The following are some of the highlights from the daily email briefing about news and events, which I send out to some of my friends and contacts:
Archive for the ‘Catholic Public Officials’ Category
This has been a bad time for people who were baptized as Catholics, and who are now either public officials or candidates for public office.
First, we had the sight of Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of New York and now the Democratic candidate for Governor. Mr. Cuomo, a baptized Catholic, has long been an ardent supporter of the legal regime that permits the slaughter of unborn children, and has also proclaimed his support of the redefinition of marriage into something that it is not, and never has been, and never could be — a union of any two persons, regardless of sex. And, it is sad to say, the teachings of the Church — much less the natural law — seem to have little or no impact on Mr. Cuomo’s thinking.
Next, we had the selection by Mr. Cuomo of a running mate for Lieutenant Governor. Now, it has to be admitted that nobody has ever been able to identify the purpose of that office (aside from waiting for the Governor either to leave the state or resign in disgrace). But it’s a position that has to be filled, and Mr. Cuomo selected the Mayor of Rochester, Robert Duffy. Like his mentor, Mr. Duffy was also baptized as a Catholic, yet he too has proclaimed that he favors the legal destruction of human beings in the womb, and the radical re-definition of marriage.
So the Democrats are 0 for 2 this week.
Then, we have the imminent possibility that the Republican and Conservative Parties will nominate Rick Lazio for Governor. Also a baptized Catholic, and also in favor of permitting the killing of unborn children with impunity, and favors “civil unions” for same-sex couples, even though that is just a re-definition of marriage by stealth.
Yes, the Republican and Conservative Parties are the ostensibly pro-life parties, which gives a pretty clear idea of the dismal state of New York politics for pro-lifers.
And finally, last but not least, we have yet again the spectacle of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, demonstrating the old adage that sin darkens the mind and blunts the intellect. Without any sense of self-awareness, the baptized Catholic yet ardently pro-abortion Ms. Pelosi spoke to a group of “Catholic” activists in May, in a speech that was just recently made public. In her remarks, she said the following (I added the emphasis):
“They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.”
“And that Word is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.
“Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.”
There has been no response yet from the millions of unborn children who have been killed while the deplorable Ms. Pelosi has had a hand in shaping American public affairs, and while she has accumulated a virtually uniformly pro-abortion voting record in Congress.
This calls to mind my favorite quote from Cardinal Egan. He was speaking about Ms. Pelosi, but he might as well have been speaking about Mr. Cuomo, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Lazio as well.
We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name. (emphasis added)
If there’s one thing that’s clear from this, it’s that now, more than ever, we need to redouble our prayers for the conversion of heart of our public officials, especially those who are fellow members of the Church of Christ.
Whenever the Holy Father speaks out on the role and obligations of Catholics in the public square, his words should be attended to very, very closely. His Holiness is deeply committed to promoting a sense of vigorous Catholic identity among the disciples of Christ, and to inspiring us to work to bring the Gospel to the world in all arenas of life.
So, when Pope Benedict addressed the Pontifical Council for the Laity last week, his comments were definitely worth noting. Among his remarks, he said:
The Church concentrates particularly on educating the disciples of Christ, so that, increasingly, they will be witnesses of his presence, everywhere. It is up to the laity to show concretely in personal and family life, in social, cultural and political life, that the faith enables one to read reality in a new and profound way and to transform it; … that the fundamental principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church, such as the dignity of the human person, subsidiarity and solidarity, are very timely and of value for the promotion of new ways of development at the service of every man and of all men.
It is of the competence of the faithful also to participate actively in political life, in a way that is always consistent with the teachings of the Church… Christians do not seek political or cultural hegemony, but, wherever they are committed, they are moved by the certainty that Christ is the cornerstone of every human construction.
