Catholic university will name building for pro-abortion politician


Sacred Heart University (SHU), the second largest Catholic university in the Northeast, has announced that they intend to dedicate a new building on campus to a pro-abortion rights Catholic politician.

The new building, named after former WWE CEO and Senatorial candidate Linda McMahon, was made possible by a $5 million gift from McMahon.

McMahon ran for Senate in 2010 and is currently running again in Connecticut. Although her 2012 campaign site doesn’t mention abortion at all, her 2010 campaign site tersely sums up her view on abortion, saying only, “I am pro-choice; however, I oppose partial-birth abortion and federal funding of abortions unless the life of the mother is at stake. I’m in favor of parental notification/parental consent legislation. “

She has also served on the Board of Directors of Sacred Heart University since 2004.

On the university’s website, Dr. John J. Petillo, president of SHU called McMahon “a leader in every sense of the word.”

McMahon reportedly said she was “extremely honored” to have her name on the building. “I support Sacred Heart University because of my commitment to the students, to education and, most importantly, because I believe in the University’s commitment to excellence and its mission to shape graduates who know themselves, are rooted in faith and are committed to social responsibility as they go out into the world,” she said. “If I can set any kind of example for them, I have more than done my job.”

Read more.


  1. ron chandonia says:

    Nothing will beat Georgetown’s Kennedy Institute of Ethics.

  2. My life’s mentor, Father Luke McCann, always used to say that colleges should never name a building after someone unless they’ve been dead at least fifty years. In that way, he reasoned, the person’s life would have been thoroughly vetted, with most, if not all, principles in that person’s life dead as well. It’s sound thinking.

    Seton Hall University named buildings after a couple of the principles in the Enron scandal and needed to rename them. How much worse for Sacred Heart that they KNOWINGLY name a building after a major proabort politician.

    I suppose the rationale will be that she has served well on the Board of Directors and has been good to the university financially. On both counts it is insufficient grounds for naming a building after McMahon. First there are, doubtless, many Board members who have served longer, better, and ultimately procured more money for the school through several funding streams. Secondly, there are many wealthy, potential benefactors who would otherwise be supportive but for the embrace of the McMahons by the school. There are many wealthy Catholic alumni who do not donate to their alma maters because of the radical departure of the school from the Catholic identity and education that helped form them many decades ago.

    For “Catholic” colleges and universities it all comes down to whether or not they stand with the Magisterium and offer the sort of education that made schools like Notre Dame and Sacred Heart truly great. Toward that end, the corporate identity of the Board of Directors becomes one of the most visible signs of the president’s heart and mind, as she/he is the one who appoints the Board members.

  3. I wonder if they would have asked for $10million if she was also in favor of partial birth abortions? How about $15million for the whole pro-abortion package. Now we are talking some serious money.

  4. Diakonos09 says:

    WOW sure beats 30 pieces of silver.

  5. Katie Angel says:

    It is a sad day that the college has taken this step. Our Catholic identity should not be sullied this way.

  6. Absolutely nothing.

  7. Touche.

  8. Yes, well, at least the price of betraying the innocent has gone up. I guess that’s actually progress, no?

  9. What exactly has she done to warrant a building being named after her? She’s really not a politician, having never been elected in. The accomplisment is that she has donated money, lots of money. Sad day.

  10. Calling Ed Peters,

    Can this be used, in part, by the local bishop to pull the school’s mandatum? At the least can he say that this indicates a betrayal of the school’s Catholic identity and let it be known that they are no longer in good standing?

  11. Thinking that the alumni can stop donating, like I did to my alma mater UNC during the Clinton impeachment hearings. I enjoyed telling them why I stopped donating as well. $$$ talks to people like these. They have their reward.

  12. Eugene Pagano says:

    I’m reminded of the story about a person on a tour who saw a building with an unfamiliar name on it. He asked the guide who the person was.
    “A famous writer.”
    “What did he write?”
    “A check.”

  13. Though I’m sure I’ll be skewered, especially after reading these posts in which everyone takes such relish in denigrating this “proabort” woman, as well as offering a gratuitous cheap shot at the Kennedy’s, identifying this woman as “pro-abortion” in the headline is, to me, misleading and remarkably simplistic. She’s never had an abortion that we know of, performed an abortion, or given advice to someone to have an abortion. She was not on the court that made abortion legal in this country. She may have also helped support programs like day care, education, health care access, counselling programs, etc that would make it far more likely that a woman would not want or feel like she needs an abortion.

