Why is Diocese of Ft. Worth Encouraging Catholics to Support Radical Pro-Abort, Pro-Sodomy Congressman?

Why is Diocese of Ft. Worth Encouraging Catholics to Support Radical Pro-Abort, Pro-Sodomy Congressman?

[As a microcosm of Amhurch and the USCCCP]

UPDATED August 16, 2016
Posted by Tantumblogo

Wouldn’t you call allowing one of the most immoral politicians in the state to speak and canvas for votes at a Catholic parish giving support? That’s exactly what the Diocese of Fort Worth has done, giving Representative Marc Veasey (Leftist – TX) – who coincidentally happens to be my representative, thanks to rampant gerrymandering – permission to speak, in the sense of promoting himself for re-election, at All Saint’s Catholic Church.

Marc Veasey is a pro-abort’s pro-abort. He staunchly supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy and is as solid a supporter of Banned Parenthood as you can find:


Not only that, but I received the following reply from Rep. Veasey regarding the USNS Harvey Milk imbroglio. He had this to say about his general position with regard to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah:

As your member of Congress and a staunch supporter of LGBT issues………

He (his staff) apparently completely misread my communique, because it then goes on to tell me how I can further “work with him” to lobby on behalf of LGBTQRSTUV “rights.” As if error has rights, amiright?

It is also certain that Veasey holds any number of other grave errors and immoral beliefs: contraception, divorce on demand, fornication, government repression of the Church, a completely secularized society, etc. As I said, he is one of the most reliably left-wing members of Congress, who only holds office as the result of a court-ordered gerrymandered district. For instance, the streets on either side of mine are not in Veasey’s district, while mine is.

But but but- the Diocese of Fort Worth says, “seamless garment!!” Look at all the good things Rep. Veasey supports, and, also, Pope Francis more or less commands we vote for him! The Affordable Care Act and unlimited immigration are pretty much new Dogmas of the Faith, according to FW communications director Pat Svacina, who apparently approved this event. Thus, we have so much we “agree with” – including, apparently, agreeing that murdering perfect innocents in their millions is somehow forgivable, or at least ignorable, if one supports providing high-cost, really crappy insurance to a tiny segment of the population.

It is amazing how fast the deplorable, completely discredited “seamless garment” has come roaring back to vitality in chanceries around the land under this pontificate. Of course, it never really went away, those same progressives who have always filled the chanceries since VII were simply more circumspect under preceding pontificates.

* * *

If you are one of those who like to believe that all kinds of highly politically charged stuff goes on at various Dioceses without the knowledge of the Bishop (I, for one, am not one of those), you could also try to make Bishop Olson aware of this situation, assuming your communique even gets to him, and is not shunted into some unread folder or filtered out by a secretary or other interloper …

If you do decide to contact Bishop Michael Olson, I do recommend you be brief, to the point, and polite. No cussy words or accusations of sin, they tend to obliterate the point you are trying to make, as well as your credibility.

For my money, the idea that the Bishop would not know that a Congressman is coming to speak at one of his parishes is incredible. Of course he knows, and of course he approved. The only reasons I can think of for such approval are worldly – it would be bad to offend a Congressman, he has power to help/hurt the material condition of the Church, etc. While the reasons which most militate against his speaking are all spiritual in nature, cutting to the heart of the Church, the truth, and her identity.

But such considerations as the latter, so important for so many centuries, even to the point of countless souls enduring unspeakable hardships to defend them, have gotten decidedly short shrift in the past 50 years of the new, “open,” post-conciliar Church.

UPDATE: Another excuse given by the Communications Director of the Diocese of Fort Worth for hosting this event is that of “hearing all sides.” But can you imagine this director giving the OK to have Donald Trump speak at a Catholic parish, and can you imagine the howls of protest from many priests and chancery bureaucrats should such an invitation be extended?

This is all about holding certain (liberal) opinions individuals with influence in the Church share. Nothing else matters.

Get AQ Email Updates

2 comments on “Why is Diocese of Ft. Worth Encouraging Catholics to Support Radical Pro-Abort, Pro-Sodomy Congressman?

