Colorado bishops criticize Obama's repeal of "Mexico City" anti-abortion law

It has started...

Should faith be an issue at the DNC?

The Democratic Party has made a big hubub about involving faith in the party at the Aug. 25-28 Democratic National Convention in Denver. The first-ever Interfaith Gathering took place on the eve of the convention, and it was generally well-received after the intial interruptions from Operation Rescue activists (see Sunday's entry).

Patrick Whelan of Catholic Democrats leads a prayer at the Interfaith Gathering

There have also been faith caucuses this week. The general tone at these events was that Democrats have always had faith, and now they need to embrace it. I thought there was some useful information for Democrats, especially about how to get out the faith vote. Democrats seem to recognize that people of faith really don't have a party right now.

But is that the whole story? Here's what Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, a pro-life Democrat, told me Wednesday:

"I think there’s more room today, but we’ve still got a ways to go. I think we’ve made some progress, but I would not say that it’s complete yet."

I have noticed that the party is still very uneasy talking about religion. People have gone out of their way to say that religion has always been part of the party, but there certainly is a concerted effort to court the faith vote (except from Barack Obama's outreach people, who seem to be tougher to find than Atlantis). Even at a gathering of Democrats for Life of America, speakers were initially reticent to say things like "God Bless You."

On the streets of Denver, it appears the attitude toward religion and faith-based messages is outright hostile -- keeping in mind that not all people I encounter on the streets are here for the convention, and that some of the faith-based messages are off the mark. Some examples of conflict:

Anti-abortion activists who were outside the Colorado Convention Center and Pepsi Center were met with vitriol. People called them stupid, they yelled at activists, and they even at times resulted to physical tactics.

This group from Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust had signs that were not graphic in nature. Yet they were subject to ridicule and derision. A sample comment yelled out from one young man: "I killed my baby and I'm proud of it." One man in his 40s or 50s tried to rip a sign out of the hands of a teenage girl.



Randall Terry and his anti-abortion followers at Operation Rescue use extreme measures to get their message across, including pictures of abortions (I had to cut out the graphic part of this sign). I'm on record stating that I think this approach is probably counter-productive to changing people's minds.



Still, one United Auto Workers union member used intimidation and nasty words (can't repeat 'em here) as he walked within inches of Terry.



But abortion can sometimes become a heated political debate. Let's see some people carrying outright biblical messages.


A good message we can all get behind, right? This man told those engaged in argument that he would be remiss as a Christian not to try to tell other people of the way to salvation through Jesus Christ. People felt offended by it. You decide whether he was over the top.

As far as I could tell, the below group was anti-sinner as well as against organized religion, viewing it as an obstacle to following Christ. Its members were met with catcalls by those opposing Christianity.


More than anything else, messages decrying abortion and those espousing Christian beliefs have been met with the most opposition this week. I don't necessarily agree with the delivery or all the messages, but it appears to me there are those who would rather see religion fall by the wayside. I've heard many people this week say that their opponents engage in "hate speech." Hmmm.


All photos by Jim Myers/The Colorado Catholic Herald

Bishops respond to Nancy Pelosi

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput may not have been invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention, but he is determined to be heard.

On Monday he, along with Denver Auxiliary Bishop James D. Conley, issued a statement in response to U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statements regarding Catholicism on "Meet the Press" Sunday. You may recall that Rep. Pelosi (D-Calif.) stated that the defining when human life begins "shouldn't have an impact on a woman's right to choose." This was after she identified herself as an "ardent, practicing Catholic."

In a tract titled "On the Separation of Sense and State: A Clarification for the People of the Church of Northern Colorado," the bishops remarked that "Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grivously evil."

Read the full statement.

UPDATE: Philadelphia Cardinal Joseph Rigali, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB) Committee for Pro-Life Activities; and Bridgeport (Conn.) Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the USCCB's Committee on Doctrine, quickly followed suit with a joint statement titled that condemed Pelosi's statements.

"In the course of a 'Meet the Press' interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion," Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Lori wrote, illustrating their point with the history of the Catholic Church's teaching and canon law regarding abortion.

As of this writing, the statement is on the home page on the USCCB Web site

Initial observations from the DNCC

The Democratic National Convention does not really begin until Monday, but I’m in Denver covering the preamble to the quadrennial event. The first ever interfaith gathering for the DNC was held today at the Colorado Convention Center as a kickoff event. Some observations:

-- Avoid Denver at all costs this week. If you work in Denver, take the week off or work from home. It’s an absolute madhouse from a traffic and parking perspective.

-- At the interfaith gathering today, three activists from Operation Rescue interrupted the proceedings before they began with some thoughts on abortion: “Obama is a baby killer!” “Abortion is murder!” and the like. They were escorted out of the building with little incident, but I already notice a distinct uncomfortable tinge regarding the abortion issue.

-- Besides that, it’s pretty calm, though there is a definite buzz in the air. People are hawking Barack Obama gear on every street corner – from buttons to T-shirts to posters. You almost get the feeling that people are anticipating a rock concert more than a major political event. Of course, it could be argued that Obama is more celebrity than political figure.

Some photo observations (click for larger view):


There is a significant police presence in Denver

A young communist/anarchist/Insane Clown Posse fan takes a break from fomenting revolution

Merchandising Obama:

The official DNC 08 store is at the 16th Street Mall in downtown Denver
Whatever state you're from, chances are there's an Obama pin for you
A volunteer sells a T-shirt to a convention attendee

All photos by Jim Myers/The Colorado Catholic Herald

Planned Parenthood can't mention the "A" word in its ad

An ad came across my television screen tonight for Planned Parenthood. It was the same claptrap "scenarios" of "I'm taking care of myself and making decisions that are right for me," "I'm using protection," "I'm getting tested," and even one incredible part where they show a pregnant woman (the worst kind of woman, as far as I can tell by what I've seen of Planned Parenthood) and her husband who say, "We're starting a family, and we're excited." The abortionists then go on to say in the ad how they're offering affordable "care."

