Text: Letter from US Legion Territorial Directors to members

This letter is being widely distributed among members of the Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi in the United States. It bears the names of Fr. Scott Reilly LC, Territorial director for the Atlanta territory, and Fr. Julio Marti LC, Territorial director for the New York territory. I'm posting it below for discussion.

My complete coverage of the Legion scandal is here. Recent coverage includes:

• Claim: Legion founder Maciel had multiple children; other details emerging
  
• Huh? Regnum Christi releases CD promoting RC vocations
  
• Update: Fr. Berg breaks his silence about the Legion
• Breaking: Abp. Chaput, other Legion visitors appointed by Vatican (full details added)  
  

Here it is embedded:

And here it is for download and viewing in a separate window.

Claim: Legion founder Maciel had multiple children; other details emerging

For some time, I have refrained from reporting on the ongoing saga of the Legionaries of Christ out of deference for the canonical visitation which is taking place.

AmP was the first major blog to report the scandal of Maciel having a biological child, and became a hub for accurate reporting on the story in the tumultuous weeks that followed.

However, because the most recent round of news changes the situation dramatically, I will report on it as well. The conclusions of the apostolic visit cannot be expected for some time, but individuals who are still in the Legion or Regnum Christi deserve to know what is happening now.

Multiple stories from Mexico report that three additional individuals claiming to be children of Fr. Maciel are suing the Legion of Christ for inheritance rights. It appears the original daughter of Maciel, and her mother, were supported by Legion money (i.e. money contributed by Catholic faithful for supporting Fr. Maciel's work). 

The mother claims she was a minor when her relationship with Fr. Maciel began. And it appears that "highly placed officials" in the Legion knew of this situation and where complicit in it. Details beyond this are sketchy, but it appears probable now that there are even more children than the ones mentioned (the most frequent number I hear is six total). 

If you are interested in the details, two ex-LC blogs provide them: Life-after-RC and Ex LC Blog.

These new allegations suggest several conclusions:

• Fr. Maciel was an extraordinary, calculating fraud and he ought to be acknowledged as such by the leaders of the Legion and Regnum Christi alike
• The breadth of Fr. Maciel's crimes makes it nearly impossible that other members of the Legion did not know of them, and they ought to be brought to justice
• The serious financial infraction of misusing lay resources (money, property, etc) for the upkeep of Fr. Maciel's mistress and his other escapades demands restitution
• The ongoing revelations about Fr. Maciel and his enablers requires an intense examination, person-by-person, of those still charged with the movement's leadership

In the face of these conclusions, the choice made by increasing numbers of Legionary and Regnum Christi members - to simply leave the order and begin anew - to my mind, is the most prudent way to respond. Most of these individuals have left quietly, and I have no desire to point them out, but it is happening and I have not yet heard of anyone regretting that decision. Life in the Church, after all, can always be wonderful, even outside a movement.

For both those who decide to stay in the Legion/Regnum Christi and for those who have left, I would firmly admonish them to assist in every way possible with the ongoing apostolic visitation. 

There have been some scattered reports of Legion/Regnum Christi members attempting to thwart the visitation (I do not necessarily give credence to these reports), but obviously the primary obedience of any faithful Catholic is to the Holy See and its elected representatives (Christ speaks through His vicar the pope, not Fr. Maciel). For LC/RC in the United States and Canada the representative of the Holy Father is Archbishop Charles Chaput.

To contact Abp. Chaput, send an email with the subject line "PRIVATE" to "shepherd [at] archden.org" (without the brackets and spaces). Emails ought to be VERY SHORT and to the point. Every email will be read eventually.

For those of us outside the Legion and Regnum Christi, let us continue to pray for all the members, and if we personally know anyone who has been or is a member, let us charitably reach out to them if they welcome it. Oremus pro invicem.

[photo credit: chamorros1976]

Boston Archdiocese-affiliate health-care to offer abortion coverage

Sad. Embarrassing. Wrong:

Caritas Christi, the health-care system affiliated with the Archdiocese of Boston, has entered into a partnership that will provide coverage for abortion, sterilization, and contraception under the terms of a state government contract. Celticare Health Plan-- a new offering, which describes itself as “a partnership between Celtic Group, a subsidiary of Centene Corporation, and Caritas Christi Health Care”-- is now offering several options for health-care coverage, with all of the available plans advertising abortion coverage. (Catholic Culture brief)

I blogged about this possibility about a couple weeks ago.