    In the ludicrously simplistic discussion that is “pro-life” in this country, you can get away with anything and be considered a “good” Catholic so long as you say you’re “against” abortion, even if every other law you pass makes it more likely a woman will feel pressured to get an abortion as she can’t get access to health care, she can’t make enough money to support a family (minimum wage), her day care program was cut because the funding for non-essential services is no longer available, etc.

  14. Ha, ha!

  15. “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” Matthew 12:30 “If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you.” John 15:19 That kind of sums up the situation.

    Btw, it’s my understanding Mother Teresa of Calcutta accepted $$ even when it came from questionable sources (though I don’t know if that applies to abortion supporters since she was so adamantly against such). She just didn’t go around naming dying centers, or houses of the poor, or convents in the name of those donors.

  16. Excellent comments on this thread! My own take:
    Money talks, BS walks.

    To understand why these things happen (assuming one has a thorough knowledge of the wide-spread and profound dissent that marks large numbers of “professional Catholics”) it helps to look at the Catholic Church in the US as a business. Financially, we are a health, social service, and education empire with a small side business of divine worship. You can bet that Seton Hall has a higher income than the local diocese and its parishes combined. That’s why the university will pay local Catholics no attention when it comes to scandal.

  17. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    Good points all, Patrick.

    But it doesn’t lend much moral credibility to a Catholic university when it decides to name a building for someone who is a public advocate of abortion rights — and when it does so seemingly because she wrote a substantial check.

    Dcn. G.

  18. Bill McGeveran says:

    I tend to go along with Patrick. While I do not agree with supporting legalized abortion, or being “pro-choice,” it is not the same as being pro-abortion. Also I do not think being “pro choice” should bar a person from being a Catholic or even necessarily from being honored by a Catholic university, though it might weigh against it and may deserve criticism.. Honoring the person does nor preclude disagreement.

  19. ” ‘The clouds roll with thunder, the House of the Lord shall be built throughout the earth, and these frogs sit in their marsh and croak—‘We are the only Christians!’ ”

    “So wrote St. Augustine about the Donatists, a perfectionist North African sect that attempted to keep the church free of contamination by having no truck with Roman officialdom.” – America magazine, 11 May 2009

    Posts like the one about Linda McMahon, and the comments they provoke, reveal the sectarian nature that now plagues the Catholic Church in the United States. Read the editorial here ( Many of you will not like it, but, indeed, Donatists we have become.

  20. “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?” Mark 8:36 KJV

    For “man” read “woman” and/or “institution”.

  21. Excellent article…demonstrating nuance and making clear the very real danger that, in the eyes of some, Republican=Conservative=Catholic, and all others need to straighten up and climb on board. To see how utterly destructive and harmful that can be, just look at how “Pro-Life” now equals “Republican” in most people’s eyes….as a result, Democrats tune out, rhetoric and partisanship rule, and few hearts are ever changed.

  22. Patrick and Bill McGeveran:

    I agree. I don’t see the logic of calling someone who is pro-choice, pro-abortion or pro-abort.

    Linda McMahon’s own words: “I am pro-choice; however, I oppose partial-birth abortion and federal funding of abortions unless the life of the mother is at stake. I’m in favor of parental notification/parental consent legislation. “

    Interesting words from a REPUBLICAN.

    By the way, for what will the building be used? Perhaps, a gym where the wrestling team can practice?

  23. Agreed…there could have been many better choices. However, the earlier posts taking shots at this woman prompted my response.

  24. Deacon Bill says:

    Dear Gerard,
    I’m not Ed, but I’ll hazard a response, since I’m part of the Catholic higher education ministry. A school doesn’t get a mandatum under the provisions of “Ex Corde Ecclesiae.” The mandatum exists (or not) between a particular professor and the diocesan bishop. Period.

    God bless,
    Deacon Bill

  25. Bill McGeveran says:

    I think the America editorial cited by mjl above has it right and though it was written in reference to the 2009 Notre Dame controversy it applies even more today. And while I would agree with Deacon Greg that getting a big check does not justify selling out on principle, I dont think this is a sellout. (I’d say, though, that if she should not have gotten the building named after her after giving $5 million, then the university should not have accepted the $5 million in the first place.)

  26. Yes, that and the fact that these self-appointed orthodox watchdogs are in the tradition of the schismatic Donatists, not the Catholic tradition of Augustine.

  27. The comments make me glad I went to a state university. The buildings are named after reputable people (most but not all have contributed money), no politicians I know of, and no one digs to find out things that are mentioned here. The only thing to wonder about is the design of the museum. It is different and I might like it.

  28. Deacon Steve says:

    And if I remember correctly it only applies to those teaching Theology. A mandata would not be given to a biology or chemitry teacher for example.

