Saturday, September 29, 2012

Bishop Thomas J Paprocki on troubling issues of Democratic Party Policy

Bishop Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, (watch video above or read his article) addresses the "platforms" of the Democratic and Republican Parties. He points out the following intrinsic evils in the platform of the Democratic Party:

  • Abortion should be safe and legal and should be a right "regardless of the ability to pay", which can only happen if taxpayers are required to fund abortion, or insurance companies can will be required to pay for them, or hospitals will be forced to perform them for free.
  • support for same-sex marriage, recognizing that "gay rights are human rights", calling for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law signed by President Clinton in 1996 that defined marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

He also addresses the troubling conflict over whether or not the name of God should be included in the party platform, pointing out that if it was only included at the will of the The Party Leader, then it could also just as easily be removed at the will of The Leader, which does not bode well for democracy in the Democratic Party.

Bishop Paprocki looks at the Republican Party platform and finds party support for no intrinsic evils.

On other matters, a Catholic can hold a variety of opinions, such as how "to address the needs of the poor, feed the hungry, solve the problems of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils."

Bishop Paprocki is concerned for the salvation of the souls of his flock when he concludes his piece as follows:
I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.

I pray that God will give you the wisdom and guidance to make the morally right choices.

May God give us this grace. Amen.


  1. Paul, Bedfordshire, UK29 September, 2012 11:34

    Hi Father,

    I'm a fairly traditionally minded catholic from Bedfordshire UK, originally south London, with several children and usually vote Conservative. I have to say though if I were living in the USA I would certainly be voting for Obama.

    Why? In the UK if I am I'll I go to a doctor, I don't get a bill. If I am run over by a bus, I don't get a bill. When I needed an appendix removal I got it, no bill (or wait). My Wife had our Children in Bedford Hospital - no bill, fantastic pre natal care and birth unit facilities - no bill, just 12% national insurance out of my wage packet to pay for the National Health Service and a state pension when I retire (on top of 20% income tax making 32% tax in all)

    Meanwhile I read stories like this one which was highlighted in a UK web forum.

    However imperfect Obamas healthcare reforms, how can anyone sane vote against Obama and continue the status
    quote where apparently in some states people who have had an illness cannot get medical insurance for it again due to having a pre existing condition and medical bills are apparently the biggest nationwide cause of personal bankruptcy.

    I also note that Romney, despite a large budget deficit already wants to cut income tax for the wealthy. This can only lead in the end to further budget cuts that will hit the poor most.

    What would our Lord say about those who claim to be against abortion, but persue economic policies that cut taxes for the rich at the poor's expense and drive the poor to the abortion clinic in despair?

    1. All these wonderful benefits - I too am British and value the NHS - but at the cost of voting for a candidate who I KNOW will promote the killing of the innocent unborn, redefine marriage, curtail religious liberty? What will the Lord say to those who voted for their own interests - free health care in the case you cite - and cared not for the little ones?

      As the Bishop says, there are many opinions on how to solve the problem of poverty. Also, remember that news articles sometimes dramatize things. I can't comment on the article you reference and I'm not altogether familiar with the law here, but I did hear it said on the radio yesterday that if a hospital emergency room (casualty) bill is not paid for by the individual, it will in the end be paid for by the State. The hospital bills the individual but the individual does not always end up paying. But I'm ready to be corrected on that.

      I know many poor and struggling people in my own parish who would not vote for a candidate who would promote the culture of death, even though they knew that he would provide them with free health care.

  2. Whichever candidate you vote for abortion will continue. No candidate will repeal it and both parties have presided over it. If it were different, if Romney for example actually said on day one he would repeal whatever law it is that permits it, that would be different. As it is they all play with words but in the end the same evil continues more or less unabated. Hence the issue could be, who is more honest about their commitment to the culture of death? And which candidates are more indebted to the big business pharmaceuticals that make their billions of dollars out of procuring these services world wide? And which candidates are committed to ending the US military machine which bleeds America dry and into mountains of debt and has embroiled the US in numerous conflicts that cost American and innocent civilian lives

  3. Paul, Bedfordshire29 September, 2012 12:16

    Father I would be voting for the interests of my own little ones ie their getting health care. My first duty as a father is to them and my wife.

    I also cannot see how a supposedly pro life candidate who wants to cut income tax to the wealthy inevitably at the expense of state aid to the poor is doing anything other than promoting a culture of death implicitly.

    1. The end does not justify the means. Health in this world is a relative good. Life itself is a higher good, and eternal life the highest. Bishop Sample addresses hard teachings in his series.

