US BISHOPS MAKE POLITICAL ENDORSEMENTS SO WHY CAN'T OURS?

 To comment, please open your gmail account or if that doesn't work use my email address, Facebook Messenger or Twitter. Scroll down for other comments.

"Under this (Labour Coalition) government's watch:

ALL pre-born children have lost their right to life and can be slaughtered in the womb right up until birth

Parliamentarians passed an Act that permits the killing of another human being or assisting them in their suicide in order to ease their suffering. All that is needed now is the public's approval

 Freedoms are being stripped from New Zealanders

Hate Speech legislation

"Safe Areas" around abortion centres

Amendments to the Bill of Rights ...

Are just some examples of how this government is creating opportunities to limit discourse in the public square."

Michelle Kaufman of Family Life International then goes on to say: 

However, we (Catholics) can make a difference.  It is important to arm ourselves with knowledge about each of the political parties, so that we know what their policies are, and, if applicable, how they voted on important issues in this past term.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states "By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him" to do what is good and avoid what is evil." Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person." (1706)

We need to be wise in our choice of candidates, and parties, as well as in how we vote on the referenda on recreational marijuana and euthanasia/assisted suicide."

Family Life International and Family First are filling the vacuum created by lack of spiritual food and guidance from the priests and bishops whom the Lord "hath appointed over his family to give them meat in season" (Mt 24:45).

So in the interests of "discourse", of helping inform my Eucharistic community on how we can "do what is good and avoid what is evil" and "be wise in our choice of candidates" in Election 2020, after Mass last Sunday I stood on the footpath outside my parish church and handed out Family First information on how every current MP has voted on issues pertaining to the sanctity of life. 

My reason for standing "in the public square", as it were, was that Father had said Family First's pamphlet ('Abortion, Euthanasia, Cannabis - What Next?') was "too political" for the church foyer. (I'm getting to know that footpath quite well - I was just a metre or two from where I knelt to pray the Rosary every day during Jacinda Ardern's Reign of Terror Part One.) 

Thank God, and thank the bishops too, for this much: they've stated their views on euthanasia. Intriguingly, the latest NZ Catholic tells us that "In their election statement due out later this month" (que?) "the bishops write that the people most at risk from the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted-suicide will be “those most vulnerable to the suggestion they would be ‘better off dead’. 

So far, so good. It seems some of their election statement has been released, but not all. We must possess our souls in patience.

The bishops state that the New Zealand law is “broader in scope and more liberal than one recently passed in Victoria, Australia, as well as laws in the United States”. It will expose much larger numbers of people to the dangers of a premature death, people who are currently well-served by palliative care.

The statement also notes that elder abuse currently affects about 10 per cent of the elderly in New Zealand, despite the best efforts to prevent it. “Voting ‘Yes’ to euthanasia in this context is dangerous. It is also naïve to think the Act can provide sufficient protection against this risk.” https://nzcatholic.org.nz/2020/08/18/bishops-urge-voters-to-reject-end-of-life-choice-act/

 

 

"The New Conservative Party" (see their ad above) "is opposed to the decriminalisation of euthanasia. New Conservative is committed to increasing funding where necessary to provide for the best palliative care possible, and to help family members who are caring for the terminally ill."

So what's National, Labour, Greens and NZ First policy on the End of Life Choice Act? They don't have a policy of course, because euthanasia is a 'conscience issue'. That's all very well if you have a conscience - and if it's an informed conscience; but in this Novus Ordo age even Catholics aren't taught how to inform their conscience.

As an illustration of what MPs now understand by 'conscience', listen to National Leader Judith Collins. She calls Act leader David Seymour  a 'principled person' and says his Act Party would be the best partner for National in government.

"Everyone understands that Mr Seymour in particular is very important to us because he is someone who has shown principle when he is in Parliament," Collins told reporters on August 10.

"And I think you'll understand that we prefer people who do actually go to Parliament for a reason and it needs to be a principled reason."