Fr. Cutie, caught dating widow, decides to join Episcopal Church

He didn't even bother to inform his archbishop in advance:

Father Alberto Cutie, an internationally known Catholic priest who admitted having a romantic affair and breaking his vow of celibacy, is joining the Episcopal Church to be with the woman he loves, he said Thursday.

"I will always love the Catholic Church and all its members," he said at a news conference. "But I want to start today by going into a new family.

"Here before this community where I have chosen to serve and where I live, I am going to continue to proclaim the word of God and my love for God," Cutie said.

Cutie (pronounced koo-tee-AY) was received into the Episcopal Church earlier Thursday at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Miami, Florida. He will pursue the priesthood in the Episcopalian faith, the Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida said in a written statement.

It was not immediately clear how long the process would take. (CNN)

More on the Cutie scandal backstory here. Episcopal Life Media adds more here.

Will the Boston Archdiocese really allow abortion referrals?

Back in March:

After more than a week of controversy, state regulators voted yesterday to accept a bid by a Massachusetts Catholic hospital chain and a secular health organization to provide health insurance to thousands of low-income residents.

The Connector Authority board, which oversees the Commonwealth Care program, voted unanimously in favor of the joint venture proposed by Centene Corp., a St. Louis-based health organization, and Caritas Christi Health Care Network.

The vote followed several closed-door sessions in which officials from Centene and Caritas, the minority partner in the joint venture, assured regulators that women will have "ready access" to family planning and reproductive services, an issue that sparked concerns from abortion foes and reproductive rights activists. (Boston Globe)

Despite attention from the American Life League and Catholic Action League, as of last week - no change:

Brian Delaney, communications director for CeltiCare, owned by Centene, confirmed that the joint venture will be operational by July 1 and that it "will meet all the state’s requirements under the Commonwealth Care program, including providing family planning services as appropriate.”

... “It is clear that the Caritas/Centene partnership is proceeding with all deliberate speed towards the July 1st start-up date of the Commonwealth Care contract," he said.

"Catholics need to keep the pressure up on the Archdiocese to cancel the contract," he added. (LifeNews)

Here is a good way to start:

ACTION: Contact Caritas Christi and urge it not to begin doing abortions or referring for them. Caritas Christi Health Care, 736 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02135, (p) 617-789-2500, CCR.Webmaster@CaritasChristi.org

Catholic institutions simply cannot be complicit with abortion.

Abp. Weakland's pilrimage ends in coming out

I note this story more out of obligation than interest. Apparently he is coming out with a book.

I'll leave a priest with the task of dealing with the media coverage, and supplying counsel.

Fr. Cutie exposed by Mexican tabloids, scandalizes the Church

This story broke earlier this week but I only cover it now to point out the predictable feeding-frenzy occurring in the mainstream media.

Yes, Fr. Cutie (really, the irony) messed-up big time:

"Before God - full of love and mercy - I ask for the forgiveness of those who may be hurt or saddened by my actions. Since I entered the seminary at the age of 18, the priesthood has brought me great joy. The commitment that I made to serve God will remain intact. I am grateful for the love and support I have received today from so many in our community, especially my parishioners and the supporters of the radio stations who have demonstrated great compassion and understanding toward me as a human being. I ask for your continued prayers and support."

What his Archbishop had to say:

"I am deeply saddened by the news surrounding Father Alberto Cutié. I apologize on behalf of the Church in Miami to the parishioners of Saint Francis de Sales Parish, where he serves as administrator, to the listeners and supporters of Radio Paz and Radio Peace, and to the entire Archdiocese.

Father Cutié made a promise of celibacy and all priests are expected to fulfill that promise with the help of God.

Father Cutié's actions cannot be condoned despite the good works he has done as a priest. I ask for everyone's prayers at this time. Scandals such as this offer an occasion for the Church on all levels to examine our consciences regarding the integrity of our commitments to the Lord and to his Church."

