The Globe reported:
Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston, saying the Democratic Party has been persistently hostile to opponents of abortion rights, asserted yesterday that the support of many Catholics for Democratic candidates “borders on scandal.”
In his sharpest comments about the political landscape since he was installed as archbishop of Boston four years ago, O’Malley made clear that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.
“I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church’s position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues,” O’Malley said.
The Globe continued:
O’Malley’s predecessors as archbishop of Boston were also staunchly antiabortion. Cardinal Bernard F. Law called a news conference to criticize a Republican governor, William F. Weld, for his support for abortion rights, and Law had the lieutenant governor at the time, Paul Cellucci, also a Republican, disinvited from a Catholic high school for the same reason; Law also blasted Geraldine A. Ferraro, the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1984, for her support of abortion rights. Law’s predecessor, Cardinal Humberto S. Medeiros, in 1980 tried unsuccessfully to persuade Catholics to vote against two Democratic congressional candidates, Barney Frank and Jim Shannon, because of their support for abortion rights.
Interesting, but I don’t recall — and the Globe does not mention — any Catholic official ever having blasted any Massachusetts Republicans in recent years for their positions on abortion — such as the formerly prochoice Gov. Mitt Romney or continuously prochoice Lt. Gov and 2006 gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey — although I suppose I could have missed something.
It is interesting too, to see the Cardinal attack the Democratic Party — as if the institutional “party” had a lot of say, or should have a lot of say over who the membership picks as its candidates, and who the voters ultimately choose as its representatives. And while we appreciate and respect our party leaders, the days of the smoke-filled room are gone.
Of course, GOP Catholic strategist Deal Hudson immediately cheered O’Malley’s blast:
Other Catholic bishops have admonished Democrats, but O’Malley’s words are the most direct challenge to Catholic Democrats yet. O’Malley said they were fooling themselves by saying they are not supporting abortion: “I think there’s a need for people to very actively dissociate themselves from those unacceptable positions, and I think if they did that, then the party would have to change.”
“Forming Citizens for Faithful Citizenship” should put an end to this type of political abuse of Catholic moral and social teaching.
But for all of the stridency of O’Malley’s attack on the Democratic Party, the fact is that both the Catholic Church and the Democratic Party in Massachusetts have changed. Cardinal O’Malley’s behavior is a throwback to the old days, when conservative Catholic pols and prelates dominated state politics. But the Church is not nearly the powerhouse it once was, having lost enormous credibility in the wake of the priest pedophilia and related sex scandals.
Meanwhile, the state Democratic Party has become more open, more vibrant, and more (small d) democratic. What’s more, the legislature is a far more progressive place than it was just a few years ago, and the transition is still underway as the progressive reform movement that powered the candidacy of Deval Patrick into governor’s office has lost none of its energy and has only increased its skills and experience over several election cycles. O’Malley’s attack on the Democratic Party sounds like the last gasp of a dying era.
O’Malley complains that the Democratic Party should include more “pro-life” candidates. Well, the vast majority of the Democratic Party membership and our elected leaders are intent on continuing to elect candidates that are fully, and articulately in favor of reproductive rights and comprehensive sexuality education. Prolife candidates are welcome to participate, but they are no more entitled to recieve preferential treatment than anyone else. Here in Massachusetts, we respect the right of people to receive and to provide abortion care.
Coinicidentally, a few days before the O’Malley controversy broke out, Governor Patrick signed a bill that expands the buffer zone designed to protect patients and staff from harrassment by antiabortion zealots. Below is the complete text of the press release issued by the Governor’s office. Note the strong, clear statements from our top Democratic officials, including the Governor, the Attorney General, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. I have highlighted their quotes for emphasis.
BOSTON – Monday, November 13, 2007 — Governor Deval Patrick today signed into law a bill expanding the protected area around reproductive health facilities in Massachusetts.
The legislation, supported by Senate President Therese Murray and Speaker of the House Salvatore DiMasi, establishes a fixed 35-foot buffer zone around the entrances and driveways of all reproductive health facilities in Massachusetts.
“Women in the Commonwealth have the right to obtain medical care free from violence, harassment or intimidation and this new law will guard that right,” said Governor Patrick. “By widening the buffer zone around reproductive clinics we will protect patients from the harassment that so many have encountered as they seek care.”