  29. deacon john m. bresnahan says:

    I agree with the concept that, especially in Catholic institutions, nothing should ever be named for someone until they have been dead for 50 years or so.
    The irony here is that though McMahon says she is “pro-choice” her stands on individual life issues will likely make her far more “pro-life” than just about any Conn. Democrat who will surely be fanatically “pro-choice” on every single issue.
    Plus, McMahon will probably do what all party members do upon election–vote to have her party control the Senate–which is a crucially important issue considering the major differences between the two major parties nationally on life and conscience issues.

  30. Joe Cleary says:

    The Cardinal Newman Society has a “point of view” that sometimes slants stories and selectively presents facts –
    I would like to see SHU’s response to this question and the facts presented.

  31. OK, I read the article and your comments. The Donatist controversy has nothing to do with what’s being discussed today. Donatism was opposed to admitting into the Church the “lapsi,” 4th century individuals who had renounced Christianity under the threat of persecution. St. Augustine felt otherwise, on the basis of extenuating circumstances.

    Pro-abortion politicians are not being persecuted as the “lapsi” were; and the editors of “America” fool themselves and insult St. Augustine by comparing their position to his.

    As history, their analysis is laughable.

  32. Sorry, but the “America” editorial is founded on a distorted and self-serving reading of the Donatist controversy. Donatism was opposed to admitting into the Church the “lapsi,” 4th century individuals who had renounced Christianity under the threat of persecution from pagan Roman authorities. St. Augustine argued, rightly, for leniency, on the basis of extenuating circumstances.

    Are pro-abortion politicians being persecuted as the “lapsi” were? Hardly! In fact, the opposite is the case: pro-abortion politicians are hailed by the current American caesar, not persecuted by his legions. Was St. Augustine’s position analogous to the position of the editors of “America” magazine? Only in their dreams. In fairness, though, perhaps the editorial was written while the regular staff was on retreat and the Jesuit high school boys were filling in.

  33. You’re still wrong P, or at least you’re being pedantic. None of the accusations you allege were leveled at this women here, so in defending her from same, you are slaying phantoms. I need not not have owned a slave, or traded in slaves, or recommended someone’s acquiring slaves, to have failed in justice toward slaves by my upholding the legality of slavery in a society. Especially as a legislator. Not every pro-lifer deserves to have a building named after him or her, but no one who supports the legality of killing babies pre-natally should have a building named after them, especially on a purportedly Catholic campus.

  34. wish we could edit posts. there are 2 nots in my my post, spotted only when the text rearranged itself

  35. Put it next to the John F. (Jack) Welch College of Business!

  36. pagansister says:

    For $5 million anyone can get their name on a building! Schools need $$ and many need buildings, so no reasonable college/university is going to turn down that kind of dough. Also, how many students in the university are going to know that she is pro-choice? Not many I suspect, and how many would care anyhow? Mark, she is pro-choice —that doesn’t make her pro-abortion. BIG difference.

  37. Deacon Bill says:

    Dear Steve,
    You are correct, although the mandatum would involve more than professors of Theology; it includes anything that would be included under the umbrella of “the sacred sciences”: so that would include canon law and so forth.

    Deacon Bill

  38. “No reasonable college/university is going to turn down that kind of dough.” Oh, be serious. Of course many would, if the donor/designee stood in stark contrast to the values of the institution. And the “I’m not pro-abortion, I’m just pro-choice [to have abortion]” is the oldest canard in this matter. For the millionth time, “I’m not, repeat, NOT, pro-slavery. I just support the legal right of those who choose to own slaves to exercise their right to do so. There is a BIG difference. I’m just pro-choice.” Good grief.

  39. Deacon Steve says:

    Thank you Bill. We didn’t spend a lot of time on this last semester in my Canon Law for Pastoral Ministry class, but I did do a case study on it. Wish you were going to be presenting at the RE Congress in LA this weekend. I miss your session there.

  40. Look, I’m not naive. Really. I know we did not get to the point where a Catholic university named in honor of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (for crying out loud) will take money to name a building in honor of a would-be politician who defends the legalization of abortion, unless a whole honkin’ big lot of Catholics felt exactly same way as she does and they do. I get it. I really do.

    But, exactly how long do we think God will be mocked so? Seriously, how long is He really going to let us erect Catholic monuments to Catholic supporters of the murder of millions upon millions of the most innocent, and not just up and let fly?


  41. Maybe someone can answer this question.

    Why is that the Vatican goes after conservative Catholics groups with threats about using the term ‘Catholic’.


