Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States

  https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf

Introductory Letter

   As Catholics, we bring the richness of our faith to the public square. We draw from both faith and reason as we seek to affirm the dignity of the human person and the common good of all. With renewed hope, we, the Catholic Bishops of the United States, are re-issuing Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, our teaching document on the political responsibility of Catholics, which provides guidance for all who seek to exercise their rights and duties as citizens.

   Everyone living in this country is called to participate in public life and contribute to the common good. In Rejoice and Be Glad [Gaudete et Exsultate], Pope Francis writes:

    Your identification with Christ and his will involves a commitment to build with him that kingdom of  love, justice and universal peace. . . .You cannot grow in holiness without committing yourself, body and soul, to giving your best to this endeavor.

  The call to holiness, he writes, requires a “firm and passionate” defense of “the innocent unborn.” “Equally sacred,” he further states, are “the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection.”

  Our Our approach to contemporary issues is first and foremost rooted in our identity as followers of Christ and as brothers and sisters to all who are made in God’s image. For all Catholics, including those seeking public office, our participation in political parties or other groups to which we may belong should be influenced by our faith, not the other way around.

  Our 2015 statement, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,sought to help Catholics form their consciences, apply a consistent moral framework to issues facing the nation and world, and shape their choices in elections in the light of Catholic Social Teaching. In choosing to re-issue this statement, we recognize that the thrust of the document and the challenges it addresses remain relevant today.

  At the same time, some challenges have become even more pronounced. Pope Francis has continued to draw attention to important issues such as migration, xenophobia, racism, abortion, global conflict, and care for creation. In the United States and around the world, many challenges demand our attention.

  The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed. At the same time, we cannot dismiss or ignore other serious threats to human life and dignity such as racism, the environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty.

  Our efforts to protect the unborn remain as important as ever, for just as the Supreme Court may allow greater latitude for state laws restricting abortion, state legislators have passed statutes not only keeping abortion legal through all nine months of pregnancy but opening the door to infanticide. Additionally, abortion contaminates many other important issues by being inserted into legislation regarding immigration, care for the poor, and health care reform.

  At our border, many arriving families endure separation, inhumane treatment, and lack of due process, while those fleeing persecution and violence face heightened barriers to seeking refuge and asylum. Within our borders, Dreamers, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders, and mixed-status and undocumented families face continued fear and anxiety as political solutions fail to materialize. Lawmakers’ inability to pass comprehensive immigration reform which acknowledges the family as the basic unit of society has contributed to the deterioration of conditions at the border. As we seek solutions, we must ensure that we receive refugees, asylum seekers, and other migrants in light of the teachings of Christ and the Church while assuring the security of our citizens.

  The wound of racism continues to fester; the bishops of the United States drew attention to this important topic in the recent pastoral letter, Open Wide Our Hearts. Religious freedom problems continue to intensify abroad and in the United States have moved beyond the federal to state and local levels. As international conflicts proliferate, addressing poverty and building global peace remain pressing concerns, as does the need to assist persons and families in our own country who continue to struggle to make ends meet. We must work to address gun violence, xenophobia, capital punishment, and other issues that affect human life and dignity. It is also essential to affirm the nature of the human person as male and female, to protect the family based on marriage between a man and a woman, and to uphold the rights of children in that regard. Finally, we must urgently find ways to care better for God’s creation, especially those most impacted by climate change—the poor—and protect our common home. We must resist the throw-away culture and seek integral development for all.

  With these and other serious challenges facing both the nation and the Church, we are called to walk with those who suffer and to work toward justice and healing.

  At all levels of society, we are aware of a great need for leadership that models love for righteousness (Wisdom 1:1) as well as the virtues of justice, prudence, courage, and temperance. Our commitment as people of faith to imitate Christ’s love and compassion should challenge us to serve as models of civil dialogue, especially in a context where discourse is eroding at all levels of society.  Where we live, work, and worship, we strive to understand before seeking to be understood, to treat with respect those with whom we disagree, to dismantle stereotypes, and to build productive conversation in place of vitriol.

  Catholics from every walk of life can bring their faith and our consistent moral framework to contribute to important work in our communities, nation, and world on an ongoing basis, not just during election season. In this coming year and beyond, we urge leaders and all Catholics to respond in prayer and action to the call to faithful citizenship. In doing so, we live out the call to holiness and work with Christ as he builds his kingdom of love.

Merciful Father,

Thank you for inviting each of us to join in your work

of building the kingdom of love, justice, and peace.

Draw us close to you in prayer

as we discern your call in our families and communities.

Send us forth to encounter all whom you love:

those not yet born, those in poverty, those in need of welcome.

Inspire us to respond to the call to faithful citizenship,

during election season and beyond.

Help us to imitate your charity and compassion

and to serve as models of loving dialogue.

Teach us to treat others with respect, even when we disagree,

and seek to share your love and mercy.

We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you

in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever. Amen

Death penalty - a letter to the Democratic party

Last night was reportedly the first case of a federal execution in any years.  However, supported by the Democratic party, federally funded executions are occurring by the thousands every day in abortion clinics. Human life begins at conception, biology 101.  Since Roe v. Wade, there have been 62+ million executions of unborn human individuals in the United States, all under the guise of health care. I am using the word execution as abortion is the willful termination of the life of a unique human individual.

Once upon a time, the Democratic party did not think that abortion was so wonderful. Remember legal, safe and RARE? Now, the DNC platform only wants to keep abortion legal.  States, that try to enact regulations that require abortions clinics to maintain conditions required of other medical facilities, such as dental offices and outpatient surgical centers, are bombarded by so-called choice supporters with objections that women’s right to abortion are being denied.  But, it costs money to maintain sanitary conditions or design a clinic so that EMT’s can safely and quickly transport a woman who has had a complication to an ER.  Listen to the objections and follow the money.

So, money trumps safe. What about rare?  Despite the denials of choice supporters, many women say that they did not think that they had a choice other than an abortion. Where is the Democratic party’s concern for these women? Women say that they felt pressured by others, by their economic status, by their healthcare status, by the numbers in the family that they were already caring for, by the choice between a baby, and getting and education that would support them both.  But these women can choose abortion with no regrets, according to the so-called choice supporters. No regrets?  Many years ago, I read of a woman in her 70’s who found that the underlying sadness in her life was the result of an abortion.  Another woman felt that she was unable to love her living children since she had ended the life of her first child. Regret, depression and family problems have arisen from abortions.  Post-abortive programs would not exist if women did not regret having abortions.

Women are given options at the abortion clinics. Just how true is that?  Women, who were once abortion clinic counselors, have related how they had a script which skewed the options toward abortions, like putting the cost of raising a child versus the cost of an abortion.  How many clinics offer guidance to social programs that would enable women to raise her baby?  Oh, that would require a social worker.  Abortion clinics are not into social work.  Adoption is mentioned, but so also the life-long grief of giving the baby to another person. What of the grief of an abortion? Oh, women are supposed to feel relief. Feeling grief from an abortion means someone shamed them into feeling grief.  Supposedly pro-choice supporters rail against pro-life clinics that offer information on fetal developments and ultrasounds of the baby. They say that it shames women into not choosing an abortion. Since when is having all the information one can have before undergoing a life-changing procedure be shameful? Would they say the same if a woman was undergoing surgery for breast cancer? How many women have said that if they only knew they were not aborting “just a clump of cells” they would never have had the abortion? 

What is the Democratic party, the party that is portraying itself as caring for the people, going to do for the women who do not want an abortion but think that because of their life circumstances they do not have any choice?  Will the Democratic party push for the regulation of abortion clinics that will at least compare to standards of other clinics or even hair salons?  Will the Democratic party promote more programs for women, and men, who want to care for their babies? (There are men who are willing to raise their baby on their own, but then the women would be unwilling incubators, according to the supposedly pro-choice people. How ‘it’s all about me’ have we become to put one’s convenience over the life of another?)  Will the Democratic party promote adoption and fund adoption agencies as much as it funds abortion clinics, under the guise of health care? (This would include religious organizations with acceptance of their adoption parameters, if the woman chooses them.) 

Or, will the Democratic party buckle to the so-called pro-choice people?  They say that they are for ‘my body, my choice’, but their actions say that is a lie.  Every baby kept or adopted is a loss for an abortion clinic’s profits, or excess revenue over expenses if Planned Parenthood.  Hear the objections and follow the money.  Is the Democratic party really for the welfare of the people or a slave to the abortion lobby and a minority of people, just as the Republican party is to the NRA?

Time to put your policies where your mouth is.  Give women real choices.  That will make abortion rare. 

Want some ideas?  Democrats for Life have ideas. https://www.democratsforlife.org/

Proposed Platform Language to Unites Democrats Around Historic Democratic Principles

"We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, such as abortion and the death penalty.  We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength, and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.

However, we can find common ground.  We believe that we can reduce the number of abortions because we are united in our support for policies that assist families who find themselves in crisis or unplanned pregnancies.  We believe that women deserve to have a breadth of options available as they face pregnancy – including, among others, support and resources needed to handle the challenges of pregnancy, adoption, and parenthood; access to education, healthcare, and childcare; and appropriate child support.  We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term."

What is wrong about IVF?

March 4, 2012

The New Scar on My Soul

By anonymous

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/03/the_new_scar_on_my_soul.html#ixzz3SUrGjlkz

My soul carries a new scar.  The pain is fresh and keen, and I know that while time might see the pain fade, I will never fully recover from what I've seen, and done.  For I have failed, intentionally and knowingly, in the first duty of a parent: protecting the lives of two of my children.
My wife and I wanted children; alas, we needed IVF treatment to realize this dream.  Several cycles and multiple embryo implantations later, we welcomed our blessing from G-d, who is the light of our lives.

Recently, we tried for another.

"It never rains, but it pours," said the fertility doctor -- of the three embryos that were implanted, all three took.  We were faced with the news of triplets.  I was shocked, knowing the burden that would entail, but since G-d gave us three, I was prepared to do whatever I needed to do to help, manage, and provide.

My wife?  Something snapped.  She insisted that we do a "selective reduction" from three to one, or else she would have a full abortion.  She was adamant.  She would not carry three.  She would not carry two.
I was presented with a Coventry-esque decision: save one, or save none.  I chose the former, though I tried on several occasions to convince her to at least keep twins.  I failed.

We were told, point-blank, by the doctor who would do the procedure that they would inject potassium chloride into the placenta to stop the hearts.  We were told, point-blank, that it was painless.  Even then, I knew I was being lied to, but given the choice presented, I agreed anyway.  My mantra became "Save one, or save none."

Before the procedure, my wife's eyes teared up; she asked the doctor over and over if they would feel pain, and was assured they would not.  I asked again if my wife was sure about this because once done, it could not be undone.  She said she was sure, but her tears and her looking away from the screen, deliberately, and her wanting me to not look either, told me the truth: she knew as well that this was wrong.  I wanted to insist that she look, but I think that her mind -- already fractured by the news of triplets -- would have snapped permanently had she seen the images onscreen.  And to save the one, and for the sake of the one we already had, I needed my wife sane.

My wife didn't look, but I had to.  I had to know what would happen to my children.  I had to know how they would die.

Each retreated, pushing away, as the needle entered the amniotic sac.  They did not inject into the placenta, but directly into each child's torso.  Each one crumpled as the needle pierced the body.  I saw the heart stop in the first, and mine almost did, too.  The other's heart fought, but ten minutes later they looked again, and it too had ceased.

The doctors had the gall to call the potassium chloride, the chemical that stopped children's hearts, "medicine."  I wanted to ask what they were trying cure -- life?  But bitter words would not undo what had happened.  I swallowed anything I might have said.

I know they felt pain.  I know they felt panic.  And I know this was murder.  I take cold comfort in knowing that as far as we can tell, the survivor is still fine, and in knowing that this decision did not come from me; I would have taken the chance on triplets, even with all the work and effort it would have required.  I pray that this one child will come to term, will be born into this world alive and healthy, and I know he or she will have all our love.

But that emotional scar will ache my whole life.  I see my child's smile every night and anticipate a new one in some months...but I think of the two smiles I will never see.  Every day, returning from work, I hear "Hi Daddy!" and know there are two voices and two giggles that I will never hear.  I play with and cuddle my child, looking forward to the same with the second...but I know there are two sets of hands that will never touch mine, two sets of toes that will never be counted, two hugs that will forever be absent from my arms.

I pray to G-d every day to take those two innocents to Him, to welcome them, and I ask them every day for forgiveness.  As I will every day for the rest of my life.  I don't know what accommodation my wife will make mentally and spiritually.  That is her business, and a burden her conscience must bear.

But let nobody fool you.  It is not painless for the child, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.  Abortion is not an excision of a featureless bunch of cells; it is infanticide.  We have revived the practice of child sacrifice to the new deities of casual sex and convenience.  We rationalize the reality of murder by altering our perspective of the nascent life through euphemisms like "fetus" or descriptions of "a clump of cells"...just like the Nazis convinced themselves that the people screaming as they were shot or gassed were "Untermenchen," subhuman, and therefore guiltlessly exterminated.

This is how every perpetrator of genocide has always rationalized his or her actions.  By doing likewise, we condemn our own souls

I wept in joy, a few years ago, when I saw my first child's heartbeat on the screen.  And I weep in agony now at the memory of two of my children's heartbeats being stilled.  "Save one, or save none" has been eclipsed by "Out, out, damned spot!" as I wonder how I can redeem myself.
If, by baring this scar for others to see, I can prevent an abortion, perhaps that will help to balance the scales for when I face G-d's justice and I finally meet those two children -- who I hope will forgive me for my failure.

The author's name has been withheld by request.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/03/the_new_scar_on_my_soul.html#ixzz3SUrGjlkz

Life Matters: A Catholic Response to the Death Penalty

http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/2013/life-matters-a-catholic-response-to-the-death-penalty.cfm

Abortion, euthanasia, domestic abuse, gang related violence, terrorism, murder, mass shootings, expressions of hatred or racism and other acts contrary to the dignity of persons… all of these crimes cry out for justice. Yet we are a people of hope, and St. Paul reminds us that "in hope we were saved" (Rom 8:24).

We are confident that we serve a God of life, of hope and mercy. We know that all human life is a gift from God, a gift that God charges us to protect. To be worthy of being called his disciples, Jesus urges us to love others as he has loved us (Jn 13:34-35). Our response then to a culture in which hostility towards others is commonplace, in which killing is often considered a legitimate solution to social problems, is to both live and proclaim a gospel of life, hope and mercy.

For people committed to upholding the sanctity of human life, the death penalty can present a challenge. Properly understood, however, Catholic teaching against the death penalty is both persuasive and eminently pro-life. It begins with the affirmation that human dignity applies to every human being, to victims as well as those who have committed crimes against life. Our teaching also holds that recourse to the death penalty may be justified only under the most narrow circumstance, namely, if it "is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor" (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], no. 2267). The teaching reminds us that if non-lethal means are capable of protecting society, these are preferable as "more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person" (CCC, no. 2267).

Blessed John Paul II was instrumental in challenging the world to reconsider the use of the death penalty. In his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life, "EV"), he explained that, "The Gospel of God's love for man, the Gospel of the dignity of the person and the Gospel of life are a single and indivisible Gospel" (no. 2). Quoting the Second Vatican Council's Gaudium et Spes (no. 22), "By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every man," he added that, "This saving event reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God… but also the incomparable value of every human person" (EV, no. 2).

In the first chapter of EV, "The Voice of Your Brother's Blood Cries to Me from the Ground" (Gen 4:10), Blessed John Paul II presents the story of Cain and Abel to illustrate that God's mercy embraces even a murderer. Despite Cain's deliberate killing of his brother, despite his lack of remorse, his arrogance, his lies to God and utter callousness about what he had done ("I do not know [where Cain is]. Am I my brother's keeper?" Gen 4:9), God nevertheless refuses to take Cain's life as punishment. But he does not leave the crime unpunished. He tells Cain that he will not be able to grow crops and that he will be a fugitive and wanderer on the earth. Cain complains that such leniency is still too harsh, fearing that someone might kill him on sight.

God then reveals still greater mercy towards Cain, putting a mark on him "so that no one would kill him at sight" (Gen 4:15) and promising that "If anyone kills [you], [you] shall be avenged seven times" (Gen 4:15). Although Cain is spared execution, justice requires that he live the rest of his earthly life alone and outcast, but with time to reflect on his crime, to perhaps feel remorse and at last seek forgiveness and reconciliation with God.

The story of Cain and Abel shows that, though we reject and betray God through our sinfulness, his love for human beings is always faithful, merciful, compassionate and patient. Writing about this passage, Blessed John Paul II observed, "Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this" (EV, 9). We must never lose our conviction that even the worst offenders are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Certainly, one of the principal failures of the death penalty is that it denies the opportunity for repentance and conversion by definitively cutting short the efforts of the Holy Spirit to transform the condemned person's soul in this life. In effect, we are condemning the accused not only to death, but possibly also to hell. The finality of the death penalty compels us to ask, who are we to thwart God's desire that all might be saved? Who are we to put an end to the work God is trying to accomplish in anyone's soul?

From a purely secular perspective, it is a fact that simply because states have always exercised the power to kill persons convicted of murder or treason, it does not follow that this power always has been exercised wisely or well. Given mankind's seemingly infinite capacity to err, we must admit that the death penalty poses significant problems. With scandalous frequency, people on death row have later been shown to be innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. As of 2012, 141 people incarcerated on death row in 26 states have been exonerated and freed when conclusive evidence of their innocence was later discovered. But we cannot always rely on DNA evidence to demonstrate guilt or innocence because DNA evidence exists in only 10 percent of cases.

Even if the death penalty were always imposed without error, should we support its use? We teach that killing is wrong by responding with mercy and justice, not more killing. We don't want a government that kills when society can be protected fully by the bloodless means of life imprisonment. By fostering a spirit of vengeance, which should have no role in the administration of justice, the death penalty contributes to the increasing disrespect for human life in our culture.

Today a growing movement in the United States, led by Catholics, opposes the use of the death penalty. As a result, more states are restricting or abolishing its use, but many other states retain this penalty.

As Catholics, we believe and put our hope in a merciful and loving God. We are conscious of our own brokenness and need for redemption. Our Lord calls us to imitate him more perfectly by witnessing to the inherent dignity of every human being, including those whose actions have been despicable. Our faith and hope is in the mercy of God who says to us, "Blessed are the merciful for they shall be shown mercy (Mt 5:7) and "I desire mercy, not sacrifices" (Mt 9:13). As Christians we are called to oppose the culture of death by witnessing to something greater and more perfect: a gospel of life, hope and mercy.

Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Philadelphia, recently summed up the case against the death penalty in these words: "As children of God, we're better than this, and we need to start acting like it. We need to end the death penalty now." Let us then join in efforts to end the death penalty and show that we are people of life, hope and mercy.

---

Anthony Granado is a Policy Advisor in the Office of Domestic Social Development of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/2013/life-matters-a-catholic-response-to-the-death-penalty.cfm