The prior buffer zone law, enacted in 2000, established a 6-foot “bubble zone” within an 18-foot buffer zone outside of reproductive health care facilities. A person could not knowingly approach another person within the 6-foot bubble zone unless he obtained that person’s consent. That law had been difficult to enforce, however, because it was unclear how to prove that a patient did or did not give consent to a protester. Although violations of the law were reported to be frequent, there had not been a successful prosecution under the law since its enactment.
The new law attempts to remedy the problem by establishing a fixed 35-foot buffer zone around the entrances and driveways of all of the reproductive health facilities in the state, thereby ensuring safe access, without interfering with the ability of protestors to express themselves outside of the protected area.
“Patients have the right to seek medical care; health professionals have the right to assist their patients; and they both have the right to pursue care without being harassed, humiliated or threatened,” Senate President Murray (D-Plymouth) said. “The new, improved Buffer Zone law is enforceable, common-sense legislation to protect the rights and well-being of women and their health care providers.”
“Women seeking health services and the people who provide them should be free to do so without fear of assault, harassment or intimidation,” said Speaker DiMasi (D-Boston). “This expanded buffer zone provides much-needed improvements to public safety and I commend everyone who worked so hard to see this bill become law.”
“The Legislature’s and Governor’s quick work in passing the Buffer Zone Legislation addresses an important public safety issue,” said Attorney General Martha Coakley. “Over the years, r
eproductive health care facilities have been the scene of mass demonstrations, congestion, blockades, and disturbances. This legislation will help to ensure greater safety on our public ways and sidewalks and prevent violence, harassment and intimidation of women who are attempting to exercise their fundamental right to access healthcare.”“Planned Parenthood supports this new law because it will protect the privacy, dignity and safety of patients who are just trying to get to their doctor’s appointments and staff who are just trying to do their jobs,” said Dianne Luby, President/CEO Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. “This is an important public safety measure and we commend Governor Patrick for signing it into law today.”
The lead sponsors of the legislation – which had broad support in both the Senate and the House – were Senators Susan Fargo (D-Concord) and Harriette Chandler (D-Worcester), and Representatives Marty Walz (D-Boston) and Carl Sciortino (D-Medford).
The times they are a changin’ in Massachusetts: a stronghold of the Democratic Party and a model for what Democratic politics and governance can be.
[Adapted from Talk to Action, where Frank Cocozzelli’s continuing series is excellent background on the political dynamics of the Catholic Right.]
…O’Malley was brought in to take over the Boston subsidiary of the RCCi. But, it struck me that O’Malley was the corporate equivalent of a “sanitizer”: someone who would be brought in to a virtually insolvent subsidiary and try to turn it around financially. Closing sub-subsidiaries, selling off assets (even if the sales are merely “book sales”) and so forth.
<
p>
Apparently he’s done a half-assed job at that. Apparently, he wasn’t as good a “sanitizer” as he was put up to be.
O’Malley has no financing experience. Bishop john Lennon (interim archbishop) is the man for that. O’Malley had established a history as a healer in archdioceses rocked with scandal, and had managed to make a good showing knitting back together Catholic communities in Fall River and Palm Beach after similar accusations.
<
p>
Frankly, O’Malley’s tried to do a good job on this score. He’s consistently undermined by the Vatican, however, and the financial issues are beyond his scope and experience…and perhaps anyone’s.
Cardinal Law blasted Weld and Celucci regarding their position on abortion. IT isn’t as big news when this happens to Republicans for whatever reason.
<
p>
I concede that Giuliani seems to be getting a pass on this in NY and elsewhere.
Cardinal O’malley, Please do not vote with such harsh feelings towards both parties. That sounds like the best option.
I quoted those facts in my post. (Perhaps the problem is your selective reading.)
<
p>
The current regime, however, said nothing about our recent prochoice governor and Lt. Governor, both Republicans. And yet now comes out swinging against the entire Democratic Party.
<
p>
This is way over the line.
<
p>
There are, have always been, and will continue to be plenty of prochoice Republicans. However I don’t think we will hear any such blanket condemnation of the GOP as we heard from Cardinal O’Malley against the Democratic Party.
The interesting thing is that there can be no equivocation on the lesser of two evils if the GOP’s presidential candidate is Guiliani against Hillary. It is black and white, according to the cardinal, you cannot vote for either. We will see whether there are shades of grey in the whole issue at this point.
As a Christian it is tough to take my support of the consistent life ethic (anti-war, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-capital punishment) and reconcile it with either political party. Its unfortunate that great old school liberals like Joe Moakley have faded from the scene, people that were anti-death penalty and pro-life. That position seems to be fading from both parties.