    “Catholic” colleges like Notre Dame, Sacred Heart, Georgetown, Depaul, Loyola, etc — which are pro-abortion and have anti-Vatican policies are free to use the Catholic label?

  42. Deacon Steve says:

    George you are painting with a very broad brush. For example which Loyola are you refering to? There are many. And notice that none of those colleges has the word “Catholic” in their name. Just because Sacred Heart is naming a building after a pro-choice college doesn’t mean that they are teaching against what the Church teaches. Nothing in the article says that they are teaching contrary to the Church’s teaching. A name on a building, while in bad taste I agree, doesn’t mean that one is teaching in error. I think it is bad form, but not necessarily an indication that they are teaching error. Ex Corde Ecclesiae calls for the colleges and univeristies to work in conjunction with the Bishops, but the bishops do not have direct control of them.

  43. Joe Cleary says:

    Ed & Pagan

    Not to minimize the issues involved, SHU missed a simple trick of the fund raising racket that gets them the dough and avoids honoring a politician who is publicly pro choice.

    Take the cash and name it after her PARENTS – who I am sure were honorable enough.

    If she made her money in something illegal or contrary to Church doctrine – i.e. running abortion clinics – declining the money would be in order. The WWF may have been fake, but it was not contrary to church law ( the law of good taste perhaps)

  44. Joe Cleary says:

    Broad brush slander indeed!

    While I agree with Ed Peters that a” not in favor of abortion but pro choice position” can be a cop out- to declare these universities pro abortion and anti Vatican policy requires some evidence.

    Do they perform or advocate abortions?
    Name the anti- Vatican policy they have adopted

    The merits of UND inviting the POTUS to campus to address students can be debated, but it hardly translates into the school being pro abortion

    A adjunct professor in a field not subject to a mandatum who appears at an academic conference on a round table with someone from Planned Parenthood – may or may not have made the smartest choice- but it doesn’t make the entire University enterprise Pro Contraception and Abortion- no matter how much the CNS argues otherwise.

  45. Who is talking about the WFF? I’m talking about someone who supports the legalization of abortion, about naming a building after her. On a Catholic campus. THAT’s what we’re talking about.

  46. Joe Cleary says:

    I am simply saying that if they name the building after the donors parents ( or other family) it is a way around honoring a pro choice politician and getting money.

  47. Ditto, Ed.

  48. Ed,

    In response to your question about God being mocked, look in Revelation to the seven letters from Jesus to the seven churches. In each Jesus calls for them to return to Him or He would remove their lampstand (Church) from them. Today there is no sign that the Church ever existed in those cities. If we look about us in America and Europe, the lamp stand is vanishing while the Church grows strong below the equator. No, God will not be mocked. The HHS mandate is a taste of things to come.

  49. Thanks, Deacon Bill.

  50. Mark Greta says:

    Sorry Deacon, agree with Gerard Nadal that Patricks comments are at best overly simplistic. Supporting a legislator who supports abortion in any way requires the voter if Catholic to have a proportionate reason to vote for such a candidate. I have yet to have anyone show me anythng close to proportionate to 54 million murdered babies. I have yet to show me how this holocaust would be possible if Catholics refused to vote for anyone who supports abortion. If the Democrats were going to lose all Catholic votes, joined by those of other faiths opposed to abortion, unless they agreed to put justices on the court to stop legal abortion, it would result in stopping the killings in anywhere close to these numbers and the abortion mills would go out of business overnight. It is as simple as that. Love to hear how this is wrong or what could possibly be proportionate to the 54 million with 4,000 a day being added. I find it amazing that a Catholic Deacon would support in any way what Patrick is saying here.

  51. naturgesetz says:

    The basic question has always been whether abortion should be legal or not. In politics there always some secondary questions. But either you want women generally to be able to get abortions legally or you don’t.

    If the question were the legality of private possession of guns, we wouldn’t say some are anti-gun and others are pro-choice. The ones who want guns to be legal are pro-gun, whether or not they own any or actively counsel people to get them.

    If someone in the early 19th century wanted slavery to be legal, he was pro-slavery, not pro-choice, even if he didn’t want to own slaves himself.

    To refuse to call someone who wants to keep abortion legal pro-abortion is an attempt to hide from the reality of the situation.

  52. Mark Greta says:

    It is obvious that this University and many other organization that call themselve Catholic have a price for which they sell their body. Thus they are prostitutes.

