Editorial AGAINST Detroit FP... to win more votes, by deception, for Presidential Candidate Kerry.

On the front page of the Detroit Free Press, on Tuesday, September 7, 2004, a headline read, "Catholics allowed to vote for pro-choice candidate." See article here . With all due respect to Patricia Montemurri, this was a case of irresponsible journalism, on two counts: first, the misrepresentation of what the Church has to say, and second, the fact that she refers to a memo written about two and a half months ago as if this is somehow today's news. I'm sure the second reason was well planned timing by the Free Press so as to win more votes, by deception, for Presidential Candidate Kerry.

I was wondering whether the letter she was referring to was the one sent in early June in 2004, to Washington's Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick. (I have reproduced that letter here on my own web site for the facility of the reader, click here.) So I called her at the Free Press. Her voice mail was full, so I got to an assistant who took my message, phone and e-mail in the most courteous way. But said letter or memo fits the profile of her article, so it's reasonable to assume she referred to that very one. The fact that she didn't even once quote textually the article made me even more suspicious.

Further making me doubt her words were the teachings of Pope John Paul II where he says, "To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right" (EV, 74), referring directly and explicitly to those who are tempted to collaborate with evil for accidental, circumstantial or personal reasons.

At the end of Cardinal Ratzinger's six point letter, there is a small N.B. stating that "When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

Pope John Paul II wrote in the Encyclical Evangelum Vitae (The Gospel of Life) on this topic already, explaining some of those proportionate reasons:

"A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects." (EV, 73)

In fact, the Pope states clearly that it is never morally good to vote in favor of permitting abortions:

"This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the 'right' ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part." (EV, 20)

"In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.” (EV, 73, citing Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (18 November 1974), No. 22: AAS 66 (1974), 744)

In summary, Cardinal Ratzinger did not say what Ms. Montemurri claims he has. No, Catholics may not vote "pro-choice." Indeed, it is not pro-choice, it is pro-abortion. The child has no choice, and the mother, father and whoever never have the choice or option of killing an innocent child.

Further reflection on this matter may be found in a superb essay from Dr. Robert Fastiggi, which I have published here.

Similar misunderstandings were construed from something Bishop Burke said, and he seems to be preparing a response. CNS has an article that discusses this response, which can be read here.

In this week's homily I addressed the question of why abortion is morally evil, and articulating why it Catholics may not, by Church teaching and law, vote for pro-abortion political candidates, save the extreme cases alluded to in Ratzinger's N.B. and in Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae paragraph 73. I didn't get as much time as I wanted to polish it up, but the basic argument is there. Replies came in by e-mail, which I have posted here (not including my responses).

Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark further defends the immorality of voting pro-abortion, specifying the exceptional and unusual circumstances in which tolerating it would not be a moral evil. Read it here.

You may read more of my editorials and commentaries on this page, where I store old material.

While I am not a Catholic, my husband is, so I take very seriously the issues of his theology and the current elections.

I have grave concerns for those that can look the other way to vote for Kerry, despite his views on abortion. If he is a practicing Catholic then how can he can he attend church with a pure heart.

I can see how angry this Cardinal was, and he responds with great eloquence and insight. I do hope that the readers of the Free Press, see the type of paper that it is, the type of candidate Kerry is and the honesty and guts it took for this Cardinal to go on the record.

Here is the latest offering from the DFP Catholic voters in abortion firestorm .

I am frankly so outraged by this that if I lived in Detroit I would be sending letters, calling all TV/radio news and making this as public as I can.

Fellow Freepers I hope you will read the post "why I posted" this article. I really cannot express how angry I am about this, and frankly do not know where to relieve my outrage.

If anyone lives in the greater Detroit area, I hope they will write to the paper sharing their outrage as well.

I have to agree, the timing is very suspicious. Whether you are Catholic or practice a different theology this type of journalism is unacceptable.

I see your point, but, I think his is that the DFP printed the article in what some might consider suspicous timing.

I also think he is offended by those who are Catholic and pro-abortion.

I would be the first to NOT call anyone a good or bad faith practicer. Yet, if one of the basic tenents of your faith is the sanctity of life and you choose to be pro abortion then that is in direct conflict and from my vantage point, no longer Catholic in good standing.

Your thoughts are welcome. Thank you for taking the time to post to this thread.

PS I do find it interesting that many who are Catholic vote and that this issue seems to not take the drivers seat of who one chooses, which confuses me as well.

I fear that the Catholic Church with its confusing stands on theological issues is losing its young people. Between this and the abuse cases that keep coming forth, young people are thinking that if the Church does not practice or believe in its teachings why should they. It's very sad. O'Reilly once said that he thought it will take beyond our lifetimes for the Church to recover. I think he is right. Kerry is an absolutely horrid example of a Catholic.

If [Kerry] is a practicing Catholic then how can he can he attend church with a pure heart.

To ask the question is to answer it. John Kerry is not a Catholic. John Kerry is not a Christian. John Kerry opines that religion should be a "private matter" vis a vis it should have no bearing on one's actions. In a Presidential capacity, actions mean policies, appointments. A "religion" with no impact on actions is nothing more than a sentimental collection of feelings and is no religion at all.

John Kerry's actions are more closely aligned with Humanist Manifesto II than they are with The Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, or Old and New Testament teaching. Therefore, insofar as "you will know them by their fruits", John Kerry's religion is something other than Christian.

This is all one needs to know about the author. The Detroit Free Press itself is left of gauche, and the Detroit News is only moderate on a good day.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=PATRICIA+MONTEMURRI&btnG=Google+Search

Your post is thought provoking, thank you. While I do not agree with O'Reilly on many things, this would be one that I to fear he is right about.

As an outsider looking in, it is hard for me to understand, that if stealing, adultery, murder, abortion the list goes on is against the beliefs of the Catholic church then there is no gray area.

Obviously some are also against mans law as well as God's law but those that are against God's law seem clear. But, God did give us the opportunity to make choices he hopes they will be the right choices. If you choose to not support the law of God's church then do not profess to be a Catholic, a Catholic in good standing. You can only be one or the other, why the church does not excommunicate Kerry (if that is the right term) for his loud a vocal voice on the issue of Abortion, I just cannot understand.

In my church, the issue would be moot, you would be excommunicated. Abortion is a sin, to "believe" otherwise is a sin and the LDS church is none negotiable on God's law.

I do agree, our young adults are confused. Kerry as an example is just hypocrisy at it's worst.

Thank you so much for the google search. I perhaps should have done that before posting this thread but I was so angry that I went ahead with zeal and not a sound mind.

Although it appears the Cardinal does have a point in his what I might call scathing reply to the paper.

I really find the paper took liberties that went as far to perhaps win the votes the Cardinal alluded to.

I tend to agree. Yet, I do think the Detroit Free Press did do a diservice to their Catholic readers who happen to be voters and just perhaps some do not support Kerry.

After reading all of this, it just is sad.

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.