This obligation is uniquely that of the Christian laity — to bring the teachings of the Church into the public arena so that the world may be transformed in light of the Gospel. All too often, Catholics compartmentalize our lives, and put our faith on the shelf when we step into “politics”. But this is not consistent with authentic discipleship. When people look at us, even when we are in the public square, there should be no doubt that Christ is indeed the cornerstone of our lives and our political positions.
Of course, this is not easy. the world is deeply hostile to the Gospel, and the temptations are ever-present to compromise, compartmentalize, and marginalize our faith. The Holy Father is all too aware of this:
The times we are living in place us before great and complex problems, and the social question has become, at the same time, an anthropological question… The spread of a confused cultural relativism and of utilitarian and hedonist individualism weakens democracy and fosters the dominance of the strong powers. A genuine political wisdom must be recovered and reinvigorated… A real “revolution of love” is necessary.
And so, it is all the more upsetting when we see the sad sight of ostensibly Catholic public officials who are deeply immersed in the cultural relativism and individualism of which the Holy Father speaks. It is all too common for politicians who were baptized as Catholics and raised in Catholic families to take positions that are thoroughly at odds with the teachings of the Church — for instance, the fundamental obligation to respect the dignity of every human person, and to respect and defend authentic marriage.
We now are faced with the sad spectacle of Andrew Cuomo, who is running for Governor of the State of New York and who was baptized a Catholic, yet is completely committed to the regime of legalized abortion, who is an ardent supporter of same-sex “marriage”.
The meeting to which the Holy Father delivered these remarks was entitled, “Witnesses of Christ in the Political Community”. He was calling all Catholics to be witnesses, to bring the teachings of the Church to bear on the difficult problems of our age.
Sadly, all too many men decide to be candidates, and not witnesses.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is an exasperating person. Her public statements on abortion show an appalling lack of familiarity with the truth. And, although she has been consistently corrected by more knowledgeable people, she continues to spread misinformation about abortion in the health care reform plans.
The most recent examples of this came in connection with the President’s vaunted health care summit. Speaking about the Senate health care bill and the President’s proposal, she said:
… the law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion and there is no public funding of abortion in these bills.
Then, in a follow-up interview, she again said:
I talked to the Catholic Bishops about this and people on all sides of the choice issue. Law prevents federal funding; federal law prevents federal funding of abortion. There is no federal funding of abortion in this bill.
All of this is utterly and completely false. And it is hard to believe that anyone of any degree of intelligence could fail to see it as such.
I’ve blogged before on the Senate bill and the President’s plan (if you’re interested, check here), and the U.S. Bishops have an abundance of information on their website. To put it in a nutshell, both proposals would:
Richard Doerflinger, who works tirelessly on pro-life issues for the U.S. Bishops, said in response to the Speaker:
We do not know how anyone who has spoken to the bishops could conclude that the Senate health care bill does not fund abortions. As the bishops have said in their letters to Congress, abortion problems in the Senate bill are so serious that, despite our strong support for expanding access to health care, we will have to oppose the bill unless they are resolved.
Which brings us back to the exasperating Speaker. What can be said about a person who says things that are patently untrue, is publicly corrected, yet continues to say the same things?
I think the best comment was made by Cardinal Egan, in response to an earlier absurd statement on abortion by the Speaker:
Anyone who dares to defend that [unborn children] may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.
Last week, the New York Times ran a profile of Rep. Bart Stupak, the Democrat from Michigan who has been a stalwart in fighting to prevent the health care reform bills from funding elective abortions.
The profile was surprisingly positive, since it highlighted a man who is not only a pro-lifer, but is a Catholic who has no problems with saying that his political positions are informed by his faith. To put it mildly, those are not positions that are typically favored by Our Daily Newspaper.
Several things struck me about the column. One was that Mr. Stupak spoke openly about a reality that is not frequently acknowledged in public. He related several examples of the deep hostility towards the pro-life position held by the establishment of the Democratic Party. Democratic political consultants refuse to work for him, he has been denied committee positions, and was told bluntly that he would never “get on” in his political career because he is pro-life. And we wonder why so few Democratic politicians manage to hold on to their pro-life views once they are elected.
