Phil Brennan
Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2003

When Sacramento bishop William K. Weigand called on Gov. Gray Davis to renounce his support of abortion or stop taking Holy Communion, one of Davis' aides, Russ Lopez, indignantly blasted the bishop for "telling the faithful how to practice their faith."

Lopez was either displaying an appalling ignorance or engaging in sheer malice: He should be aware that a bishop is a shepherd, charged with leading his flock. In other words, doing his job by "telling the faithful how to practice their faith."

This kind of thing has suddenly emerged as a serious political issue pitting our pagan society against not only Roman Catholics but also just about any group calling itself Christian. In recent weeks it has been most prominently on display in the matter of President Bush's judicial nominations, now stalled in the Senate.

As David Limbaugh has written ("Anti-Christian Litmus Test"), "Sen. Orrin Hatch sent shock waves through the liberal culture when he said 'the left is trying to enforce an anti-religious litmus test' against judicial 'nominees who openly adhere to Catholic and Baptist doctrines.' "

He added: "Democrats have opposed judicial nominees precisely because they are pro-life Christians. But Hatch didn't go far enough. It's not just believing Catholics and believing Baptists who liberals deem unqualified for the bench. It's anyone with a strong Christian worldview, anyone whose Christian moral beliefs inform his political policy preferences – in short, Christian conservatives."

That charge and a subsequent ad campaign based on the theme "No Catholics Need Apply" have sent liberals through the roof even though the truth of that assertion is there to see for anyone who can cut through the paganistic haze with which Democrats have surrounded the issue.

To be fair, even though most of the nominations being challenged on the grounds of the moral and religious beliefs of the nominees involve Roman Catholics rash enough to profess their faith, the ad should properly read "No Christians Need Apply."

The objections being raised by the Democrats are aimed at all those nominees who are faithful to their Christian faith, not just those who are Catholics.

But as Human Events has noted, Democrats have tried to block a number of Catholic nominees: Miguel Estrada, Carolyn Kuhl, Bill Pryor and Southern Christians Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen. In case after case, the Christian nominee's legal competence and judicial temperament were insufficient to overcome his or her disqualifying religious views.

The thrust of the Democrat assault has been best expressed by the odious Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. As the Family Research Council (FRC) has noted, Schumer questioned whether Mr. Pryor, given his deeply held beliefs, could set aside his personal convictions and apply the law fairly and equally.

"Sen. Schumer routinely pursues this line of questioning with nominees who are known to be active, believing Christians," FRC reported. "Mr. Pryor is a devout Roman Catholic. Sen. Schumer seems to suggest that people of faith should be disqualified from service on the federal bench."

In an exchange with Brit Hume on Fox News, Sen. Rick Santorum weighed in on the subject.

Hume raised the issue of the "No Catholics Need Apply" ad and noted that Democrats have denounced that ad as monstrously unfair, saying, "Look, some of us are Catholics. Senator Kennedy, for example, Senator Durbin complained bitterly about this, that the ad was an outrageous exaggeration of the position they've taken against Judge Pryor, principally for his views on abortion."

Santorum replied: "What's outrageous is the line of questioning that's been conducted in the Senate Judiciary Committee about people's, quote, 'deeply held beliefs.' There are questions and comments made that if you have deeply held beliefs, particularly about moral issues, that you can't be impartial. Which leads me to the conclusion that if you have shallowly held beliefs, if you really don't believe in anything, that's OK, but if you have deeply held beliefs, that somehow or another because of those deeply held beliefs you can't be impartial.

"What does that mean? That means someone who is a deeply faithful Catholic and believes as the Catholic Church, in Bill Pryor's case, and that's where he gets his feeling on abortion ..."

HUME: "Yes, but that doesn't apply to all Catholics ..."

SANTORUM: "But it does apply to Catholics who subscribe to what the teachings of the Church are. And so, if you have a Catholic who subscribes to the Catholic teaching, you're saying that some faithful Catholic cannot apply and cannot be a member of the court because of his deep held religious beliefs, that he projects, because that's his belief structure, into his job.

"Now, he projects it, in Bill Pryor's case, into his feelings on an issue. What Bill Pryor has done consistently is separate when it comes to the civil service job, which is executing the laws. And you have seen case after case after case where he may have disagreed with [what] the law [said], and he has spoken out in disagreement [with] that law, but he has faithfully executed the law, because that's his job.

"And now what they're saying is 'We're going to put that aside, we're not going to take into consideration the fact that he's actually done the impartial job he was elected to do, we're just going to take into consideration what his belief structure is.' That is wrong."

Now comes columnist Ellen Goodman, apparently eager to display her vast ignorance of the Roman Catholic Church and/or her malicious intent on the pages of the Aug. 3 issue of the Boston Globe.

This goofy liberal cited the "No Catholics Need Apply" ad as an example of playing the "Catholic card" and noted that the ad infuriated many, especially four allegedly Catholic Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

Goodman wrote that Pryor's positions were defined as being "what a good Catholic believes." She asks: "And what were those Catholics who disagreed with him? Chopped liver? "

No, dear lady, they are at the very least heretics – Catholics who not only do not accept the doctrines of Roman Catholicism but also actively oppose them.