  1. [AmChurch as a macrocosm of the Fort Worth and Philadelphia (arch)dioceses – especially in the USCCCP’s statement “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”; hat-tip to Canon212]

    How the Catholic Church Helps the Clinton/Kaine Ticket

    Posted by Deal Hudson | Aug 16, 2016

    When I wrote “Why the Catholic Church Doesn’t Really Care About Abortion,” I thought it would fall, as they say, on deaf ears. I was surprised that so many readers immediately grasped the issues I had with Archbishop Chaput’s column of August 12, 2016, as well as my claim that the Catholic bureaucracy (most of them) intend to help the Clinton/Kaine ticket in whatever ways they can.

    I disagreed with the Archbishop’s evaluation of the two presidential candidates, and did my best to explain it. My concern came down to this: If the “right to life undergirds all other rights and all genuine social progress,” as he says, why did he ignore the abortion issue in his assessment of Clinton and Trump? In fact, he called a Trump presidency as “inconceivable,” while not ascribing the same to Clinton, who is about as extreme on supporting abortion on demand as you can get. Trump, at least, has made specific legislative and judicial promises on the basis of his pro-life conviction which go back a decade.

    I wasn’t surprised when a syndicated column appeared later the same day extolling Archbishop’s message to Catholic voters, warning them not to vote on “autopilot.” Of course I fully agree with His Excellency on this point if it means that Catholic voters don’t keep voting for pro-abortion candidates as they did for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

    Unfortunately, this is not the message being taken from the Archbishop’s column, but rather the surprising adjudication that for a Catholic choosing between Clinton and Trump, “neither is clearly better than the other.” Perhaps I was wrongly catechized, being a convert, but what about the intrinsic evils we, as Catholics, are obliged not to support with our votes?

    As I will explain below, the Archbishop’s letter contains two of the ways the Church, consciously and unconsciously, is helping the Clinton/Kaine ticket. Church leadership, with exceptions, has long given Democratic candidates a complete pass on the issue of abortion. Why? For the simple reason that they prefer Democrats to Republicans, and that is putting it mildly. I could go into the reasons for this preference, including the financial factors, but the story is long and I have already explored it thoroughly in my 2008 book, Onward Christian Soldiers.

    Let me ask you: Through how many election cycles have pro-life Catholics applauded the public comments of a handful of bishops while not facing up to the fact that the bulk of the Catholic establishment will not do anything to hurt the chances of a Democratic candidate or administration?

    Let me count six of the ways the Church, and by that I mean most of its leadership, media, and institutions will virtually campaign for the Clinton/Kaine ticket.

    First, confusion about the candidates and the issues will be sown — an example of this is already been described in the column by Archbishop Chaput, “Some personal thoughts on the months ahead” published on August 12, 2016. Much of the confusion will come from the voter guides published by the state Catholic conferences in which all the issues will be presented as morally equal. (I will be posting these as they are made available.)

    In fairness to Archbishop Chaput, he is only articulating a way of thinking about voting contained in “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” the documents published by the bishops every four years to prepare Catholics for the national election. Since the 2008 version of “Faithful Citizenship” there are serious problems with this document which have not been corrected. Thus, in the 2016 version there is moral ambiguity that provides various loopholes allowing Catholics to to lay aside concern about abortion and other intrinsic evils.

    As I have explained elsewhere, most of these problems can be found in Sections 34-37 of “Faithful Citizenship.” For example, when Archbishop Chaput begins his column with allegations about the character of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, rather than the policies they espouse, he is following the dictate of Section 37:

    “In making these [voting] decisions,it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue” [Emphasis added],

    It get worse, take Section 34, which basically says as long as a voter does not intend to support the morally evil position of a candidate then voting for him or her is justified.

    “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity” [Emphasis added].

    Sections 35 and 36 offer two more loopholes, the former allowing support for a pro-abortion candidates if there are offsetting “morally grave reasons,” while the later justifies such a vote if a candidate will pursue “authentic human goods” rather than the “morally-flawed” position he or she holds .

    I am not making this up — this is the official teaching of our bishops as explained in their own document.