<
p>
Yet for the most part Democrats have opposed foolish foreign adventures, continued to support just wars like the one in Afghanistan, are split evenly on the death penalty, and still have some pro-life members. On social justice issue the Democrats stand far and above the GOP which continually cuts any programs that aid the poor or might provide them with any advancement towards opportunity while expanding the Defense Department.
<
p>
From the good Cardinals perspectives it is better to keep ones hands clean than dirty them up with politics. The Republicans will continue to endorse hawkish pro war politics, will continue to support the death penalty, and just for the record rates of abortion continually go up when Republicans are President and with the exception of banning partial birth this President has done very little but give lip service to the pro-life movement.
<
p>
I am confident that all of our potential nominees are beginning to shun the extreme pro-choice positions of their predecessors and start to use the language of faith to promote ending abortion by reducing it instead of banning it, a far more sensible position than anything on the GOP which has shown itself notoriously unwilling to pay for anything once the baby is born.
Like who? Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter? Who are you talking about? Don’t perpetuate the myth of Democrats as abortion-lovin’ baby-hatin’ moonbats. It’s a splendid right-wing fantasy that has gathered a great deal more currency than it merits.
<
p>
By the way, I’m confused by the title of your comment — “He is right.” Who do you mean? Surely not O’Malley, with whom you appear to disagree.
A number of years ago, there was a rather kooky church-like group out of Somerville. It was either weird or parody. It had bumper stickers like “Save the Planet. Kill Yourself” Their leader advocated as many abortions as possible. “Church” doctrine asserted that the world supported too many people.
<
p>
(Is this an unintended side-effects of an active artists’ community?)
<
p>
What stands out, though, is that they’re the only group I’ve heard of that advocates abortion. Everyone else seems to be aware that some women find abortions traumatic. If they can be prevented, they should be. So I think Bill Clinton’s fifteen year old formulation already represents the pro-choice position.
<
p>
Perhaps the pro-choice folks haven’t made that clear enough.
There is no morally comfortable position on abortion. You either advocate the taking of innocent life, or you advocate “womb-control,” as it has been phrased on this blog. The nature of the issue doesn’t allow for difference splitting.
<
p>
Legal, safe, and rare recognizes that the specific act in question, no matter the circumstances, is a tragic thing.
<
p>
Although this is a “15 year old formulation,” it espoused significant negative controversy within the last few years when espoused publicly by the junior Senator from New York, because, in addition to improved health care and access to contraception, “rare” implies a certain comfort with regulation and/or restriction of access to, for example, late-term abortions or what has been dubbed “partial birth” abortion, along with parental notification and other such rules.
<
p>
I read jconway’s posts to express support for an apparently growing tolerance on the Democratic side for regulation that could “restrict access” to certain procedures in certain circumstances, as compared with the previous party stance that tolerated no restriction of any kind.
I spend too much time polishing this stuff and by the time it appears I’m no longer reading it carefully.
for the pro-life position: if abortion means taking a life, it always means taking a life. For pro-choice, people that doesn’t necessarily translate into an equal and opposite position.
<
p>
For example, I don’t consider an abortion at 3 or 4 weeks to be taking “a life,” and I wouldn’t feel guilty if my wife or daughter chose to abort a pregnancy at this point (if I were in on the decision). As the embryo matures, things get dicier for me, hence my support for the reason for the 3 month statute. (The idea that life begins at conception, it seems to me, is a convenient and simplifying fiction that helps make a complex, moral dilemma simpler).
<
p>
The moral discomfort comes from a dilemma being treating like it is a problem. There is no answer to the abortion issue. Dilemmas don’t have answers, at best, they have resolutions. I supposed it is tragic that women (or couples) have abortions, but the alternative, which you point out, is worse.
<
p>
Mark
<
p>
Every anti-abortion acolyte who doesn’t think the doctor should be charged with murder, and all nurses and the mother herself as accomplices, has compromised.
To reply to David and others when I say “extreme pro-choice” positions I mean support for third and in my view second trimester abortions, abortions the Roe v Wade decision allows states and the federal government to ban if they so choose and bans that were supported in mainstream Democratic platforms until the radical abortionist wing pushed them to an extreme.
<
p>
Anyone who supports partial birth and believes abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare” is treading a tough line since basically the only difference between a partial birth and a C-Section is whether you drill the babies skull out. A bizarre and Mengelian line to draw if I ever heard one.