What ... the mainstream media had to say:

Oh please, like we didn't see that suggestion coming. But, of course, the answer to violating the vows of celibacy ... is to observe the vows of celibacy. Not to toss them out! That's why the public improprieties of Fr. Cutie constitute such a grave scandal - they diminish the witness of the Church to the world.

Yes, we ought to pray for Fr. Cutie, but let's also re-double our prayers for the noble young men (and women) who are faithfully living lives of celibacy as they study to become priests (and professed women religious).

Let us also pray for those who have already taken on the vow of celibacy that they remain faithful to it and thereby provide the world with a wonderful (and so needed) witness!

[photo: UK Daily Mail]

Report: ND President Jenkins in DC meeting with Obama (+analysis)

Joseph Lawler writing for AmSpec passes along a fascinating report:

"At Off the Record, Phil Lawler (my dad) is passing along a report that he has from a reliable source: ND President Fr. John Jenkins is in Washington, D.C. today for an unannounced meeting at the White House. This is still merely a rumor, but indeed FlightAware shows the ND jet flying to Dulles this morning."

Joe goes on to note that, despite the criticism of 42 bishops (and counting), Fr. Jenkins is digging in his heels, claiming he and others are "tremendously proud" to honor Obama (source).

As for the backlash to the announcement of Obama's invitation, which has included over 325,000 individuals signing a petition protest, Jenkins says: "it's unfortunate that the great event of President Obama coming to this campus has been a little clouded by that controversy."

... a little clouded?! This is easily the biggest scandal to hit Notre Dame in years, if not in its long history. To say the event has been "a little clouded" is simply a sentence out of la-la land.

Whatever Fr. Jenkins is saying in public, it's clear that internally Notre Dame is in severe conflict - this is quickly becoming an identity crisis for the institution, a struggle for the soul and reputation of the university. And Fr. Jenkin's fiddling isn't helping put out any of the fires.

And, surprise-surprise, I think it's going to get worse. I've been alerted to at least one other significant detail of the visit in particular which, if confirmed, will further strain the situation. Let's call it the "georgetown policy."

So if Fr. Jenkins is in DC to meet with Obama, what are they doing? My guess would be damage control. They are probably putting their heads together and trying to figure out some solution to what is fast becoming a watershed moment in the relations between the Obama administration and Catholic America.

Let's hope, work and pray for a peaceful (and satisfying) abatement to the waters.

Towards that end, we should recall that the top-down decision making pursued so far by Obama/Jenkins simply isn't working. Fr. Jenkins owes Notre Dame - and Obama owes American Catholics - a just solution which respects the contributions and concerns of those 42 bishops and 325,000 signers.

update: Notre Dame's student newspaper is claiming that the University spokesman is denying reports that Fr. Jenkins met Obama in Washington today. Can anyone lend clarity pro/con?

update 2: Why Fr. Jenkins is in DC (according to one source).

Flash: Abp. Burke clarifies he was misled about Communion interview agenda

I was worried about something like this happening. Looks like Randall Terry lied to Archbishop Burke about how his interview would be used, and Burke has issued a statement today to clarify:

ROME, Italy - In response to the March 25, 2009 press conference of Mr. Randall Terry in Washington, D.C., the Most Reverend Raymond L. Burke, Archbishop Emeritus of Saint Louis and Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, issued the following statement:

“Recently, Mr. Randall Terry and some of his associates visited me in Rome and asked to videotape an interview with me to share with pro-life workers for the purpose of their encouragement. The interview was conducted on March 2, 2009.

“Sadly, Mr. Terry has used the videotape for another purpose which I find most objectionable.

“First, Mr. Terry issued a media advisory which gave the impression that I would be physically present at the press conference during which he played the videotape, when, in fact, I was in Rome.

“Second, I was never informed that the videotape would become part of a press conference.

“Third, I gave the interview as a Bishop from the United States to encourage those engaged in the respect life apostolate, not as the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.

“Fourth, I was never informed that the videotape would be used as part of a campaign of severe criticism of certain fellow bishops regarding the application of Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law.

“If I had known what the true purpose of the interview was, I would never have agreed to participate in it.

“I am deeply sorry for the confusion and hurt which the wrong use of the videotape has caused to anyone, particularly, to my brother bishops.”