What was more striking to me, though, was a statement by Mr. Stupak’s chief of staff. He was reflecting on the reaction to the House’s adoption of the “Stupak Amendment” to the health care bill, a provision that ensured that federal funds would not be used to pay for elective abortions. The push-back from his fellow Democrats has been strong and negative, and Mr. Stupak has been getting calls from the public as well. In fact, the aide said, “I can’t tell you how many New Yorkers have called me up and yelled at me about this Stupak guy.”
We should not stand by and let Mr. Stupak think that all New Yorkers are pro-abortion. Pro-lifers from New York should send him a message that we support him, and thank him for his efforts. Here’s the best way — call Mr. Stupak, and tell him that you thank him for his pro-life position, and are praying for him. His phone number is (202) 225-4735.
It’s hard to imagine how much pressure Mr. Stupak must be feeling from the leadership and other members of his party. The momentum behind the health care reform bill is so intense that the leadership appears willing to do virtually anything to pass a bill. Mr. Stupak and a handful of other pro-life Democrats may be all that stands between us and a massive increase in federal funding for elective abortion, and an increase in the number of abortions. It will be very, very difficult for them to hold out for the cause for life.
Please pray for these men, that they may have the courage and resolve that they will need over the next few weeks as this bill comes up for final action.
But in the meantime, call Bart Stupak, and thank him.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives was interviewed the other day. Amidst the discussion of a variety of political issues, she was asked about her recent “brushes” with the Bishops on important issues. Sadly, her comments are not encouraging:
I have some concerns about the church’s position respecting a woman’s right to choose. I have some concerns about the church’s position on gay rights. I am a practicing Catholic, although they’re probably not too happy about that. But it is my faith. I practically mourn this difference of opinion because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that is that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have that opportunity to exercise their free will.
We can easily brush past the Speaker’s “concerns” about Church teaching on the evil of abortion and homosexuality. That’s just a Washington circumlocution, which should be read to mean, “I reject Church teaching on the dignity of human life and the nature of human sexuality as properly ordered solely for marriage between a man and woman”. Nothing new there — we’ve heard it all before.
Nor is it new that the Speaker, and so many others, view the teachings of the Church as mere “opinion”, to be given the same weight as the opinions of others — or my own. That’s just a convenient excuse we all use when the Church tells us that we can’t do what we want.
What’s of particular interest to me is the idea that that “free will” justifies disobedience of the Church’s authoritative teachings and even authorizes the sin of abortion.
That is a fatal error.
The Speaker’s understanding of “free will” stems from a false notion of conscience that is all too common. There is no doubt that I must be governed by my conscience, and make moral decisions in accord with it. But under the modern view exemplified by the Speaker’s comments, the primacy of conscience means “I can do whatever I want, without regard to objective truth”.
This is a hallmark of the “dictatorship of relativism” that has been consistently denounced by Pope Benedict. The Speaker, and many others, have fallen for the same error as Adam and Eve — the tempting idea that I can decide for myself what is good and evil, and thus that the teachings of the Church are merely opinions, of equal weight to the thoughts of anyone else or of my own.
True conscience is not my own voice, telling me that I’m always right. Instead, it is the voice of God, speaking the truth to our hearts, and calling us to conform our will to His. As the Second Vatican Council put it:
In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. Only in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness. Our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly; and rightly to be sure. Often however they foster it perversely as a license for doing whatever pleases them, even if it is evil. (Gaudium et Spes 16-17)
The Speaker’s error has significant real-world consequences. It inevitably leads to the abortion clinic, the assisted suicide center, the torture chamber, the killing fields of murderous ideologies, and other horrors. It leads us to our current legal regime, to the horrendous injustice where the weakest among us can be killed with impunity, and their killers are rewarded with public funds.
