Hypocrisy of the Arlington, VA Catholic Diocese

[Devil Dog Dem]

Someone sent me a letter from the Bishop of Arlington, VA. He is pro-Bush and a hypocrite in that he tells voters to vote entirely pro-life and anti-stem cell research in the November elections. He ignores the death penalty, Iraq, social justice, and everything else (talk about being a cafeteria Catholic). He probably is against defrocking pedophile priests (I'm looking into that now and will update the post) as were many U.S. Bishops.

I've posted the letter and his contact info below if you want to let him know where you stand, particularly if you are a member of his diocese.

Pre-Election Letter to the People of Arlington

By Bishop Paul S. Loverde
Special to the Herald
(From the issue of 10/28/04)

October 31, 2004

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

Nov. 2 marks a quadrennial, pivotal date in our nation — a date when we again are given the opportunity of electing a president, a vice president, and in Virginia, all of the members of the House of Representatives. This is an opportunity that the 394,000 Catholics of our diocese cannot but take seriously, for we must continue to build a "Culture of Life," as our Holy Father calls it — a culture in which our nation’s leaders will "contribute to the building of a society in which the dignity of each person is recognized and protected and the lives of all are defended and enhanced" (cf. The Gospel of Life, 90).

Since the last national election, our nation and world have witnessed Sept. 11 and its aftermath. Domestic issues such as the threat of human cloning, the attempt to legalize same-sex marriage and the ban and subsequent challenging of the ban on partial birth abortion have caused us to sharpen our focus on what is important for us as Catholics. As we examine the positions of candidates on numerous issues in the presidential and other election contests, we must allow our conscience to be guided by fundamental principles.

As my brother bishops and I have stated in "Faithful Citizenship: Civic Responsibility for a New Millennium," the critical principles by which we should judge those who run for elected office are the protection of human life, the promotion of family life, the pursuit of social justice and the practice of global solidarity.

The foundation for these principles is the first, the protection of human life, since without it the other three would be rendered meaningless. If we do not uphold and protect human life in its beginning at conception, there will be no life to uphold and protect thereafter. As we read in Living the Gospel of Life, "We cannot simultaneously commit ourselves to human rights and progress while eliminating or marginalizing the weakest among us … We must begin with a commitment never to intentionally kill, or collude in the killing, of any innocent human life, no matter how broken, unformed, disabled or desperate that life may seem" (20, 21).

To be a faithful Catholic necessarily means that one is pro-life and not pro-choice. As my brother bishops and I said in our statement "Catholics in Political Life" this past June, "Failing to protect the lives of the innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice." To be pro-choice essentially means supporting the right of a woman to terminate the life of her baby, either pre-born or partially born. No Catholic can claim to be a faithful member of the Church while advocating for, or actively supporting, direct attacks on innocent human life. In reality, protecting human life from conception to natural death is more than a Catholic issue. It is an issue of fundamental morality, rooted in both the natural law and the divine law.

The Church’s God-given responsibility is to propose the Truth, thereby offering people the proper criterion for examining issues and making informed decisions that are morally right and serve the common good. "The Church must be committed to the task of educating and supporting lay people involved in law-making, government and the administration of justice, so that legislation will always reflect those principles and moral values which are in conformity with a sound anthropology and advance the common good" (The Church in America, 19, Synod for America, 72). There is no doubt that protecting all human life, promoting the family, pursuing social justice and practicing global solidarity are in conformity with a sound anthropology and do, indeed, advance the common good.

Keeping in mind the four priorities that I have outlined, some have wondered whether one may vote for a candidate whose stand on abortion and other life issues is contrary to the teaching of the Church if one believes that that candidate has a better position on other issues of importance to Catholics and indeed to our nation (e.g., national security, taxation, job growth, economic policy, etc.). Let me be clear: to vote for a candidate precisely because of his or her pro-abortion stance is an instance of formal cooperation in a grave evil. Such formal cooperation is, according to the constant teaching of the Church, never morally permissible.

In our common life together in society, it is sometimes not possible to avoid entirely all cooperation with evil. This may be the case in electing to office our state and national leaders. In certain circumstances, it is morally permissible to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices. This is called material cooperation with evil. In order for material cooperation to be morally permissible, however, there must be a proportionate reason for such cooperation. Proportionate reason does not mean that each issue carries the same moral weight; intrinsically evil acts such as abortion or research on stem cells taken from human embryos cannot be placed on the same level as debates over war or capital punishment, for example. It is simply not possible to serve and promote the common good of our nation by voting for a candidate who, once in office, will do nothing to limit or restrict the deliberate destruction of innocent human life.

If, however, a candidate supports abortion in a limited number of cases but opposes it otherwise, a Catholic may vote for such a candidate over another, more unsuitable candidate who is unwilling to place any restrictions on abortion. In this case, the voter makes an effort to limit the circumstances in which procured abortion would be deemed legal. This is not a question of choosing a lesser evil, but rather the Catholic, by his or her vote, expresses the intention to limit all the evil that one is able to limit at the time.

