Unbeknownst to readers, I forwarded my April 20th post, Carl Anderson: Knight in Anti-Life Armor, to Andrew Walther, Vice President of Communications and Strategic Planning for the Knights of Columbus, requesting a response from Carl Anderson. Along with that request, I pledged to publish his response, if and when it should be offered.
A response from Mr. Anderson has yet to come. I did, however, receive a “statement” from Joseph Cullen, a member of the Knights’ communications staff. This statement, in its entirety, appears below in boldface, interspersed with my commentary. As readers will plainly see, it in no way serves to address the unsavory facts outlined in my article; rather, it is merely a public relations effort ordered toward burnishing the image of Carl Anderson, while cleverly deflecting attention away from the matter at hand.
Your recent post leaps to a wildly incorrect conclusion, and makes defamatory, slanderous and misleading allegations. Asking us for comment after you have posted something like this is precisely the opposite of an ethical approach. If you had a serious interest in the truth, you should have written us before you published and promoted it through social media. You should remove your story and its false allegations and apologize for bearing false witness.
The present issue concerns Mr. Anderson’s gross misrepresentation of “the Catholic position” on abortion, the truth of which is neither a matter of investigation nor debate. Whether or not Mr. Cullen or anyone else finds my method of addressing this issue objectionable is irrelevant.
Your allegations are particularly egregious since, as you should know, Carl Anderson has been active in the pro-life community opposing abortion, euthanasia, etc. since 1970. He has never supported abortion in any form. In fact, under his leadership, the Knights have provided more than 1200 ultrasound machines at a cost of $59 million to crisis pregnancy centers to help mothers understand and embrace the gift of life. It is absurd and disingenuous to contend that support of pro-life legislation designed to limit the scope of abortion is somehow an endorsement of abortion at others times. To the contrary, Mr. Anderson’s use of this polling overtly supports taking a step that reduces the number of abortions while highlighting the extremism of those who will not accept even those abortion restrictions supported by the vast majority of Americans.
NB: Here, Mr. Cullen is shifting the conversation to “pro-life legislation” when, in fact, the matter at hand does not concern legislation at all. More on that momentarily.
One can perhaps understand why Mr. Anderson may wish to take credit for the laudable pro-life efforts of member Knights, especially in light of the present controversy. Even if such is granted, however, it simply is not true that “he has never supported abortion in any form.” This is not my opinion; rather, it is a matter of public record.
In his 2016 Op-Ed written for The Hill, Anderson plainly stated:
It is time for new thinking by Catholics in public office. I would suggest two options. First, they should embrace the American consensus on abortion restrictions…
And what exactly is the “American consensus” to which Mr. Anderson refers? He writes:
According to Marist polling we commissioned, about eight in ten Americans want substantial restrictions on abortion. A solid majority would limit abortion at most only to rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. (ibid.)
NB: Carl A. Anderson, writing in his capacity as the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus, has made his position plainly known: Catholics in public office should embrace the American consensus on abortion restrictions, [which] would limit abortion at most only to rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
The words in italics above belong to Mr. Anderson and no one else, severely undermining the claim that “he has never supported abortion in any form.”
Note very well that Mr. Anderson appears to be counseling all Catholics in public office without distinction as to what they should embrace. This evidently includes those Catholic politicians that are firm in their conviction that even limited abortions can never be “embraced” because they are always and everywhere evil (the real Catholic position).
Is Anderson encouraging these faithful politicians to compromise their integrity and to stand on common ground with the party of death by consenting to abortion under certain circumstances? It certainly looks that way.
Mr. Cullen goes on:
As you should also know, St. John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae, in section 73, reaffirms the principle that one can support legislative solutions that seek to restrict abortion in certain ways when completely banning the procedure is not politically feasible. Specifically, St. John Paul II wrote that when confronting legalized abortion, a person known to be against abortion can “licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law [that allows abortion] and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”
The citation offered from Evangelium Vitae has been taken out of context in order to provide cover where none exists. The paragraph cited begins:
A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. [Emphasis added]
When John Paul II states that one can “licitly support proposals aimed at limiting” abortion, he is speaking directly to legislators who may be faced with either supporting or rejecting specific legislation that would limit abortion in places where the status quo is more permissive. NB: The “licity” of doing so appears to be further limited to those occasions when the legislator is in a position to cast a “decisive” vote.
Carl Anderson isn’t a legislator, much less is he in a position to cast a vote on abortion legislation. Furthermore, his unfortunate op-ed isn’t addressing any such legislation before those who are. It is perfectly plain, therefore, that Mr. Cullen’s reference to Evangelium Vitae has no relevance whatsoever to the matter at hand.