<
p>
Cudos to Dems opposing this procedure which over 60% of Americans oppose. Thats the extremist pro-choice position David not support for first trimester abortions which most Americans would agree is kosher.
<
p>
I for one dont really mind it within the first few weeks and support the morning after and RU-486 pills unequivocally.
he or she should be prosecuted, and we should let a judge & jury decide if the doctor goes to prison/pays a huge fine?
<
p>
And given that woman is an accomplice doctor should she sit at the defense table with the doctor?
…as I have expressed elsewhere over the last few years, not only should the woman be prosecuted, but the person or persons who pay for the abortion should also be prosecuted, as should the man who impregnated the woman (“protection,” you know).
<
p>
The idea that the physician alone should be prosecuted is idiotic in the extreme. But the anti-abortion activists know that they would never be able to get such a law enacted. So they direct their vengence on the physicians.
<
p>
Whatever. Soon enough there won’t be enough OB-GYNs to do much of their “love” on their female patients (to paraphrase GWBush, a sociopath who gives me the creeps). I guess that’s their goal.
…for a person who refers to himself as ‘this ‘lil faggot’ to high-handedly and snarkily opine about women, ob-gyns, and birth control – an area that will remain theoretical to him.
<
p>
Human reporduction is a real and emotional issue to many of us, not a debating society amusment.
you, who is purportedly pro-choice, support a born-again womb-controller for preznit. Human reproduction can’t be any more of an emotional issue to you than it is to Myth Romney. dry your crocodile tears. they are not at all convincing.
<
p>
I was, of course, referring to the hypocrisy of targetting only one actor in a potential crime, while intentionally refusing to target others who are just as, if not more than, culpable. And the possible repercussion in the targetting of that one actor.
<
p>
BTW, Ms. Porc, perhaps it has escaped your notice that gay men can father children and lesbians can mother them. It has been at least three decades since human IVF has been practiced. Remember Baby Louise? I realize that the man behind your chosen handle came from the cusp of the 18th-19th century, but I doubt that you did.
Certainly I would agree that women should never ever be prosecuted for making this decision especially considering how tough it is. And certainly making these procedures illegal would create a black market problem and potentially jeopardize the safety of the procedure, I fully acknowledge this which is why I support social programs to reduce the procedures and prop up alternatives to abortion.
<
p>
That said in my view those two procedures are clearer cut than the procedure in the first trimester. An impregnated embryo does not have as great a chance of coming to term as the fetus does in the second or third trimesters, moreover it has yet to take up human looking characteristics or have a heartbeat as it does in the second or third term so I am far more comfortable with the procedure then. But certainly partial birth, and I acknowledge a health exception on the ban would’ve been essential, is incredibly disgusting, abhorent, and unethical by any standard and should only be used to avoid a potentially life threatening miscarriage. Similarly I would like to hold that standard for second trimesters but I am less sure the country is with me on that or that the reprecussions of black market abortions, etc. would be as devastating for that procedure.
<
p>
But on purely ethical grounds I am opposed to both procedures and would ideally like to see them banned outright if that was a pragmatic and feasible option (in reference to black markets, etc.). To me this only forces the women to make the choice much sooner and at a stage where it is far less repugnant, and again giving the vast array of options that will ideally be present (social support networks, social services, adoption programs, universal pre natal and day care, and of course some kind of universal health care) it is far less likely a choice she will make.
Certainly I would agree that women should never ever be prosecuted for making this decision especially considering how tough it is.
<
p>
…a woman who engages a physician to perform an abortion is not at least an accomplice (before, during and/or after the fact) to the presumptive crime that the physician is performing? Or the person who pays for the abortion?
<
p>
That suggestion would be as nonsensical as suggesting that somebody who contracts for murder (John Gotti?) is not him- or herself just as guilty if the murder is actually carried out by the contractee.
… is it that we are saying about how it is ‘wrong’ if there is no penalty for all the participants? If we somehow ‘tolerate’ a black market are we not actually condoning the behavior?