Once again, this situation could have been avoided if Abp. Burke's assistants had done their homework. (News flash, people: USE GOOGLE.) After all, Terry advertised this DC press conference several days in advance ... and yet no one in Rome apparently took notice of the things Terry was claiming (Second news flash, people: USE GOOGLE to keep tabs on what the media is saying about your boss). Rome shouldn't be the last one to know.

I was surprised that Abp. Burke had consented to giving Terry an interview, but I naively presumed that Abp. Burke knew what he was getting into, and was aware of Terry's hardcore approach to pro-life activism.

That said, Abp. Burke is not taking back his words. He is taking back the way they were used by Terry.

update: Michael Sean Winters pounces on the opportunity to snipe Abp. Burke: "... the Archbishop does not retract the statements he made in the interview but he does voice regret at the way the interview is being used. That is what passes, in this age of moral relativism, for an apology."

No sir, yours is what passes, in this age of liberal journalism, for an attack.

Ph/t: Whispers.

Updated: Obama "personal appeal" *will* drop contraception money from stimulus plan

{post updated - see below}

Quite a development:

House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income from an $825 billion economic stimulus bill, officials said late Monday, following a personal appeal from President Barack Obama at a time the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation.

Several officials said a final decision was expected on Tuesday, coinciding with Obama's scheduled visit to the Capitol for separate meetings with House and Senate Republicans.

The provision has emerged as a point of contention among Republicans, who criticize it as an example of wasteful spending that would neither create jobs nor otherwise improve the economy. (AP)

Two initial reactions:

• It is gratifying (even encouraging) to see Obama willing to bend on such issues
• It is gratifying to see Pelosi's stupid justifications left out in the cold this time

I'll be watching this and related stories closely.

Nancy Pelosi still needs to be answered.

update: Good analysis from Ed Morrissey, along with news that Pelosi is backing down:

"Democrats thought they could sneak subsidies for Planned Parenthood into the stimulus package, and why not? After all, in a bill that will cost $825 billion, who’d notice? Unfortunately for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, George Stephanopolous did. After failing to explain how hundreds of millions of dollars in new contraception funding would stimulate anything except libidos and Democrats, Pelosi will reluctantly remove the provisions from the stimulus bill this morning...

... Reid and Pelosi wanted to toss hundreds of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, an important contributor to Democratic candidates and the party. It has nothing to do with economic stimulus; it has everything to do with political stimulus."

Meanwhile, over at the death-happy Feministing blog, typical cluelessness:

"It is clear that state spending on family planning services not only save the state money and time, but have greater long-term benefits for the health of our people."

How do contraceptives save money and time? Oh that's right, because abortions take money and time. Reproductive Health Reality Check is hopping mad, too:

"Women are screwed, the poor lose essential health care, the Republicans galvanize their nutcase base by removing contraception but will still run around playing the common ground card. Could it maybe have been a better idea to flip this tired script and show some muscle right now?"

Note how Pelosi, the Feministing blogger, and RHRC ... are all in complete agreement on this issue!

Fr. Francis Mary Stone --> Mr. Dave Stone

I should have known that the sharp uptick in visitors today searching for news of "Francis Mary Stone", one-time host of the popular EWTN show Life on the Rock, would somehow be related to the news that he has gone into:

Motivational speaking engagements

Non-medical health and respite services

Products to bolster and revitalize

And yes, that includes promoting "Zrii, the nutritional supplement of those Living Life on the Rock!"

My original post on Fr. Francis Mary's decision to leave the priesthood was the touchstone for Catholic comments, reactions and prayers subsequent to the news breaking. EWTN made no announcement besides reading a short letter he penned at the time, and going back to business as usual with a new host of the show.

What to make of this? As Father Joe says: "it appears that he is having to face the cold reality that husbands and fathers have to provide for their families." I agree with Fr. Joe that we should keep David Stone in our prayers, but I also do not think we should ignore the sadness associated with the turn of events that propitiated his leaving the active ministerial priesthood.

(... and I guess we are to presume that Mr. Stone has received permission to leave off his priestly duties?)

Ph/t: Jeff Miller.