As citizens and Catholics, we must be involved in the political process and in the electing of our local, state and national leaders. "The arena for moral responsibility includes not only the halls of government but the voting booth as well" (Living the Gospel of Life, 33). Once again, I urge you to weigh carefully the issues and the candidates from the perspective of the four moral priorities I outlined above, especially the priority to protect the life of all persons, pre-born and born.

In these days preceding the elections on Nov. 2, please pray and fast that the citizens of our nation will elect those leaders who will renew our communities, our state and our society by enabling all citizens to restore the culture of life.

One with you in prayer and in the exercise of our privileged right to vote, I remain

Faithfully in Christ,

Most Reverend Paul S. Loverde
Bishop of Arlington


Here is the contact info for the "good" Bishop. Let's let him know how we feel.

The Catholic Diocese of Arlington
200 North Glebe Road
Arlington , VA 22203

Telephone: [phone]
Toll Free Telephone: [phone] ( Virginia Only)

[e-mail]

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. Diocese of Arlington

My favorite charity is Alexandria's "Christ House." I will continue to take my old clothes, TV sets, etc. down there, in spite of what this guy says. I used to give things to the Salvation Army, until they got on their "if you give us money, we'll support discrimination" kick of a few years back. Remember that? It had to do with those gay "special" rights.

[Devil Dog Dem]

2. I don't remember the SA doing that.

What exactly were they doing?

[IrateCitizen]

3. They openly discriminate against homosexuals

I believe that if you are gay, you cannot work for them.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. They do?

So now I have to walk past the SA Santa every year. Damn. Where does this shit stop? How do they discriminate against homosexuals? Exactly? Do you know?

[MountainLaurel]

6. Court case

In Kentucky a few years ago, I believe, in which they defended their right to fire an employee because of her evil, woman-loving ways. And according to this source, they've been up to more of the same since.

http://www.soulforce.org/main/salvation.shtml

ANd here's a long-ago editorial from DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/07/18_outing.html.

Although interestingly, according to this source, they're willing to hire gays in CANADA.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/84/story_8434_1.html

[Hell Hath No Fury]

7. Yes, they claim the right...

to discriminate against gays and lesbians

Here in SF, the City stopped all funding to the Salvation Army for social services because they refused to sign onto the City's non-discrimnation policy.

They get no $$$ from me. My money goes to Glide now.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

14. Salvation Army - I need to elaborate

Google for "salvation army discriminate homosexual rove"

Here is one hit:

Congressmen Demand Answers On Sally Anne Deal

>>
Congressmen Demand Answers On Sally Anne Deal
by Fidel Ortega
365Gay.com Newscenter
July 12, 2002

July 12, Washington) In an effort to determine whether White House staff acted improperly in their attempts to promote the President's faith-based initiative, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the Ranking Democrat on the Constitution Subcommittee, and Rep. John Conyers, the Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee Wednesday sent a letter to the White House requesting full disclosure of the nature of the meetings.
In the letter to John DiIulio, who is heading the White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives, the congressmen also asked the White House to request that the House Republican Leadership cease all congressional action on the proposal, until the inquiry is finished.

The letter comes on the heels of a report that the White House may have held secret meetings with the Salvation Army, where the White House promised a rule change that would allow religious charities to discriminate in hiring against gays and lesbians - even if local and state law forbid it. In return, according to an internal Salvation Army memo obtained by the Washington Post, the Salvation Army promised to endorse the President's proposal.

"These secret, and possibly illegal, meetings are an outrage and demonstrate a contempt for the rule of law and for the rights of the most vulnerable Americans," said Rep. Nadler. "We need to know who was in on these meetings, what had been promised, who authorized the meetings and why the public was not notified that the right to live free from discrimination was being brokered away in a back room."
....
<<

Don't order yet; there's more.

Rove Heard Charity Plea on Gay Bias

this link also works

>>
Rove Heard Charity Plea on Gay Bias
White House denied senior aides had role
By Mike Allen and Dana Milbank
THE WASHINGTON POST
July 12, 2001

Karl Rove, President Bush’s senior adviser, was the Salvation Army’s first White House contact in its effort to win approval of a regulation allowing religious charities to practice anti-gay workplace bias, administration officials said yesterday.

THE REVELATION CONTRASTS sharply with the administration’s initial insistence that senior officials were not involved with the charity’s request, which was hastily rejected Tuesday evening after a news account about the proposed regulation.

An internal Salvation Army document obtained by The Washington Post said the White House had made a “firm commitment” to issue a regulation protecting religious charities from state and city efforts to prevent discrimination against gays in hiring and providing benefits. To secure this commitment, the charity proposed spending nearly $1 million on lobbyists and strategists, and those it retained included a key player in the Bush presidential campaign and one of the campaign’s top fundraisers.
....
<<

Give money to the SA, and they'll use it to hire lobbyists. **** the poor. For Rove and the SA, it was a case of "you scratch our back, and we'll scratch yours." Substitute other body parts as you deem appropriate.