Collins did a volte-face on euthanasia after her father said he was in "terrible pain" in hospital and needed morphine. He was given the morphine, Collins said, and "died without losing his dignity". https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12355344

What kind of 'principle' (fundamental truth) can be changed once it affects you personally? Truth is truth, as personified in Our Lord Jesus Christ. And what kind of 'principle' did David Seymour exhibit in introducing into Parliament his End of Life Choice Act, which would foist  death by suicide on the vulnerable?

More than twice as many Labour MPs as National voted to support this Bill for a binding referendum on helping the old, the sick, the injured and the disabled to kill themselves rather than be 'a burden on society'. It pretty much matches the proportion of Labour over National MPs who voted in favour of abortion up to birth, aka infanticide.  

Put it this way: 80% of Labour, 36% of National, 22% NZ First, 100% Greens and 100% Act voted for that infamous legislation.

And don't overlook the fact that 100% of Advance NZ MPs - that is, Jami-Lee Ross - voted for infanticide, and also voted against banning sex-selective abortions in NZ and making it a legal requirement for care to be given to any child born alive after a botched abortion.

Jami-Lee Ross, now the deputy-leader of Advance NZ, supported the most extreme version of the Abortion Legislation Act which has been described as the most extreme abortion legislation in the world.

His new creature, Advance NZ, now states on its website that:

We at Advance New Zealand / New Zealand Public Party do not support abortion but recognise this as a ‘right to choose’ issue, however, (sic) we are against using abortion as a method of contraception and a means to justify the killing of babies for fetal tissue and organ harvesting.

We also understand that there could be reasons for abortion such as rape, unsafe pregnancy and health reasons (sic) but recognise the law as it currently stands is inhumane, therefore we are dedicated to repealing it but will take the issue to a binding public referendum. We will include a thorough abortion education campaign during the referendum so that ALL people are educated about what abortion means.”

Mr Ross and his co-leader, Billy Te Kahika, are having a bob each way.

New Zealand First all voted in favour of the Bill in its third reading, after leader Winston Peters agreed that his MPs would do so only if the issue was put to a public vote.

The Green Party voted as a bloc to support the Bill, conditional on an amendment that made eligibility for euthanasia more narrow. It said in 2016 that it would support voluntary euthanasia if it got into government.

So it's as plain as the nose on your face that given the record of all parties in Parliament, any Catholic who lives by the teaching of the Church as quoted by Kaufman above would "avoid what is evil" by voting for the only Christian option, New Conservatives.

New Conservative is the only party which has pledged to repeal this noxious law (which is now aggravated by Labour MP Louise Wall's bill which seeks to establish so-called 'safe areas' outside abortion facilities, this removing the last-ditch resort for babies on their way to the slaughter house). 

So what's to stop the NZ Conference of Catholic Bishops endorsing New Conservatives for Election 2020? 

Why should Cardinal John Dew find it "appalling" that a prank media release attributed such an endorsement to an employee of the Catholic Church? Especially as the prank media release was deleted as soon as the bishops denied ownership? They found the idea that they would endorse a political party so abhorrent that they reported the "conservative Catholic blogger" responsible for this misdemeanour to the Electoral Commission. Personally, I find the term "conservative Catholic blogger" quite endearing, but really, reporting me to the Electoral Commission is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Anyway, the US Conference of Bishops does not share our bishops' inhibitions. In regard to endorsing or dissing political parties or candidates, bashful they are not. 

Cardinal Timothy Dolan

Liberal Catholic opinionators are aghast that Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York warmly welcomed President Trump to a live-streamed Mass from St. Patrick’s Cathedral. Not only that, but they are horrified that Dolan then spoke highly of Trump in a Fox News interview the next day.