Photo credit: Flickr user "St. Augustine 400"

Response: Pelosi decides to fight it

The text hasn't been published online, but has been leaked numerous places, and I present it here. This email was sent out this afternoon from Pelosi's spokesman, Brenda Daly:

“The Speaker is the mother of five children and seven grandchildren and fully appreciates the sanctity of family. She was raised in a devout Catholic family who often disagreed with her pro-choice views.

Nice but irrelevant. Having children doesn't mean you understand why the Church believes it is wrong to kill them, necessarily.

“After she was elected to Congress, and the choice issue became more public as she would have to vote on it, she studied the matter more closely. Her views on when life begins were informed by the views of Saint Augustine, who said: ‘…the law does not provide that the act [abortion] pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation…’ (Saint Augustine, On Exodus 21.22)

She didn't face the issue of choice until Congress? This cannot be true. She served in CA well after Roe v. Wade was issued. And her sole source of argument is this obscure passage in Augustine? I have actually studied this passage of Augustine. So let's clear it up quick:

1. Augustine did not know from the evidence had available to him at the time whether or not all abortions killed a human being, but if they did, he held that clearly such an act would be murder.

2. Modern science has demonstrated that yes, an embryo is a human being, from the moment of conception, and therefore killing it at any stage of development is an act of murder.

Augustine subsequently discusses accidental abortions in which the old law (as in old testament!) still required the transgressor to undergo a severe punishment. Does Pelosi believe people who procure and conduct abortions should be treated similarly? If not, she isn't following Augustine.

“While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe to that view. The Speaker agrees with the Church that we should reduce the number of abortions. She believes that can be done by making family planning more available, as well as by increasing the number of comprehensive age-appropriate sex education and caring adoption programs.

Her argument is not actually an argument at all. It's a statement of fact, and again, it is irrelevant to what she actually said in Meet the Press. She doesn't even admit she was wrong in everything she claimed. Oh - and her solution? Contraception, which is also not permitted by the Church. How much more dense can you get?

“The Speaker has a long, proud record of working with the Catholic Church on many issues, including alleviating poverty and promoting social justice and peace.”

Also irrelevant. She might have worked for decreased summer working hours among young people. Who cares? That's not what is under debate here.

A couple global observations:

• Pelosi does not even respond to the criticisms herself. She farmed it out to a surrogate. One would thing that an ardent, practicing Catholic would care enough about the public condemnation of her combined bishops enough to personally address the situation.
• This is not an apology. There is a phrase for this: obstinate, public dissent. And that should be treated a certain way.
• Pelosi had her chance to apologize. I believe she is testing the waters by having her spokesman respond first, reserving to herself the later option of disowning the spokesman's words and actually apologizing - but only if the issue is pressed.

Okay, have at it. This isn't over.

Coverage: Former Abp. of Zimbabwe Pius Ncube admits adulterous affair

Last September I blogged at length about the resignation of Zimbabwen Archbishop Pius Ncube.

At the time, the truth of the matter was difficult to determine. For the full backstory, read the original post.

Today, things are very clear:

"It is true, I do admit that I did fail in keeping God's commandment with regard to adultery," admitted Pius Ncube ...” "Having failed in keeping the Seventh Commandment Thou shalt not commit adultery, I would like to apologize to you, I'd like to apologize that so many of you were praying for me, for the fact that so many of you standing with me in fact suffered so much." (via CNA, more from CWNews.)

Ncube was the most vocal opponent of the President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, whom from all reports, is a thoroughly nasty dictator. It is a great blow that his personal sin has destroyed his ability to effectively help the plight of Zunbabwen citizens. It didn't help that he long denied the truth of the adultery charges.

One report said he was "widely tipped as a future Nobel Peace Prize winner" but has now been "ordered to stop speaking out about conditions in his devastated country" by Rome. Zimbabwe has the highest infaltion rate and lowest life expectancy. There is areport that Ncube is now in the United Kingdom awaiting a Vatican decision.

Frontier Africa TV has a short video clip of the his admission, and scenes from his ministry. It's moving.

He says:

"I'm not going to be silenced. I don't mind so much what people do to me personally, but what I do mind is the damage and evil to the people coming from the government of Zimbabwe.

More from the Sunday Herald.