    Calling yourself a Catholic prostitute still makes your a prostitute and only serves to insult a religion that these protestent organization still try to cling to for some strange reason. I think it is long past time for the Catholic Church USCCB to move strongly to end this insult to Christ and His Church across this country. If these prostitutes want to buy out the Cahtolic Church and become godless secular organizations, a price should be established that will support authentic Catholic organizations for the next 1,000 years and let them go their merry way. We have let these prostitutes use the name Catholic for far too long and in the process, have caused many of our young decieved by their false teaching to lose their faith. If for no other reason than this, time to move on and get this trash cleaned out of the Chruch.

  53. Mark Greta says:

    What is the choice? to allow the legalized murder of babies. This dancing to avoid truth always strikes me like a child trying to find an excuse for wanting to disobey rather than honor their mother and father.

    The first clue should come when your “thinking” is in direct conflict with the Pope and Magesterium of the Church on a non negotiable issue. In fact this problem seems to persist through your entire post. funny how selling yourself on the first distortion of truth leads to more distortions.

  54. Mark Greta says:

    I can see it now. The Adolph Hiter Center on a Jewish University that was given $5 Mill. After all, Hitler Death Camps only claimed 6 million Jews. Abortion supporting Democrats have racked up 54 million in their death camp abortion mills since 1973. So naming a building on a Catholic University after a member of the party that keeps abortion mills humming should be about nine times worse. The lives of all these people were created by our God and thus should find no home on anything with a Catholic name.

  55. Mark Greta says:

    Steve, do you read what you write?

    “Just because Sacred Heart is naming a building after a pro-choice college doesn’t mean that they are teaching against what the Church teaches.”

    Catholic non negotiable teaching has been, is, and always will be against the murder of babies which is what the choice is all about. it is not pro choice of the mom keeping the baby or giving it up for adoption. It is the choice of keeping it alive or murdering the baby. and pro life only accepts keeping it alive and pro abortion wants to allow the murder of babies. It is not only against Catholic teaching, but against one that the Pope has said is not negotiable to be allowed by any Catholic. If one has an abortion, they excommunicate themselves. If one votes for a pro abortion politician, they have to have some proportionate reason larger than 54 million dead babies.

    Only those seeking to find escape clauses as the serpent did with eve will not see the follow of mincing words and trying to believe our soul is not damaged by supporting this party of death.

  56. Mark Greta says:

    How about the letter from the USCCB that pro abortion politicians are not to be given speaking opportunities or honors by Catholic organizations? The Vatican supports the letter sent by the USCCB in this matter.

  57. Deacon Steve says:

    I am trying to figure out how having this person’s name on a building is proof that the University is not following Church teaching on abortion. Just because the person’s name is there does not mean that they are actively promoting abortion on the campus. The article says nothing about what they are teaching on the matter. It is wrong to assume and judge them based on facts not presented. Unless you can prove that they are actively teaching in opposition to Church teaching it is bearing false witness to delcare that they are. The Church is opposed to Abortion and any destruction of human life from conception to natural death, but the Church doesn’t say that we have to shun those who are in opposition to her teachings.

  58. hELENE ROMERO says:

    Disgraceful…”Sacred Heart”??? How low can we go?

  59. naturgesetz says:

    Oh come on. She isn’t performing abortions. She isn’t requiring abortions. Trying to equivalate her to Hitler goes too far, and the analogy doesn’t work. I’m not saying that they should have named the building for her, but this comparison is over the top.

  60. Elaine S. says:

    I do think the analogy of a Jewish institution naming a building after Hitler is more than a bit over the top in this case. A better comparision would be, say, a black university naming a building after Henry Clay, architect of the Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850, or Stephen A. Douglas, sponsor of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. These men were “pro-choice” on slavery, although Clay, in particular, agreed to placing some limits on its expansion (e.g. the famous 36′ 30″ boundary between slave and free territory) that were unacceptable to the more radically pro-slavery politicians of the time. So while they may not have been as “bad” on the issue as many aggressively pro-slavery Southerners were, I doubt very much that ANY African-American institution would see fit to honor them today. 150 years from now, if Sacred Heart University still exists, I wonder if they would see honoring someone like McMahon the same way.

  61. Okay, so changing the facts changes the story. I’m talking about the story at hand, and that’s pretty bad.

  62. Ah, yes. Isn’t it amazing how writing a check for 5 million dollars will get you the distinction of having a building named after you? Of course that this Catholic is pro choice doesn’t matter, right? What a disgrace!

  63. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    So naming a building on a Catholic University after a member of the party that keeps abortion mills humming should be about nine times worse.

    Linda McMahon is a Republican.

    Dcn. G.

  64. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    Do you know who Republican Linda McMahon is running against?