    Secondly, on a more practical front, many in the Church will treat anti-abortion advocacy as partisan, amounting to an endorsement of a candidate or part. See what the bishops recommend in discussing candidates in a parish “forum.” In “Tips for Conducting Candidate Forums” we read: “Cover a broad range of issues: Focusing on one issue will create the appearance of endorsing some candidates over others. A broader focus will more effectively educate voters and will avoid any appearance of bias” [Emphasis added].

    Thus, persons and organizations focussed on the abortion issue will be excluded from meetings and conferences sponsored by the Catholic Church, through a diocese, a parish, an agency, or an office.

    Thirdly, diocesan and parish media platforms will be used to send messages burying the abortion issue under the theme of compassion for the poor and the immigrant. Such compassion is important, even necessary, but there is no reason compassion should not be extended to the unborn as well. That this “social justice” compassion is not extended to the unborn is both deliberate and usually politically motivated to favor the Democratic Party.

    Church leadership, especially in the bureaucracy, will forget the fact that the bishops ever wrote a pastoral letter in 1998, “Living the Gospel of Life, which says:

    “Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that defend human life, especially those of God’s children who are unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable” [Paragraph 33; Emphasis added]. I wonder how many parishes will hear these words spoken aloud before November 8th?

    Fourthly, what parishes will get are are conferences and forums held under the banners such as “Respect Life,” used entirely as a bait-and-switch tactic. If you attend you will hear about the lives the poor, the immigrant, women who have suffered from having abortion, but you won’t hear any kind of sustained treatment of the Church’s teaching against abortion and how it should be applied to casting your ballot. Will there be exceptions to this, of course. I could probably name the dioceses, but the list would be short.

    Fifthly, at the grassroots level, many in the parishes and dioceses will deliberately create obstacles to the pro-life message being used to measure the difference between candidates and parties. I describe the typical experience of hostility and discouragement a Catholic pro-life advocate trying participate politically in the Church here. Pro-life groups and leaders will be described to laypersons as “partisan,” etc. (I’ve already seen that happen in this election cycle.)

    The sixth way, and perhaps the most powerful, the Church will help the Clinton/Kaine ticket is its silence. A strict silence has been maintained about Hillary Clinton’s expressed affection for Planned Parenthood and the celebration of abortion on demand at the Democratic National Convention, held in Philadelphia as a matter of fact.

    I hope the Catholics who read this will become more aware of what is going on around them in their parishes and dioceses, and will challenge the confusion, ambiguity, and silence when they are manifest. The silence, of course, is manifest in the omission of preaching and teaching on our obligation to consider the abortion, and other intrinsic evils, in our estimation of political candidates. Indeed, the silence can be called out anytime!

  2. CONFIRMED: FW Bishop Olson OK’d Pro-Abort, Pro-Immorality Rep. Veasey to Speak at FW Parish

    August 17, 2016
    Posted by Tantumblogo

    I have just received confirmation via local pro-life sources that Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth personally OK’d the campaign event* for Representative Marc Veasey at All Saints parish tomorrow night. As I reported yesterday, Veasey is one of the most radically immoral members of the Texas Congressional caucus and has constantly advocated in favor of abortion, supposed rights of sodomites, persecution of the Church through HHS mandates, a general reduction if not termination of the role of the Church in the public square, and all other manner of moral evils.

    Local pro-life sources have informed me that at a meeting with Chancellor Msgr James Hart, Hart informed the pro-life souls complaining of Veasey’s campaign event that Bishop Olson was aware of the event and disagreed that allowing Veasey to use the good name of the Church for his own political benefit was scandalous.

    The Holy Writ of Saint Dialogue was cited as the Doctrine in favor of allowing Veasey to speak. Must be cited somewhere there in Guadium Et Spes …….

    As an aside, the Fraternity parish promised last year by Bishop Olson remains stalled with little apparent progress being made to occupy their permanent parish (at least as of a month or so ago). This may be beyond Bishop Olson’s control – apparently, the community currently occupying what will become the FW FSSP parish has run into fundraising and other problems in building their new church, but I know some folks are becoming frustrated and beginning to lose heart.

    If you want to voice your opposition to this great scandal, there is contact info at the link.

    *- That’s what a “town hall” is, especially 2 1/2 months before an election, it is a local campaign event for the Rep during Congress’ month-long August recess.

Leave a Reply