But it also has a fatal consequence for our souls. The Speaker’s idea of untrammeled freedom that answers to no authority is ultimately a mirage, and actually enslaves us to our whims or to the prevailing fashions of the age. St. Peter saw this clearly, when he wrote about false prophets: “They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for whatever corrupts a man, to that he is enslaved”. (2 Pet 2:19). In contrast, humbly submitting our will to God’s, is actually liberating, and allows me to be the man I was meant to be, and that God wants me to be. And the best way to do that is by listening to the teachings of His Church — even if it means I have to change my behavior.
In one respect, the Speaker is absolutely right. We all must accept responsibility for the use of our freedom, and we will be judged by Christ Himself for it. Knowing how I have abused my own freedom, I am uneasy about that judgment. We should pray for the conversion of the Speaker’s heart, that she will return to the truth of God’s will, just as we should ceaselessly pray for our own conversion.
In 1984, then-Governor of New York Mario Cuomo gave a famous address at Notre Dame University that, in essence, defended the notion that a Catholic could in good conscience be a public official who defends the legal destruction of unborn children. His argument rested on the assumption that the defense of human life from conception was a merely sectarian doctrine, unique to Catholics, which should not be enacted into civil law.
Twenty-five years have passed, and the Governor’s position has been thouroughly rejected by Pope John Paul II (see, for example, Evangelium Vitae), the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the United States Bishops (see, for example, Living the Gospel of Life), and every single Catholic bishop who has ever spoken on the subject.
My favorite quote from Cardinal Egan, in response to remarks by the Speaker of the House that were the direct descendent of the Governor’s Notre Dame sophistry, makes it clear:
We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.
In these instances, and in many, many others, the Church has unhesitatingly and with one voice defined that the the destruction of innocent unborn human beings is always gravely immoral, and that all persons are obliged to protect them, including by enacting civil laws to prohibit abortion. This is not merely a sectarian doctrine unique to the Catholic Church, but is an elementary tenet of the natural moral law that is common to all persons of every age. Enacting this moral principle into civil law is no different from prohibiting slavery, murder, or rape. It is a fundamental principle of justice.
In the face of such a steadfast and universal proclamation of doctrine, one would think that the normal reaction by a Catholic would be to accept the fraternal correction by his Church and offer a humble submission of faith to the correct doctrine (see Lumen Gentium 25).
But not our former Governor. Instead, he decided to comment on the statement by Bishop Tobin of Rhode Island, directing Rep. Patrick Kennedy, the pro-abortion Congressman, not to present himself for Holy Communion until he repents of his immoral public statements and acts. Displaying the classic modern tendency to hold oneself up as the highest teaching authority in matters of faith and morals, the Governor was quoted in a news report as saying:
Cuomo said there are two positions a politician can take: They can oppose church doctrine outright or, as he did, accept church teachings personally but refuse to carry them into the public arena where they would affect people of every faith. ” Don’t ask me to make everybody live by it because they are not members of the church,” Cuomo said. “If that were the operative rule, how could you get any Catholic politician in office? And would that be better for the Catholic church?”
These comments make no sense, either for a Catholic or for anyone else.
- All laws reflect moral judgments of right and wrong. If a public official rules out the influence of their religious faith in making such judgments, on what basis does he act?
- Why would anyone vote for a politician who was so unprincipled or cowardly that he checked his religious faith at the door of the government office he holds? How could you trust him to do anything according to principle?
- The prohibition against killing the innocent is not an inside Catholic rule, but a principle of the moral law. How is it an improper imposition of a religious teaching to prohibit inherently immoral acts like rape or theft?
- The choice to accept Church teaching privately but to live another way publicly is morally irresponsible and reprehensible. It is a gross violation of the fundamental rule of Christian morality — treat others as you would wish to be treated.
