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.”
[…]
First, they came for the Orthodox…
Simplistic. If an outfit calls itself a “church” but is advocating war against you, are you going to channel your inner Voltaire with “I disagree with what you say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it?” Because, thanks to that “church,” you may sooner find yourself in that latter position than you think.
Religious freedom, like all other rights, is not absolute. Many countries ban Salafist Mosques from operating on their soil because their Jihadist ideology is at odds with their country’s values and national security. The same applies to Putin’s waterboy Kirill. You can’t compare the Ukrainian nation to Satan and claim that the war crimes being committed by Putin are “God’s Will”, then act surprised when Ukraine prohibits your sect from operating on it’s soil.
This comes across to me as more of a political statement by the Archbishop in support of Ukraine and the Ukrainian government than anything else. Certainly not much spiritual content or thought about the Kingdom of Heaven in what he said. I suppose it’s not surprising when your country is at war, and when those countries have had such a long, sometimes tortured history. But a government taking this kind of action against a legitimate religion practiced by its citizens in order to punish some of its members is wrong, period. Regardless of which government does it, and why.
So no, Archbishop Shevchuk. The law is unjust. I pray that you reconsider this.
If you have spoken with many Ukrainian priests, religious, and faithful over the years – as I have – you know that the bishop speaks correctly. The UOC has been a puppet of militaristic Russian expansionism for decades.
I have listened to Archbishop Shevchuk before. As the leader of a small Catholic minority in a majority Orthodox country, he is between a rock and a hard place. Whether I think he is right or wrong is besides the point here.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the church that was just banned by the Ukrainian government, is peppered with Russian sympathizers hiding out in the clergy and laity who are actively working against Ukraine, l think that is unlikely, and is particularly unlikely after several years of war and active security investigations, because by now, they would realize that they are going to be caught and would have left the country. UOC laymen, as Ukrainian citizens, have served in the army fighting against the Russian army. Many laypeople have lost family members in the war, so it seems even more unlikely that they are secretly Russian sympathizers.
But eveb if the UOC has members who support the Russian Federation through a connection to the Russian Orthodox Church, and they present a danger to the Ukrainian government because they have been actively working to undermine it, by rule of law, the Ukrainian government has to bring charges against them in court, try them and find them guilty before punishing them. The government shouldn’t take the easy way out by declaring them to be guilty simply through belonging to a particular church or through a perceived affinity to a Russian identity, and then punish them.
However, I believe that concerns about Russian influence is only part of the motivation for the ban. The UOC was the primary Orthodox church in Ukraine until the previous president encouraged the formation of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine as a rival “native Ukrainian” church that would supplant the UOC. That turnover was envisioned to be well underway by now. Only it hasn’t been successful and the majority of the UOC’s priest, monks, bishops and laity have not shown interest in the OCU. So the ban is supposed to put pressure on them–force them really–to move to the OCU so that it can become Ukraine’s primary church.
I am surprised to hear that Catholics, especially American Catholics, support the ban on a long-established Christian church like the UOC, especially an Orthodox church (the “second lung,” etc.). I always understood that when a government tried to restrict religious observance or ban it altogether, we would oppose that by principle. Similarly, I though we would be against situations where government agencies investigate foundational church documents and declare them to be illicit, or where a government goes after the clergy and members of a church and arrests them, simply for belonging to that church. At least I seem to recall Catholics declaring it was wrong when other countries did those things. I must have misunderstood. Maybe all of this is conditional on whether or not someone or something is considered to be an “enemy.” Once it is considered to be an enemy, then you can go after them as hard as you want.
I guess religious freedom is not so important to all Catholics after all. Apparently there is quite a bit about “real Catholicism” that I still don’t understand.
I am surprised to hear that Catholics, especially American Catholics,
American Catholics are an odd bunch in many cases believe that voting Democrat is the eighth sacrament; one that obviates the need for the seven; and can excuse supporting abortion, using contraception and the need to attend Mass on days other that Christmas or Easter.
The article is incorrect. There is no “Russian Orthodox Church” in Ukraine. There is a Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the jurisdiction of Moscow Patriarchate but it has autonomy. Its leader is Metropolitan Onufry. Relatively recently he made a statement, a quote:
“Meanwhile, according to the sign given to us by the Lord Himself, indicating that a tree is known by its fruit, the whole world knows that the Patriarchate of Moscow has been deeply poisoned by the pseudo-religious teachings of the ‘russian world’, the poisonous and deadly fruit of which has become Russia’s current terrible war against Ukraine. The war is devilish and godless, which the Patriarch of Moscow called sacred and blessed the Russian ruler and army for all the crimes they have committed and continue to commit on our land.
Hence, having already learnt in a clear and undeniable way that both the root and the fruit of the ‘russian world’ are evil, it should be clear to anyone who truly wishes to preserve the purity of Orthodoxy and who cares about the good of the Church that one should distance himself from this evil and have no connection with this darkness.”
https://orthodoxtimes.com/metropolitan-of-kyiv-appeals-for-dialogue-with-metropolitan-onufry/
So, this Church is apparently being prohibited.
This war is literally a brother going against a brother because so many (probably the majority) Russians have Ukrainian relatives and vice versa. Before the war many in Eastern Ukraine sympathized with Russia. My acquaintance, a Ukrainian woman who lives in Europe, told me that her mother, an ethnic Ukrainian, is madly pro-Russian while her Russian father is more critical of Russia. The woman herself is totally pro-Ukrainian. So, if one can find those who are pro-Russian even on the Ukrainian territory, even during the war, no wonder that they can be found in the Ukrainian Church of Moscow Patriarchate – just like many others who are anti-Russians.
With all this Ukrainian Catholic severity against potentially Russia-sympathetic orthodox (including the still persecuted religious of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra), I wonder: has the Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy ever taken the time to criticize the gay pride parades held in Kiev? The new world order religion of LGBTQ? Or the sort of “humor” in which the current Ukrainian president specializes? Why are they going against the Russian orthodox–who are our natural allies against the sort of religion that was on display at the recent Olympics?