Wednesday, October 29, 2008
WHAT'S WRONG IN THE CLEVELAND DIOCESE ?
I've been blogging for a few years about the problems in Cleveland, among other things. So far there hasn't been much in the way of improvement, despite the publicity of the sexual abuse scandal. I'm not impressed by the current bishop. Not even remotely, after seeing him sneer on national TV at the brother of a victim of that abuse.
He does deserve credit for being one of the 80 bishops who support the defining issue--abortion--of the present election as reported at LifeSiteNews.com If he truly supports the inconsistency for a Catholic of voting for Obama, why does the diocese continue to engage in the activities being reported by the Cleveland Right to Life Newsletter, as posted at Free Republic sent in by a reader? Take a look at that newsletter! It lists Tim Allio as the primary diocesan spokesperson for moral decisions on the upcoming election:
But who is Tom Allio? And where do his priorities lie - with promoting the authentic truths of the Catholic Faith, or with promoting a particular political party in the swing state of Ohio in a hotly contested presidential election?
Along with his duties at the Diocese of Cleveland, Tom Allio serves on the Advisory Council of an organization called Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. Although it professes to be a "nonpartisan, lay Catholic organization that promotes awareness of Catholic social teaching," a close examination of its actions and affiliations proves it is neither authentically Catholic nor bi-partisan.
In fact, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACD) exists in order to create and spread false interpretations of Catholic doctrine to convince Catholics that it is not only possible but preferable to vote for Barack Obama and other pro-choice politicians. It is (according to IRS documents) a partner organization to Catholics United, which openly endorses pro-choice, Democratic candidates for office, including Obama.
Both "Catholic" organizations, while claiming to oppose abortion, refuse to endorse any legal remedies to the abortion genocide, such as overturning Roe v. Wade, passing parental notification laws, or even banning late-term abortions. And both organizations have come under fire recently for their tactics: Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput claims "the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn." And Francis Cardinal George of Chicago decries the groups' claim that they "promote the common good," stating, "Laws that place unborn children outside the protection of law destroy both the children killed and the common good, which is the controlling principle of Catholic social teaching. One cannot favor the legal status quo on abortion and also be working for the common good." Cardinal George has banned both groups' voting materials from distribution in his parishes, calling them "deceptive."
George Soros and MoveOn.org are both mentioned in the points given in the article. Surprise, surprise.
The following is taken from the article:
Allio's Associate Director at the Diocesan Social Justice Office, Karen Leith, is a past board member of FutureChurch, the Cleveland branch of Chicago-based Call to Action....
Also scheduled to speak Oct. 29-30 at JCU, on the topics of "Faithful Citizenship," and "Catholic Social Teaching," is Catherine Pinkerton, CSJ, who gave the benediction at this year's Democratic National Convention. Pinkerton is quoted in the Cleveland Plain Dealer as admiring Barack Obama's "vision of where we stand as a nation."...
And why does our bishop sit silently by and allow the sole teaching on Catholic social principles in his diocese to come from an office run by a clearly biased, active dissenter?
Why, indeed? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Allio's Social Action office has influence in many other areas of our diocese as well - including our schools, universities and health care. Is the bishop aware of Allio's "extracurricular" activities and associations? Have Allio's travels on behalf of his dissident organization been funded by the Cleveland Diocese? And are other diocesan staff members involved in such organizations as well?
Further investigation seems warranted, but one thing is clear: Bishop Lennon cannot continue to allow people whose beliefs and activities put them outside of the Catholic Faith continue to dictate the policies of the Cleveland Catholic Diocese.
There are more details in the article. If you're a Catholic living in Cleveland, you owe it to yourself to read the whole thing, and give some thought to how much Catholic Charities money might be going into this.
If Allio is the spokesperson for life issues in this election here in the Diocese of Cleveland, what does that say about Bishop's Lennon's real position on Barak Obama?
Something is wrong in Cleveland and it's way past time for it to come out!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
From Sojourners Magazine article:
Having to compromise by voting for a less-than-fully-pro-life candidate may not be ideal for socially conscious Christians, but it is unfortunately the reality in American politics. "In a perfect world, all public officials would be pro-life in the full meaning of that term," says Tom Allio, senior director for the Cleveland Diocese's Social Action Office. In his 27 years in that position, he has yet to meet a candidate who fits that bill.
Being a fully pro-life candidate, according to Allio and others, doesn't mean just promising to work to make abortion illegal, supporting laws against certain procedures, or pledging to pack the Supreme Court to one day overturn Roe vs. Wade. (And for some, it means using methods other than legal sanctions to reduce abortions.) While some pro-life politicians take the so-called "seamless garment" approach, adding assisted suicide, the death penalty, and perhaps stem-cell research to the abortion issue, progressive pro-lifers tend to see the issue even more broadly than that.
"To be pro-life means also to work to eradicate poverty, to provide universal health care, to provide affordable housing, to be consistent on war and peace," says Allio, whose office works on precisely those issues.
In contrast to Allio's statement, consider the words of bishops as reported in iObserve.org:
Bishop Robert J. Hermann:
"The decision I make in the voting booth will reflect my value system," he said. "If I value the good of the economy and my current lifestyle more than I do the right to life itself, then I am in trouble ... My desire for a good economy cannot justify my voting to remove all current restrictions on abortion. My desire to end the war in Iraq cannot justify my voting to remove all current restrictions on abortion."
Bishop Robert F. Vasa:
"Casting a vote, even for reasons other than the candidate's pro-abortion position, is still casting a vote for the preservation of 'a legal system which violates the basic right to life.'"
Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli:
"the present Democratic candidate for president" promised the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in a speech last year that he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act in his first act as president.
"Today, either we choose to respect and protect life, especially the life of the child in the womb of the mother, or we sanction the loss of our most basic freedoms," he said. "At this point, we are still free to choose."
Bishop Robert W. Finn:
"A candidate's promise of economic prosperity is insufficient to justify their constant support of abortion laws, including partial-birth abortion, and infanticide for born-alive infants," he said. "Promotion of the Freedom of Choice Act is a pledge to eliminate every single limit on abortions achieved over the last 35 years."
Bishop James V. Johnston:
"Issues such as how to provide affordable health care or better education or how to conduct and conclude a war are issues that are open to principled debate," Bishop Johnston said. "Life issues such as abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem-cell research are not in that category. These are simply wrong in every conceivable circumstance."
Bishop Paul S. Coakley:
"to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil, such as abortion, would require the presence of proportionate moral reasons for ignoring such a flaw," Bishop Coakley said. "When considering the death of 45 million children destroyed by abortion since 1973, this may be easier to conceive in theory than to discover in actual practice."
Bishops Kevin J. Farell and Kevin W. Vann in a joint statement:
"There are no 'truly grave moral' or 'proportionate' reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year," they said.
"We cannot make more clear the seriousness of the overriding issue of abortion -- while not the 'only issue' – it is the defining moral issues, not only today, but of the last 35 years,"
Bishops of Pennsylvania in a joint statement:
Catholics "have a moral obligation to defend human life and dignity, to protect the poor and vulnerable, and to work for justice and peace" but stressed that "the intentional destruction of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia, is not just one issue among many."
"Catholic teaching does not treat all issues as morally equivalent," they said. "The protection of human life from conception until natural death is the pre-eminent obligation of a truly just society."
If Allio speaks for Bishop Lennon, and his position and influence would indicate that he does, we have yet another instance of bishop opposing bishop.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!