I came across this letter on good Father Zuhlsdorf's blog, What Does The Prayer Really Say?. It is a joint address from the two Kansas City bishops to Catholics in their dioceses. The letter was orignally in the Catholic Key, though it has been reformatted slightly for this blog.

In the style of Fr. Z, the letter is reprinted below with my emphases and comments:

KC Bishops on Moral Responsibility, Voting

"Could a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports legalized abortion when there is a choice of another candidate who does not support abortion or any other intrinsically evil policy?"

Kansas City, Kansas Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann and Kansas City - St. Joseph Bishop Robert W. Finn address that question and more in their Joint Pastoral dedicated on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and released today:

Our Moral Responsibility as Catholic Citizens
Joint Pastoral Letter - September 8, 2008
Most Reverend Joseph F. Naumann, Archbishop of Kansas City in Kansas
Most Reverend Robert W. Finn, Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph

Dear Friends in Christ,

With the approaching general election this November, we believe this to be an important moment for us to address together the responsibility of Catholics to be well informed and well formed voters.

Except for the election of our next President, the people of Northwestern Missouri and Northeastern Kansas will be choosing different candidates for different offices in our two dioceses. Yet the fundamental moral principles that should guide our choices as Catholic voters are the same.

For generations it has been the determination of Catholic Bishops not to endorse political candidates or parties. This approach was initiated by Archbishop John Carroll - the very first Catholic Bishop serving in the United States. It was long before there was an Internal Revenue Service Code, and had nothing to do with a desire to preserve tax-exempt status. Rather the Church in the United States realized early on that it must not tether the credibility of the Church to the uncertain future actions or statements of a particular politician or party. (It is easy to think of the "Catholic Vote" being solidly Republican-- but historically, Catholics vote Democrat.) This understanding of the Church's proper role in society was affirmed in the Second Vatican Council's Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern Word: "The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified with any political community nor bound by its ties to any political system. It is at once the sign and the safeguard of the transcendental dimension of the human person."(Gaudium et Spes n.76)

A Right to Speak Out on Issues

At the same time, it is important to note that the Catholic Church in the United States has always cherished its right to speak to the moral issues confronting our nation. The Church has understood its responsibility in a democratic society to do its best to form properly the consciences of her members. In continuity with the long history of the efforts of American Bishops to assist Catholics with the proper formation of their consciences (We're not born with a conscience, we develop it over time-- and people can have well formed and poorly formed consciences), the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) this past November issued a statement: Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. In that document our brother bishops took care to note: "This statement is intended to reflect and complement, not substitute for, the ongoing teachings of bishops in our own dioceses and states."

It is in this context that we offer the following reflections to assist the Catholic people of Northwestern Missouri and Northeastern Kansas in forming their consciences in preparation for casting their votes this November.

Many Issues: Prudential Judgments

Every Catholic should be concerned about a wide range of issues. We believe in a consistent ethic that evaluates every issue through the prism of its impact on the life and dignity of the human person. Catholics should care about public policies that:
a) promote a just and lasting peace in the world,
b) protect our nation from terrorism and other security threats,
c) welcome and uphold the rights of immigrants,
d) enable health care to be accessible and affordable,
e) manifest a special concern for the poor by attending to their immediate needs and assisting them to gain economic independence,
f) protect the rights of parents to be the primary educators of their children,
g) create business and employment opportunities making it possible for individuals to be able to provide for their own material needs and the needs of their families,
h) reform the criminal justice system by providing better for the needs of the victims of crimes, protecting the innocent, administering justice fairly, striving to rehabilitate inmates, and eliminating the death penalty,
i) foster a proper stewardship of the earth that God has entrusted to our care.

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

While the above issues, as well as many others, have important moral dimensions, Catholics may and do disagree about the most effective public policies for responding to them. (How true!) How these issues are best addressed and what particular candidates are best equipped to address them requires prudential judgments - defined as circumstances in which people can ethically reach different conclusions. Catholics have an obligation to study, reflect and pray over the relative merits of the different policy approaches proposed by candidates. Catholics have a special responsibility to be well informed regarding the guidance given by the Church pertaining to the moral dimensions of these matters. In the end, Catholics in good conscience can disagree in their judgments about many aspects of the best policies and the most effective candidates.

The Priority of Rejecting Intrinsic Evil

There are, however, some issues that always involve doing evil, such as legalized abortion, the promotion of same-sex unions and 'marriages,' repression of religious liberty, as well as public policies permitting euthanasia, racial discrimination or destructive human embryonic stem cell research. A properly formed conscience must give such issues priority even over other matters with important moral dimensions. To vote for a candidate who supports these intrinsic evils because he or she supports these evils is to participate in a grave moral evil. It can never be justified.

Even if we understand the moral dimensions of the full array of social issues and have correctly prioritized those involving intrinsic evils, we still must make prudential judgments in the selection of candidates. In an ideal situation, we may have a choice between two candidates who both oppose public policies that involve intrinsic evils. In such a case, we need to study their approach on all the other issues that involve the promotion of the dignity of the human person and prayerfully choose the best individual.