<
p>
Here are some things which don’t include restrictions on abortions which might make them more rare++:
<
p> * Teaching kids the ABCs [abstinence, be faithful, correct and consistent use of condoms] * Teaching kids sex-ed * Making sure the morning after pill is sufficiently available * Making sure that pharmacists are required to dispense the medication a doctor has prescribed to his patient * Improved/expanded substance abuse counseling * Improved drug enforcement * Improved/expanded after school programs * Mo’better Summer job/camp/ed programs * Minimum wage and other employment laws that allow families to spend more time together * Improved public schools * Improved adoption laws and policies * Improved health care for mothers-to-be, newborns, infants, toddlers, and children * Increased accessibility to affordable day care * Expanded programs like WIC
<
p>
There are lots of ways to help kids make choices that don’t result in pregnancy. There are lots of ways to help pregnant women choose adoption over abortion. There are lots of ways to help pregnant women choose to keep their babies. Rare can be accomplished by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, increasing the percentage of babies who are given up for adoption, and/or helping unplanned not become unwanted by making sure that the mother and baby have a safe, healthy future ahead of them.
<
p>
++: I’m not advocating for anything on this list in particular, nor claiming that any of it is particularly effective. Just pointing out that rare does not imply restriction on availability
All true enough.
<
p>
But the underlying problem with an acknowledgement that abortion should be rare (or, put another way, that the ideal number of abortions is zero) is that it is also an acknowledgement that the procedure is something more than just a common medical procedure. Nobody has any moral qualms with, say, the removal of ingrown toenails, or contends that the ideal number of such procedures is zero. Once it is acknowledged that there is something going on other than just a medical procedure, the door is open to restrictions around the margins.
<
p>
Which is why a lot of activists don’t like the formulation.
… but the logic needs work:
<
p>
If the ideal number of X is zero is not evidence that X is more than a common medical procedure. The ideal number of root-canals is also zero. That is to say, we all wish there were no need for them. There are other reasons to conclude that abortion is more than a common medical procedure, but citing that the ideal number is zero doesn’t get you to that conclusion.
<
p>
Feel free to try another tack, of course.
Why should I defend the tack? I merely report it. I’m no Democrat, and I’m no progressive, whatever that last word means. I’m just rooting for the Democrats because I dislike their adversaries at the present time.
<
p>
If the “progressives” in Democratic Party is willing to acknowledge explcitly that abortions are at best a necessary evil in which something on the spectrum between a proto-person and person is deliberateky killed, so much the better.
<
p>
Certainly that would eliminate any daylight between the centrist position and the progressive one.
<
p>
…
<
p>
Because the logic fails. I’m not making a value judgment about anything else except that your conclusion, even if right, does not follow from your premise. That makes it an invalid argument. If you want to make a valid point for your conclusion, you have to get there via a different argument.
… I see where you are coming from.
<
p>
There still might be a logic problem there though. I don’t see how assuming that abortion should be rare infers that it is more than simple medical procedure.
A number of years ago, there was a rather kooky church-like group out of Somerville.
<
p>
The Shakers were celibate. And eventually, they died out.
… they left some really good looking furniture!
…indeed, the chairs used in our eat-in kitchens both in Wellesley and in our hovel outside of Munich are very Shaker-like. I doubt, though, that the actual furniture that the Shakers left behind are very good looking. /tic
<
p>
NB: the chairs are amazingly comfortable, even though the seats are flat pieces of wood.
There are still three active communities – one in Maine.
<
p>
http://www.shaker.li…
<
p>
As a Christian myself, it’s entirely too easy to reconcile with the Democratic party. It’s so easy, in fact, I often think there is something I’m missing and thus, find myself obsessively researching the issues.
<
p>
As a Christian I take as my example Jesus, who, in nearly every circumstance presented people with a choice and then, surprise of surprises, allowed them to make the choice and live with it. He is very clear about the consequences and the results, but he is also clear that the choice is completely within the grasp of those to whom it is presented. It is the essence of nearly every thing He said… The Democratic party, for a variety of reasons, some Christian, some probably not so, takes a similar view wrt making choices. And I believe people have a very clear eyed view of the consequences. I don’t get that from the Republicans. In fact, I see just the opposite (remember Terri Schiavo?) and this is the basis I make for my oft repeated accusation that they are, at heart, ‘fascists’. (Of course, those fiscal conservatives who share a bed with the social conservatives are bad for exactly the opposite reason: I feel, very much, that they’d abort every child available should it prove profitable. You can, I hope, see where that offends my Christianity. But that’s a whole other side of the coin…)
<
p>
You may not like the choice other people make. You may even feel sad or pity for them. But whatever else you feel, you cannot feel responsible for them. Because you are not.
Which “good cardinal” might that be?
<
p>
From the good Cardinals perspectives it is better to keep ones hands clean than dirty them up with politics.