    You might want to do a little homework.

    Congressman Chris Murphy — who has actually served in the House of Representatives and, unlike McMahon, has a voting record — has voted for legislation providing greater access to abortion, has voted in favor of expanded stem cell research, has voted for wider access to birth control, and is in favor of legalizing same sex marriage. NARAL gave him a perfect score of 100.

    I think there are proportionate reasons there for a Connecticut Catholic to support McMahon over her opposition. (The point may be moot. She’s lagging far behind him in the polls.)

    Do your homework, “Mark Greta.”

  65. Sorry, Patrick. If there is a simplistic approach here, it is yours. You allude to some classic social justice issues, which I agree need to be addressed. However, the butchering of 54 million human beings in the country is something that McMahon supports as a “right”, and has staked out narrow exceptions.

    When I was a college seminarian I had dinner with Auxiliary Bishop Parick Ahern (during the famous debates between Governor Mario Cuomo and Cardinal O’Connor). I asked Bishop Ahern what was wrong with Cuomo stating that he must uphold the law regarding abortion, that he couldn’t let his faith interfere. Bishop Ahern explained that while Cuomo had a duty to uphold the law, he also had a unique opportunity to work within the system to bring about change.

    It was Cuomo’s refusal to work within the system to effect change that highlighted his hypocrisy about being personally opposed, but duty-bound to support. McMahon is worse because she is admittedly “pro-choice”, which means she will not work within the system to end abortion. At a minimum, she’ll sit on her hands. That’s pro-abortion, or being a proabort.

    “Whatever you neglected to do for the least of these, my brothers, you neglected to do for me.”

    There are none so poor, or least, as the unborn and it is a false dichotomy to speak of the abortion issue apart from the other social justice issues. It is monstrous to sacrifice the abortion issue in order to accomplish the legislative gals of the other social justice issues. By her own admission, McMahon supports the institution of abortion and will do nothing to bring it down.

    So a University dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus names a building after her.


  66. There are two different issues here: (1) justification, if any, for voting for X, who supports abortion; and (2) justification, if any, for naming a building in honor of such a person on a Catholic campus.

  67. No, she’s not Hitler. There are degrees of evil, as there are of good.

  68. Bill Kelly says:

    So – the Catholic University can be “purchased”. The whole idea is disgraceful. Of course Notre Dame University gave honors to our Pro Abortion, anti life, anti Catholic President. I am ashamed and embarrassed. God have mercy on those who make these decisions.

  69. The gun issue is much more complicated than you indicate and is not a good comparison to anything.

  70. pagansister says:

    Obviously Ed Peters, this university chose to take perfectly good US money. I stand by my statement—pro-choice is not pro abortion. Has nothing, nothing to do with your slavery statement.

  71. Mark Greta says:

    Deacon, you are wrong. I do not think you should support an R or D who support abortion. If both support abortion, in my view, a true pro life person should vote none of the above unless there is a proportionate reason.

    However, it is not the R pro abortion candidates in large numbers keeping abortion alive and well and killing 4,000 babies a day and you know it. I am against RINO pro abortion candidates as well. Some argue that you can have them with you on other issues, but to me the defining issue of our time is abortion and until someone can show me a real proportionate reason to ever support those in favor into office, I will continue to oppose them. to me, someone that is pro abortion should not be trusted in office in this country.

    I do my homework Deacon as someone who has had great personal loss to the abortion mills. I wonder how you would feel if you lost a daughter or grandaughter and their child to one of these mills. With my dying breath I will fight against this evil no matter what letter is behind the name. It is my biggest concern about Romney for I still see the video of him promising he was pro abortion. It is why he can’t seem to get above 30% in most states. Of course all that changes with Obama because he is the PARTNER of the abortion mills as promoted on the abortion mills own website along with his party ALLIES IN CONGRESS of the abortion mills.

  72. Mark Greta says:

    Deacon, she is pro abortion, that she is a RINO matters not on what the USCCB said about pro abortions person being honored or invited to Catholic campuses. The party of abortion is the democratic party, but it is aided in their grave evil by RINO’s who vote to help the abortionist in their evil work.

  73. Mark Greta says:

    I guess it all depends on your point of view. Having a victim in my wifes family who died in the death camps of hitler and a grandchild killed in the abortion mills of America with her child, the distinction is not that far off or over the top to me. Hitler never worked in the death camps so he did not kill either. Both made it legal in their country to look at people as non people and then to kill them. Hitler looked at anyone with a handicap as worthy of death. the abortion supporters often tout the need to kill babies they see as not healthy or that get in the way for emotional or economic reasons or just because.