To be perfectly clear, Evangelium Vitae most certainly does not grant a license to high profile Catholics, like Mr. Anderson, to leverage their considerable influence to instruct Catholic politicians to embrace a compromise platform that endorses abortion in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
The text of Evangelium Vitae does, however, seem to shed light on the present matter where it is written:
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 favor of such a law, or vote for it. (ibid., art. 73)
A law that permits abortion in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother is undoubtedly an unjust law. And yet, Mr. Anderson is openly campaigning in favor of Catholic politicians embracing a platform in support of precisely this position. This flies directly in the face of the spirit, if not the letter, of Evangelium Vitae.
Mr. Cullen’s statement continues:
Contrary to St. John Paul II’s teaching, it seems your view would eliminate the vast majority of pro-life victories over the past four decades because you appear to believe that pro-life legislation that actually reduces the number of abortions somehow instead supports abortion. If this is in fact your view, it is important for your readers to understand that the consequences of your thinking would be to increase the overall number of abortions and that this opinion diverges substantially from clearly articulated Catholic principles.
Once again, the present issue does not concern pro-life legislation at all. In fact, Mr. Cullen’s statement fails to address the central fact of the matter entirely.
It is an undisputed matter of public record that Carl A. Anderson grossly misrepresented Catholic teaching on abortion when he wrote:
The Catholic position – that abortion takes a human life, is morally wrong, and should be substantially restricted — is not only backed up by science, it is now the public’s consensus by a wide margin.
Restricted to what?
…only to rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
The “Catholic position” on abortion, as every reader of this space very well knows, is unwavering and crystal clear; it is an intrinsic evil that is never licit under any condition.
Also left unaddressed by Mr. Cullen is the fact that the March for Life, evidently inspired to a considerable degree by Mr. Anderson’s erroneous position, has gone further still. As stated in their recent video:
Abortion should happen only during the first three months of pregnancy. At most. That’s consensus.
The conclusion:
It’s time for politicians to stop working for the pro-abortion lobby. And join the national consensus.
If, as Mr. Cullen claims, Carl Anderson “has never supported abortion in any form,” why are the Knights of Columbus under his leadership donating more than half-a-million dollars per year to an organization that is pushing this diabolical agenda, one that is clearly irreconcilable with Catholic teaching?
In conclusion, Carl A. Anderson has much for which to answer. It is my hope that he will act on his duty to do so personally and in short order.
In an effort to be perfectly plain, a suitable response from Mr. Anderson, the same that each and every Knight should insist upon, would include the following:
– An unambiguous statement making it plain that the “Catholic position” on abortion is NOT that “it should be substantially restricted” (as he previously stated), but rather that it is an intrinsic evil that is never licit under any condition, including during the first trimester, in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
– An unambiguous statement calling on the March for Life to align its position with immutable, non-negotiable Catholic teaching on abortion, apart from which the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, will withdraw its financial support.
I will keep readers informed of any future developments. In the meantime, I’m asking member Knights to share this post with their brother Knights and, furthermore, to call on Carl Anderson to take the above noted corrective measures, making it very clear that anything short of this is entirely unacceptable.
Just a factoid- 1200 ultrasound machines for 57 million dollars seems a bit rich. That would be $50,000 an ultrasound. I work with ultrasounds and at most, a portable unit with OB software and 2 probes (new) should not cost more than $5000. If they really got ripped off MAYBE $8-10,000.
Using the high figure, total costs would be no greater than 12 million. That would leave 47 million “hanging around”. Just sayin’.
Love it! Great info, Lilly! Thank you.
Louie,
–
Having worked in the pro-life community before venturing into traditional Catholicism (which I can no longer do to the same extent due to its ecumenical nature), I think you may be missing the forest for the trees here. You’re not wrong to call him out, but you don’t seem to understand Anderson’s more subtle approach to this issue because you speak the truth without compromise and no matter the cost. Anderson is attempting to appeal to his opponents in hopes of swaying them to budge just a little. I’m not saying that he’s right, it’s just what he appears to be doing. Consider the context:
–
There is a heated debate among pro-lifers as to which approach is better suited to realistically ending abortion: [1] Repeatedly propose uncompromising legislation that would make all abortions illegal until this happens; [2] Work towards a total ban of abortion incrementally by garnering support for gradual restrictions until abortion is banned outright.
–
Under normal circumstances, Option 1 is the best and most Catholic response, since abortion is intrinsically evil and should never be tolerated if we have the power to banish it. But practically speaking, short of an act of God, this realistically won’t be happening any time soon. Catholics simply have little-to-no political power today, because, apart from fringe traditionalist groups, most are Catholic in name only. Our enemies control the education system, the media, the legal system, and the legislature. There are simply not enough pro-life politicians to enact Option 1 and the many cowardly politicians who would at least consider it will remain silent or opposed to an outright ban of abortion until the fear of reprisals from their voter base are mitigated. (It is to this latter group that Anderson hopes to appeal.)