I've been watching to see how the media treats this situation:

Zimbabwe has lost in the immediate term what was one of the most courageous and best-known voices of opposition to Mugabe. In the longer term, the controversy will inevitably raise questions about the gap between how prelates in Rome believe the faithful in Africa should behave, and the reality on the ground.

It is no great secret among those who live in Africa that Roman Catholic priests on that continent often honour the vow of celibacy as much in the breach as in the practice. Some priests have children, while others listen to the quiet advice of their bishops to practice birth control. Roman Catholic nuns sometimes defy papal doctrine and freely distribute condoms to their flocks to help counter the HIV/Aids pandemic, which is cutting a swathe through Africa. Many Zimbabweans and other Africans are likely to see as disproportionate the Vatican smothering of a powerful focus of opposition to Mugabe on account of an all too human failing - one that the Zimbabwe regime was bound to spot and exploit.

While this account misses some important distinctions, on the whole, it's not far from the truth. Clerical discipline is not universally observed in Africa, but I don't think that's a closely-kept secret even outside Africa. And we all hope and pray that it improves. Certainly there are amazing examples of fidelity and obedience in Africa as well. But those stories don't make headlines.

And this isn't the first time in human history that a person forfeited their ability to do good because of personal sin. The devil gives extra attention to those called to great things, and so we should pray for this man, and all individuals who face these struggles, especially priests and bishops.

A last word from Ncube:

"I think Christ would condemn the violence, widespread rape and torture by government agencies and the Mugabe-loyal youth militia," he said. "I don't think Christ would have survived in Zimbabwe. We're all being held to ransom by one despot. Mugabe's government doesn't like people who speak the truth. Plenty of people who criticise the government have died mysteriously. Christ wouldn't have had a chance."

But Christ was the sinless man who died for our sins, Ncube's included. We could all benefit from looking to the example of Christ whose witness to the truth was perfectly free from every hint of sin, Ncube included.

update: In the Light of the Law makes the technical point that the archbishop has admitted to violating his vows of continence, not (strictly-speaking) celibacy.

I would also add, reflecting on the story a bit more, that I am concerned about Ncube's ongoing problem with obedience to the Church. The circumstances of his interview with the reporter seemed to be contrary to the Vatican's wishes, for instance, and he seems to drop some hints that he does not intend to be silenced. Well, I hope as part of his penance he remains faithful to his vow of obedience.

Controversy: "Senator's Inquiry Into Megachurch Money Hypocrisy Sparks Church-State Showdown"

Something to get us all depressed and cynical on a Monday morning:

The New Testament reports that Jesus rarely used fancy modes of transportation to get around. He walked most of the time, although Matthew and other gospels mention that he once rode a borrowed donkey into Jerusalem, where he burst into the Temple and tossed out the money changers.

Nearly 2,000 years later, some who claim to speak in Jesus' name are taking a different view. Consider Bishop Eddie Long, who pastors a megachurch in Lithonia, Ga. With a salary approaching $1 million a year and a nine-bathroom mansion situated on 20 acres, Long's choice of vehicles reflects his opulent lifestyle: He drives a $350,000 Bentley.

Far from casting out money changers, Long is likely to join them. In a 2005 profile in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, he defended his high-flying ways, insisting, "I pastor a multimillion dollar congregation. You've got to put me on a different scale than the little black preacher sitting over there that's supposed to be just getting by because the people are suffering."

Long's lack of humility has probably done him no favors.

[Read the full story.]

I'm not sure when else I'll ever get to fit this in, but that Joel Osteen guy [picture] really irks me. Anyone who uses a BA in television production as his sole credentials to preach is begging the question, if you ask me.

And it's not only the "lack 0f credentials," but also his constant posturing as a preacher-healer with next to no scriptural content, rarely mentioning sin, and constantly dealing in platitudes. This is no true help.

O'Malley uses "scandal" to describe Catholics voting for pro-choice politicians, while Lori suggests jumping through hoops

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.

Acknowledging that Catholic voters in Massachusetts generally support Democratic candidates who are in favor of abortion rights, O'Malley said, "I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I'm concerned."

"However, when I challenge people about this, they say, 'Well, bishop, we're not supporting [abortion rights],' " he said. "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."