    The people in Germany supported Hitler up through the 1942 time frame in huge numbers and would have argued with anyone who thought he was not the god of the country.

    Again, if Catholics stop voting for anyone who supports abortion, it will soon become something that is not longer legal on the federal level for we will have no more judges that interpret the law with that idiotic ratinalization used with Roe. So no one can tell me that voting for the abortion party OR PERSON of the republican party who supports abortion, is not about as close as you can get to pulling out the knife oneself. Think about that when you pull the lever for you are saying yes to abortion. 54 million babies should be enough to make any one who cares about life say no more.

  74. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    From CNS:

    In 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI, and at that time the Vatican’s top doctrinal official — wrote a memo to U.S. bishops on the issue of politicians and Communion. In it, he briefly addressed the question of voting for candidates who support legal abortion.

    The memo said a Catholic who deliberately voted for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s pro-abortion (or pro-euthanasia) stand would be guilty of “formal cooperation in evil” and should exclude himself from receiving Communion.

    It said that when a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered “remote material cooperation,” which is “permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

    Vatican officials later said that defining what constitutes “proportionate reasons” for a Catholic in such cases might be extremely difficult. One possible example, they said, was when Catholic voters face a choice between two candidates who support legalized abortion but to widely differing degrees, and do not want to renounce their responsibility to vote.

    Dcn. G.

  75. MarieLouise says:

    Hopefully it will not fully vanish, for there are many of us left who still try (and fail, but continue to try) to be faithful.

  76. Mark Greta says:

    Steve, the USCCB issued a Document Catholics in Political Life. In it, the USCCB stated very clearly:

    “We need to continue to teach clearly and help other Catholic leaders to teach clearly on our unequivocal commitment to the legal protection of human life from the moment of conception until natural death. Our teaching on human life and dignity should be reflected in our parishes and our educational, health care and human service ministries.

    The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

    I would say that naming a building after a person who supports abortion clearly falls into this catagory as some might think the Catholic University was thus not to serious about their teaching.

  77. pagansister says:

    IMO there should not be a ban on abortions again—-women will get one one way or another and put their lives in danger by turning to unqualified men or women (not doctors). Mark Greta, you continue to tell us about your family member(s?) who died because of an abortion, which is tragic. Obviously I don’t know the circumstances nor do I want to, but she apparently felt she didn’t want to continue the pregancy. She had a choice and chose to terminate, which in this case cost her her life. That doesn’t happen in every case. Women should always be offered choices and given information before proceeding with one. IMO there would be more deaths of women if women who were forced to go to unqualified people to obtain one. Personally I wish that no women would feel the need to have one.

  78. Mark Greta says:

    Deacon, are you trying to make a point on this post that she is a Republican to try and catch someone? If that is the case, there is no point to the discussion since we know that there are RINO republicans who support abortion. Thankfully they are becoming extinct. The republican party itself is against abortion in party platform and in overwhelmening numbers in both house and Senate and we have not had a viable pro abortion candidate after Roe. We had Ford who had a strong leaning in that direction, but he never won an election losing to Carter of all people. The Democrats have never had a pro life president since Roe and about 99% of democrats in the house and senate are pro abortion. Even those who said they were pro life caved to the Obamacare abortion mandates and the fig leaf of exec order fooled no one. That showed in those caving losing their jobs or retiring in 2010. Any left will be gone in 2012. So why this post about this republican as if this means anything?

    I know full well the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger and wonder why you chose to run that here rather than after comments trying to defend being a Democrat and voting pro abortion using far from proportiante reasons such as poverty, war, and immigration as very poor justification. None come close to permiting Catholics to support abortion democrats (or the few republican abortion candidates). Cardinal Ratzinger said it was “extremely difficult” in your quoted letter to ever having a proportionate reasons and certainly did not list race or poverty or immigration or anything else with one exception: “when Catholic voters face a choice between two candidates who support legalized abortion but to widely differing degrees”.

    That is not the case here as the only difference between R and D pro abortion candidates is the R lady above is against partial birth but for all other abortions. Since partial birth abortions were banned in 2007 by the supreme court, then there is zero difference. The fact that you try to push this here leaves the question of why the post and why try to tag me on the R or D issue in a kind of gatcha. Sad if this is the case and frankly was shocked to see this quick post on this type of argument.