Limiting Grave Evil

In another circumstance, we may be confronted with a voting choice between two candidates who support abortion, though one may favor some limitations on it, or he or she may oppose public funding for abortion. In such cases, the appropriate judgment would be to select the candidate whose policies regarding this grave evil will do less harm. We have a responsibility to limit evil if it is not possible at the moment to eradicate it completely.

The same principle would be compelling to a conscientious voter who was confronted with two candidates who both supported same-sex unions, but one opposed abortion and destructive embryonic research while the other was permissive in these regards. The voter, who himself or herself opposed these policies, would have insufficient moral justification voting for the more permissive candidate. (Interesting! While all Americans may have a duty to vote, withholding their vote might also fulfill that duty. After all, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.) However, he or she might justify resorting to a write-in vote or abstaining from voting at all in this case, because of a conscientious objection.

In 2004 a group of United States Bishops, acting on behalf of the USCCB and requesting counsel about the responsibilities of Catholic politicians and voters, received a memo from the office of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, which stated: "A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

Could a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports legalized abortion when there is a choice of another candidate who does not support abortion or any other intrinsically evil policy? Could a voter's preference for the candidate's positions on the pursuit of peace, economic policies benefiting the poor, support for universal health care, a more just immigration policy, etc. overcome a candidate's support for legalized abortion? In such a case, the Catholic voter must ask and answer the question: What could possibly be a proportionate reason for the more than 45 million children (!!!) killed by abortion in the past 35 years? Personally, we cannot conceive of such a proportionate reason. (Really. Is there a more important issue? Consider that the Iraq war has killed 4,155 Americans in 5.5 years. In the same amount of time, an average of 7,071,428 Americans have been killed by doctors. Primum no nocere, indeed.)

Time for Catholics to Exercise Moral Leadership

The number of Catholics and the percentage of Catholics in the United States have never been greater. There has never been a moment in our nation's history when more Catholics served in elective office, presided in our courts or held other positions of power and authority. It would be wrong for us to use our numbers and influence to try to compel others to accept our religious and theological beliefs. However, it would be equally wrong for us to fail to be engaged in the greatest human rights struggle of our time, namely the need to protect the right to life of the weakest and most vulnerable.

We need committed Catholics in both major political parties to insist upon respect for the values they share with so many other people of faith and good will regarding the protection of the sanctity of human life, the upholding of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman as the foundation of family life, as well as the protection of religious liberty and conscience rights (This is a new battleground to me. Some medical students are becoming increasingly upset that they are required to study abortion in med school, but are compelled as part of their curriculum.). It is particularly disturbing to witness the spectacle of Catholics in public life vocally upset with the Church for teaching what it has always taught on these moral issues for 2,000 years, but silent in objecting to the embrace, by either political party, of the cultural trends of the past few decades that are totally inconsistent with our nation's history of defending the weakest and most vulnerable.

Thank you for taking time to consider these reflections on applying the moral principles that must guide our choices as voters. We are called to be faithful Catholics and loyal Americans. In fact, we can only be good citizens if we allow ourselves to be informed by the unchanging moral principles of our Catholic faith.

I think this is a well-written statement to Catholics. America needs more bishops who act as good shepherds for their flock!

My work, school and life schedule is keeping me a lot busier than I thought I'd be, so I apologize for the short intermittent posting. And the comments! I'll work on it when I get the chance.

I'm usually a politics nerd. But this year, I'm having a hard time getting really excited about this Presidential race. Barring some unforseen disaster, I'm voting McCain/Palin this year-- and until a few weeks ago, considered abdicating my vote altogether. I can't explain it.

But the political season has been interesting from a Catholic perspective-- some of the most prominent Catholic Democrats are making indefensible statements about the Church and Abortion. Are you watching Madam Speaker Pelosi and Vice Presidential Hopeful Biden crowing about when life begins-- as if the matter is up to some kind of theological debate!

(One day I will tell my story of why I am pro-life. I don't have the energy to do so right now, but I will hammer it out one day. I am not pro-life just because I am Catholic, though it has certainly colored my view on the subject)

In the meantime, you should be following Sen. Biden and Rep. Pelosi step on themselves trying to explain why they see no conflict between declaring themselves Catholics and ignoring one of the Church's most important teachings on human souls. I suggest American Papist as THE BEST blog covering the issue in the blogosphere.

I'll resume regular blogging sooner or later. Outside life is demanding most of my attention lately.

Today is the Primary Election Day in Kansas. The building where I work is a polling location so it was hard to find a place to park this morning.

The price we pay for democracy!

Kindly, take a moment to pray for voters and candidates; for wisdom and courage.

AN ELECTION PRAYER TO MARY

O Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Mercy, at this most critical time, we entrust the United States of America to your loving care.

Most Holy Mother, we beg you to reclaim this land for the glory of your Son. Overwhelmed with the burden of the sins of our nation, we cry to you from the depths of our hearts and seek refuge in your motherly protection.

Look down with mercy upon us and touch the hearts of our people. Open our minds to the great worth of human life and to the responsibilities that accompany human freedom.

