St. Patrick’s Church in Cottage Grove, Wisconsin / St. Patrick’s Facebook page
St. Louis, Mo., Apr 3, 2023 / 14:00 pm (CNA).
The Diocese of Madison clarified late last week that the Church does not endorse nor oppose specific political candidates after a Wisconsin pastor urged parishioners in his weekly parish bulletin message to vote against state Supreme Court candidate Janet Protasiewicz, who is openly pro-abortion.
“The Catholic Church’s involvement in public life doesn’t extend to endorsing candidates for election to public office nor calling for their defeat and thus refrains from partisan political activities. The Church does encourage voter registration and encourages Catholics, as citizens, to vote and to be civically engaged,” the diocese said in a statement sent to CNA.
“However, the Church also has both a duty and a right to call attention to the moral and religious dimensions of public issues, measuring social policies and political activities against the natural moral law and Gospel values. Since the first century, the Church has consistently affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law in its respect for all human life.”
The diocese’s response comes after Father Brian Dulli, pastor of St. Patrick’s Church in Cottage Grove, Wisconsin, urged his parishioners to vote against the pro-abortion candidate in Tuesday’s Wisconsin Supreme Court election, a race that observers say could have major effects on the legality of abortion in the state.
As reported by Wisconsin Public Radio, an attorney with the activist group Freedom from Religion Foundation, which is based in Madison, wrote to the IRS last week to complain about the bulletin, asking the IRS to revoke St. Patrick’s 501(c)3 nonprofit status.
The April 4 election is between former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly and current Milwaukee judge Protasiewicz. Protasiewicz has spoken openly about her pro-abortion views while insisting that she has made “no promises” to pro-abortion groups that she will seek to overturn the state’s current abortion ban.
In a March 26 parish bulletin, Dulli urged Catholics not to vote for Protasiewicz, saying she has “tried to make this race entirely an effort to legalize abortion in the state of Wisconsin.”
“Abortion is the intentional taking of a human life. It is murder. Our Catholic faith is clear that this is grave sin. It should never be controversial among Catholics to say that you can never intentionally take any action that knowingly will help in the taking of a human life. You cannot publicly support abortion or abortion advocates and remain a Catholic in good standing,” Dulli wrote.
“As a Catholic, I urge you, for the salvation of your soul; do not vote for her [Protasiewicz] in the Supreme Court race on April 4,” he continued.
“I encourage you to study the race carefully and form you [sic] conscience correctly in accordance with the truths of the Catholic faith.”
In his April 2 bulletin message, Dulli acknowledged that the March 26 bulletin “got much more exposure than usual” and reiterated that “given a choice between any two people, we must say ‘absolutely not’ to the person who says abortion should be on the table.”
“We need to say no to a system that demands human sacrifice of the unborn be on the table. Jesus said that we will be judged by what we do to the least among us. Babies are the littlest and least. If someone consents to the killing of unborn children, they will not stop at the destruction of you or your family,” Dulli wrote.
“Haven’t we seen enough destruction now to know it?”
Reached by CNA on Monday, Dulli declined to comment further, saying he believes the situation has been “talked about enough.”
What’s Tuesday’s election all about?
The 2023 Wisconsin judicial race, which might have remained obscure in other years even within Wisconsin, is garnering national media attention and record fundraising numbers for the candidates. The reasons have to do with a prediction — both among pro-life and pro-abortion groups — that the winner of the election could tip the scales in Wisconsin when it comes to the state’s current abortion ban.
Wisconsin is the only state in the nation with a pre-Roe v. Wade abortion ban in effect, at least on paper. Wisconsin’s ban, which is contained in Section 940.04 of the Wisconsin Statutes and dates to 1849, allows abortion only to save the life of the mother. The state’s Democratic governor and attorney general have said they will not enforce the ban and are currently suing in an attempt to have it overturned.
The law was previously unenforceable following the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, but Roe’s overturning last year allowed the statute to come into effect. So far, it has not been blocked in court, as has happened with pre-Roe bans in West Virginia and Michigan.