–
On the other hand, Option 2, may have some small hope of practical realization, because, while the vast majority of the population (and those in positions of power) would be firmly opposed to a total ban on abortion, the majority do support some restrictions. Hypothetically, once some restrictions are in place, through education campaigns and due to the legal ramifications regarding personhood, there is hope that more will come to realize what abortion is, and that restrictions will increase until this demonic practice is banned outright. Pro-aborts know this strategy might work and are horrified by it.
–
As proof, I offer the defeat of MP Steven Woodworth’s Motion 312 here in Canada. It only proposed restricting sex-selective abortions, so that a woman couldn’t terminate her pregnancy just because it was a girl. It was something everyone ought to have agreed on. Yet, ironically, this bill was most vehemently opposed by “feminists”, because you know, they care about “women’s rights”. They knew that once any bill recognized the humanity of the unborn, that their goose was cooked. So they threw a tantrum and used all their political weight to ensure that the bill failed, and they succeeded. What do the lives of a few little girls matter to protect a woman’s “right” to choose [to murder her unborn children on a whim]?
–
While the pro-life community is still very divided over which approach to take, the pendulum has begun to swing towards favouring Option 2 over Option 1 when it comes to most pro-life organizations today. One must see Anderson’s comments in the context of the Option 2 approach. While his comments certainly could have been worded better (because at face value they smack of Americanism and contort Catholic teaching), I don’t think that was his intention. To me, it seems that this was a muddled attempt to appeal to the Catholic-in-name-only politicians by using the rhetoric they are most likely to respond to while omitting that which would turn them off.
–
Consider that his comments (and that commercial) weren’t directed towards actual Catholics, but to liberal Democrat “Catholic” politicians, such as Biden, Pelosi, or Cuomo—all of whom would thoughtlessly reject without hesitation the actual Catholic teaching on abortion. Anderson is “playing the game” and speaking the language most likely to sway them–that of votes and popularity. If these “Catholic” politicians can be swayed into believing that the majority of their voter base wants something, they might be open to considering it. This explains the study he funded—he wants to alleviate their fear of loosing their power and prestige. His comments weren’t an attempt to convince actual Catholic politicians open to a total ban of abortion to lighten-up and compromise with the Moloch worshipers in hard cases (do such Catholic politicians even exist?), but rather, he was attempting to speak the language of the “Catholic” pro-aborts so that they might be a little more open to compromising on abortion.
–
All that being said, one can certainly debate whether such a strategy is worthwhile. I don’t believe that he has any more real hope of convincing the pro-aborts to compromise than he does of getting a total ban through. To me this smacks too much of a naturalistic approach; as the saying goes: “…Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation…Blessed is he who hath the God of Jacob for his helper, whose hope is in the Lord his God:” [Psalm 145:2-3,5] Rather than pandering to pro-abort politicians who will remain Moloch worshipers unto death (short of a miracle of grace), pro-lifers should be focused on personal sanctity and building communities that hold to the authentic Catholic Faith. Only from this strong foundation of prayer, devotion, and the Sacraments can we stand a reasonable hope of spreading the Gospel once again to our compatriots and, God willing, put an end to the demonic holocaust going on in our midst. All the best.
–
Sincerely,
Kyle of Canada
–
J.M.J.
Hi, I was sent the following comments in reply to KyleOfCanada and the writer agreed that this can be posted.
“After years of working with pro-life legislation and the political scene, the Democrats have long ago gone in the wrong direction, especially their leaders. This issue dominates the Democratic Party. It is their religion. They idolize Planned Parenthood. Abortion was entirely the reason for the battle over Justice Kavanaugh. What is behind opposition to Trump? You guessed it, abortion.
Many in the Democrat party pay little attention to the abortion battles and are very loyal Democrat voters. They do not follow the debate and pull the lever automatically.
In his blog posting, Louie mentions that “the March for Life, evidently inspired to a considerable degree by Mr. Anderson’s erroneous position, has gone further still.”
If the March for Life’s video was aimed at Democrats or Democrat voters, which it may well have been in the last presidential election, why is it still on their websites and pushed by the MFL leadership? How many Democrats go to the March for Life website to learn more about abortion? How many Democrat leaders actually changed their position based on this video? None I know of. In fact, there are very few politicians that have a “first trimester exceptions” policy. If this was an attempt to get Democrats to buy into first trimester abortion limitations, did it work?