"There's no question the Vatican holds strong views against abortion," she wrote. "Thursday it urged politicians to oppose gay marriage. But the church has never excommunicated a politician who disagreed and never revoked the right to call yourself a Catholic."

Oh no? That would come as a big surprise to the numerous kings, nobles and commoners throughout history who got the papal boot. Read your church history, lady. And keep in mind the fact that Sen. Daschle was recently told by his bishop to stop receiving communion (that's excommunication, ma'am) and to cease calling himself Catholic.

Talk about ignorance. Or is it just plain old liberal malice?

And be patient, Ms. Goodman. Some of the bishops in the U.S. may be getting very close to issuing decrees of formal excommunication – largely a simple recognition of the fact that the renegades have already taken themselves out the ranks of the Church and gone into the outer darkness where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth and nothing but a lot of anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-tax cut, anti-Christian blather.

The question of ignorance or malice shows up with the phony Democrat refrain that four of the senators are Catholics: Edward Kennedy, Joseph Biden, Patrick Leahy and Richard Durbin. The fact that all of them dissent from the Church's teaching on such matters as abortion is ignored, although their support of killing babies in the womb makes it impossible for them to receive communion legitimately and without incurring grave sin, which is, in effect, automatic self-excommunication.

Timothy A. Chichester, president of the Catholic Family Association of America, addressed this matter in a letter to Sen. Durbin.

"Dear Senator Durbin:

"In hearing the exchange between you and Senator Sessions, I was struck by his faithful exposition of Catholic doctrine and your distortion of it. Regarding your comment: 'as a Catholic I sit here and resent what I'm hearing. People who ... are not Catholic are speaking for a religion they do not belong to. There are many Catholics who see this nomination much differently than those who support Mr. Pryor.'

"I must say that your argument "People who ... are not Catholic are speaking for a religion they do not belong to" is juvenile. Senator Sessions spoke the truth; period.

"And to which Catholics were you referring? Senator Daschle, who has been publicly rebuked by his bishop and told to cease calling himself Catholic because of his ferocious advocacy of abortion? Senator Collins, or better yet, Senator Harkin, who originated the Harkin amendment to the Partial Birth Abortion ban passed by the Senate earlier this year, an amendment whose purposeful "celebration" of Roe v. Wade is designed to gut the bill so that the infanticide of Partial Birth Abortion can continue?

"Yes, they "see it differently", but are not justified by "seeing it differently" simply because they think that their conscience is their sole determinant in issues of morality. This concept, 'that one's moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience.' (John Paul II, The Splendor of Truth), is an idea that he points out as being 'explicitly atheist.' If mere conscience is your argument, your ideological companions in this life are Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. A reflection on whether fellow senators will have a vote in your final destiny would be appropriate.

"Regarding your statement 'The Catholic Church is opposed to the death penalty ... Pryor is in favor of it. I'm not going to ask Senator Sessions to make a judgment as a Methodist whether that makes him a good Catholic or not.' I suspect that Senator Sessions is much more in tune with Catholic teaching on this matter than you. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states 'The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty ...' (CCC 2267). The plea of the Pope and Magisterium of the Church is that in our modern times we have the capacity, and therefore the duty, to be more merciful than in the past. In no way does the Church suggest that abortion, 'the unspeakable crime of abortion' (Evangelium Vitae [58-63]) is the moral equivalent of capital punishment of those guilty of grievous crimes.

"Additionally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that we are responsible for the sins of others when we cooperate by '– ordering, advising, praising, or approving them ... – by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so ... – by protecting evil-doers.' (CCC1868). It is Catholic teaching that 'there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose' anti-life legislation and that 'it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it' (Evangelium Vitae, para 73). Both Attorney General. Pryor and Senator Sessions are faithful to these grave obligations on conscience – you are not.

"Perhaps you think of the good you try to do – for the poor and homeless, for those without health coverage, for minorities, and many other good things, is expiatory? However, all these things only apply to those that escape your incessant promotion of abortion.

"One of the most noticeable facts of life is that those who persistently choose sin soon find that innocence is detestable and justify their choice of sin by seeing it as good and what was previously good as evil. You are solidly in this category. [Rom. 3:8 And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), 'Let us do evil so that good may come'? Their condemnation is deserved!]

"Your assault on William Pryor is baseless and indicative of one whose Catholic faith is deficient in practice and knowledge. It is clearly a self-justifying bias against the Catholic belief which you have obviously rejected.

"This deficiency is also manifested in your resentment at receiving the gift of a spiritual work of mercy at the hands of Senator Sessions, viz. admonishment of a sinner. It is not surprising that you resent this gift rather than accept it for the good it is. You may even think of the effort as judgmental, hypocritical or merely political. Such thoughts would be consistent with a soul so hardened in sin that it sees evil as good, and good as evil. You are obviously in a spiritual quagmire of your own making. I suggest that the most appropriate course is for you to contact a good and holy priest and begin your journey back to Christ. A good start would be a call of gratitude to Senator Sessions for the wake-up."

Amen.

Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for NewsMax.com. He is editor & publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers

He can be reached at phil@newsmax.com.

Editor's note:
Get FREE traffic to your Web site INSTANTLY! Click here now!