- And, the highest value in life is not to make Catholic politicians more electable, or to make things better for the Church, but to live a life of holiness. Holiness is not a private thing — it must infuse every part of our lives, or we are poor excuses for followers of Christ.
Today is the feast day of Blessed Miguel Pro. This great and holy priest defied the unjust laws of Mexico that outlawed the celebration of the Mass and proscribed priests. He was martyred for his opposition to the immoral laws of his nation. He didn’t hide behind a distinction between private belief and public acts. He understood. If only more of our public officials understood.
For most of us, the opportunities are small and quiet. They come in our home, with our family and friends, at our job, or in our parish or community. A decision is presented to us. Perhaps it’s a question of telling the truth when it’s against our interests. Or going out of our way to help a friend, family member, or stranger. Or being faithful to our marriage vows, or to keep our promises. We have to decide — for God’s way, or not.
Each of us has a lifetime of these opportunities. Every day we have a chance to decide, and together, they make up our legacy. Because the decisions we make will be small and quiet, they will be known to very few. But God, who sees the secrets of our hearts, will know of them all.
For others, though, the opportunities will be large and prominent. They are called to the public stage, and their decisions are more momentous, and have an effect far beyond their immediate circle. They attract more attention, and have an enormous potential to teach others, for ill or good. Because of this, their responsibility is much greater, and their legacy will rest largely on what they do on that public stage.
But, the basic choice that has to be made is always the same — for God’s way, or not.
These are the thoughts that came to my mind in the aftermath of the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy. He was certainly called to the public stage, the largest one our nation offers. His years of public service offered him innumerable opportunities to make decisions for God’s way, or not. His decisions are public, and can be evaluated to determine his legacy.
Much ink has been spilled already offering praise to Sen. Kennedy for his commitment to the poor and to a vision of social justice. But in one area — the most important area in which he was called to make decisions — his choices were not admirable, and indeed were greatly to be lamented. In one area, he had an opportunity to promote authentic social justice for all, and for the least among us.
During his time in the Senate, Sen. Kennedy had one hundred thirty-one opportunities to vote on issues relating to abortion and other life issues (stem cell research, cloning, etc.). That number doesn’t even count committee votes, of which there must have been many, since he served for years on the Judiciary Committee. He voted pro-life only four times, and only once since 1977. Pause for a moment over that record of decisions. Think about the subject matter — partial birth abortion, parental notification, destruction of humans in the embryonic state for medical experiments, paying for abortions for poor women, promoting abortion abroad, and on, and on.
One hundred and thirty one times, he had a decision to make: for life or against it. And he made his choices. And he gave his example. And he taught people.
4 for 131.
At the end of our days, every one of us will be called to judgment for our decisions. At the moment of our death, we will appear before Our Lord, and be judged based on our love. Then our Lord will have a decision to make, which will determine our real legacy.
Let us pray for the merciful judgment of Our Lord upon the soul of Edward Kennedy. And let us pray that we may make good decisions, every day — for God’s way, and for no other.
As we look at Catholics who are actively engaged in the public square, we are all too often disappointed that so few seem to be willing to stand up for Catholic principles. Far too many seem perfectly willing to compromise on essential issues of morality for the ephemeral advantages of party politics, fame, or prestige.
Then again, every so often a Mary Ann Glendon comes along.
You may be familiar with Professor Glendon, the former Ambassador to the Holy See, distinguished professor at Harvard Law School, and author of a number of books about bioethics, human rights, family law and abortion. She is an authentic pro-life Catholic feminist.
She was scheduled to receive the “Laetare Award” at the upcoming commencement exercises at Notre Dame University. There, she would have shared the stage with the President as he received his honorary degree as Doctor of Laws, and delivered the commencement address. Quite a bit of prestige for Prof. Glendon, a chance to bask in the reflected glory of the President, to receive a very nice prize, and to hear her praises sung by others.
Today, Prof. Glendon wrote to the President of NDU and declined the Laetare Award. In her letter, she wrote:
… as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.
