 |
| NL Coat of Arms: Seek ye first the kingdom of God |
Will Frank Coleman make a good premier for our province? I
don’t know and at this point it may be anyone’s guess. His wife’s and his
children’s candid opinions might be our most reliable guide at this point,
assuming we could access them. However, failing that, I think we have heard and
seen enough to make some essential points. How is a man to be evaluated for
political office? Is character a chief consideration? Does honesty and integrity
figure anywhere into the equation? Or is the determination to be made on the
basis of a results-oriented ability to achieve certain ends?
In this posting my comments will focus on mainly one matter:
On the basis of the recent “abortion controversy”, has newly minted politician
Frank Coleman managed to retain his
Catholic credentials? Has there been an
egregious violation of Catholic character and allegiance to the Church,
resulting in a most fundamental misrepresentation of the Catholic faith? Is
Frank Coleman worthy of the name “Catholic?” Does he deserve the stamp of “faithful
Catholic politician”?
The media have been very reluctant to bring up the subject
of Frank Coleman’s religion. Scary and extreme stuff like religion must be kept
ultra-personal and out of sight; so says the moral relativists but such an
approach is dangerous to the common good.
My analysis is not meant to be a personal attack but solely
an attempt to protect the Catholic faith from further misrepresentation and
scandal. Consider this posting then as a public service.
Coleman pronounced what I call his “Ten Commandments” for
political leadership in an
interview
last week with VOCM’s Paddy Daly. He had previously issued at least one
statement
via a press release through his Twitter account to answer questions about his
involvement in the March for Life in Corner Brook. The VOCM interview is posted
in one of my previous blog entries. Were these “Ten Commandments” actually
statements of faith or were they ten outrageous public statements amounting to
a denial (at least objectively) of his Catholic faith?
First Commandment: Thou
shalt not impose thine own personal views when the “groupthink” bullies clamour
Coleman said: “I do
not intend to impose my personal views.”
The Church says: Catholics are “wide of the mark who think
that religion consists in acts of worship alone” and “plunge themselves into
earthly affairs in such a way as to imply that these are altogether divorced
from the religious life.” Such a split is “to be counted among the more serious
errors of our age,” a “scandal” and one “fought vehemently against by Jesus
Christ Himself in the New Testament threatening it with grave punishments.” Vatican
II, Gaudium Spes, (43)
I imagine that it will suffice for a good number of “active’
NL Catholics that Coleman asserts his pro-life position and particularly that
he attends the annual March for Life in Corner Brook. However there is an extreme
split in logic evident when Coleman qualifies his position by saying he won’t
impose his personal views. Clearly Coleman grasps the fact that abortion kills
a small child yet he is willing to say “Although I believe that abortion is the
intentional
murder of a
defenseless child, rest assured, I won’t do anything to stop it.” If this can
be termed logic, its name is Insane. Which other categories of human beings
does Coleman believe could be terminated through laws?
I’ve posted recently on the cowardly and shallow defense of
“I’m
Personally Opposed, But” (IPOB) argument raised by Coleman and thousands
more “pro-life” politicians like him.
And exactly who are the people that Coleman won’t impose his
views on? Precisely those “liberated” individuals who are divorced from reason
and the common good and who facilitate, knowingly or not, the bankruptcy of a
moral minded state. What about the large number of NL’ers who, regardless of
whether they identify as “pro-choice” or “pro-life”, have some degree of
opposition to the state denying the citizen’s “right to choose” whether
taxpayer money pays for the destruction of little babies in the womb? Does
Coleman have no respect for this
large body of voters? His choice to not
“impose his views” will certainly impact these people significantly and will,
in effect, constitute an imposition.
How shallow and hypocritical of Coleman. His “First
Commandment” indicates that he respects only the shrill voice of bullies, in
this case that hyper-sexualized constituency with more than its fair share of loud
mouthed extremists who constantly shout out the mantra of “choice.”
It was a
scandal
when, during the election of 2004 Catholic Prime Minister
Paul
Martin, he made so bold as to
declare
on national TV his determination to preserve a woman’s “right to choose”. The
next year
under
his watch “same-sex marriage” was enshrined into Canadian law. How shocking
was his conduct to many devout Canadian Catholics! And how much more shocking
that his
own
priest and
Archbishop
considered him a “faithful member” while he was at work dismantling Canada’s
moral fabric.