Free us from the falsehoods that lead to the evil of abortion and threaten the sanctity of family life. Grant our country the wisdom to proclaim that God's law is the foundation on which this nation was founded, and that He alone is the True Source of our cherished rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

O Merciful Mother, give us the courage to reject the culture of death and the strength to build a new Culture of Life.

From EWTN. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners.

A friend of mine's wife (who is also a friend of mine) is currently in labor. It's their first child and taking a while. Keep them in your prayers, please.

Prayer For One In Childbirth Hail, O Queen of Heaven, Mother of Mercy, Consolation of life, and Joy of them that love you! To you do we cry for this poor sufferer. In your maternal goodness, take pity on her. Abandon her not in her pains, since she places a childlike confidence in you. Through your own blessed delivery and your Divine Son, stand by her and gladden her with a happy delivery, that she may gratefully praise your kindness! In all our troubles and necessities, we fly to you for help, O Blessed Virgin Mary. Amen.

Thanks for your help. Blessed Virgin Mary, Lady of Good Help, ora pro nobis!

Since the Supreme Pontiff arrived in America, the three branches of US Government welcomed His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI in their own unique ways.

The President greeted the pope at Andrews Air Force Base, then threw a welcome ceremony with 13,500 people, the Marine Corps band and a 21-gun salute.

The United States Congress passed a resolution welcoming the pope, even though Senator Barbara Boxer noted she does not value each and every human life.

For their part, the Supreme Court voted 7-2 to kill people. There are 5 members of the Court who are Catholic: Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. They were joined by Breyer (Jewish) and Stevens (Protestant), all voting for more death. The two dissenting justices were Ginsburg (Jewish) and Souter (Episcopalian).

Welcome to America, Holy Father. Ora pro nobis.

Creative Minority Report has a post up that called my attention to a tragedy at Yale. An unknown number of people were murdered by poisioning by Aliza Shvarts, a student at Yale. She videotaped their death, then smeared the blood of the victims on plastic sheets.

Yale University did not call the police. Rather, the Universtiy encouraged the purpetrator and will hang the carnage in a University art gallery. Yale is expected to honor Ms. Shvarts with a college degree.

I am not making this up. The story below, is taken from the Yale Daily News, and is graphic.

For senior, abortion a medium for art, political discourse
Martine Powers
Staff Reporter
Published Thursday, April 17, 2008

Art major Aliza Shvarts '08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts' project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock . saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value."

"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."

The "fabricators," or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.

Shvarts declined to specify the number of sperm donors she used, as well as the number of times she inseminated herself.

Art major Juan Castillo '08 said that although he was intrigued by the creativity and beauty of her senior project, not everyone was as thrilled as he was by the concept and the means by which she attained the result.

"I really loved the idea of this project, but a lot other people didn't," Castillo said. "I think that most people were very resistant to thinking about what the project was really about. [The senior-art-project forum] stopped being a conversation on the work itself."

Although Shvarts said she does not remember the class being quite as hostile as Castillo described, she said she believes it is the nature of her piece to "provoke inquiry."

"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."

The display of Schvarts' project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts' self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.

Schvarts will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room.

School of Art lecturer Pia Lindman, Schvarts' senior-project advisor, could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.

Few people outside of Yale's undergraduate art department have heard about Shvarts' exhibition. Members of two campus abortion-activist groups . Choose Life at Yale, a pro-life group, and the Reproductive Rights Action League of Yale, a pro-choice group . said they were not previously aware of Schvarts' project.

Alice Buttrick '10, an officer of RALY, said the group was in no way involved with the art exhibition and had no official opinion on the matter.

Sara Rahman '09 said, in her opinion, Shvarts is abusing her constitutional right to do what she chooses with her body.

"[Shvarts' exhibit] turns what is a serious decision for women into an absurdism," Rahman said. "It discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion."

CLAY member Jonathan Serrato '09 said he does not think CLAY has an official response to Schvarts' exhibition. But personally, Serrato said he found the concept of the senior art project "surprising" and unethical.

"I feel that she's manipulating life for the benefit of her art, and I definitely don't support it," Serrato said. "I think it's morally wrong."

Shvarts emphasized that she is not ashamed of her exhibition, and she has become increasingly comfortable discussing her miscarriage experiences with her peers.

"It was a private and personal endeavor, but also a transparent one for the most part," Shvarts said. "This isn't something I've been hiding."

The official reception for the Undergraduate Senior Art Show will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on April 25. The exhibition will be on public display from April 22 to May 1. The art exhibition is set to premiere alongside the projects of other art seniors this Tuesday, April 22 at the gallery of Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall on Chapel Street.

I am so upset that I am shaking right now.

ora pro nobis peccatoris

presidents.office@yale.edu

UPDATE! I was not making it up. It turns out, Shvarts was. It's a hoax, but somehow this doesn't make it any better.

The more that the "Performance Art" genre of art-students and their camcorders develops, the more I hate it. Is it wrong to hate a medium? Who cares?