    So when might this Ratzinger exception apply? We probably will see it in this election. We have the most pro abortion democrat ever in Obama which is saying a lot from a massively pro abortion party who will probably be facing Romney who has a past of support for abortion in some forms, but now disavows those views in total. Between Obama and any form of pro life views is a radical difference which should mean any Catholic who cares about their faith should vote for Romney based on his massively more acceptable views on abortion. It should make clear that if this is the only proportionate reason, then no Catholic should even consider supporting Obama or any other pro abortion candidate unless the republican running against them holds worse abortion views.

    Good job Deacon, I think you have laid out why you cannot be a Catholic and a Democrat

  79. Mark Greta says:

    Ed, you are correct. The term pro choice has to be defined by the choice which is to allow murder or not. That is why Mother Theresa and Pope JPII talked about the culture of death in this country. Some want to try to distort reality by using terms without any real meaning. They call Obamacare “The Affordable Care Act ” which is a good example. It is far from affordable since its cost before full implementation is already going to cost the country double the promised projected amount. It doesn’t care because it has now shown itself to be a lie in our ability to keep the insurance we have or that it lowers costs or that our religious liberty would be protected along with 1000 other distortions. The only thing in this bills name is ACT that makes any sense in that it acts like healthcare reform and is instead a massive takeover of Americans and our freedoms.

    Do when a democrat comes up with some fancy name, turn it 180 degrees and you will proable be more correct. If politicians could be put in jail for false advertising, the one who gave us Obamacare would be in jail for the last two year. Thus when on says pro choice, it should be heard as pro abortion because that is what the choice they are forcing on all of us to accept as OK and legal.

  80. Joe Cleary says:

    Here is an interesting quote from the AP story announcing this gift and naming- which included nothing on her abortion views.

    “I fell in love with (Sacred Heart) when I went there to serve on the board of trustees,” McMahon told The Associated Press. “I felt it was a worthwhile cause to make this contribution to, to continue its growth, its education programs.”
    McMahon said she first became acquainted with the school when she was invited to speak at a lecture series on women and business and the difficulties of juggling family life and a career. She said she was later approached to join the board and met with Bridgeport Bishop William Lori. McMahon said no one raised any concerns at the time of her appointment about the WWE and its content, which has been criticized for its violence and portrayal of women.
    Gary Rose, a professor of politics at Sacred Heart, said the support from McMahon and her family is welcomed.
    “I think people are absolutely thrilled that they have shown an interest in our school and believe in what we’re doing,” Rose said.
    Rose said he didn’t see any political benefit to McMahon stemming from being a university benefactor.
    McMahon, a Republican making her second bid for the Senate, is a former WWE chief executive. Former U.S. Rep. Chris Shays is her main rival for the GOP nomination.”

    Deacon Greg- I am seriously questioning just how well known prior to this announcement were her views on abortion in the SHU community considering she has never held elective office at any level. Perhaps they should have been known but I am thinking more and more that this abortion issue blindsided SHU – including its Trustees.

    Why do I say that – well the Chairman of the Board of SHU is Bishop William Lori- who was just named Archbishop of Baltimore by BXVI this week ! ( he is hardly pro abortion or in favor of anti Vatican policy )

  81. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    Thanks, Joe. That does help provide additional context.

    Dcn. G.

  82. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    “Mark Greta”…

    My point is that MacMahon is clearly the preferable choice for a Catholic voter.

    Dcn. G.

  83. Mark Greta says:

    No, not a good choice for a pro life Catholic voter for the reasons I laid out.

    The only area that I can find she was pro life was she was against partial birth abortion which the supreme court found to be so grotesque it could not pass the smell test of humanity. So the one area of her pro life stand is against the law anyway. Where is she thus any different than the pro abortion candidate? No where. She is a pro abortion candidate and as i read what the Vatican says, “choice between two candidates who support legalized abortion but to widely differing degrees”.

    In my homework, according to right for life national, her views are the same as the democratic candidate and thus one can assume here votes would also have 100% negative rating on life. That is why I think Catholics should look to organizations that take the time and have the talent to really check out those running for office who want to kill babies. Doesn’t matter if R or D when they have this viewpoint. I wish the USCCB would make this rating the number on priority on voting for Catholics. If one is massively more pro life, the search if over and the vote clear. Since Deacon Greg has laid out the issue that there are no other proportionate reasons to be considered. If both fail the test, leave that portion of the ballot empty to avoid voting for abortion candidate. If Catholics did this consistently, the entire issue would change and soon it would be illegal in the nation. Then we can all get on with the business of helping women in need who find themselves pregant and refocus on efforts to teach abstinenence outside of marriage and respect for life and God’s role in creating life in marriage.

  84. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    In theory, then, Catholics should simply abstain from the political process if a candidate isn’t sufficiently pro-life?

Leave a Comment