Pro-abortion groups within and outside Wisconsin have identified the state Supreme Court race as the key to getting 940.04 overturned. Gov. Tony Evers, along with Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, announced a lawsuit last year to attempt to overturn the law, arguing that it has been superseded by subsequent legislation and cannot be enforced.
The lawsuit is likely to be ultimately decided by the state Supreme Court, which has had a 4-3 conservative majority for the past decade and a half. The current election will determine who will sit in the open seat being vacated by retiring conservative justice Patience Roggensack. The winner will serve a 10-year term.
Pro-life advocates worry that should the state Supreme Court obtain a pro-choice majority, the state’s pre-Roe ban could be declared unconstitutional, as happened last year in neighboring Michigan.
Who are the candidates?
Kelly is a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who served on the court from his appointment by then-Gov. Scott Walker in 2016 until he was voted out in 2020. He describes himself as a “constitutional conservative” and on his campaign website charges that his opponents are “judicial activists who seek to impose their own political agenda on our state.”
Amid a contentious campaign, Kelly has earned the endorsement of three statewide pro-life groups — Wisconsin Family Action, Pro-Life Wisconsin, and Wisconsin Right to Life. He said during a recent debate that his numerous endorsements from pro-life groups came about after having conversations with them about his pledge to uphold the Constitution, not because of any promise to keep the abortion ban in place.
In contrast, Protasiewicz has garnered endorsements from numerous top Democrats in Wisconsin as well as from pro-abortion groups such as NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and EMILY’s List. Protasiewicz currently is a judge for Branch 24 of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in Wisconsin, having been elected to that court in 2014.
Protasiewicz has insisted she has made “no promises” to pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and EMILY’s List but also has made no bones about her pro-choice views. “My personal opinion is that [it] should be the woman’s right to make the reproductive health decisions, period,” she said during a March 21 debate.
What have Catholic leaders said?
At least two of the state’s bishops, including Bishop Donald Hying of Madison, have reiterated to Catholics that the right to life is a foundational issue that should form their consciences as they decide how to vote on Tuesday.
“Without the right to be born and to live, every other right is worthless,” Hying wrote in a March 30 letter.
“Do we want to live in a country that welcomes the wonder of every human life, supports marriages and families, helps the needy and suffering, seeks justice for all, and builds a civilization of love, or, do we want a society which aborts its children, leaves struggling parents without support, and lives a radical autonomy with no reference to the dignity of life and the common good? Do we elect civic leaders who stand on the unshakeable moral principle that every human life is sacred and of immeasurable worth, or, do we elect those who disregard the fundamental dignity of life and advocate for taking the life of the most innocent in the womb? Such questions we should ask ourselves as we exercise our moral and civic duty to vote.”
Archbishop Jerome Listecki of Milwaukee also issued a letter, dated March 28, urging Catholics to vote for candidates that uphold the right to life.
“The killing of the innocent has never been supported by Catholic Church teachings. As citizens, we have an obligation to support the laws that protect the innocent. We must take our responsibility, as citizens before God’s judgment, for the times we have supported the destruction of the innocent. We must also take responsibility for the lack of support for the protection of the innocent when we vote for candidates and laws that liberalize abortion laws,” Listecki wrote.
“There is nothing enlightened about an individual who fails to realize that the denial of the right to life for the most vulnerable among us is an attack on the dignity and personal value of every citizen. I could not and would not support a candidate whose position on life is contrary to the teachings of the Church — a position contrary to the teachings and love of Jesus.”
[…]
My preferred pronouns are”your majesty” and “his majesty.”
All my fellow CWR commenters be advised, you need to use my preferred pronouns or face the consequences.
His majesty has spoken! Could your majesty opine on the situation in ND? His majesty’s comments are always here.
John!
Yes, of course! As you may suspect, I am always happy to opine, thank you!
I find it terribly disturbing that this mad, reality-denying abrogation of God’s role as Creator has spread so far into formerly sane and rational middle America as North Dakota.