The ultra-liberal National Catholic Register lamented that “Without a whimper from any of his fellow bishops, the cardinal archbishop of New York has inextricably linked the Catholic Church in the United States to the Republican Party and, particularly, President Donald Trump.” The (USCCB) frequently churns out statements critical of this president, which often sound as if they have been ghostwritten by staff at the Democratic National Committee.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/liberal-catholics-aghast-after-new-yorks-cardinal-dolan-praises-trump

 In the US (as in New Zealand) IRS regulations prohibit nonprofit institutions, including churches, from partisan political activity. Pastors and heads of nonprofits who make endorsements skirt the regulation by claiming to offer their opinion only as a personal preference.

So that while (in these Novus Ordo days) far fewer Catholic prelates than Protestant pastors are willing to stick their heads over the parapet, in the last US elections Florida governor Jeb Bush bagged endorsements from three former US ambassadors to the Holy See. 

Liberal critics said the US bishops' 2016 voting guide, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” continued to nudge Catholics toward Republican  candidates, with the new draft re-emphasizing hot-button topics such as opposition to gay marriage and by including numerous mentions of the “intrinsic evil” of same-sex marriage as well as abortion, which the document stresses must remain top priorities for Catholic voters.

Just as it should be ... 

Catholic Vote’s Brian Burch said Catholic leaders should add their voice to the political fray, because he thinks Catholic social teaching, a body of doctrine on issues such as social justice, poverty, wealth, and economics, has much to add to the conversation.

Something of an understatement ... 

 “The country is not a socialist-oriented electorate, but it’s not a Tea Party electorate either,” he said. “It’s somewhere in the middle. We think Catholic social teaching, properly applied, largely mirrors that.” 

Spot the difference: unlike that of the US, New Zealand's electorate and Catholic Church are now egregiously " socialist-oriented". That's the main reason why NZ bishops would not dare follow their US peers' lead as cited below: 

The U.S. bishops conference became overtly political and pitted the pro-life credentials of President Trump against those of Pope Francis when the topic turned to the sustained influx of those seeking asylum at the nation’s southern border. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/u.s-bishops-conference-turned-virulently-anti-trump-and-nobody-objected

Bishops do not exceed their authority or competence simply by commenting upon political issues. Faith and morals are a bishop's proper and primary concern. But marriage, divorce, pornography, abortion and euthanasia are all moral issues which are the subject of intense political debate; so is the just distribution of earthly goods. The Church has not only the right but the duty “to pass moral judgements even in matters relating to politics whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it.”7

Among the fundamental rights which popes and bishops have defended, for example, one finds private property, life, health, religious freedom, the right to form unions, the right to a just wage and decent hours of work, and the right to be free of excessive taxation.

The goal is to help shape public policy that is in conformity with the law rooted in our nature that governs us all no matter what our religious belief. Thus, politicians are called to try an ensure that the laws that govern us protect human life, respect the human person, preserve the unique nature of marriage, support family, ensure the safety of children, guarantee religious freedom and make it possible for all citizens to share in the conditions that are necessary for humane living.

In arguing for such things, bishops attempt to clearly enunciate general principles concerning the purpose and use of created things, peace, war, the just distribution of material goods and the “fraternal coexistence of all peoples.” They may also, “after mature reflection and with the help of qualified persons,”pass judgement on the morality of secular works or institutions, and explain what is needed to safeguard and promote transcendent moral and religious principles. 

For example, Leo XII, On the Condition of the Working Classes (Rerum Novarum) 1891; Pius XI, On Social Reconstruction (Quadragesimo Anno), 1931; John XXIII, Christianity and Social Progress (Mater et Magistra) 1961; Paul VI, On the Development of Peoples (Populorum Progressio) 1967; John Paul II, On Human Work (Laborem Exercens),1981; On Social Concern (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis) 1987.The Code of Canon Law (1983) Canon 287(2)Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, 7 December, 1965 (Gaudium et Spes), 76.

Bishops may do this well or do it badly, but they do not “interfere” in politics by doing it..