Then at the end of the commercial, they show what services they offer, like birth control, STD testing, emergency contraception and pregnancy testing. No mention of abortion, just "and more." What's the matter, Planned Parenthood? You can kill a child in the womb, but you can't mention it in the ad? I suppose the pregnancy testing is so they can kill the growing child when the test comes back positive, so it's implicit.

Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life has said that people need to see abortion to view how evil it really is. Even Planned Parenthood, which contributes to this genocide, won't mention abortion in marketing. If it's so acceptable, wouldn't they mention it as a service? Nah, that would be honest.

Planned Parenthood: Pathetic.

Local Planned Parenthood gets competition

I received a press release today from a reader that states that a pro-life organization, Life Network, is going to open a pregnancy center across the street from the Planned Parenthood clinic on W. Colorado Ave. There is no official opening date yet, but a Life Network meeting is planned for 6:30 p.m. tomorrow (26th). More information can be had by calling Gordon at 219-5367, ext. 217.

I am not sure what kind of Catholic presence this clinic will have (for example, will contraception be disallowed or exceptions made?), but it is nice to know that there will be an option across the street from PP where abortions will not be performed and women have the chance to be saved of the physical and emotional scars that abortion will leave on them forever.

If anyone has more information on this new clinic, please let us know.

Pro-life vs. pro-life

Looks like Senate Bill 95, which would have required women to have ultrasounds and acquire informed consent prior to having an abortion, is dead. SB 95 not the end of Roe vs. Wade, but it is a step up from what currently exists in Colorado. However, apparently during the testimony phase yesterday at the capitol, Colorado Right to Life spoke against the bill because it was not a 100 percent outlawing of abortion. So yes, their "no" vote was lined up right next to the likes of NARAL, who also testified against it. Colorado Right to Life's testimony contradicted opposing testimony from other pro-life lobbyists and caused the bill to be shelved.

At one point, Joe Riccobono, legislative chairman for Colorado Right to Life, lambasted the bill as “pruning a weed.”

“It’s the regulation of child killing,” Riccobono said, as he argued for an outright ban instead of more regulation.

Colorado Right to Life is only hurting the pro-life movement by sinking legislation like SB 95. It wouldn't lead to the complete ending of abortion but lives would be saved, as ultrasounds have proven to be a very effective way to convince mothers to keep their unborn children. Colorado Right to Life may think they're being vigilant, but when you have a chance to upgrade the law from what it was -- even if it's not the ultimate law you seek -- you take it. No wonder National Right to Life shed itself of this group.

The new PP (Prayer and Penance) replacing the old PP (Planned Parenthood)

Got an e-mail reflection from Herald reader Jerry Klazura, who offered this interesting thought on the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade:

As I listened to Bishop Sheridan at Mass today talk about Penance and Prayer - I thought of Penance and Prayer - P and P .... hmmm how interesting the new PP (Prayer and Penance) will replace the old pp (planned parenthood).

Good news?

Yahoo! had an article on its home page for about a nanosecond before it got buried. The Associated Press article says that abortions are on the decline.

The report, issued by the abortionist Guttmacher Institute (which is an arm of Planned Parenthood), tempers that by pointing out that RU-486, an abortifacient also known as "Plan B," is readily available, as is articifical contraception. You can thank Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter for allowing "Plan B" in Colorado last year.

Naturally, the Guttmacher Institute wants abortions readily available and couldn't care less about murdered children.

"Currently, more than six in 10 abortions occur within the first eight weeks of pregnancy," said Rachel Jones, lead researcher for the survey. "Medication abortion, which provides women with an additional option early in pregnancy, clearly reinforces this very positive trend."

Note the words "positive trend." According to National Right to Life, nearly 50 million Americans have been aborted since 1973's Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision. I wouldn't call genocide a "positive trend," folks.

Voting: 'Proportionate Reasons'

In 2004, then-Cardinal Ratzinger sent a memo to Cardinal McCarrick regarding a question about when Communion should be denied to a politician who is intentionally ignoring key teachings of the Catholic Church. In a now-famous postscript to the main text of the letter, Cardinal Ratzinger addressed the culpability of the faithful who vote for pro-abortion candidates:

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour 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.

On Nov. 12 at the USCCB fall meeting, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput was asked for his interpretation of the key phrase "proportionate reasons" by John Allen, National Catholic Reporter's Vatican reporter (thanks to Amy Welborn's blog for highlighting this).

As you know, I have written a book [on faith and politics], and in it I write that it means a reason we could confidently explain to the Lord Jesus and the victims of abortion when we meet them at the end of our lives, and we will meet them. I think there are legitimate reasons you could vote in favor of someone who wouldn’t be where the church is on abortion, but it would have to be a reason that you could confidently explain to Jesus and the victims of abortion when you meet them at the Judgment. That’s the only criterion. It can’t be that we favor a particular party, or that we’re hostile to the war, or so on.

This is a very interesting interpretation of that phrase. Do you agree with him?

[NOTE: Archbishop Chaput's book is coming out just in time for the Democratic National Convention and should cause quite a stir. We'll give details on the release date when we hear of them.]