Catholic Church Pressured to Condemn Gubernatorial Candidate

Pro-lifers in a Detroit suburb Tuesday increased the pressure on the region's Roman Catholic leader to repudiate the pro-abortion views of Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jennifer Granholm.

A letter, requesting a condemnation of Granholm's views, was delivered to the residence of Cardinal Adam Maita, nearly a month after the associate pastor of the church where Granholm worships defended the candidate's political views in a letter published in the church bulletin.

Sources tell CNSNews.com that many of the parishioners at Our Lady of Good Counsel Catholic church in the western Detroit suburb of Plymouth plan to leave the parish as a result of the Aug. 4 article written by Rev. Doc Ortman.

Nancy Restuccia of Canton, another Detroit suburb, led a protest Saturday at Maida's residence and joined other pro-life activists in delivering the letter to the cardinal Tuesday.

Restuccia said her group decided to make a public request because e-mails, other mail and phone calls to the cardinal were not returned.

"We delivered a letter this morning (Tuesday) that basically contained a request. This is not a demand," she said. "We are obedient Catholics and he is our leader in the faith. This is not a demand because the church is not a democracy. We did this to publicly reiterate the church's teaching."

Over the weekend, Ned McGrath, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Detroit, told the Detroit News that Maida has "called all Catholics and people of good will to affirm the value of life."

The statement also called on Catholics to "familiarize themselves" with a Michigan Catholic Conference election guide that calls abortion "the preeminent threat to human dignity."

"Cardinal Maida has been a bold and brilliant leader in the defense of life in the past. I am hoping that the cardinal will step up on this issue and proclaim the church's teachings on the sanctity and dignity of human life from conception to natural death," she said.

"Public officials who espouse abortion rights are indirectly colluding in the taking of human life. I feel that he has a responsibility as Ms. Granholm's bishop to keep her from going into dangerous territory for her own soul," Restuccia said.

Chris DeWitt, Granholm's spokesman, told the Detroit News the candidate's position on abortion should not put her at odds with the Catholic faith.

"She has personal beliefs, which are consistent with her faith. But she does not believe she should impose her views on others," DeWitt said.

Mary Dettloff, also with the Granholm campaign, told CNSNews.com Tuesday that, "Jennifer Granholm is not the only pro-choice Catholic candidate." She would not comment any further.

However, Restuccia dismissed the efforts to separate Granholm's private and public views on abortion.

"It's really impossible to separate your private beliefs from your public actions and you shouldn't. That is not compatible with Catholic teachings," Restuccia said. "Your private belief informs your public action. Faithful Catholics should embrace women in crisis and their unborn children and should refuse to support the culture of death with their votes."

Restuccia said she and others would like to meet with Granholm before the election to discuss the abortion issue.

Granholm faces Republican Lt. Governor Dick Posthumus, a pro-life advocate, in the Nov. 5 gubernatorial election.

Sage Eastman, spokesman for the Posthumus campaign, refused to comment about the protest letter to Maida and the anger of parishioners at the Our Lady of Good Counsel Catholic church.

"That's a matter for the Catholic church. It's not something that is part of his (Posthumus) campaign. I don't think we are about to tell the Catholic church what it should or should not do," Eastman said.

Chris DeWitt, Granholm's spokesman, told the Detroit News the candidate's position on abortion should not put her at odds with the Catholic faith. "She has personal beliefs, which are consistent with her faith. But she does not believe she should impose her views on others," DeWitt said.

This is the Big Lie of the pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians. The fact is that the Church teaches that "legal" abortion is an INJUSTICE--i.e., it is a public policy that is unjust, and therefore morally evil, and therefore every Catholic is strictly required to oppose it. There is no question of public vs. private "beliefs" about abortion, because "legal" abortion is not a private matter. Saying "I oppose abortion, and therefore would never have one myself, but I support keeping abortion legal" is precisely the same as saying that Hitler was a good Catholic because he PRIVATELY opposed the building and operation of Auschwitz, but wanted others to have the choice to work there.

Maybe somone out there can explain this to me, but why doesn't the catholic church just excommunicate members or refuse to give them communion (on the minimum) if they are acting against church teachings or worse, working to undermine church teachings and acting contrary in an aggressive way to its beliefs?

I think as a Catholic you can embrace a vast number of secular values without it running contrary to one's religion. The Church believes abortion is murder, plain and simple. What I don't understand is how one can square this belief that it's murder(because that's exactly what the church says) and still support a "woman's right to choose." Isn't this making the statement that "I support a woman's right to choose murder."

I may be forced to accept Roe v. Wade because it's the law of the land but that doesn't mean I need to either promote it or agree with it. I also believe that the whole render unto Caesar thing pretty much requires that I obey the law and don't shoot abortion doctors because they're baby killers. On the other hand if the government demanded that I commit an unjust killing and I tell them to go to hell then no problem. All this tells me is this person doesn't really embrace this particular Catholic teaching.

Justice Scalia gave a very good argument which I believe applies to this case but it had to do with the death penalty. In his argument, if the church actual oppossed the death penalty instead of recommending against it he would necessarily have to recuse himself from judging any death penalty cases. The same legal principle is involved here, and the churches stance here regarding the prohibition of abortion isn't a recommendation, it's exactly that, a prohibition.

How do you view an infringement upon your Constitution?

I believe Roe v. Wade is an infringement on the constitution. I believe that the court decision that forced state senatorial districts to be apportioned according equal population was also an infringement on the constitution and one that's often overlooked. The federal senate is not apportioned on these grounds, with good reason,so why should the senate of each state be so apportioned. I could go on listing a variety of Supreme Court decisions that I think are an infringement of the constitution, but if I did I'd be at this all night.

Sad situation as once again the laity has more morals and principles than the priests

Over the weekend, Ned McGrath, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Detroit, told the Detroit News that [Cardinal] Maida has "called all Catholics and people of good will to affirm the value of life."

The statement also called on Catholics to "familiarize themselves" with a Michigan Catholic Conference election guide that calls abortion "the preeminent threat to human dignity."

Yeah UncBob, you sure know what you're talking about.

think as a Catholic you can embrace a vast number of secular values without it running contrary to one's religion. The Church believes abortion is murder, plain and simple. What I don't understand is how one can square this belief that it's murder(because that's exactly what the church says) and still support a "woman's right to choose." Isn't this making the statement that "I support a woman's right to choose murder."

People who espouse this view are just playing word games, and are intentionally doing so, case closed. This politician says her pro-choice views will not be forced on anyone. Right, so does that mean she'll vote a pro-life stance? Or does it mean she'll play more word games and vote pro-choice, yet say that her pro-choice vote is totally coincidental and unrelated to her personal viewpoints. As if you could separate the two.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.