Incrementalism is not finding a tolerance level we can “consent” upon. Once we consent, we walk away. What if we decide to find a consensus on theft or child abuse? These crimes are wrong and so is abortion. Once you put forth a theory that some abortions (or other crimes) are acceptable that ends the debate. You consented after all.
I do not agree with Kyle that there are not enough pro-life politicians. We were able to elect Trump and get Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supeme Court. The pro-life vote is just part of the total. There is a significant Catholic pro-life vote, but there are a huge number of Evangelicals that have become more politically aware and now vote pro-life. The pro-life cause needs every vote.
March for Life appears to want more diversity in the movement, not just Catholics, so they would not support any statement that aligns with strictly Catholic teaching.
Anderson/MFL should have had a strong statement that the MFL video should not be misconstrued as support for any abortions, but that of course would defeat the purpose of the video.
Rather than twisting and contorting Anderson’s motivations, look at the video (marchforlifeaction.org). This represents an unacceptable compromise that would sacrifice many babies in an attempt to end the so-called abortion wars.”
We can only remain wholly-, unreservedly- and fiercely-opposed to the organised mass baby murder that is an integral part of the evil NWO worldwide petro-chemical industry run “medicine” system (along with the organised mass murder of the old, the sick, the sterilisation of men and women, the sickening of all from childhood, physically and mentally, via vaccines, other toxic drugs, etc.). For thirty years, from my early teens, I was actively engaged in the temporal fight against the evil ever-enroaching mass, “legalised”, “medicalised” baby murder until I became too ill some years ago, and most of the “prolife movement” had been corrupted, bit by bit picked off and taken over by the opposition to become ever more compromised, so that now in Ireland, it is a parody of what it once was. This could never have happened but for the apostasy from the top of the Church down. How goes the Church, so goes the world – in every sphere. It’s devolved to “freedom of conscience” for medics who may not wish to be directly involved in the murder of babies, ” freedom of speech” so one can say such as in one’s personal opinion one doesn’t really agree with “termination of pregnancies”, at least where there may have been some pressure on the never-to-be-questioned mothers (oops, sorry women) who perhaps have not really being clearly given all the vast array of “choices” they ought to have . . . [ “Luke warm” and “vomit”; lies and evil collusion to deny truth, come to mind.]
Truth and reason and virtue are dead as the Holy Faith and obedience to Holy God has been spurned by a wicked people led by persons posing as the “leaders of the Catholic Church”. The mass compliance with the latest phase of the worldwide NWO dictatorship (with general removal of a whole raft of basic God-given freedoms and rights backed by (vassal) state-enforced penaltie) based on the latest centralised absurd ruse of a new, mass lethal pandemic underlines this loss of Faith and Reason on a most immediate, fundamental level. The masses bowing down to obey the Enemies of God. “Therefore God gave them the operation to believe lying.” 2 Thess.
Only a tiny remnant of priests continue to do their grave duty to God and the Faithful – that God will protect them and that more will cooperate with God’s grace to stand against the unlawful, anti-Christ suppression of the practice of the Faith, and the operation of inherent rights and duties to live and associate freely, make a living, provide for oneself, one’s family, one’s community, to live according to our God-given nature. All man-made law is subject to the perennial law of God and Nature, which is above and prior to all man-created states and institutions given the powers to make, enforce laws; and such man-made law is valid only insofar as it conforms to that eternal law knowable by man’s natural reason.
Lord, have mercy on us; give us the graces we need to remain faithful to God and Truth until death. May God console and strengthen you all in Faith and Reason. Your sister in Christ, Lynda Finneran
[As always, apologies for poor wording, due to illness.]
Hi,
I found this forum recently via SSPX facebook group. What a great source of information and inspiration. This is my firsts post here. I am not sure if there is a custom of introducing ourselves here, but let me just mention that I discovered the Tradition in second half of my life 5 years ago and with a great help and guidance of priests of SSPX my faith started to live. In terms of the theology, my hero is Fr. Gregory Hesse.
As far as this article goes, I found this answer very very different https://news.fsspx.pl/2020/04/krotkie-rozwazania-na-czas-zarazy-posluszenstwo-czy-tolerancja. I do not have a ready translation but by the selection you can guess the content by the selection of quotes. I wonder why, the position in USA is so different, which seems to be kind of a compromise. Perhaps the crux is the fact, or part of the reason is assuming that covid is a real pandemic.
Best regards,
A.
PS. That was posted to wrong thread/article. Moving it to the correct one. Apologies.
Thank you what you have done to promote the sanctity of life. I pray that God may give you the grace and strength to bear your illness and merit by it, and, should it be His loving Will, to cure you of it also. All the best.