O'Malley urged the Democratic Party to be more open to abortion opponents. "My plea with Democratic leaders is always that they make space for prolife politicians, and I have many prolife Democrats come to me and say that they're not making space for them. I think that that is a very serious problem, particularly in a state like Massachusetts, where it is so heavily Democrat." - Boston Globe

Someone is reaping the good fruits of the Fall Meeting. CWNews summarizes here.

Meanwhile Bishop William Lori prevaricates over the proposed hypothetical of whether one can legitimately vote for a pro-abortion politician because of "grave proportional reasons":

After the briefing concluded, Lori responded to a reporter’s question about another situation, in which one candidate may hold an anti-abortion position but oppose other concerns of the church, while that candidate's opponent may be pro-choice but sympathetic to the church in other ways.

“That’s such a hypothetical question, it would be very hard to answer as asked,” Lori said. “I think what we are saying is that if a voter is confronted with a dilemma of a pro-life candidate who is in some other way flawed or unfit for office, or likely to discredit the pro-life position, one might be in a dilemma, a difficult situation.”

“A situation could arise that the pro-life candidate would be in some other way unsuitable,” Lori said. “It could be that the way in which he would advance the pro-life cause might do more harm than good. It might be that his opposition to other human goods is so rabid that a conscientious voter might be put in a dilemma. In that case, you have to weigh that over against the other candidate.”

“The main point of the statement,” Lori said, “is that you can’t easily reach that decision. You can’t reach it because you prefer one party over another, you can’t reach it because in addition to everything else the candidate is going to make you feel better. It can't be because of economic advantage.

“You really have to go through some hoops to come to that conclusion,” Lori said. “I think that the more who go through those hoops, the better off we’re going to be.”

... huh? "Hoops"?! Let's all go through hoops?!

First of all, this isn't "such a hypothetical question." People regularly defend voting for a pro-abortion politician because they believe that candidate so-and-so proportionally is better on the "other life issues" (such as, say, immigration and health care).

However, the twin statements in this new USCCB document (PDF) which claim that abortion is "not just one issue among many" and "must always be opposed" strike me as formulations that do not admit of proportionalist evaluations: if you put "abortion" on one side of the scales and "health care" on the other - the scale's going to definitively fall one way. You can't have it both ways.

Or, to contextualize the dilemma, how can we have one Bishop saying that voting for pro-choice politicians "borders on scandal" while another Bishop can go around claiming that "You really have to go through some hoops to come to that conclusion" (whatever he actually meant)?

Either it's clear, or it isn't. So, which is it?

Update: CNA posts its coverage here. Diogenes finds O'Malley's addition of the qualifier "borders on" to be needless, and then presents ample facts to support his claim. His conclusion:

"If you're looking for something that "borders on" a state of scandal, I'd say: New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island."

Oh my, that's just brilliant.

Fr. Francis Mary Stone & EWTN

As many of you have heard, Fr. Francis Mary Stone, the host of EWTN's popular Life on the Rock TV program was supposed to host a segment last Thursday on the topic of Campion College in Sydney as well as Australia's upcoming World Youth Day.

Instead, I'm told that this letter was read by a substitute:

Dear Family,

Regretfully, I have a message that does not come without significant pain to both you and me. I have to tell you in all honesty and truth, that I have been personally involved with helping a widow and her struggling family. Over the course of time, the mother and I have grown very close. As a result, I am compelled to take some time off to prayerfully and honestly discern my future.

I am truly sorry of the impact this may have on so many. I am not unaware of the gravity and magnitude of the situation, yet after much wise counsel, it is really something that I must deal with now for the good of all.

With that said, it is best that I deal with it away from EWTN. Therefore, I have asked for and graciously been granted some extended time to prayerfully discern my vocation.

To those who are part of the EWTN family locally, and others throughout the world, especially all those who have supported me so faithfully in my priestly vocation and ministry here on Life on the Rock, I sincerely apologize. I ask for your prayers and understanding during this time that is so very difficult, but yet so very necessary.

Please lift me up in your humble prayers to Jesus through Mary, our Mother, in Grace and Mercy.

Fr Francis Mary, MFVA [I have verified the text personally. - AmP]

I would join others who have been calling for prayers on behalf of Fr. Francis Mary. We should also remember in our prayers the fact that he is in a very grave situation.