I also cannot imagine that — between this insanity, plus the killing of scores of millions of innocent children around the world each year, plus the generalized turning away from God in the Western world, plus so much more — we will not be soon feeling a swift, hard, painful corrective from our Creator.
(And thank you, John, for using my preferred pronouns!)
(For some reason, few — not even my wife — do.)
How sad that woke ideology has penetrated as far as the wilds on North Dakota. I would suggest folks take their excess tuition cash and go to school someplace else where rationality prevails. When you attempt to FORCE people to speak in a certain way, and accept an unreality which is not real, this is what dictatorships do and it should be vigorously opposed in any way possible. The biggest question always is,if you cooperate with this, what accommodation will they expect next, or what civil right will they attempt to expunge? I hope alumni of the school are paying attention and also withhold their money.The time to oppose this nonsense is NOW.
Uncle Andy has spoken (see Wikipedia) and now we can understand why the Air Force Academy went woke.
I will never indulge in a mentally ill person’s fantasies on self by using their LARP-ing name.
When god made humanity god made man and woman and in the animal kingdom god made male and female. May i ask all the dumb clucks the idots is it difficult to understand this simple
difference between persons. the bottom line there can only be two genders MALE AND FEMALE
and to be crass rude and vulgar a man has a penis and woman has a vagina and for those who choose to live a life of debauchery the bum entrance of a man for a vagina because humanity has degraded itself to the times of sodom and gonorrhea. all this gender issues are a whole load of hog wash. i call on all of humanity to get to their senses and live like human beings MALE AND FEMALE
So . . . be inclusive or be excluded?
Good point – people of this ilk are known to be severely irony-deficient.
Insanity – absolute insanity.
The University of North Dakota obviously does not support the LGBTQ members or transgender and nonbinary members, because that support should be to “will the good of the other,” according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Willing their good would not be supporting their delusional view of immutable characteristics given by God. Reinforcing the confusion of any individual by going along with their confusion is unhealthy and destructive. Instead, they should be directed toward counseling that will help them sort their confusion and come to the realization that we are all what God made us to be.
The only “ideology” I see in this is common courtesy. If a person wishes to be referred to in a particular way, why argue and fuss about it? A new pastor once came to my church. He preferred the reference Father (last name) rather than Father (first name) as the previous priest preferred. I suppose I could have argued his Christian name was more appropriate than his family name, but instead, I invited him for dinner, spoke with him after Mass, and when talking about him with other people, referred to Father (last name).
As for pronouns, there are a lot of them. If it gets confusing, don’t use pronouns. If you care about the person, call them by whatever they tell you. Why act like a jerk about it?
You seem to miss the point that these institutions are trying to CRIMINALIZE and penalize people who use the PROPER pronouns. People should not have to jump through hoops or tip-toe around this nonsense. Not too long ago people who paraded around pretending to be someone or something else were deemed in need of mental assistance. Now, they are trying to force everyone else to play their games. People who do not want to participate in their games. Like the baker taken to court multiple times for declining their business. Etc. This is NOT harmless and I would suggest the people who decline to participate in these crazed fantasies are NOT the “jerks”. I prefer the dont ask, dont tell approach. I am not interested in anyone else’s sexuality and I dont want it thrown in my face. Do your own thing but leave me out of it. With the use of “drag Queen story times” they are trying to indoctrinate small children as well. This is NOT the same issue as calling a priest by his first or last name , by a long-shot.
Only legislatures can make criminal law. Any business can develop policy which, admittedly, can lead to serious consequences such as a loss of a job, or the denial of consumer services. And yes, this can end up being totally arbitrary.
The truth is that young people are prone to bullying and being bullied. I saw it years ago in the Catholic prep school I attended. An otherwise good learning and religious environment was frequently spoiled by knuckle-headed behavior. “Boys will be boys” was the common cited quote. Humbug.
Consider: I’m approaching a food vendor on the street to buy lunch, and the person says, “Nice sunny day,” as it rains. I’m there to buy a taco or a hot dog. I’m not going to get into a discussion on meteorology. For all I k now the person got a business loan or got engaged, and to them it is a sunny day. I nod, pay for my food, and move along.