<
p>
Are you referring to the “good cardinal” who embroiled himself into the same-sex marriage political issue in Massachusetts in recent years? I’m sorry, jconway, but the fact is that it is unlikely that there are any “good cardinals.” They are all politicians.
It’s a fundraising tactic as much as anything else, folks.
<
p>
While many liberal Catholics exist in America, and most Catholics think the Pope if off his rocker about issues involving women, the most important to the Church are the rich ones.
<
p>
And the rich Catholics, the donors who provide the cash, are conservatives. The founder of Domino’s Pizza (a man guilty of crimes against the human palate, I might add) is only the most prominent of them.
<
p>
O’Malley takes a strong public stance against Democrats and Roe v. Wade, and the wallets open up.
<
p>
And now a reading from the First Epistle of Saint Bart to the Springfieldians:
Because they aren’t Roman Catholics.
Is the “Kerry” you are referring to JKerry or KerryH?
<
p>
There is a reason why I use GWBush instead of just “Bush.” In recent history, there was also a GHWBush, and it’s desirable to distinguish between the two.
Then why would he be referring to John Kerry?
… on a first name basis.
<
p>
<
p>
While I get that ‘Mitt’ is prevalent, though I myself try not to use the first name, I’ve never heard Kerry Healey referred to as ‘Kerry’. Thus, I too, initially thought that he was referring to John Kerry.
Don’t the forget the irony of the first Catholic Presidential candidate since JFK having the Church as a detractor.
<
p>O’Malley wasn’t one of the folks saying he should be denied communion, but did say pro-choice politicians should abstain from communion of their own volition.
<
p>By contrast, O’Malley addressed a Red Mass luncheon back in October and all but endorsed Brownback, despite his pro-war, pro-death penalty stances.
<
p>http://www.thebostonpilot.com/…
AFAIK, Reagan’s father was Catholic, but he was brought up a Protestant. He was divorced in 1948, so was almost certainly not a Catholic when he ran for President.
<
p>He did start political life as a Democrat and switched to the GOP in the 1960s.
According to Wikipedia, his mother was a Disciple of Christ and the “falling in” happened in childhood.
William Weld got the scolding and he is not Catholic. Pols got the scoliding in the past, regarless of party. But the current regime only attacks Democrats.
<
p>
More to the point: “the Democratic Party” is not Catholic, although many of its member are. By the same token, many Republicans are prochoice and Catholic as well, but we hear no generic attacks on the GOP.
<
p>
O’Malley has crossed the line in a big way that merits a big response.
O’Malley seems content to chide those who share his faith, perhaps recognizing that those who do not are outside his purview.
<
p>
I absolutely agreee the NATIONAL Democratic Party isn’t Roman Catholic – but the local branch is overwhelmingly so. It seems that O’Malley is trying to stick to local issues, in his own way.
<
p>
As far as pro-choice Roman Catholic Republicans goes – here’s a post I wrote about how he treated one such lady back when he was chosen as Cardinal HERE .
Its a matter of the consistency of the view. O’Malley is more than a little selective and I am sure is perfectly aware of the archdiocese history on these things.
<
p>
And again, the Democratic Party at all levels has no religious identity, although certainly many, but not all of its members do. Same goes for the Republicans, although in some places they are certainly working hard to blur that distinction.
<
p>
I didn’t want to get into it here, but I think it is necessary to point out that attacking a political party in this way is over the line in terms of the church’s tax exempt status. The Cardinal has no business telling a political party what to do, or intervening in its internal affairs. The Cardinal can seek to form the consciences (as the bishops put it in their current document) of the church membership all he wants; and he can speak out about what he views as moral issues — but he cannot intervene in political parties or in electoral politics. The IRS is pretty damn clear about that.
<
p>
He should no more be telling the Democrats to run more prolife candidates than he should be telling them to run antiwar candidates — not that he would ever do that, of course. The Cardinal is making it quite clear that there is only one issue that matters much to him and to the church.
<
p>
This is a very revealing moment, in my view. Unless this is an abberation, (and I doubt that is the case), what we are seeing here is a threat to widen and deepen the attack on the Democratic Party.
<
p>But Weld is Episcopalian The Episcopalians are really just Catholics no longer on speaking terms with the Pope!
The bully pulpit
<
p>
was that supposed to be a pun? It seems that the RCCi has pretty much lost its ability to bully in more than a few of its previous strongholds, including Bahston.