Needless to say, Fr. Francis Mary's letter has caused a great deal of grief to his viewers, and I think it's important to allay some of the fears I've seen people express.

I'm not sure how EWTN has gone about addressing this situation, but I would say that in cases of public scandal like this it is important for EWTN to take Fr. Francis Mary's decision as a teaching opportunity. Cases of laicization are not unheard of, and in all of our learning from priests we must distinguish their authentic teaching (which rests upon the Rock of Christ) from the particular teacher (who sadly does not always perfectly participate in the grace of Christ the Teacher).

That said, this turn of affairs is very public, and EWTN should take care that its viewers are not scandalized beyond what is already a sad (but not irredeemable) situation. From all I've seen been able to determine thus far, it seems that EWTN has decided to purge most references to Fr. Francis Mary from their website and recurring video spots. I even had to go to a 3rd-party website to find his picture.

Catholics should feel no embarrassment in this situation, and EWTN should give the full truth of the matter to the viewers that come to it for exactly that. While we are all saddened when a prominent Catholic figure missteps, none of us should be surprised by temptation. Some thoughtful editorializing would be entirely proper and pastoral in an upcoming Life on the Rock episode. (I should note that since I don't regularly watch the show I don't have a sure way of knowing that this response hasn't in fact already been done or is planned.) I realize that it can be difficult to handle situations such as this one, but the primary concern should be the care of souls, not the reputation of the network, etc. I've read through quite a few message boards and comment threads to find that a great number of people have been disappointed by this news, and at the same time there seems to be scant little that EWTN has done to provide context and reconciliation. I trust that EWTN viewers will be given something more than Fr. Francis Mary's statement? Maybe some sort of notice over at the Life on the Rock webpage?

[update: scroll down this post to read my comments on the LOTR segment now that I've heard the audio.]

And I would also hope that discussion of this situation in general does not generate into finger-pointing (at Fr. Francis Mary, the widow, EWTN, his brother friars, etc). Prayers are primary here, and no one knows the full details of the situation. I'm just concerned that the general principles that apply in such matters are expressed forthrightly by those who have previously worked with him.

If anyone has youtubed last week's Life on the Rock segment, I'd be much obliged....

Update: For whatever reason (the Internet gods are fickle), this post is getting a huge influx of visitors from search engines and blog crawlers. Welcome to the new readers. Let's keep the discussions exemplary.

Update 2: The EWTN website allows you to watch the most recent Life on the Rock episode in RealPlayer video format here. As of Sunday night (11/4), I couldn't get that link to work. I hope the problem is merely technical.

The mp3 of the show, however, is still available here (large file). My summary and comments:

The substitute, Fr. Anthony Mary, does make a note before reading the letter that it is "difficult for him, and may not be appropriate for younger viewers." He asks that parents be attentive to what their children are hearing and then proceeds to read the letter. (I wonder what kinds of parent-child conversations ensued?)

After reading the letter, Fr. Anthony Mary addresses the EWTN audience and says that this is a time when all involved are in great need of prayers and support. Always remember, Fr. Anthony Mary says, that no one is beyond the power of God's mercy or redemption. They ask for prayers one again, then go to a break (in which the lengthy advertisement is ironically a priest giving his personal vocation testimony and talking about his desire to be a priest until the day he dies, etc.) and then resume the show.

Interestingly, the substitute anchor begins by adding that "evil and sin do not have the last word - there's always hope" referring to Fr. Francis Mary's plight, which, to my mind, is a much more negative evalation of the circumstances than most commenters are generally giving it. There might be something to consider here.

Update 3 (Nov. 7): Steve Ray dims hopes that we'll see Fr. Francis return to LOTR:

I have had other independent confirmation of the validity of the e-mail. From what I hear it is a bit worse than what the official announcement told us. It seems EWTN is clearing reference to him off their website and I guess I don't blame them. It is sad to hear this kind of news, but I pray he will be treated with mercy and God's will will be done in his life.

I think that's the final word in this unfortunate chapter.

Update 4 (Nov. 11): Once again, this post is getting a huge influx of visitors, which leads me to believe that some television or radio program recently mentioned the story and now folks are searching the internet for more details (you've come to the right place) .... am I right?