(Clergy] are not to play an active role in political parties or in directing trade unions unless, in the judgement of the competent ecclesiastical authority, this is required for the defence of the rights of the church or to promote the common good.” 7. Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, 7 December, 1965 (Gaudium et Spes), 76. https://ccrl.ca/2004/08/the-clergy-and-politics/

I'm loathe to quote the Jesuit Review America but here's what it has to say: 

Many Americans assume the U.S. Catholic bishops are diehard supporters of Donald Trump. True, when it comes to pro-life issues and religious freedom, the bishops are in Trump’s corner, but on several issues, they strongly criticize the administration. 

This nuance is what sets the Catholic bishops apart from white evangelical leaders, who tend to support the president on almost every issue. Nor do the bishops as a whole endorse any candidate. Bishops as individuals, like other citizens, can legally make endorsements as long as they don't use church money in doing so. 

“We are deeply grateful for the President’s pro-life commitment," one (bishops' media) release said, "and for all the actions this administration has taken to protect unborn children and their mothers from the violence of abortion.” 

Nice.

The bishops made clear:

• their opposition to fetal tissue research, 

• assisted suicide, 

• government funding of abortion, as well as their support for state and federal restrictions on abortion. They welcomed the re-institution of the Mexico City Policy “to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are not used to perform or promote abortion internationally.

• They hailed measures allowing healthcare workers to opt out of performing or assisting with abortions or other procedures they see as immoral. 

• the Equality Act, which would extend the discrimination protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to gay and transgender people.

• in 22 press releases on immigrants and another 13 on refugees, the bishops attacked the administration’s policies as “misguided and untenable,” “unacceptable,” “appalling,” “devastating,” “very concerning,” “heartbreaking,” “unlawful and inhumane,” “terrible,” “callous,” “disturbing” and “contrary to American and Christian values.”

When it comes to abortion and religious freedom, the bishops are allies of the Republicans and President Trump, but on many other issues the bishops are his strong and vocal opponents. https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/08/04/catholic-bishops-trump-criticism-praise-usccb

The US Bishops have plenty to say for themselves. So as long as they don't use church money, can't NZ bishops also legally make endorsements of politicians or political parties? Canon law is universal - isn't it? 

Does the NZ Church's status as a charity prevent them from doing so? Can a charity support a political party?

Some political parties may advocate for policies that align with a charity’s purposes. Charities may support the policies of a political party where they’re consistent with its charitable purposes; however, they have to ensure that they’re independent and don’t provide support or funding to a political party.

For example: charities often ask questions of political parties, and publish their answers on their website. Identifying the answers which most align with the charity’s purpose wouldn’t disqualify the charity from registration.”

https://www.charities.govt.nz/news-and-events/blog/being-political-and-charitable/

A reader of this blog suggests that groups like Family Life International, Right To Life and Voice For Life NZ take advantage of the strategy mentioned above to highlight the New Conservative Party's stand on abortion. 

Equally, it seems to me that that the NZ Conference of Catholic Bishops could identify the policies of New Conservative as those most aligning with the purpose of the Catholic Church, viz. the saving of souls.

As Michelle Kaufman says: 

The times are urgent!  It is time to storm heaven!

The team at Family Life International will be praying the 54-Day Rosary Novena, praying for wise leaders who uphold the life and dignity of all human beings from conception to natural death; and who seek the common good of all citizens.

Will you join us?

The 54-Day Rosary Novena for New Zealand begins on Monday 24 August and concludes on Saturday 17 October 2020.

Thanks to various demons, this post which I meant to publish on Sunday 23 August was delayed until yesterday and then I suspect thanks again to assorted demons, was accidentally deleted this morning, then rewritten (again). But a 51-Day Rosary Novena is still blessed. Go for it!

Our prayers and fasting will make a difference as we head into the coming election.  Future generations are relying on us to make wise choices.  Choices that further our desire to rebuild a culture that embraces life.

I hope you can join us in this most important prayer effort.  You can find the meditations on FLI's website.

I'll give the final word to Saint Padre Pio - beloved by so many!- who said:

"Love the Madonna and pray the Rosary, for her Rosary is the weapon against the evils of the world today. All graces given by God pass through the Blessed Mother."