourse ignores sharp disagreements at the level of first principles.

Alexis de Tocqueville once famously asserted that “in the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own.” Sadly, this parroting of the opinions of others is another major pitfall of public discourse, and a further consequence of failing to argue at the level of first principles. Such unreflective repetition of argumentation can give the impression of robust public discourse, but in reality if falls painfully short.

We can and should do our part to ensure that public discourse is vigorous and healthy by striving to avoid such pitfalls. In so doing, whether over the dinner table, on e-media, or in our town halls, we strengthen the moral fiber of our nation.

Fr. Thomas Berg is Executive Director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person.

0 Comments