    2. Paul, Bedfordshire29 September, 2012 12:37

      Ok put it this way. We have five children. My wife is over 40. Say she got pregnant again, we went for the routine ultrasound scan and found a serious abnormality. Life would become very difficultv, not just for us but for our five children. While we woupd probably face pressure from health officials to abort the child, we would know we got free health care plus extra welfare disability tax credits and grants to adapt the house, and if the disability was so bad I had to give up work to become a full time carer I would get state welfare payments.

      If the child would get no health insurance and I would get no welfare assistance, meaning that financial ruin and an uncertain future for my existing five were likely , i suspect there are very few who would not consider aborting the poor child, terribly wrong as it is. You would basically have to be a saint. I would hope I had the courage to do so but 99% would not be.

      There are explicit cultures of death and there are implicit cultures of death. Both are cultures of death

      Polple over here are literally scandalised that in the wealthiest state in the world there is not universal health insurance.

    3. I don't think the issue OF THE BISHOP'S LETTER is whether or not there should be universal health care. He is addressing the INSTRINSIC EVILS contained in the platform of one of the parties. That means that these intrinsic evils are party policy. And so the good Bishop is asking his people to consider very carefully their vote and their possible co-operation in these intrinsic evils. Yes, they might be voting for good things that a particular party has to offer, but they might also be co-operating in the introduction of great evil.

      Universal health care is, for me, very desirable, but there is no obligation on the State to provide this. It is for the people in a democratic society to take a view on how health care should be provided to its members. And the Church would underscore the duty of all citizens to take care of the poor. How is a matter of legitimate diversity of opinion.

  4. The Bishop though is stressing platform to the exclusion of other factors such as that Romney also allows abortion for rape, incest and health of mother and Romney or Obama will pick the next supreme court justices. It will not be their party or platform that chooses the justices. Prof Schneck of CUA was odd for putting a percent of abortion increase under Ryan but the Weekly Standard's response was just as odd for not noticing that there is a problem despite a lack of precedent and if you reduce medicaid by $810 billion on the Fed's side like Romney Ryan, and if medicaid funds 37% of the births in the US, then something has to give. The upper bandwidth of income qualifying for medicaid will shrink. Those females then making just above the cut off income will now have to pay out of their own pocket for either childbirth or abortion and abortion is way cheaper. That is not Ryan's fault IF he believes that otherwise we will go bankrupt. But some of the Bishops then wonder why he wants military untouched. Wars with muslims seem to produce nothing but national debt additions....much like Vietnam. The anti Ryan Bishops though are silent because Obama is an institutional threat to Catholicism on the insurance mandate. There could be a memo from Dolan to other Bishops that that factor overrides which candidate will actually enable more abortions....either by laws or by cuts.

  5. Paul, I hope to God there are NO practicing Catholics in the US who use the logic you do. NO Catholic I know who is practicing is voting for Obama because he and his policies are intrinsically evil. IF he gets his way, good priests and other Catholics and Christians will find themselves in JAIL if they do not bend to HIS will or shut their business or charity. [BTW, MUSLIMS get a 'pass.' They don't have to follow the same rules, and I am not joking.]

    He is using the Constitution which GUARANTEES the freedom of religion to force Catholics to pay for abortion and other evils.

    I suppose it NEVER occurred to you that the very poor get Medicare and Medicaid. Look it up sometimes. We do not have to support the slaughter of millions so we can get 'free' care if someone decides to clog up an emergency room because they decided to get puking drunk.

    BTW, have fun with that 'free' healthcare in the UK when you really need it. My husband died of a brain tumour the 'wonderful' NHS missed and the initial hospital who took the scans when he had a first incident claims there was 'nothing wrong.' Yeah, *nothing wrong* and even though I requested through Charing Cross to have them sent to Charing Cross, where he was eventually given palliative care after they found a massive tumor (when 'nothing was there' 4.5 months prior) they did not send the scans and I have to sue them with very little money to do it.

    Oh, and beware of any drugs they try and push on your loved ones to 'be on hand for the doctor' when he comes at the end. Beware of Midazolan and its cousins -- they essentially put one in a coma -- and if you haven't had last rites, well, you should have thought of that first before taking the drugs they don't give you all the information about. Thank God because of an NHS foul up (silver lining) my husband was conscious at the end and had last rites 10 minutes before he died, otherwise he'd have been cheated of that too.

  6. Oh, and Paul, EVERY day when I pray the prayer to St. Michael, I have in mind people *exactly* like 'the won.' I think he is an anti-Christ, and so do millions of others.


Please avoid being 'anonymous' if at all possible.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...