Paul Martin, although a Catholic, never claimed the title of
“pro-life” nor is there any record of him participating annually in a local
“March for Life”. That would have seemed totally off the wall at the time,
altogether too incomprehensible that a pro-life Catholic politician could be
respecting
on the open airwaves a woman’s choice to kill her child. Yet here we are about
ten years later in Canada and another Catholic politician, this time claiming
not only impressive pro-life credentials, but also visionary leadership as a
founder
of a private Catholic School, is using the same dangerous euphemisms and
safe-speech tactics in order to rally support for a bid for provincial Premier.
Just when we couldn’t imagine the Catholic standard being so low and corrupted
another renegade Catholic politician tries to demolish the standard altogether.
This is what the silence and blindness of the Canadian Bishops
accomplishes.
As to the further lunacy of “imposing personal views”, more
needs to be said:
It is especially fraudulent for politicians to take this position. Inflicting their views on others is precisely
what legislators are elected to do and every vote they make does just
that. Further, if a politician is not
going to be guided by his own personal views, then (a) why would he bother to
tell us what his personal views are, and (b) exactly whose personal views is he
going to be guided by?
Politicians who say they are Christians but that they won’t impose
their religious beliefs on others are also frauds. If some guy claimed to be a Christian while
owning a chain of triple-X theaters and porn shops, no one would believe that
he is sincere about his faith. That also
applies to politicians. When a person
says that if their faith collides with their politics, it is their faith they
will abandon, what they are actually saying is that God can’t trust them. So why should we?
Of course, when it comes to this “forcing beliefs” issue, the most
important point is that 45 to 50 million dead babies have had the pro-choice
mob’s beliefs forced on them. [Source]
Second Commandment:
Thou shalt not judge the “hard” choices of others
Coleman said: “That is
not my role. I wasn't ever given any crown to make judgment on the choices that
people have made …I am NOT trying to find ways to exact control over people's
choices.”
The Church says: Coleman need not profess any crown or power
to judge in himself. He need only joyfully embrace his Catholic faith which
insists: “Political leaders” are “not to give in, but to make those choices
which, taking into account what is realistically attainable, will lead to the
re-establishment of a just order in the defence and promotion of the value of
life.”
St. John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, (90d). Furthermore, “it is,
however, the Church’s right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal
matters when this is required by faith or the moral law.”
The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, (3)
Very conveniently Coleman, after the fashion of the
tolerance mob, offers only one-half of the Bible’s verdict on judgement:
Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you
will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. Luke 6:37
However, the Christian is indeed exhorted to judge:
Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous
judgment. John 7:24
Christians are called to judge righteously, that is, with
the same judgment that God judges. Such judgment must issue from a well formed
conscience, fully in tune with the Holy Scriptures and with the teaching of
Christ’s Church. A Catholic is never called upon to surrender his/her
conscience in order to accommodate moral evil or the bad choices of others
which run contrary to the common good. Nor should a Catholic like Frank Coleman
hesitate to speak the truth of God on the subject of a reprehensible evil such
as abortion, which was the context of his Second
Commandment.
It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent,
found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible. “There cannot be
two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called
‘spiritual life’, with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called
‘secular’ life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities,
in the responsibilities of public life and in culture.
…
Living and acting in conformity with one’s own conscience on questions
of politics is not slavish acceptance of positions alien to politics or some
kind of confessionalism, but rather the way in which Christians offer their
concrete contribution so that, through political life, society will become more
just and more consistent with the dignity of the human person.
Those who, on the basis of respect for individual conscience, would
view the moral duty of Christians to act according to their conscience as
something that disqualifies them from political life, denying the legitimacy of
their political involvement following from their convictions about the common
good, would be guilty of a form of intolerant secularism. Such a position would
seek to deny not only any engagement of Christianity in public or political
life, but even the possibility of natural ethics itself. Were this the case,
the road would be open to moral anarchy, which would be anything but legitimate
pluralism. The oppression of the weak by the strong would be the obvious
consequence. The
Participation of Catholics in Political Life, (6c,d)
Third Commandment:
Thou shalt not hope to overturn the status quo on evil
Paddy Daly asks: Let's
just call it a march or rally. Does that not in fact mean that you are putting
forward your opinion that would hope to change policy and legislation? Coleman
said: No I don't. I don't believe [so].
The Church says:
But responsibility likewise falls on the legislators who have promoted
and approved abortion laws, and, to the extent that they have a say in the
matter, on the administrators of the health-care centres where abortions are
performed.” St. John Paul II, Evangelium
Vitae, (59b)
Again, Coleman seems comfortable with the status quo on all
aspects of abortion, including the payment by taxpayers of the actual
“terminations” at the
local
killing centres. I believe it is accurate to say that as the new Premier he
will be the new administrator-in-chief of all government operations, including
the province’s healthcare system. As such, he will be accountable to God for
the lives of every innocent child who dies through his neglect of duty, to the
extent that he had a say in the matter.