She went on to note that NDU had used her appearance at the commencement to try to blunt the storm of criticism that has arisen over the award to the President. She observed that NDU was holding out her speech as the kind of “dialogue” they were hoping to generate with the President on abortion. In response, Prof. Glendon stated:
It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.
Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.
It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.
That is precisely the kind of public witness that we need as Catholics. Being willing to stand up for the teachings of the Church, and for our fundamental moral duties, even at a personal cost.
Bravo to Prof. Glendon. May her example lead to many more such acts. No doubt St. Thomas More, patron saint of Catholic lawyers, is smiling upon his daughter in faith today.
I would also like to note an interesting juxtaposition of events today. On the same day as Prof. Glendon gave her notice to NDU, a fine Catholic man who long battled in the public square for the cause of human life and dignity, John Marchi, passed away into eternal life.
When he retired in 2006, he had served as a New York State legislator for 50 years — the longest of any New York lawmaker and one of the longest in America. He was an opponent of abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty, and was always proud to bring his Catholic faith into the public square.
He was a fine witness of our faith, and a true Catholic gentleman.
Please, God, send us more Mary Ann Glendons and John Marchis.
I’m not the product of a Jesuit education. The Sisters of Charity bear most of the responsibility for how I turned out. But I have always had a liking for St. Ignatius Loyola and his Spiritual Exercises.
During the second week of the Exercises, those who are on the retreat receive a meditation on the Two Standards. This, to me, is a powerful expression of the decision that is at the very core of Christian discipleship.
The meditation asks us bluntly — whose standard or flag will we follow, Christ’s or Satan’s?
Satan’s standard, of course, is the one that the world finds most attractive, because it superficially appeals to our fallen human nature. It offers us the desire for worldly possessions, power, honor, and a false view of freedom that is a disguise for immorality. In the end, though, it leads only to destruction.
Christ’s standard, on the other hand, is the one that the world finds unattractive, because it appeals to values that are exemplified by Our Lord himself, whom the world rejected. It offers us humility, poverty, sacrifice, and authentic freedom that involves willing adherence to God’s will. And in the end it leads to glory.
There is no doubt which standard the world holds out to us. Check out pretty much any television channel and you’ll get an eyeful.
I bring this up because of the tragic spectacle of Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. Raised a Catholic, Gov. Sebelius has mapped out an egregious pro-abortion record as governor of that state. She has associated with, and embraced the support of, the infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller. She even hosted an event at her governor’s mansion in honor of him and posed smiling for pictures with him — a man who specializes in killing infants in their last months in the womb. She has consistently opposed pro-life legislation, and has repeatedly vetoed bills like a ban on partial birth abortion. It got so bad that her own bishop, after trying privately to convert her to the Standard of Christ, had to publicly admonish her not to present herself for Communion until she publicly repudiates her pro-abortion positions.
Heedless of this record, the President nominated her to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services, a department with tremendous influence over health policy in our country. Pro-life advocates strongly opposed her, but her nomination seemed to be on track for confirmation, along with the power, honor, and prestige that offers.
Then the Kansas legislature passed a new pro-life bill, one that would have limited late-term abortions, as well as other common-sense measures to restrict and regulate abortions. Gov. Sebelius was thus presented with yet another opportunity to choose the Standard of Christ.
Instead, she vetoed the bill, grossly failing in her duty as a baptized Christian to love and serve the least among us.
She chose the wrong Standard.
God alone will judge Gov. Sebelius. That’s above my pay grade, as someone once said. But for my part, I pray that Gov. Sebelius will repent of her decision, and return to the Standard of Christ. We need strong Christian witnesses in public office, and her conversion to the cause of life would be the source of great rejoicing. Her continued adherence to the Standard of Satan, though, can only be mourned.
We all have the same choice to make. Which Standard will it be? We need to choose wisely.