An Open Letter in response to Archbishop Quinn

An Open letter to Archbishop Quinn

You Eminence:

I read your letter of August 31, 2009 which was intended originally for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. You were correct in your opening statement which was intended for the June meeting of the American Bishops in that you said, “The right to life is a paramount and pre-eminent moral issue of our time.” All social justice stems from the right to life, for if you do not have ‘life’ you have nothing else—including social justice.

You are also correct in that there is no disagreement “…within this conference about the moral evil of abortion, it’s assault upon the dignity of the human person, or the moral imperative of enacting laws that prohibit abortion in American society”. But your folly begins to ascend when you make the statement “The bishops’ voice has been most credible in the cause of life when we have addressed this issue (abortion) as witnesses and teachers of a great moral tradition, and not as actors in the political arena.” You continue that folly with the statement, “…Republican candidates are, in general, more supportive of the church’s position on abortion and euthanasia, while Democratic candidates are generally stronger advocates for the Catholic vision on issues of poverty and world peace.” Why are those statements folly? First, because you, whether you believe it or not, want to or not, become “actors” in the political arena. By stating publicly with clarity why abortion is evil you are considered to be those ‘actors’ by every group from NARAL to Planned Parenthood to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance. When you don’t state the truth with clarity, or you mask it completely, for whatever reason, you become shells, ‘actors’, for the faithful. Words do mean something. And by making the statement that the “Democratic candidates are generally stronger advocates for the Catholic vision on issues of poverty and world peace,” you make a mockery of truth, reason, logic, the Natural Law and self-sacrifice. I’m not a Republican nor a Democrat. I find both parties lacking in so many respects. But if you’re going to make generalizations such as these then you need to be reminded of history. Speaking of social justice it was the GOP headed by Lincoln that ended slavery. Not the Democrats. Of world peace, it was a Democrat who was in power at the beginning and during the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War and Vietnam. It was a Republican who ended Vietnam. Hoover, FDR and Truman, the latter two being Democrats, who shipped more illegal immigrants out of this country than any other president. LBJ began the war on poverty in 1963 and the per capita for poverty has increased, according to the Heritage Foundation, consistently at the hands of government even after billions of tax money has been thrown at the “problem”. It is the National Democratic Party that has a platform of death, not just abortion, but in Oregon, euthanasia; the Republicans have a party platform of protecting life. The general philosophy for helping the poor and the downtrodden from the Republican perspective is to stimulate economic growth so that people can work—those who wish to work. For those who do not for legitimate reasons, need to be taken care of by people from a basis of subsidiarity, which as you know has been a Catholic philosophy for over a hundred and fifty years. When the government takes from those who produce, i.e. taxes, in order to fund what ‘they’ wish, they are stealing. There is not a whit of concern for that individual. The concern of this secular government, of all governments for that matter, is growing itself in power at the expense of freedom, of individual responsibility, and most importantly, Charity—the ability for the individual to choose ‘Charity’ as part of his or her commitment to Christ. Forced ‘charity’ is not charity at all. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard before or after Mass that an individual is not giving to a particular charitable cause because the government is now doing that for them. Your Eminence, if you want to build a socially just and charitable society, you must build it from the ground up, not the top down. Christ did not begin with Caesar. In an instance, it seems to me, that’s exactly what you are proposing and calling for.

Why are you even concerned about how people perceive you? You need to speak the ‘truth’. Your comment “The bishops are believed to communicate that for all the promise the Obama administration has on issues of health care, immigration reform, global poverty and war and peace, the leadership of the church in the United States has strategically tilted in favor of an ongoing alliance with the Republican Party. A sign of this stance is seen to be the adoption of a policy of confrontation rather than a policy of engagement with the Obama administration.” My question to you, your Eminence, is would you have had a policy of engagement with Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, knowing what you know about them now? Well, you do know what Obama’s philosophy is on abortion—as being the most radical of any president to take the Oval Office. But what about closer to home? Nancy Pelosi claiming to be a Catholic and claiming that she knows the Church’s teaching on abortion because she’s read Augustine? Or Biden, or Dodd, or especially Kennedy? HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic, who is radically for abortion including what is called infanticide and whose candidacy for governor was supported by the only late term abortionist in the country? There is no transcendency with evil, your Eminence. You speak the ‘truth’ and you will suffer for it. By merely speaking the truth you will draw confrontation to you.

When you make the statement, “The approach of the Holy See might justly be characterized as a policy of cordiality” you don’t even know your own history. Before Benedict became Pope he was Cardinal Ratzinger and called for any individual in office who considered to be supporting the ‘right’ to abortion to be refused the Sacrament of Communion. Other than outright ex-communication that’s about as confrontational as it gets.

You place all forms and formats of irrationality within your scope. You equate what went on at Notre Dame, your quote, “….the spirited condemnation of the president’s visit and degree at Notre Dame last May have reinforced for many African-American Catholics those feelings of hurt and alienation. It is not that African-American Catholics do not understand that the church must oppose abortion, or that they themselves personally believe that the bishops are acting out of racist motivations. It is rather that when the church embraces a new level of confrontation when an African-American is involved, this readily raises widespread questions about our racial sensitivity. And these questions will only continue to be raised more forcefully if we continue to walk down the path of confrontation with this administration.” more important than proclaiming the ‘truth’ that over forty million pre-born children have died since 1973.
I suggest to you strongly that by making statements or insinuating that racial sensitivity is more important than speaking the ‘truth’ boldly only alienates and confuses the ‘faithful’, those who are truly trying to follow the Magesterium of the Church. The Church today has less credibility than ever because of the sexual scandals it has wrought on itself. Your American Catholic Bishops, with their continuation of taking not only the government’s money but also that of the Church’s faithful to support operations like Acorn just adds to the lack of trust. And when you make such erroneous statements, as you have done throughout your piece, I cry for Pilgrim Church.

As St. Francis of Assisi did, although this writer is of no comparison with that great Saint, with a priest he had gently chastised several hundred years ago, I too will gladly kneel and kiss your ring and hands. For your hands still hold the power to change simple bread and wine into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of our Lord Christ Jesus.