The responsibility for healthcare management and costs,
under which abortion services fall, belongs to the provincial government, not
the federal government. Even though a provincial government may not place an impediment
that altogether prevents abortions from being performed, it has latitude to
rule that abortions performed in private clinics will not be paid for by the
taxpayer, as
P.E.I.
and New Brunswick currently do. Furthermore it can require stricter
conditions for abortion procedures in its hospitals, an altogether reasonable
approach given the controversial nature of abortion and the fact that with
modern medicine it
NEVER
takes place out of medical necessity.
It would have been perfectly legitimate for Coleman to
respond to Paddy Daly’s question by expressing great empathy for the women
victimized by abortion in our province, which he partially did, but then
reinforce the objective truth about abortion, appealing for justice for the
unborn child who is also and always a (dead) victim. He could then have gone on
to say, at the very least, that he and his Cabinet, at the appropriate time,
would look at the current delivery of abortion “services” and ensure that the
best interests of all NL’ers were being taken into account.
Granted, that would have given rise to more alarm and more
questions, but Mr. Catholic politician, at all costs live up to your calling,
and if you still can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Fourth Commandment:
Thou shalt respect the prevailing laws of society even if they run counter to
the common good
Paddy Daly asks: We've
had societal debates (same sex marriage, alternative lifestyles) that have led
to legislation. Can you speak to any of those? Do you think that's a legitimate
road we now have to go down?
Coleman said: I have
respect of the rule of law or whatever that rule of law is regarding whatever
social issue you're speaking of. I said that in my statement on Friday. I said,
look, you know I respect the rule of law and I’m prepared to obey it and I
understand that people have choices to make and I respect those choices and I'm
not about, under any circumstances, Paddy, to exercise any influence over choices
people make.
Coleman was given an open door here to reiterate Catholic
teaching on the subject of “same sex marriage” and gender ideologies. He
altogether declined to shine a light on these unnatural vices, but rather
excused them on the grounds that they have been settled by law. Catholics
serving in politics, as well as Catholics heading to the polls, are required to
take their consciences with them.
“…the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous
marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in
the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation
be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition
as such. The
Participation of Catholics in Political Life, (4c)
Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate
formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are
contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to
cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified
either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the
fact that civil law permits it or requires it"
Oftentimes, Catholic politicians who hold anti-life positions defend
their voting record on the ground that they are following their constituency or
the will of the “majority.” One cannot however defend an unjust law on the
ground of political consensus. We do not consider the “Jim Crow” laws, which
discriminated against African Americans, “just” because the majority of the
population supported them.
Catholic politicians have the responsibility to work against an unjust
law, even when a majority of the electorate supports it. When Catholic
politicians cannot immediately overturn an unjust law, they must never cease to
work toward that end. At the very least, they must limit, as much as possible,
the evil caused by the unjust law. Pope John Paul II illustrates for us this
important moral principle: “[W]hen it is not possible to overturn or completely
abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal
opposition to procured abortion was well known, (Encyclical Letter Evangelium
Vitae, “On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life” [March 25, 1995], n.
73c).
Among the many "social conditions" which the Catholic must
take into account in voting, the above serious moral issues must be given the
first consideration. The Catholic voter must seek, above every other
consideration, to protect the common good by opposing these practices which
attack its very foundations. Thus, in weighing all of the social conditions
which pertain to the common good, we must safeguard, before all else, the good
of human life and the good of marriage and the family. On
Our Civic Responsibility for the Common Good (29)
Fifth Commandment:
Thou shalt assume all faiths are equally based upon the truth
Coleman said: The
strength of a democracy rests on our ability to draw upon leaders from varied
faiths.
The Church says:
Democracy succeeds only to the extent that it is based on truth and a
correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political
life cannot compromise on this principle; otherwise Christian witness to the
splendour of truth in the public sphere would be silenced and an autonomy from
morality proclaimed. Pope Benedict XVI, Ad
Limina Visit Canadian Bishops 2006, (3c)
All men of good faith and from different religious backgrounds
and traditions can indeed make a contribution to our political process.
However, the Catholic Church claims to be the one true Church ordained by Jesus
Christ for the salvation of all mankind. Other Christian groups and
denominations, even other religions, are not excluded from salvation but the
Catholic Church alone possesses the fullness of truth granted to man by God.