[ClintonTyree]

5. The Separation of Church and State................

is nonexistent in the Bush era. They gleefully court these radical "Christians" along with the Born Agains to do their bidding for them. I find this vile and disgusting not to mention the ethical questions it raises. It's time to take tax exempt status away from these charlatans, but no one in our Government would dare attempt it. Especially anyone from the Bush Administration. I'm wondering which country will attack our nation to free us from the American Taliban like we did in Afghanistan? Please help, hurry!

[Devil Dog Dem]

8. Here are some great replies to the Bishop

Posted by Tesibria in another thread:

From the letter: In certain circumstances, it is morally permissible to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices. This is called material cooperation with evil. In order for material cooperation to be morally permissible, however, there must be a proportionate reason for such cooperation. Proportionate reason does not mean that each issue carries the same moral weight; intrinsically evil acts such as abortion or research on stem cells taken from human embryos cannot be placed on the same level as debates over war or capital punishment, for example. It is simply not possible to serve and promote the common good of our nation by voting for a candidate who, once in office, will do nothing to limit or restrict the deliberate destruction of innocent human life.

Here, the Bishop improperly asserts that a “pro-life” platform (regardless of practice) is more important than unjust war. He walks himself right into a trap.

1). He says that you can’t compare the intrinsically evil act of abortion to the “debatable” act of war.

The Holy Father is not “debating” war. The Holy Father has said, consistently and unequivocably that the Iraqi war is evil and unjust. See, e.g., http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/Iraq/papal... (papal statement against the war before the invasion); and http://globalsecurity.com/world_politics/pope_critical/... (pope saying to Bush: "You are very familiar with the unequivocal position of the Holy See in this regard, expressed in numerous documents, through direct and indirect contacts, and in the many diplomatic efforts which have been made." (emphasis added).)

2). He equates the “intrinsically evil act of abortion” to anyone who supports a candidate who believes in abortion. This is improper. For example, if that were true, why then has the Pope personally celebrated mass with others who support abortion rights? See, e.g., http://uspolitics.about.com/od/abortion/a/08052004.htm ("On Jan. 6, 2001, at the concluding mass of the jubilee, John Paul II personally gave communion to Francesco Rutelli, who is one of the most active supporters of abortion in Italy.") How then can this bishop argue that to VOTE for someone who supports abortion rights justifies denial of communion.

3) He ignores the FACT, now well-documented, that people have been executed wrongfully (however one feels about capital punishment generally). See, e.g., http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/egumb20_20041020... (“In a "culture of life," we are called to be merciful. As the governor of Texas, however, Bush approved the execution of 152 people. In one infamous incident, he publicly mocked a woman as she awaited execution on death row. The president's attorney general has ordered a federal prosecutor to seek the death penalty despite the prosecutor's own recommendation of a life sentence in at least 12 cases. In other words, current U.S. policy is that some human life does not matter.”)

3) His conclusion utterly IGNORES the FACT that the ONLY candidate who actually spoke about taking active steps to reduce abortion in our country is KERRY. Bush and his surrogates talked about getting a constitutional amendment and/or overturning Roe v. Wade. Neither of these acts will reduce abortion. Neither Bush nor his supporters provided a shred of evidence that their actions would reduce abortions.

ALL available evidence shows that there has been a NET INCREASE in abortion rates under the first four years of the Bush Administration. See, e.g., http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&i... (“Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.”) In other words, while the rate of abortion had been decreasing steadily under the (pro-choice) Clinton administration, it is now on its way back up – under the so-called “pro life” president. See also http://www.thecatholicvote.org/Bush_Moral.html (last paragraph).

4) His conclusion also utterly IGNORES the FACT that Bush’s UNJUST war (according to the Holy Father) is actively, daily, hourly, killing thousands of INNOCENT human life in Iraq. See http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/egumb20_20041020... (“War: In a "culture of life," we are called to be peacemakers. Bush, however, chose to pursue a war over the moral objections of hundreds of religious leaders, including Pope John Paul II, the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the leaders of the president's own Methodist Church. The report released on Oct. 6 by chief weapons searcher Charles Duelfer definitively proves that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction. The evidence is now clear that the Bush administration misled the American people into the war in Iraq.)

[merh]

9. I have bookmarked this thread

as I am writing a letter to my bishop, objecting to a similiar letter appearing in the bulletins and being read in church a few weeks back.

I will be glad to send a like letter to this fellow!

[Devil Dog Dem]

10. That's great!

I hope you use some of Tesibria's points.

[merh]

11. Where can I find those?

I will be happy to incorporate some if I can.

[Devil Dog Dem]

12. See my post #8

I pasted them there.

[merh]

13. Okay thank you, I must have overlooked it.

:shrug: :silly:
:hi: