Pro-Granholm ads appear in three "authorized" Catholic newspapers

The Catholic Times/Catholic Weekly, the "Authorized Publication of the Dioceses of Lansing, Saginaw & Gaylord" has published a fullpage ad in each of its three editions for Pro-Abortion Governor Jennifer Granholm (paid for by the Michigan Democratic State Committee).

Imagine my surprise when I opened up to it on the second page of one of my regular sources for local Catholic news.

[Note: The CW/CT is not the "official" diocesan newspaper, but (as I understand it) a private publication "authorized" by all three, according to their website.]

Anyway, below the picture of the smiling Granolm family is a headline which reads "Governor Jennifer Granholm: Promoting the Common Good."

After that headline is the following quote from Granholm:

"Daily, I meet everyday folks who are struggling to make it. They don't have health insurance, are looking to get off welfare, or have jobs that have been outsourced ... These experiences create a much deeper appreciation for the leaders in the Church - from Abraham and the prophets to Jesus and the leaders of the early church - who did not focus on individual piety alone, but sought to shape a good people and just society."

Following that quote are three bullet points about Granholm's record as governor of Michigan:

• DIGNITY OF WORK: Increased the minimum wage and enacted a tax credit for working families that will put up to $880 more in their pocket.
• STEWARDSHIP OF THE EARTH: Protected 6,000 acres of Michigan's Great Lakes shoreline and ordered the reduction of mercury emisisons from power plants to protect our most vulnerable citizens.
• LIFE WITH DIGNITY: Expanded the Michigan Prescription Drug Discount Program for the elderly and expanded health services to over 200,000 women.

This ad runs on the second page of the Gaylord and Saginaw editions (Vol. 64, No. 51). The Lansing edition (Vol. 16, No. 1) puts it on page 7 (and instead has an ad sponsored by the National Right to Life on page 2 which compares DeVos and Granholm on many issues). All three editions also include backpage ads for Pro-Life candidate Dick DeVos.

All three editions include the following disclaimer at the lower-lefthand of their front page:

"FYI: Political Advertising

Continuing this week and running through the conclusion of this November's election, you will notice advertising of a political nature running in this publication. This is nothing new. From our earliest days, The Catholic Weekly has accepted ads from candidates who are interested in telling their story to a Catholic audience.

Indeed, we actively communicate our willingness to accept political ads to candidates from both major parties. We believe that, as Catholic Americans, it is important to know the issues and participate in the electoral process. In additions, advertising revenue does help to pay the bills and keep the presses rolling each week.

However, the presence of these ads, or the lack of same, do not represent an endorsement on behalf of this publication for any candidate or party. We don't make endorsements and never will.

So, know the candidates and the issues ... and don't forget to vote, Tuesday Nov. 7!"

Having (I hope) laid out all the facts honestly and accurately let me contribute my comments:

1. Granholm is trying to split the Catholic vote in Michigan. One-quarter of the state electorate in Michigan is made up of Catholics. I think allowing a pro-Granholm ad in a Catholic newspaper is irresponsible - it conflicts with the fundamental identity of a Catholic newspaper, especially one that claims a special relationship with three Michigan dioceses ("authorized by..."). If a candidate in favor of say, axe-murdering, ran for governor, a secular newspaper *might* be justified in running an ad for that candidate, but certainly not a Catholic newspaper.
2. A questionnare prepared by the Michigan Catholic Conference on Catholic issues (including health issues such as abortion, death penalty, assisted suicide, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, etc.) was sent to both DeVos and Granholm. DeVos responded, Granholm declined all the questions. These results were published in all three of the same newspapers that now are running pro-Granholm ads. In this case, silence is guilt.
3. Bishop Carlson, the head of the Saginaw diocese which is served by the Catholic Times/Catholic Weekly, is outspoken on the issue of Catholics voting according to their beliefs: "The morality that protects human rights and thus the common good is the first and best thing worth legislating. When a politician says, "I am personally opposed to abortion but don't want to impose my beliefs" or says something like "You can't legislate morality," he or she fails the common good." He also has recently said: "Each one of us needs to be informed about the issues and the candidates and exercise our precious right to vote. At the same time, while respecting the distinction between Church and state we can never forget the moral dimension to our choices." [source] I would argue again that it is inconsistent to listen to the words of Bishop Carlson and then to publish an ad in favor of a candidate so clearly opposed to Church teaching, and acting agsint the teachings of Jesus.
4. The Michigan Catholic [the official newspaper of the archdiocese of Detroit] refuses to run ads for either party, probably to avoid this precise problem. To use, perhaps, another extreme example to prove my point, a Catholic newspaper should not allow advertisements from an abortion clinic in its pages, even if the abortion clinic masquerades as a "women's health clinic." So really, it is possible to exclude some ads and not others.
5. I understand that newspapers, especially Catholic ones, are often strapped for cash. But some money you can't accept. Try instead a fundraising campaign that can proudly say "We don't take advertising money from groups or organizations opposed to Catholic teaching" - I bet loyal Catholic readers would try to help out in response to that statement. I would.
6. Some might counter, "But won't denying the ads of one party be seen as biased"? I would respond to that, "the Truth is biased." While a secular newspaper should just "report the news," a Catholic newspaper has a higher calling - and a higher responsibility.

My 7th and last point. The mission statement [here] of the Catholic Times/Catholic Weekly says that it is dedicating to "fulfilling the mission of the Catholic Press: To help spread the teachings of Jesus, to report official information of the Church and other news of importance to Catholics."

I say that it is part of the mission of the Catholic Press and of the teachings of Jesus to protect human life, and ad in favor of a candidate who does not follow that teaching cannot be run by a Catholic Press. Again, the "news of importance to Catholics" that abortion is wrong cannot be combined with ads that promote voting for a Pro-Abortion Governor. Sometimes you just can't have it both ways, especially if you are a Catholic and holding true to your faith.

Next, their mission statement says "It is our intent that the information contained in each issue will help to inspire, motivate and promote responsibility among our readers, and throughout the Catholic community." I do not think that this ad helps to inspire, motivate or promote responsibility in Catholic voting among its readers.

The full text of the pro-Granholm ad is viewable here. [edit: link fixed] (I'm not going to respond here to Granholm's problematic quote and highly-selective claims about her record as governor, but others are welcome).

In conclusion: please, Catholic Times/Catholic Weekly, don't confuse your readers. Newspapers are called to convey the truth, and Catholic newspapers should convey the full truth of our Catholic faith clearly and unambiguously. Don't run ads promoting people who act against the truth while claiming they are true to the teachings of Jesus. Instead, be a truly Catholic newspaper.

Update: And just to see how Granholm treats the issue of abortion elsewhere, take a look at this [via Fumare]:

Update 2: Jivin Jehoshaphat uncovers the hypocrisy of this ad here. Apparently she convinced ClamRampant to change her vote (she explains why in a letter of her own to Dick DeVos here).