The following
paragraph
from the Catechism helps to express this truth:
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of
truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church:
"the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity,
with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible
elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities
as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth
that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from
Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic
unity."
Christian and other faith group leaders undoubtedly will
have their views on how best to govern in a democracy; however the Catholic
Church is entrusted by God with the fullness of truth concerning the nature of
man and his eternal welfare. Thus the Catholic Church alone has the God given
competency to speak definitively to the claims of democracy and man’s relationship
within that system; to wit, in this very abortion controversy, the Catholic
Church demands consideration, justice and protection for every human being
involved, especially the unborn child.
Once again, Frank Coleman, as a Catholic, has failed to
reflect the mind of the Church, this time on the very political system of which
he desires to be part. Does he believe that the Catholic Church has the full
weight of heaven behind it to oversee and pass judgment on our democratic
process when it goes astray? If so, why is he dodging Catholic truth at every
turn in respect of this abortion controversy?
All this is not to say that Coleman must go around preaching
the Bible and extolling the superiority of the Catholic faith and denigrating
other religions. In fact, it may be necessary for him in political office to only
rarely, if ever, mention his Catholic faith. However, as a Catholic Premier, he
must know and respect the truth—as revealed and taught by the Catholic Church and
particularly as it pertains to the common good—and apply it in thought, word
and deed to the best of his ability.
Sixth Commandment:
Thou shalt not limit in any way existing state funding, even for moral crimes
Coleman said: I do not
in any way intend to dictate any change in current public funding models or
policies that would have any negative impact on what current access to those
services are in the province right now.
“Those services” are the suctioning and dismembering of
babies in their early stages of development. Does Frank Coleman not appreciate
the gravity of his own words?
The Church says:
“As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium
Vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or
completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming
up for a vote, ‘an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to
procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at
limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences
at the level of general opinion and public morality’.” The
Participation of Catholics in Political Life, (4a)
Seventh Commandment:
Thou shalt respect a diversity of (corrupt) views and enforce conformity to
their immoral behaviours
Coleman said: We are
very embracing of the diversity that exists in our society and I understand
that. I get that. But it is important that we be tolerant of people with
private views.
The Church says:
The question is often framed this way: “In a pluralistic
society isn't it better, however, if a politician makes up his own mind,
without being sectarian and advancing only the views of his own religion?”
First, in no other matter, save religion, is a politician expected to
leave his personal beliefs at the door to civil office. Yet, in no other
matter, save religion, is the right to personal belief protected by the Constitution,
for citizens and politicians alike.
Secondly, some worldview is going to be the foundation of everyone's
thinking, giving it coherence and direction. It might be atheism, agnosticism,
scientism, communism, feminism, nihilism or simple egotism, but, for most
people it is religion. It determines their conscience and, as a consequence,
their decisions and actions. To ask them to set it aside, or for them to set it
aside, may have the appearance of pluralism but in reality it calls into
question their integrity. If something so important can be set aside, how can
they be trusted to hold to other less important principles?
Sadly, opinion polls show that the public has a low confidence in
politicians, believing that they flip-flop according to the political winds.
Nothing could be more disastrous for a democracy. Far better to have a man of
known principles in office, even if they are not entirely one's own, than a man
of no principle. The ancient political philosophers, such as Plato and Cicero,
correctly identified the weakness of democracy, its tendency to mob mentality
over principle. For democracy to work the principles of politicians need to be
known and their word be trustworthy. [Source]
Eighth Commandment:
Thou shalt not live by a personal code of conduct
Coleman said: I would
think it would be refreshing that somebody would stand up and say look this is
what I believe in but it's not going to affect how I'm going to do my job.
The Church says:
A Catholic strives to "have the mind of Christ" in every
judgment and act. “There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on
the one hand, the so-called ‘spiritual life’, with its values and demands; and
on the other, the so-called ‘secular’ life, that is, life in a family, at work,
in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in
culture.” Pope St. John Paul II, Christifideles
Laici (59)
If I said that I
believe harassment in the workplace is totally unacceptable but that this view
is not going to affect how I do my job, would you really want me as an
employee, let alone a manager or leader in an organization?
Ninth Commandment: Thou shalt manage and mould the hard
truths to thine own political benefit
Coleman said: This is as far away from a protest as
anything I can imagine. You know probably it’s more like a parade of people who
have, you know, similar views. And who are walking to sort of indicate that
there may be an alternative.
The Church says: The March For Life is based on the teaching
that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter
Evangelium
Vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or
promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear
obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an
intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it
is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign
in favour of such a law or vote for it'" (no. 73).