The people who insist on their own terminology, names, and labels for people they don’t otherwise know are indeed being jerks. I don’t think they will go to prison. But a professor must be above reproach in dealing with young people. Likewise staff at learning institutions.
Between you and me, I’d hope that students would be encouraged to stand up to jerks personally, and not be intimidated or rely overly much on institution-dished punishments. But I don’t know how bad it has been at UND. Maybe a little more investigation would tell us the level of discourtesy.
It’s a state university, so it’s bound by law to the first amendment. A state university cannot legally try to control language, thought, or freedom of association. It’s not a private business, so your argument is a straw man.
I have just retired from teaching Health/Sex Education for 36 years in the public school system. The bullying of our childhood has been replaced with indoctrinated tolerance of all behaviors- to the point where students hesitate to intervene on anything- even if they perceive it personally as wrong. As far as the choice of pronouns, I saw many young girls decide overnight they were changing their gender in order to join an ever growing group of friends. Teachers were told to adopt the pronouns or face HIB ( harassment, bullying, intimidation) charges. In my state, students can change gender without parent knowledge- and if we tell parents, we are disciplined. The LGBT groups weld much power in the college/ educational communities and are supported by powerful forces- rather then support a “live and let live” philosophy, they often seek to extinguish groups and persons who disagree with their lifestyle choices by labeling such groups (often Christian/Catholic) as bigoted.
As a retired public school teacher of 36 years, I will say that the bullying we remember from our youth has been replaced with an indoctrinated tolerance of all behaviors. Students hesitate to intervene in any situation even when they perceive it as wrong. I did not see the LGBT students as being bullied and in fact most are quite popular. I did observe many students who overnight decided that they wanted to change their gender to join an ever growing group of friends. We were instructed as teachers to use their new pronouns or face HIB charges (harassment intimidation bullying). Also, in my state, a minor can change their gender without parents being informed- and if a teacher tells a parent, they can be disciplined. The LGBT groups have a lot of pull in these educational settings and are supported by powerful organizations. Rather then promoting a “live and let live” philosophy, they often seek to cancel groups and individuals whose views differ (Christian/Catholic groups) by labeling such groups/individuals as bigoted.
Let’s hope this University get’s a lot smarter and finds out what makes a University great.
We don’t get to choose our parents—-we don’t get to choose our relatives—-we don’t get to choose our gender
I wonder if the president of UND might reconsider his position if he received thousands of emails from CWR readers and other concerned citizens? Let’s put our money where our mouths are and speak real truth to power! Especially since it’s a state university.
Here’s a manufactured pronoun that covers a fair amount of territory: “s/he/it.” It can be pronounced with either a short “i” or a long “e” sound according to the preference of the user. It includes both female and male, of course, and the “it” includes everyone else.
The suggestion of “s/h/it” as a third-person common-gender pronoun does have several advantages: it is comprehensive in its coverage, pronounceable, and recognizable as an English word. Even so, however, it fails to recognize cultural diversity sufficiently. One of the great accomplishments of Russian, Prussian, and Austro-Hungarian imperialism would be to require the peoples occupied by those powers to cease using their own language in school and in public. Suppose the North American continent were conquered by the original European powers. What is now the Eastern seaboard would be administered from Montreal with all public speech required in French. The Midwest and Southwest would be required to speak Spanish by the central power in Mexico City. And North Dakota would be governed from Sitka,Alaska and required to use Russian. Unlike Spanish and French, which recognize only two genders (masculine and feminine), Russian recognizes three–including a neuter. There is even a language that does not distinguish gender in the third person singular, and one of my students claimed that introducing such a requirement would raise the status of women in the United States. The student grew angry when I expressed skepticism that introducing the pronoun “Oo”. For that is the pronoun still used in the Islamic Republic of Iran for the third person singular. Perhaps the people of the Dakotas would like to switch to Farsi? Frankly, I doubt it. Even marshal law would provoke resistance.