Coleman is suggesting the March for Life is more like a
parade that people attend to celebrate life and who simply want to share the
opinion that it might be better not to deliberately kill tiny babies. However—to
follow through on Coleman’s reasoning—no problem if that’s what you really feel
you must do, we’re only making a suggestion. What a pathetic betrayal of the
pro-life position!
Tenth Commandment: Seek
ye first to command the troops and run a tight ship
Coleman said: I'm here
to, what I believe is, run the province.
The Church says:
No Catholic, least of all a politician, can “think of delegating his
Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives
him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed
and put into action.” The
Participation of Catholics in Political Life, (4b)
“The
democratic structures on which the modern state is based would be quite fragile
were its foundation not the centrality of the human person. It is respect for
the person that makes democratic participation possible. As the Second Vatican
Council teaches, the protection of ‘the rights of the person is, indeed, a
necessary condition for citizens, individually and collectively, to play an
active part in public life and administration’.” The
Participation of Catholics in Political Life, (3c)
Frank Coleman, as a Catholic, should be thinking primarily
of the salvation of souls in his new position. This would necessitate
widespread and ongoing efforts to achieve the common good, thereby truly
improving people’s lives, not just keeping a machine running smoothly—as you would
simply administer a business. Coleman has a higher calling as a civil servant.
As a servant of God, he is now a servant of the people in a much more profound
role. He now has a much greater responsibility before God and a correspondingly
greater accountability. However, his comments do not reflect such a reality. He
seems to be saying what he thinks the chattering masses wants to hear.
Rather than “run the province”, how much better if Coleman
had said his job was to restore trust in the political machinery of the
province, with an emphasis on character, integrity, and principles? He
maintains that everybody matters so why not use that as a launching pad to
emphasize the vital necessity of advancing the
common
good? At least he would have pointed people in the right direction in their
expectations. His extensive background in the business world could no doubt
play a crucial role in his future success as Premier, but it certainly shouldn’t
be the chief selling point. Even renegade Catholic
Pierre
Elliot Trudeau had pitched his “just society” to appeal to more than simple
economics.
Frank Coleman recently
said:
I'm a fellow of conviction; I'm not afraid to admit who I am, and I
think that I have an approach to managing my own affairs and my business that
could be helpful in the province — and I'll let the people of the province
decide that over the coming months…"
The province is just rocking, and I don't want to see that stop. I
really believe that we are, and have a chance of, becoming, one of the most
prosperous jurisdictions in the entire continent.
But is our province really “rocking”? Many would disagree
with this assessment, on a purely economic basis, let alone on the basis of looming
crises in debt, healthcare, and
demography.
I maintain on the social issues as well we are in a state of crisis, largely
precipitated over the course of decades due to the same kind of political
neglect of the common good as detailed in this posting.
Well then, how should Coleman have approached this whole political
affair?
Honestly.
As a Catholic.
As the Church prescribes for politicians bearing the name of
Christ.
Aim for the heavens.
“Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.”
Take his lumps.
If judged unworthy of office, he would only be following in
the footsteps of his Master, of whom, likewise,
the world was
not worthy.
Is there nobody out
there to help a Catholic become a worthy politician?
Catholic saints have been martyred while uttering dying
words such as these: “Man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from
morality.” St. John the Baptist surrendered his head to defend God’s eternal
law on marriage and divorce. Were any of them “imposing their personal views,”
“judging others” or trying to “change policy”?
Tragically, our Catholic Bishops give little evidence of
taking the warning seriously. Not one in our province has stepped forward to
diffuse this
scandal,
safeguard the faith and advance the
supreme
goal of the Church, which is the salvation of souls, including Mr.
Coleman’s. Such silence fails to confirm both Catholics and society in the
truth, much less empowers them to make wise decisions in overseeing their
political masters and
striving
for the common good.
Yet Bishops are there to keep the whole counsel of God before
the people continuously and
this
duty encompasses a presentation of the entirety of Church teaching in as
succinct and practical way as possible. Administering
Holy
Communion to one and to all and a pious sentiment here and there about the
Eucharist, about the poor, or about “
social
justice” falls far short of the divine plan.
This is without a doubt the greatest calamity in the entire Frank
Coleman political debacle and a tragic loss in terms of God’s best for the
future of our great province.
----------------------------------------------------
The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life
is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as
a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral
law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it
contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. "Nothing and
no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a
fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from
an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is
permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for
another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it,
either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend
or permit such an action" Evangelium
Vitae (57e)
